Many Opera fans (and foes) have noticed a rather negative review of Opera in the Washington Post by Rob Pegoraro. Comments from readers have ranged from "What?! How dare he criticize Opera!" to "See? I told you Opera was crap!"
Not one to let somewhat unresearched reviews ("no support for the encrypted log-ins"? "newsgroup filtering isn't available"?) ruin Opera's reputation, the author behind 30 Days to Becoming an Opera Lover has written up a response where he basically, well, tears Mr. Pegoraro's article apart. It is a very interesting read, and does a good job of proving a few important points. Read it, and you'll see what I mean:
That is not to say that there is no room for improvement in Opera. Far from it. For example, I personally would like to see the main bar dead and buried, until someone actually enables it manually (right now it appears when you choose generic ads), and there are plenty of other things to deal with as well, which we do on an ongoing basis. But one would expect a journalist to do a bit more research than Mr. Pegoraro seems to have done in his review.
In any case, Tim does it again. It is strange that a review where more than half is spent pointing out how great Opera is comes to the conclusion it does, and that without even scratching the surface of the possibilities that exist for Opera users.
Read the articles for yourself, and make up your own mind. Is it Washington Post which is Out of Tune?
(Don't mind the cheesy headline. I'm just following up.)