Talk:Opera (web browser)/Archive 3

message: Doesn't this qualify Opera as the first tabbed browser, from which all other tabbing innovations have sprung forth?
I've been using Opera consistently since early v3.0 (I may have used 2 as well, but I certainly don't remember it). It's always been light-years ahead of mainstream browserdom. 71.116.217.242 20:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe NetCaptor was first. --Zarachan ( Talk) 22:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, InternetWorks had tabs first. Ritarri 12:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MDI Browser 

message: I suggest we either add a new section to the main Opera page about various unofficial portable versions of Opera that are out there, or create a new page to list all the reliable portable versions.
These portable Opera versions are the best way to get around restrictions by IT departments.
* Pre-built portable Opera 8.54
http://www.opera-usb.com/operausben.htm
* Customize Opera yourself to be portable
http://www.chooseopera.com/CDProject/portable.html
* Portable Opera 9
http://www.kejut.com/operaportable
- RadicalSatDude 10:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll remove any links added to unofficial builds/installations of Opera -- and, besides that, helping people to get around IT department restrictions really isn't the function of Wikipedia. - Motor (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well how about just mentioning they exist and not linking to anything, and citing Wikipedia's policy why they can't be linked? Atleast that would be a compromise. -- RadicalSatDude 03:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's useful to mention that there are projects that make Opera run on USB, that's an useful thing. As long as the link stick to the subject the are not spam at least in my view. -- AdrianTM 04:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: reliable sources is a pretty good start for why I'll be removing any links to unofficial installation immediately. Apart from that, sheer commonsense is another -- Wikipedia is not a link farm. This is an article about Opera. It's not a directory of links to stuff that might be useful or contain spyware. The editors here have to be sure that what we are linking to is genuine and safe... and reliable. As far as portable apps existing... I don't actually consider "portable" apps to be all that notable, but this article is already in the (slightly annoying) portable apps category. - Motor (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to see a Portable apps section after all :)--RadicalSatDude 23:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds PoV to not include portable apps just because you don't find it notable. There are even two wikipedia articles for portable Firefox. 1 at the main wikipedia article and 1 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_Portable It also becomes misleading to have 3 Opera portable apps and have users come upon an Opera wikipedia link with no mention or description of any 1 of the portable Opera available. Trailing 00:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portable Opera (OperaUSB) 

message: IGN has recently criticized the DS browser. Frankyboy5 01:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Why isn't Opera open source? 71.250.35.162 13:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the owners of the source code (Opera Software ASA) have not licensed it as under an open-source license. In the future, please ask general questions somewhere appropriate because talk pages are meant for discussing the content of the article, not as a general discussion forum. -- Schapel 15:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open source 

message: I have moved the page from Opera (web suite) to Opera (Internet suite) as well as all talk archives. This is because Internet suite is the proper name for such a program, because it handles more than just web tasks. In addition to ability to browse the World Wide Web, Opera also handles non-web related Internet tasks such as e-mail and newsgroups. - Mike | Patch 19:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you move an article, please make sure to fix the links to this article, there are now a number of double redirects that lead nowhere thanks to this move, and hundreds of redirects. --Conti|✉ 14:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the easy road there, and redirected Opera (web browser) directly to this page to fix the double redirect problem. Same with Opera (web suite). I also edited the userbox to link directly here. Everything should be in order now. - Mike 15:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved 

message: http://letwist.net/operator
It's basicially a bundle preconfigured and loaded with Opera Browser (v. 9.01), The Onion Router (v. 0.1.1.23) and Privoxy. I think it would be a useful addition to the page.——RadicalSatDude 23:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OperaTor - Opera + Tor + Privoxy 

message: I have just split off History of the Opera Browser and Features of the Opera Browser and successfully brought the article down to a more reasonable size. Kc4 18:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting up the article

message: How can it be a criticism of Opera that people code pages specifically for IE and Netscape? As a user of Opera for many years, as well as IE and Firefox, the truth is that opera renders better than any of the others. It's the only one that line-breaks URLs, for example, and it easily has the best-looking widget set. So I'm not sure that rendering is a real criticism that people have. Finally, it's been very rare to find a web page that Opera couldn't render correctly for a long time, so the cited criticism doesn't even sound plausible. Kronocide 13:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the article not cite references for this criticism? I seem to see some... -- Schapel 14:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism about rendering 

message: I propose that the criticisms that are currently bunched up in a section be spread out throughout the article wherever they are relevant. Reasons being:
*A criticism section is a troll magnet.
*Information becomes polarised (pro and anti)
*Information is difficult to follow - ie. Someone looking at information about the rendering engine would have to read in one place about it's good bits and then scroll to another section to see if there are any criticisms. The information should be presented as a single item.
*The use of 'Criticisms' as the section heading is a bad thing as it is inherently POV (ie. All negative things go here...)
Some pages that can assist in understanding my reasons are this one and this one.
We have already, successfully done this at Mozilla Firefox (even though some editors think it was done with the intent of hiding criticism) and it should not be difficult to do it here. Takers?-Localzuk(talk) 20:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section