Asa,

You're missing an increment in the scale - the 50% mark is at the 40% line and the 100% at the 90% line.

David

David's right. I think this is what you're going for:
http://johnhaller.com/jh/temp/w3schools-jun-05.png

Fixed, thanks for the catch, guys.

- A

That's good to see. So what is opera? i thought it was gecko as well?

Nice.

Jmack, Opera Software is a company in Norway that makes its own, closed source, niche browser for desktops and small devices. They're not based on Gecko.

Oh my god, Asa! Why are you always so mean to Opera?! How totally unfair!!!!!!

Yes the truth often is unfair

There seems to be a lot of confusion on browser engines lately. I saw someone else who thought Opera was built on Gecko, and I had to explain to someone that iCab didn't use Webcore. (Comparing the 3.0 beta to 2.9.8, I'd wondered myself whether they did an OmniWeb-style switch, but everything I can find suggests that they still use their own engine.)

Anyone have any guesses as to when the two graphs will meet? I'll take a guess and say ~ Dec 2005.

Asa can never resist a chance to put down Opera :)

For example, he must point out "closed-source" and "niche browser", even though w3schools is obviously very much a niche site.

This is the reference I refer to. iCab and OmniWeb aren't in it though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines

Cool graph. Given this trend, we will meet the evil IE by June next year. ;-)

Simon, Asa is just plotting data of W3Schools. How can this be unfair? :-S

"Oh my god, Asa! Why are you always so mean to Opera?! How totally unfair!!!!!!"

Don't start this again...

"I wan't the truth."
"You can't handle the truth."

"Asa can never resist a chance to put down Opera :)
For example, he must point out "closed-source" and "niche browser", even though w3schools is obviously very much a niche site."

He was just explaining what Opera is. Judging from the usage stats (even at W3Schools Opera is only at ~2%), Opera clearly is a niche browser.

"For example, he must point out "closed-source" and "niche browser", even though w3schools is obviously very much a niche site."

Hehe, however, I can't see how being a "niche browser" is putting it down. It's clearly a niche INTERNET SUITE (many seem to forget this) to me for users with either greater or more special needs than the huge masses using e.g. IE and Outlook Express. It even does many things Firefox don't, but the opposite is also true, and Firefox + Thunderbird + Chatzilla competes on more even terms. The latter being more appealing because it's free and has a powerful open source community backing it, also via extensions.

Asa, do you consider Safari a "niche browser"? I'll bet it has a lower share than Opera, and need I point out Opera doesn't have the luxury of being bundled as the default browser on a major operating system.

> Cool graph. Given this trend, we will meet the evil IE by June next year. ;-)

Looks like it. I wonder if the roughly linear growth will continue during the next 12 months though. Maybe it'll turn exponential for a while? Or maybe it'll start to plateau?

"Asa, do you consider Safari a "niche browser"?"

I know I don't anyway. It's the default on Apple - hardly very niche.

"I'll bet it has a lower share than Opera, and need I point out Opera doesn't have the luxury of being bundled as the default browser on a major operating system."

The comparison limps a bit, since Safari only has a few percent of the computer market to play on, while Opera comes for all (?) OSs.

"The comparison limps a bit"

-oops. That's most likely Swenglish.

Why does everyone think Asa hates Opera? This is a Firefox blog not so retarded Opera Blog.

Opera will probably fall further down, as new version presents itself to the site as IE.

Ivan, if you're saying that Opera is probably more common than the stats show, that is most likely incorrect. All the major statistics services can correctly identify Opera, even when it is masked as IE. (Although I don't know how W3Schools do the browser recognition, so I don't know what the case is for this specific website.)

If you meant that the new version, as opposed to the old ones, presents itself as IE, that is wrong too :-) Opera has identified itself as IE for a long time. (Not sure when they started though...)

"The comparison limps a bit, since Safari only has a few percent of the computer market to play on, while Opera comes for all (?) OSs."

So, Safari is a major browser on a niche platform, and also a niche browser when considering all platforms. Support or not for multi-platforms is a choice by the developer, just like any other feature that makes software more or less attractive or useful for people.

