Responding to Unite misconceptions

Lawrence has responded to a critical blog post on Opera Unite by Chris Messina, member of the DiSo Project (which is apparently a competitor to Unite?), which gets quite a few things wrong. Lawrence sets out to clarify the vision behind Unite, and also corrects a few mistakes.

It was also posted in Mr. Messina's blog, but was held for moderation and has not yet appeared. …

What everyone should keep in mind is that this is just a first test version of Unite, and there will be changes and improvements. We heartily welcome constructive criticism, and perfectly valid issues such as the Terms of Service were recognized, and addressed as soon as possible.

Lawrence's calm and reasonable response is a great read, and might help you to a greater understanding of Unite. I just have a few things of my own to add:

Originally posted by Chris Messina:

It appeared that Opera PR had successfully reached out to all of them, shoved a news release down their throats and waited to give them the go-ahead to regurgitate it on their blogs, using the same screenshots, same content, and differing only in the pithiness of their post titles.

On the one hand, this is perfectly valid criticism as a general observation of how the media treats product launches and announcement. On the other hand, why is it suddenly bad when it is Opera which benefits from it, and not, say, when Mozilla is the source of the "cut and paste jobs"?

I think we need to be reasonable here, though. Journalists and bloggers have a huge amount of information to deal with and publish. There is no way they can possibly dig deep into every single issue they are covering. While this can lead to frustrating situations at times, we need to keep in mind that we do have the power to respond to misconceptions in the media.

Indeed, Chris Messina's blog post has gotten a lot of attention, and, ironically, some journalists and bloggers have basically reposted the claims without any critical analysis what so ever.

Maybe it's only bad if it's Opera's claims that are being reposted without digging deeper into it.

Originally posted by Chris Messina:

In 2006, Opera didn’t see a business model for open source browsers.

That's just flat out wrong. Reading the article in question, Howcome said that "we haven’t found a business model that allows us to go fully open source" (emphasis mine). That is not to say that there is no such model, but we have not found one that works for us.

Indeed, are there any open-source browsers with a business model like Opera's?

Firefox? Made by a non-profit organization.

Safari? Made by a hardware vendor.

Chrome? Made by an advertising company.

Opera? The only independent commercial browser vendor of the bunch. We have a completely different business model. Unlike Apple and Google, browsers are our primary business. Unlike the Mozilla Foundation, we are for profit.

Originally posted by Chris Messina:

Opera isn’t exactly an organization that has behaved favorably towards the open source community in the past.

I'm not even going to guess what this is based on. Not only does Opera Software employ a large number of open-source enthusiasts, but we make use of open-source software ourselves, have contributed to open-source projects, and have even published open-source products like Dragonfly (and there's more to come – you will be (very) surprised). How has Opera not behaved favourably towards the open-source community?

That said, as a company, I do think we believe that open standards are more important than open source.

I wonder why Mr. Messina spends all this time talking about open-source. It seems like a red herring, and it's completely disconnected from the rest of the post. Perhaps he is saying that "Opera is not open-source, therefore it must be bad"? I hope not, but one could get that impression.

Originally posted by Chris Messina:

Opera Unite does indeed rely on a P2P-like network to function, but the big problem is that you must push all your traffic through Opera’s proxy service

Lawrence did respond to this, but it's an important point which needs to be repeated. Opera tries to establish a direct connection, and the proxy is just a fallback. And even when the proxy is used, Opera is more like an ISP than a host. The traffic is just tunneled through the proxy to ensure that you are able to connect.

Even when browsing the Web normally the traffic is routed throug several nodes and servers in the network. That doesn't mean that these nodes and server host your data. They are merely ensuring that the data ends up where it's supposed to.

With Unite, the data is still stored on your computer, and transferred directly from there.

The goal is obviously to avoid using the proxy as much as possible.