"Why does everyone think Asa hates Opera?"

Hypothesis: Because some Opera fans do not understand that someone can disagree with their views on a rational basis, rather then an emotional one.

Rick: Are you serious?

OK, let's try some word substitution and see if your claim holds any water. iCab is a closed-source, niche browser. OMG I'm dissing iCab!

Get the chip off your shoulder and stop reading malice into everything you see.

Ivan: I agree with David on the stats. When identifying as IE, Opera uses the UA string: "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; OS_VERSION; en) Opera 8.0" unless it's on the short list in ua.ini labeled with 4 (Mozilla, hide Opera) or 5 (MSIE, hide Opera). Any stats program worth its name is going to be able to identify Opera in there.

Funny thing: it uses the real OS info, even if you're not using Windows, so if you set Opera on Linux to identify itself as IE, you get "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; X11; Linux i686; en) Opera 8.0"

Uncle: Actually, most of the stats I've seen (w3schools excluded) show Safari with a greater marketshare than Opera. For example, on my site, Safari has 2.2% for the first half of June and Opera has 0.8%. I do get a higher percentage of Mac visitors than w3schools does (4.2% for the same period vs. 3.0% at w3s) and a lower percentage of Linux visits (0.8% vs. 3.5%)

Wait, did I just disparage Linux? I think I've just offended myself! ;-)

"Judging from the usage stats (even at W3Schools Opera is only at ~2%), Opera clearly is a niche browser."

As has been explained many times, browser stats are unreliable at best. Opera's cache is a lot more aggressive than other browsers, it doesn't have prefetching, and so on.

"iCab is a closed-source, niche browser. OMG I'm dissing iCab!"

What purpose does it serve to point this out, other than putting it down? "iCab is a Mac browser" is a far better description. Similarly, Opera is a cross-platform browser.

"As has been explained many times, browser stats are unreliable at best. Opera's cache is a lot more aggressive than other browsers, it doesn't have prefetching, and so on."

Yeah yeah yeah. Alright. Opera is at least as common as Firefox and is not at all a niche browser. Whatever.

"What purpose does it serve to point this out, other than putting it down? "iCab is a Mac browser" is a far better description. Similarly, Opera is a cross-platform browser."

The poster Asa was replying to thought Opera was based on Gecko (which, you might know, is open source), hence 'twas relevant to point out that Opera is not open source. The niche bit may not have been necessary, but that doesn't make it untrue.

Let's face it: Opera sucks. Case and point.

On this niche thing: Saying something is a 'niche' product, apart from implying that it doesn't have a very large user base (which in this case is true), also implies that it is specialized to fit a certain customers needs in some way. In the current context I'd say it comes across as meaning 'powerful' and 'feature-rich'. Isn't that exactly what all of you Operanauts keep trying to get across? And now Asa isn't allowed to use a word with that exact meaning?

"closed source, niche browser"

So?

the plain answer to this question:
"Opera is not based on Gecko. See more details at http://www.opera.com"
And that's all!! Without any mentioning about the "openness" or "closedness" of the browser and its "nicheness"!

So what else is there you don't want people to know about Opera? That it's not freeware? Please fill us in.

David,
It is free to use, it is neither a time-limited version nor a feature-cut demo version. It just has 2 types of banners. If you hate banners and want to get rid of them - you just pay. Do not exaggerate the facts, please.
Or are you poking fun?
P.S. How to get rid of this small Mozilla logo in Mozilla suite? And other varios rust-colored banners spread around the web. It affects my eyes and traffic. Please, tell me how to remove them?

Sigh. Opera... the browser with the inferiority complex.

Truth be told, Opera *is* a niche browser. It's a product made especially for mobile devices such as cell phones that happens to also work on desktop computers. Opera ASA gets most of their revenue from the cell phone market, and they have considered abandoning the personal computer market altogether.

That said, I do use Opera (not IE) as my backup browser for sites that don't work on Mozilla. It's a pretty good browser, but I like Mozilla better.

@Steve Chapel
Opera... the browser with the inferiority complex.
Are you a psychiatrist to diagnose one's complexes? If you are, then I am too. Firefox has got megalomania then, like M$, i.e. "delusion of grandeur" with this overhyped PR company "Get Firefox.Take back the Web".

It's a product made especially for mobile devices such as cell phones
Do not pervert the truth, ok? Who told you that? Or is it your own not so humble opinion based upon the info about Opera's benefit source?
Read this http://www.markschenk.com/opera/history.html

that happens to also work on desktop computers.
Oh, really? How lucky we are it happened to work on desktop platforms. You are full of sarcasm. It oozes out of all your holes. Don't get choked with it.

Opera ASA gets most of their revenue from the cell phone market
So what? They earn money in the area, which returns. What is your clueless point then?

they have considered abandoning the personal computer market altogether.
Give me a link to this information announced officially by Opera Software ASA.

P.S. And please, stop making groundless assumptions as well as sounding so ignorant.
P.P.S. Stop spreadin' lies!

"It is free to use, it is neither a time-limited version nor a feature-cut demo version."

We all knew that already.

"It just has 2 types of banners. If you hate banners and want to get rid of them - you just pay. Do not exaggerate the facts, please."

If I'm not mistaken, the term freeware refers to software which the software maker doesn't in any direct way make money off - through neither ads nor a price tag. Software with ads is not freeware - it's adware. And software you have to pay for is either shareware or just simply software. At least that's the impression I've had for as long as I can remember.

"Or are you poking fun?"

That depends how you define fun.

"P.S. How to get rid of this small Mozilla logo in Mozilla suite? And other varios rust-colored banners spread around the web. It affects my eyes and traffic. Please, tell me how to remove them?"

Well, the Mozilla suite logo won't move, as far as I know. Not even through a hidden pref. This suxxorz, in my humble opinion. However, in Firefox, both these tasks would be simple as bread and butter:

1. Right-click on the toolbar, choose customize. Drag the throbber off the toolbar.

2. Install adblock. Restart Firefox. Go to "Tools" > "Adblock" > "Preferences". Type in 'http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/*' without the quotes, hit Done and you're done! You should hopefully never have to see another rusty-coloured image for the rest of your life. But be on your guard though, there may be other servers out there with rusty coloured images! (See [WARNING - rusty colours ahead!] this page for an example.)

I don't know how to remove rusty images in Opera, but if you ask the developers nicely they just might implement a colour-based image-filtering mechanism. When they do, I'd strongly recommend blocking the colours #e59b3b, #d7930e and #ed7500 - they're truly evil man! Good luck!

Yes, Steve, that post did contain more than one inaccuracy/lie...

@David Naylor
If I'm not mistaken, the term freeware refers to software which the software maker doesn't in any direct way make money off - through neither ads nor a price tag.

Where did I say it is freeware? I said: It is free to use. No word "freeware" mentioned.

Software with ads is not freeware - it's adware.
So it is Opera. We all knew that already. Didn't we?

And software you have to pay for is either shareware or just simply software.
Software is software - it makes no difference if it is free or not. It is a very general term.

Well, the Mozilla suite logo won't move, as far as I know. Not even through a hidden pref. This suxxorz, in my humble opinion.
Yes, you got my point. Mozilla has a banner. You said it. But I care more about the Mozilla suite banner. So it is adware, isn't it? 'Cos Software with ads is not freeware - it's adware.

However, in Firefox, both these tasks would be simple
Yes, I removed it already. 'Cos I do not need it.

simple as bread and butter
Sometimes bread and butter may fall with its bread up and butter down.

I don't know how to remove rusty images in Opera
I know.

if you ask the developers nicely they just might implement a colour-based image-filtering mechanis...they're truly evil man!
ROFLMAO

Ok, anyway, thanks a lot for your explanations.

Hey Asa,

opera trolls have been polluting almost every post you make. Have you considered an IP ban?