Originally posted by Chris Messina:

Furthermore, if you read through the Opera Desktop End User License Agreement (which you had to if you installed the browser — shame on you if you didn’t!), you would have read section 7: USE OF SERVICES

First: This is just a standard ToS, like any other you will find on any site.

Now, I am not a lawyer, but as a lay person, my impression is that Mr. Messina is reading more into it than there actually is to it. He highlights this:

"However, by submitting User Generated Content to us, you grant us and our affiliates the right and limited license to use, copy, display, perform, distribute and adapt this User Generated Content for the purpose of carrying out the Services."

As the emphasis shows, this is about content submitted to us. When you share data directly with your friends, you are not submitting content to us.

Originally posted by Chris Messina:

Besides this hands-on approach to their centralized proxy service, Opera also reserves the right to filter the apps that you can install, a la Apple and their approach to the AppStore

Is this supposed to be a problem? I don't understand. Mozilla does the same with Firefox extensions. But perhaps it is only bad if an evil closed-source company is doing it.

Originally posted by Chris Messina:

I fail to see how this changes our reliance on “large corporations — who we depend upon to host our words, thoughts, and images” of whom Lawrence Eng spoke so disparagingly.

Mr. Messina is becoming increasingly nasty towards Lawrence. I'll try not to return the favour.

But to the point: There is nothing wrong with large corporations, as Lawrence explains. But Opera Unite changes our reliance on middlemen because your words, thoughts and images are served directly from your own computer.

That the Unite services distributed from our servers are filtered isn't really relevant because that isn't what Lawrence is talking about. You can also install Unite services from elsewhere, although the process will of course not be as streamlined.

Originally posted by Chris Messina:

So, while it’s true that your friends can access your Opera Unite homepage without an Opera account, if they want to host their own Unite server, they’re going to have to both download Opera and obtain an Opera account (and no, they don’t support OpenID).

While there are technical reasons that why this makes some sense (mostly to make it easier to get things up and running), it contradicts the whole promise of obviating central control.

There's a difference between central control of your internet address, and central control over your data. Unite gives you control over your own data, but it will never give you control over your own connection. Your ISP will still assign your IP address and DNS servers will still resolve hostnames. Opera Unite does not set out to replace these, as Mr. Messina basically implies. Opera Unite sets out to give you control over your own data.

Unite services get a human-readable address because that's the most convenient. That doesn't mean that you lose control over your data.

Originally posted by Chris Messina:

Why did Opera not launch with the ability for me to choose my own URL, or at least mask my homepage URL with something that didn’t tie me to Opera…? Oh yeah, that’s right — it’s all about owning the namespace.

Why does Mr. Messina pretend that he can't set up a domain of his own which points to his Unite services? Oh yeah, that's right – it doesn't support his argument 😉

Originally posted by Chris Messina:

Okay, so I shit all over Opera Unite, but you can’t come out and promise all kinds of world-changing, freedom-enhancing goodness and then not deliver! — worse, to do so when their newest competitor (Google!) is schooling everyone with the perfect example of how to do it right (see: Wave).

If I am not mistaken, Wave stores all the data on a server. The data is centralized, unlike Unite.

It's a fair opinion that Wave is "perfect", or better than Unite. What is not fair, I think, is to misrepresent Unite and conclude that our vision was not delivered.

Mr. Messina seems to have toned down his rhetoric considerably after his blog post, and has even been offering some praise for Unite:

Originally posted by Chris Messina:

Given that it's an alpha, it's pretty awesome that it works as it does, but this deficiency — tying you to an "operaunite.com" domain — is primarily where my criticism lies.

Cosidering that Mr. Messina is free to set up his own domain, I'm somewhat confused about what exactly his criticism is. He even admits that it makes sense to make it easy to get a server up and running, thus justifying the need to log in. And Opera is not preventing him from setting up his own domain at all.

His proposed solution is what AllPeers did, but that seemed to require a special client on both ends, which is basically contrary to what Unite is trying to achieve!

So in the end I'm genuinely puzzled as to what the point of his blog post was. Perhaps Mr. Messina will respond to Lawrence's comments and clarify.

Advertisements

32 thoughts on “Responding to Unite misconceptions

  1. hmm.. good post. I'm translating Opera Unite to swedish allot to translate. tho the good part is i found an old translation i think it is 7.67 (the oldest most uptodate in swedish) and im trying to copy paste as much as possible. I think Messina is envy that he diddent think of this idea. keep up the good work!

  2. I think the reason why he wrote the post is that he's jealous that Opera did something so astounding (yet again) so he started looking at anything he could find to try and create conspiracy theories about anything and everything pertaining to the subject.On top of generating conspiracy theories these idiots will always bring up the fact that Opera is closed source. Open source as a religion is stupid. I think the fact that their browser's logo and interface design were created by individuals using closed source operating systems and closed source software is contradictory to many of their followers' and members' feelings toward closed source software.He wouldn't have written the post at all if he wasn't jealous. I thought these Mozilla fanatics would be used to this by now… the fact that Opera innovates and they copy everything. Now on top of trying to create a working mobile browser (with how many failed attempts?) they feel the need to create a working competitor to Unite.

  3. Jeremy Chone writes:Good post, and interesting debate. However, the difference with Wave and Unite, is that Wave is a specification and reference implementation, while Unite is a centralize service based on p2p (i.e. you need the one and only one central Unite service to operate). The goal of Wave is that everybody can be their own Wave server. I really like the Unite idea, and a good use-case of what I used to call p2p for Web 2.0 http://www.bitsandbuzz.com/article/p2p-for-web-20-brainstorming/, however, I am not fan of having a central service architecture. Granted, it is mostly for lookup and fall-back (which is a very good thing), but the architecture should be open and distributed. As with Wave, everybody should be able to build their own Unite Service, and Unite Servers should be able to talk to each other (as for SMTP and as with the future Wave). If Opera had done that, then, Unite would have been as big as Wave (IMO).

  4. I agree with most of this. Chris Messina misunderstands how the back end of Unite works, but it's understandable I think, considering how little public documentation there is so far, and the promotional image (the one with the proxy servers and firewall) seems to imply that the service is more like Opera Mini than a P2P protocol like Bittorrent.However, (and I hate to bring in and flog only partially related issues) I don't agree with your response to this quote:

    Opera isn’t exactly an organization that has behaved favorably towards the open source community in the past.

    There is an ongoing concern, raised by Grafio, with the Opera "Terms for Widgets" which was updated sometime ago to include clauses allowing Opera to claim all rights but virtual authorship of widgets uploaded to widgets.opera.com.The Terms state:

    By uploading Content to Opera’s site, you grant Opera an unrestricted, royalty-free, worldwide, irrevocable license to use, reproduce, display, perform, modify, transmit and distribute such material in any manner, including in connection with Opera's business, and you also agree that Opera is free to use any ideas, concepts, know-how or techniques that you send Opera for any purpose.

    http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=279138The Terms themselves can be found here, but you need to be logged in to see them: http://widgets.opera.com/upload/Basically, Opera is saying that (while they might never do it) they can take your uploaded widgets, despite their author-applied open-source licences, turn around and legally sell them as property of the company without any financial obligation to the original author.How is this behaving favorably towards the open source community? More like Opera is leaving open the legal avenue of hijacking good-faith open-source contributions by loyal users to their widget domain for their own profit. This is shocking, to say the least, and definitely not the type of thing that should be going on in a company that purports to embrace (and even take part in) open-source initiatives.Opera needs to think about protecting the spirit of the web first and foremost, and put its financial aspirations as a company second. Until that time, I consider Chris Messina dead on on that point.Freedom for Widgets!