"this overhyped PR company 'Get Firefox. Take back the Web'"

So you'd prefer it if we had just stuck with the 95% IE market share for the rest of our lives? Have you ever made a website? If so, I'd have thought you knew about the advantages of standrads-compliant web browers. If not, I guess you're forgiven.

"Where did I say it is freeware? I said: It is free to use. No word "freeware" mentioned."

You said I was "exaggerating facts". I took it you were referring the freeware bit...

"Software with ads is not freeware - it's adware.
So it is Opera. We all knew that already. Didn't we?"

What are you trying to say here, exactly? (I seriously don't understand.)

"Software is software - it makes no difference if it is free or not. It is a very general term."

OK, agreed.

"Mozilla has a banner. You said it."

Heh. This is getting teh funnie.

"So it is adware, isn't it? 'Cos Software with ads is not freeware - it's adware."

Ok, ok - Mozilla Suite is adware! :-D

"Sometimes bread and butter may fall with its bread up and butter down."

Yeah, and I hate it.

"I know."

Great.

Thanks for an entertaining discussion! (With some eye-opening insights!)

"If I'm not mistaken, the term freeware refers to software which the software maker doesn't in any direct way make money off - through neither ads nor a price tag."

Well I'm not sure where you get that definition from, but the various common definitions I can find - e.g. http://www.answers.com/freeware&r=67 , seem either to imply that it covers anything that the user doesn't have to buy with money, or to explicitly include "adware" as a subset of "freeware".

Michaell, it looks like you're right - adware belongs under the freeware group. So I should have said "That it's adware?", as opposed to saying "That it's not freeware?". I just thought I'd sound less trolling the way I put it.

Years ago I saw a one-panel cartoon showing two stores. One had a huge, gaudy sign labeled "Trashy schlock for the simple-minded!" and the other a relatively small sign labeled something like "Quality products for people with taste." Naturally, the "Trashy schlock" store had a line of people around the block waiting to get in. The "Quality products" store is an example of a store with a niche market.

In other words, "niche" is not necessarily a bad thing.

As for "closed-source" -- if you think that's bad, why are you using Opera? Seriously, if you like Opera, you must think that closed-source software is OK. So why on Earth are you taking it as an insult? Just because Asa is the one who said it? And don't tell me it isn't relevant, because he was answering a question from someone who mistakenly thought it was based on the open-source Gecko engine.

Please, think a little before making your knee-jerk responses. And that goes for the "opra sux" crowd too.

Kelson, the point is the reason for Asa making such comments.

Steve Chapel it would be nice if you could stop making silly statements about Opera.

Nonsense part 1: "Truth be told, Opera *is* a niche browser. It's a product made especially for mobile devices such as cell phones that happens to also work on desktop computers."

Opera is especially made to run on all devices, including desktop PCs. It actually started out as a pure Windows/desktop browser. It did not start out as a mobile browser at all.

And programs don't "happen" to work on different platforms. They are created specifically for different platforms.

Nonsense part 2: "Opera ASA gets most of their revenue from the cell phone market, and they have considered abandoning the personal computer market altogether."

Opera gets two thirds of their revenue from phones. A third from desktop. Opera has never considered abandoning the PC market. Stop lying, or cough up a source for your claims.

Oh, and I notice that vfwlkr has commented here as well. As usual, his hostility towards Opera users is astounding. Not only does he let Thumper and others in the MozillaZine forums get away with insulting and abusing users who do not follow the Mozilla religion, he keeps insulting people himself.

I used to support Mozilla, and even donated. Now people like Asa and vfwlkr show Mozilla's true face and attitude. Disgusting.

I shall do my best to see vfwlkr removed from MozillaZine, as he does too much damage there.

"Kelson, the point is the reason for Asa making such comments."

Isn't the current open-source context reason enough to point out if another piece of software is closed-source?

David: Rick doesn't seem interested in the actual context, or the actual statement. The fact that Asa said it seems to be enough to make it negative. I suspect that if the same question and answer showed up on some random blog or an Opera forum, no one would bat an eye.

Various: AFAIK, Opera has never considered pulling out of the desktop market. They did, however, talk about dropping the Mac platform after Safari was announced. (Just as Mozilla supporters were upset that Apple didn't use Gecko, Opera reps were upset that Apple didn't license Opera's engine.)