  5. I think Opera is doing great work! Opera is providing a new and strong tool, no, more than just a tool, for everyone. I've read that article but I believe those reasons he provided are not enough. I like Opera Unite. Close source? Must go through Opera Proxy or not? unique namespace or others else? I don't really care much. As long as I can easily share my data with all my friends in a secure way, it's ok. About the data, everyone have their own way of using their own data. That's the personal matter. Opera Unite provide enough option for them to take care of their information. Users must follow TOS, privacy policy or any related policies which Opera currently announce when they use Opera United. If they don't, they must take full responsibility for their act. It's has nothing to do with the "tool" itseft.Opera are updating the TOS, that will solve the problem.Finally, I'm very happy of using Opera Unite!

  6. Michael Kozakewich writes:I'm thinking you're wrong about the Legalese. It sounds like we'd give Opera our data, which it then has the right to take from me to give to the other person — which is kind of the whole purpose of Unite.The legal stuff is basically a set of limitations on responsibility, not expectations of action. Someone could say in their terms of service, "We own everything of yours that touches us, and can not be held accountable for anything that happens to you, up to and including death." That wouldn't (necessarily) mean you're likely to die, or that they'd steal your work, but that IF something happened you couldn't sue them.Terms of Service always sound scary.

  7. Thanks for your rebuttal, Haavard. I hadn't expected my post to get so much attention, but I'm glad that it's ignited a debate.I can actually be fairly reasonable when engaged in a conversation — but my post was me frothing at the mouth in reaction to both the blogger/press's failure to really look deeply into what Opera was releasing AND at Opera's PR pitch — which seemed way overhyped for an alpha release, and that did little to inform, and much more to evoke.In any case, I'll respond to some of your points (since I'm neither jealous nor working on a competitor to Unite — the open formats and protocols that I'm working on can be used by anyone, including Unite — one of which already is).> …why is it suddenly bad when it is Opera which benefits from it, and not, say, when Mozilla is the source of the "cut and paste jobs"?I don't know why this bothers you — I was criticizing social media news sources, not Opera. I mean, congrats! You guys had a successful news cycle. Nothing wrong with that — but I wanted more information from other bloggers, and they didn't offer it, hence my post.I have nothing against Opera. I just don't like hype. Heck, Flock pulled the same BS when we launched, and I thought it was just as bad then as I do now (disclosure: I helped start the Flock browser and lead the Spread Firefox project — though now I've switched to using Webkit).> Indeed, are there any open-source browsers with a business model like Opera's?You mean like Flock or Songbird?Also, when I said that "Opera isn’t exactly an organization that has behaved favorably towards the open source community in the past." I primarily was referring to the pissing war that's been going on between Opera and Mozilla forever. Mozilla is just as guilty of pissing on you guys, so that's what I was talking about. I agree that I wasn't clear.And, yes, open standards are largely more important than open source.> With Unite, the data is still stored on your computer, and transferred directly from there.Okay, this was not clear. I looked over your docs several times and never discovered how to get this setup. I don't know if I'll get a chance, but if I write a follow up post, I will point this out. If you have public instructions to do this (I saw Lachlan posted some hints), I'll point to them.> The goal is obviously to avoid using the proxy as much as possible.That didn't come through in your docs.> First: This is just a standard ToS, like any other you will find on any site.Yeah, maybe point to the TOS was a straw man, but then your marketing hype shouldn't have criticized "big companies" storing your data. I mean, be consistent! Look, if you want to "empower" people to store their own data, then you should have a TOS that basically says, "WE WILL NEVER LOOK AT THE DATA THAT YOU'RE SENDING OVER OUR NETWORK." Or, if you can't make that promise, then make it downright facile to not use the Opera proxies. This is why I made the point about the TOS — not because yours is worse than anyone else's — it's just the same old (understandably) protectionist crap.On filtering services, I was just responding to your documentation. No where did it say how to go about publishing services on your own — it only talked about services in the Opera Unite directory. On this point it's worth pointing out that most of my criticism could be aimed as much as what you DIDN'T DO as much as what you did.If Opera maintains the right to filter services, that presupposes that I need to publish my service THROUGH Opera. If that's not the case, then an explanation to that effect would have made my complaint moot.> Mr. Messina is becoming increasingly nasty towards Lawrence.I met Lawrence at a BarCamp in San Diego, but I'd forgotten. I feel bad about sounding like I was vilifying him through his words, but the marketing hype and his post just didn't jive. Look, I used to write glorious idealistic blog posts about the web too — and people would take me to task for them — maybe you get cranky when you get older, I don't know. But it wasn't meant to be personally nasty towards Lawrence.> There's a difference between central control of your internet address, and central control over your data. … Opera Unite sets out to give you control over your own data.Yeah but see, I already *have* control over my own data. And I CHOOSE to give it to Flickr and Facebook and other similar services. You're not giving me control over my own data. You're making it possible for me to publish my data to the web (where my ISP allows) straight from my computer. I could also email it to my friends. Or put it on a CD. If you're standing in between me and my friends (via the proxy), then you're still a middleman. I agree that Unite — without the proxy allows for a kind of convenient self-publishing that used to require meddling with DynDNS, but you're not *really* giving me control over my data, and that's the kind of spin I just can't tolerate.> Why does Mr. Messina pretend that he can't set up a domain of his own which points to his Unite services? Oh yeah, that's right – it doesn't support his argument Well no, it just wasn't written out in your documentation — which I QUOTED liberally. Had the docs said differently, I would absolutely have cited it because it would have SUPPORTED my argument about owning your namespace! If Opera Unite told that story, I certainly would have pointed it out as an example of doing it right.> If I am not mistaken, Wave stores all the data on a server. The data is centralized, unlike Unite.You're right, except that that's not the point. The point is that I could run my own Wave server, connecting with other people, without ever talking to Google or getting permission to set up my own server.Since I can't run a service like Unite in another browser or on a machine WITHOUT Opera installed, I'm tied to Opera. That's the difference. It's that I can choose my centralization partner, or host it myself.So, thanks for taking the time to write up your responses. Perhaps this clarifies a few of my positions.

  8. I have to agree with you that there is some underlying bias towards Opera being closed source. It seems that, due to Opera not being open source, most people try to only see flaws and/or spin up flaws of their own to dampen the success rather than exploring the new possibilities of Opera Unite and what it will do for the web.Now that Unite is out, I'm sure it will be copied by others whether it be by Firefox add-ons or other third-party plug-ins. When others copy and reuse this idea they will work to make it better and avoid flaws that the public finds in Opera Unite. I just hope that Opera will stay one step ahead and evolve Opera Unite to continue to be the best.When Speed Dial was introduced, it was copied very quickly and now every major browser makes some use of displaying helpful information in a blank tab. Some of them, in my opinion, are doing possibly a better job in some aspects…but that all found it worth while to copy. Even after people posted the same kind of likes and dislikes about Opera Speed Dial.

  9. Firefox? Made by a non-profit organization.Safari? Made by a hardware vendor.Chrome? Made by an advertising company.

    I love this part very much :up:

  10. My mother would not be able to set up any kind of dynamic DNS. 😆 And not less than 95% of Opera browser users would not. So, why ever bring this point?The point is that in one day I set up (turned on would be more appropriate word) my home server to share some music and e-books, put my fortfolio online, had pretty interesting chat with couple people. All that after just couple clicks.Unite is great even in current state!