It's possible Steve may have been misremembering that.

"Opera has never considered abandoning the PC market. Stop lying, or cough up a source for your claims."

Haavard, speaking as an Opera employee, stated in the Opera forums once that Opera could be profitable even without a desktop product. Of course, to make this statement they had to do a what-if scenario. Obviously, this strategy was considered and its consequences explored.

I'll try to come up with the link, but even if I can't find it, it doesn't mean I'm lying. Stop name-calling.

@Steve Chapel: no, doesn't mean you're lying necessarily, but making comments against another browser, e.g., without being able to back them up will not stop me from saying you're spreading FUD:

"Obviously, this strategy was considered and its consequences explored."

i don't see how it is an obvious assumption; i think it's far-fetched for you to say. anyone with knowledge of their financials (as shown on their website) could easily say something like Haavard's comments. you have no knowledge of what has been considered inside of opera, and i can tell you they don't show their cards easily at all, so stop making assumptions...

i mean c'mon, go read the forum post, perhaps see the whole context of his comments as well:

http://my.opera.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77291

please people, let's talk based on facts!

http://my.opera.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77291&highlight=profit%2A+revenue%2A+mobile%2A#post790564

Haavard said "We could *probably* drop the PC/desktop market completely and go just for mobile browsers instead, and perhaps do even better." (emphasis mine)

Sorry... I forgot Haavard said *probably*. Perhaps Opera didn't seriously consider leaving the PC market, but a high-visibility employee publicly speculated on that course of action.

The truth is that Opera is specifically designed, from the ground up, to work with devices that have small amounts of memory, small screens, and slow CPUs. This is critical to their business because without the mobile market they would probably go under. Opera Software ASA is primarily a mobile browser company, and Opera is primarily a mobile browser product. That's their niche.

"no, doesn't mean you're lying necessarily, but making comments against another browser, e.g., without being able to back them up will not stop me from saying you're spreading FUD"

What comments did I make against Opera, other than joking that it's the browser with an inferiority complex? Being a niche product is Opera's strength, not its weakness.

This is why I say it's got an inferiority complex... people rise up to violently defend it, even when someone doesn't even say anything negative about it. Why do Opera users seem so ashamed of their product? It's a *good* product. There's nothing to defend or be ashamed about!

"let's talk based on facts!"

That 'facts' word keeps reappearing...

@David Naylor
So you'd prefer it if we had just stuck with the 95% IE market share for the rest of our lives?
Nope, of course not. MoFo has got experienced PR stuff who are able to PR products. Sometimes aggresively. Please, admit it. I have never seen such a PR campaign about any product before.

Have you ever made a website?
Not yet. I am learning CSS 2.1 now. Once I finish I will make my own. Surely it will be tested in 3 browsers I have. Of course, some parts of it will not be rendered correctly by IE6, while the other two browsers (you know their names ;-) ) will render it properly.

If so, I'd have thought you knew about the advantages of standrads-compliant web browers. If not, I guess you're forgiven.
W3C forever - and that's the only thing a web-designer should reference to and adhere to. The more WWW is standard the more fun and pleasure we will have while surfing through it. I believe, you will agree with me at this point totally.

Ok, ok - Mozilla Suite is adware!
He-he, you admitted it finally. ;-)

Thanks for an entertaining discussion! (With some eye-opening insights!)
Each day a person learns more and more. Thank you too for this discussion. It was a real fun and comfort. Fun in the meaning of the name of the book "Just for Fun" written by Linus Torvalds about his creating OS Linux. I think you read it too.

Hey Steve Chapel...

"No, we have never considered leaving the desktop market. We started out as a desktop browser, and will always be available for the desktop. We will continue to be smaller, faster, more functional, and just plan better than everyone else"

http://my.opera.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=790564#post790564

You forgot that line huh? ;)

Steve Chapel
The truth is that Opera is specifically designed, from the ground up, to work with devices that have small amounts of memory, small screens, and slow CPUs.
Remember those days when it was released publicly? The late 90s. No good speed, no large memory, no big displays.
But it is good that it may run flawlessly on a Pentium I with 32 megs of RAM, isn't it? Guess what I may say further about the other modern browsers. But I will stop my thought at this point.