  11. Thanks, factoryjoe, for a much more pleasant and rational post.Regarding the hype, I think it's about time we got around to it too. Our competitors have been doing it for a long time. We're just joining them. And better yet, it seems that the consensus out there is that we actually delivered.Flock and Songbird are not being licensed to OEMs, mobile operators and various device manufacturers, to my knowledge. The desktop version is something like 1/4 or 1/5 of our total revenue.There's more to open-source than Mozilla. Far more. Generalizing based on our reaction to FUD from their spokespeople doesn't seem like a good idea. As far as I know, our engineers and their engineers are getting along just fine. It's just that, well, their spokespeople don't exactly behave the way one would expect from an organization which claims to be here only to do good.You say that you choose to give your data to Flickr, but that's besides the point. You are free to do so. What Unite does it so give you the choice to control your own data and not give it to someone else. No one is saying that it's either or. Give me both, please!If our proxy is a middleman, then so are your ISPs routers, yes?Setting up your own domain is something you can do regardless. It has nothing to do with Unite. I guess that's why it isn't mentioned in the documentation. I don't see how being able to set up your own server would support a negative view of the Unite hostname system.It seems to me that Wave and Unite are different beasts. Related, but different. Does one necessarily exclude the other? Probably not. So there is no need for an artificial conflict there, just like there is no conflict between Flickr and Unite. They both have their uses. Before, you could only choose Flickr. Now you can choose Unite if you want to. Choice is good.One of the reasons why Unite is so easy to use is that we're taking care of all the difficult parts. Will Google Wave be as easy to set up? They probably have different target audiences.

  12. Anonymous writes:"Basically, Opera is saying that (while they might never do it) they can take your uploaded widgets, despite their author-applied open-source licences, turn around and legally sell them as property of the company without any financial obligation to the original author."I don't think Opera would ever do that. I think it's much more simple than that. Look at the page "highest rated widget", you'll see for instance "touch the sky". Opera use this widget to promote opera, to make people want to download Opera. That's all.I think it's pretty fair considering that you need their widget sdk to build a widget, considering that you host your widget on their server.It's like when you install something like spybot s'n'd, the licence read : "I can't be held responsible to any damage on your computer." I does not mean the software is dangerous and gonna blow your computer. Only the author who gave away his software for free doesn't want to get sued by some idiot for a stupid mistake.

  13. Anonymous writes:"Since I can't run a service like Unite in another browser or on a machine WITHOUT Opera installed, I'm tied to Opera. That's the difference. It's that I can choose my centralization partner, or host it myself."Lol, it's seems obvious than you need to run Opera to use Opera.And why the hell Opera developers should make a version of Unity without Opera ? First of all, there's good chances it's not possible. Opera developers have built Unity into Opera. Secondly, I don't see why Opera would make things easier for the competitors. Firefox extensions had no problem to copy all the feature of Opera, after all.About your grief against operaunite.com, I want to let you know that you can use your own local domain with the port 8840. Opera proxies are not needed. No problem it works.

  14. Originally posted by factoryjoe:

    the open formats and protocols that I'm working on can be used by anyone, including Unite

    Upnp, http, html, css, javascript… sure, they are quite open. Don't need to bring this topic up again. And widgets and the server API all have public available documentation.Originally posted by factoryjoe:

    " I primarily was referring to the pissing war that's been going on between Opera and Mozilla forever. Mozilla is just as guilty of pissing on you guys, so that's what I was talking about. I agree that I wasn't clear.

    I would call it competition, and not pissing. Pissing is only done by a selected few vocal individuals.Originally posted by factoryjoe:

    Since I can't run a service like Unite in another browser or on a machine WITHOUT Opera installed, I'm tied to Opera.

    The service runs under Opera, any client (browser can connect). Nothing prevents you from implementing the w3c widget spec, the server APIs, having the proxy infrastructure and upnp support to deliver a similar product. You're not tied to Opera because Opera is not making use of locked-in proprietary features, and Opera does not force you to use Unite. If you feel like that's an issue, just setup our own server manually.

  15. Some mention has been made in the above comment about how Opera Unite is tied to the Opera browser. This is totally in keeping with with Opera's policy of browser features as opposed to 'plug-in' technology. If you take that other browser that relies heavily on plug-in's to function, and remove all the plug-in's, you're left with a browser that has hardly any usefull features at all.I don't see why a plug-in vendor like Adobe can't produce something similar to Opera Unite. And I definitely can't see any reason why Opera should be expected to produce a plug-in when they don't rely on plug-in's for the browsers that they produce. :left:.Well, that's my two cents worth 😉 (I hope I didn't go over budget! :p)

  16. Originally posted by anonymous:

    Yeah, probably it will be copied by the Firefox add-on called POW which was launched three years ago. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3002Isn't time travel cool!

    Wow. Way to hide behind an anon name. How old are you again?First off, that add-on only provides a web server feature. Unless it's going to be updated to add something more exciting then it's nothing like Opera Unite. It doesn't appear to have an easy media player or photo sharing tool that works in the same manner. Nice try, but it's not the same. 😉http://mashable.disqus.com/opera_unite_web_browser_becomes_the_web_server/#comment-10973011

  17. Anonymous writes:Haavard said: "The desktop version is something like 1/4 or 1/5 of our total revenue." Actually, you're lying here. Why? You just recently posted the very documentation that contradicts your false claim. Or did your corporate officers lie in their Q1'09 financial disclosures? Read your company's financial reports and you'll see that Desktop was actually responsible for 28.83% of revenue in Q1'09. That's closer to 1/3rd than to your low-ball claim of 1/5th.

  18. intarweb hero writes:"Actually, you're lying here. Why?"Actually, you're lying here.You are lying about him lying.He didn't claim any exact figures (he said "something like", clearly showing that it was just a quick guess).Besides, it's is closer to 1/4 than 1/3, so you are CLEARLY lying since your 1/3 claim was completely wrong!So that's no less than TWO lies from you. Hypocrite.Quick, Mr. obsessive-compulsive friendless nerd with poor social skills and bad breath, you must move on to the next outrageous lie you need to crack down on!Everything anyone says which isn't 100% accurate (even when the person indicates that) is clearly an outrageous lie, and you must immediately write long posts about it.Our hero!

  19. quack writes:Unite did reinvent the web. Nothing foolish about it. Especially when the marketing works. How is marketing that works foolish?And who cares about Wave? It's irrelevant to Unite.

  20. The comparison between Wave and Unite is both unfortunate and deceptive. They are quite different technologies. But for Opera to market a release with "reinventing the web" in the wake of the Wave release was foolish.

  21. Anonymous writes:Tonido is similar to Opera Unite and the product is out there for 3 months. It sucks to be a small company :). Wish u good luck Opera Unite. We believe in your vision. let us know if we can help.

  22. I feel bad now. I'm used to Opera being this small company trying to make it in the world, and all of a sudden we're getting big and causing problems for an even smaller company!Who knows, maybe Opera Unite will create a lot of attention around these technologies, and that might benefit Tonido. It's like when Chrome was launched and everyone thought it would be a disaster for Opera, but the opposite happened. Downloads increased by 25%, and Opera's user base grew even faster.There is always room for more players in the market.

  23. Originally posted by haavard:

    […] we make use of open-source software ourselves, have contributed to open-source projects, and have even published open-source products like Dragonfly (and there's more to come – you will be (very) surprised).

    Interesting. Would you link back to this post when said things become public so we know what you were talking about? Even if there are years to come before that point. Like Opera Unite running on an RC car in 2007 is interesting, as well.More commentary may follow, I haven't finished reading at the time of posting.edit: Added emphasis to the quote.

  24. @_Grey_ Heck, I hardly ever bother to try to 'keep up' with the latest developments, what with being a moblogger and that. But even I know that dragonfly was launched ages ago, and Operamini is written using open-source libraries and selected components of the Android library. :left:.It's not exactly hard to find the references when you're using there products, and I believe that means that anyone serious about researching Opera Software should at least try reading the EULA's that they include with their product. :rolleyes:.

  25. Originally posted by qlue:

    Operamini is written using open-source libraries and selected components of the Android library.