Opera Software ASA is primarily a mobile browser company, and Opera is primarily a mobile browser product. That's their niche.
Hmmm..Do you think it is not able to compete at the desktop? If not so it should stay at its reservation, so-called niche in which you are trying to hammer it in and do not make any products for desktops?

Why do Opera users seem so ashamed of their product?....There's nothing to defend or be ashamed about!
WE ARE NOT ASHAMED OF IT!
Some people just insult it preconceivedly and bash it deliberately like some of the posters in this blog. That's why we should stop this propagation of lies and FUD.

It's a *good* product.
:-)

"Please, admit it. I have never seen such a PR campaign about any product before."

Yeah, it's pretty fierce! ;-) Glad you think so. (It's a little hard to determine from "within" the Mozilla fanboy circle what kind of reach the campaign has.)

"Not yet. I am learning CSS 2.1 now. Once I finish I will make my own. Surely it will be tested in 3 browsers I have. Of course, some parts of it will not be rendered correctly by IE6, while the other two browsers (you know their names ;-) ) will render it properly."

Great. CSS 2.1 is nice... Good luck and have fun!

"W3C forever - and that's the only thing a web-designer should reference to and adhere to. The more WWW is standard the more fun and pleasure we will have while surfing through it. I believe, you will agree with me at this point totally."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

"He-he, you admitted it finally. ;-)"

Doh. 8-| :D

"Good luck and have fun!"
10nx! U2
:cheers::beer:

> There's really only one story here.

Yeah, and that's the fact that you *continue* to harp on about web statistics as if they are in any way meaningful.

They aren't. Web stats are good for one thing and one thing only: to measure server load.

If you are trying to tell people that any particular browser has any particular market share, then you are misleading them. Period.

Little things like AOL tweaking their web cache parameters can cause big shifts. Little things like changes to the HTTP handling in a browser can cause big shifts. Little things like a new version of Squid being released can cause big shifts. There are so many unaccountables that any number you derive is about as reliable as guessing.

http://www.goldmark.org/netrants/webstats/

http://www.analog.cx/docs/webworks.html

http://www.ario.ch/etc/webstats.html

http://virtuelvis.com/archives/2005/05/statistics-nonsense

T26NOV.ragnarok: "Some people just insult it preconceivedly and bash it deliberately like some of the posters in this blog. That's why we should stop this propagation of lies and FUD."

What you fail to recognize is that not everything you perceive as insults, bashing, etc., actually is insulting, attacks, lies, or FUD.

That is why you and others who have posted here come off as overly defensive, and those of us reading it have to wonder: why?

Take Asa's statements in this post and commentary. No value judgments at all, but here you are defending Opera against the evil FUDmeister Asa. For what? For pointing out that Opera is closed source and currently appeals to a niche audience.

What planet do you live on where that's considered offensive?

If someone made a simple statement of fact that Firefox is open-source, I can't imagine anyone here would be offended.

If someone made a simple statement of fact that Mac OS X is closed-source, using an open-source base, I can't imagine any Apple fans being offended.

If someone made a simple statement of fact that Mozilla, Camino, Galeon, etc. is a niche browser, or stated a year ago that Firefox was a niche browser, I can't imagine anyone being offended.

I've said it before, but it seems like you and some of the other posters here want to be offended, because you take offense at neutral statements and ignore the positive ones. Seriously, how many people responded violently to Asa's "Look, I don't hate Opera!" post?

Look at statements for what they are, and respond accordingly. Take criticism seriously, accept praise, defend against attacks and dispel FUD. But don't mistake neutrality for opposition, and don't mistake criticism for attacks. And most importantly, don't assume malice where misunderstanding is just as likely an explanation. You'd extend that courtesy to Opera's PR department, so why not extend it to a Firefox developer or a random commenter?

Kelson, simply stating that Opera is closed-source is not offensive. But mentioning it when you aren't actually talking about whether it's open or closed can be construed as offensive.

To use a different example, pointing out that somebody is black is not offensive in itself. But it would drastically alter the tone of the post if Asa had posted something like "Opera, that browser made by the black man Hakon Lie"*. Especially if you belong to an organisation that promoted the virtues of being white.

Now, in many circles, being closed-source is frowned upon. Pointing out that Opera is closed-source when the issue at hand isn't the openness of Opera's code can easily be construed as an attack in this context. Asa, belonging to an organisation that promotes the virtues of being open-source, felt the need to bring up the fact that Opera is closed-source even though the issue at hand is something else. Why mention it?

I'm not saying that Asa was intentionally attacking Opera, I'm just saying that it's understandable that such a comment was taken in that way.

Maybe everybody should read this:

http://www.css-discuss.org/policies.html#offensensitivity

* Note: I have no idea what the colour of Mr Lie's skin is and don't care, this is just an example. Assume he's black.

Asa, belonging to an organisation that promotes the virtues of being open-source, felt the need to bring up the fact that Opera is closed-source even though the issue at hand is something else. Why mention it?

The question was, and I quote, "So what is opera? i thought it was gecko as well?" (emphasis added)

Whether Opera is open-source or not was part of the issue at hand.

The fact that it's based in Norway, however, was entirely irrelevant. :-D

P.S. That link should be required reading for anyone posting here. Or just about anywhere on the internet, now that I think about it.

Another small jab at Opera, whether Asa was trying to do it or not. I have explained before that it's not about his intent or truth, it's about perception by those who read and are unfamiliar with Opera.

"Closed Source? MS is closed source and look how good their browser is. Ew"
"niche? Well FF is good enough for me, and it looks like there is no point for me to try Opera."

Sound far fetched? It's not. I have seen people get these ideas from things that people like Asa have said, things like he says. I don't neccesarily blame Asa for other peoples stupidity and poor perception of what he says, but maybe he should at least acknowledge the influence of his words. Though I'm fairly sure that he does understand this, but doesn't see it as his problem, nor see it as a bad thing, since he is trying to promote Firefox.

Ah, but what does my opinion matter? I'm just a stupid Opera fanboy. Nevermind the fact that I have converted more people to Firefox than Opera.

"The question was, and I quote, "So what is opera? i thought it was gecko as well?" (emphasis added)"

The answer is: No, it has its own rendering engine, Presto.

"I have explained before that it's not about his intent or truth, it's about perception by those who read and are unfamiliar with Opera."

Ok. So how large a percent of Asa's readers do you think don't know about Opera? Asa's blog obviously attracts mainly browser nerds and die-hard Mozilla fans. (He isn't even posted to planet.mozilla.org... You have to look properly to find his blog.) These people will in most (~all?) cases already be aware the competing browsers. (It's hard to be a fan of one team if you don't even know what alternatives you have.)

"The answer is: No, it has its own rendering engine, Presto."

Actually, if the question asked was "So what is opera? i thought it was gecko as well?", then the person asking was obviously under the impression that Opera either was based on open-source code or was a completely open-source product in itself. (The as well indicates he knew about Gecko being used in many browsers, hence he likely knew about it being open-source too.)

And, BTW, since when was closed-source automatically a bad thing? In particular to someone who, as you seem to think, doesn't even know about Gecko being open-source, i.e. probably not even knowing about the open vs. closed source distinction.

"Now, in many circles, being closed-source is frowned upon. Pointing out that Opera is closed-source when the issue at hand isn't the openness of Opera's code can easily be construed as an attack in this context. ... Why mention it?"

He could have mentioned it as a piece of information, since it describes in one word how the software is developed. If Opera had been open-source, would you have started yelling about him saying so?

"I'm just a stupid Opera fanboy."

Are you?

"Nevermind the fact that I have converted more people to Firefox than Opera."

Why's that?

> Actually, if the question asked was "So what is opera? i thought it was gecko as well?", then the person asking was obviously under the impression that Opera either was based on open-source code or was a completely open-source product in itself.

That's complete rubbish. If the question asked was "So what is opera? i thought it was gecko as well?", then the person asking was obviously under the impression that Opera USES GECKO.

Last time I checked, Netscape wasn't open source. It's still based on Gecko. Open vs closed has precisely ZERO to do with it.

> He could have mentioned it as a piece of information, since it describes in one word how the software is developed.

But nobody was asking how it was developed. They were asking if it was based on Gecko. These are two completely different things.

Give it a rest, people.

Last time I checked, Netscape wasn't open source. It's still based on Gecko. Open vs closed has precisely ZERO to do with it.

Seriously, Gecko implies open source. Mozilla is all about the open source. The existence of a close-source Netscape doesn't invalidate that. Mozilla's code is specifically licensed to allow Netscape, and (AFAIK) only Netscape to build closed-source products using it. I can name half a dozen open-source browsers based on Gecko, some well-known, most less so, but only one closed source.

If Opera had been open-source, would you have started yelling about him saying so?

If Firefox were closed-source, I suspect he would have.

David Naylor:
>> Why's that?

Because it's better for some people still, at this point in time. I only recommend Opera to people who aren't computer illiterate. Not like you didn't know that, so I'm not sure why you asked.

"So what is opera? i thought it was gecko as well?"

It's a completely separate browser with its own rendering engine, Presto.

"So how large a percent of Asa's readers do you think don't know about Opera?"

Asa has been quoted in the media on several occasions.

"And, BTW, since when was closed-source automatically a bad thing?"

It isn't, but Asa uses it as ammo to bash Opera.

"If Opera had been open-source, would you have started yelling about him saying so?"

If it had been used as yet another cheap shot against Opera, sure.

"Seriously, Gecko implies open source. Mozilla is all about the open source."

He didn't ask whether Opera is open-source or not, he asked whether it uses Gecko.

"Last time I checked, Netscape wasn't open source. It's still based on Gecko. Open vs closed has precisely ZERO to do with it."

I also said "based on open-source code", just like Netscape is. Specifically, open/closed doesn't have anything to do with the rendering engine - agreed. But the fact remains that Jmack who asked the question was likely aware of Gecko's open-source nature, hence it wasn't unnecessary of Asa to point out that Opera is closed-source.

"But nobody was asking how it was developed. They were asking if it was based on Gecko. These are two completely different things."

True. And Asa filled him in on a related issue. Different, but related.

"Because it's better for some people still, at this point in time. I only recommend Opera to people who aren't computer illiterate. Not like you didn't know that, so I'm not sure why you asked."

I asked because I keep hearing "Opera people" claiming Opera is as simple and clean as Firefox for people who are used to IE.

"It isn't, but Asa uses it as ammo to bash Opera."

Not bashing - informing. You're just getting worked up over nothing because you want to (?).

"He didn't ask whether Opera is open-source or not, he asked whether it uses Gecko.

And, as we have already tried pointing out several times - being open source is one of the key points or properties of Gecko.

Opera is as simple and clean as Firefox, and being open-source is irrelevant. He asked if Opera was based on Gecko, not if it was open-source.

iCab is the first public downloadable browser to pass the Acid 2 test :o
And Asa, that wasn't nice to poke fun at Opera. Seems you always want to do that.

> But the fact remains that Jmack who asked the question was likely aware of Gecko's open-source nature, hence it wasn't unnecessary of Asa to point out that Opera is closed-source.

No it wasn't, because Gecko being open-source has no bearing whatsoever on whether the browser is open-source. Netscape embeds Gecko without being open-source. Opera could as well. Pointing out that Opera is closed-source adds absolutely no clarity to the question of whether or not Opera uses Gecko.

> And, as we have already tried pointing out several times - being open source is one of the key points or properties of Gecko.

So? It's not a key property of browsers that use Gecko.

> iCab is the first public downloadable browser to pass the Acid 2 test :o

I believe the CVS access to webkit came first, so it would be Safari, not iCab, that was first.