    I highly doubt this. I don't accuse you of lying, I just can't believe Opera Mini is Open Source. Or maybe the definition of Open Source eludes me.However, my prioties lie more on the "there is more to come – you'll be surprised" part and less on the "open source" part. I was merely asking haavard to back-reference if later blog posts of his concern part of this post (which, in most cases, he's doing already).

  26. My Opera runs on Apache, we use stuff like memcache, mysql, we use trac for bugs, tasks, planning etc. Here's some contributions back:Strip quotes when receiving replies using email2trachttps://subtrac.sara.nl/oss/email2trac/changeset/191/trunkAllow older sqlite to be used with trac for this pluginhttp://trac-hacks.org/ticket/3239Monitor apache request running timeshttp://muninexchange.projects.linpro.no/?view&phid=368Cosimo presenting scalability issues and solutionshttp://www.slideshare.net/cstrep/ipw2008-scalability-cosimo-presentationWe maintain some modules, both home-made, and adoptedhttp://search.cpan.org/~opera/That list is not much of course, the list is much bigger, just gathered what I remembered from the MyO team. But we try to give back to the community and many of us working here participate in various open source projects, both coding, reporting, qa-ing etc.

  27. Hey Håvard, thanks for a great post. I've stated it before, and I'll state it again: most of the complaints are biased because it's not open source. Factoryjoe/Chris Messina's oft-quoted post was so obviously a reactionary post after a bit of a cursory glance and a bit of skimming through the documents and code. I'm surprised you guys managed to maintain your temper as well as you did!@factoryjoe – You're making assumptions based on your view of the world in most of your arguments, with little to no foundation in the fairly obvious facts. And yeah, like _Grey_ I'm extremely curious about the "more to come"!

  28. Eh. Much about nothing. It should be possible to develop an Apache kit that replicates the Unite server, and it should be possible to tell Unite to report to more than one lookup proxy. In a few years, Unite's communication could be its own standard.Monolithic proxies are the lynchpin for tolerable browsing speeds. Most "true" decentralized proxies (filesharing for example) can leave you sitting for minutes waiting on a search result. This is not tolerable when trying to find a friend's vacation photos. Speed has driven competition in the public sector."However, by submitting User Generated Content to us, you grant us and our affiliates the right and limited license to use, copy, display, perform, distribute and adapt this User Generated Content for the purpose of carrying out the Services."Which joker complained about this again? It's the part that grants Opera permission to be a proxy. The worst that can happen is featuring a service-user's page on the front of unite.opera.com because it's popular. It does not say that they can use your data as its own commercial product, or indemnify them against use of your content beyond the limited scope of the service."By uploading Content to Opera’s site, you grant Opera an unrestricted, royalty-free, worldwide, irrevocable license to use, reproduce, display, perform, modify, transmit and distribute such material in any manner, including in connection with Opera's business, and you also agree that Opera is free to use any ideas, concepts, know-how or techniques that you send Opera for any purpose."Simple. The Widgets page has no marketplace in it. Anything that goes into it can still be used by you, but now Opera can use it too. There is no mechanism for sales or profit sharing so don't expect any money from them. If TouchTheSky became standard with every new install of Opera, TouchTheSKy's author has no right to complain. But TouchTheSky does not incur its own hosting costs, and it generates hits for a weather-forecasting website. There is no absolute bar against making money off widgets posted to Opera's portal; you just need a more creative revenue model.This also means that Opera may use contributed Widget code in the building of other widgets. This is done to make Opera more competitive. They may in future ship several widgets combined into one program (especially programming or office tasks, or things like weather+notes+calendar). It may even be possible to have a widget-builder that can combine a number of selected features into one tool. You might combine two or three RSS feeds with your calendar reminders, and generate weather alerts if certain keywords are detected in the feed. And Opera won't need to contact the publisher of every widget that they wish to include in such a program. Please note that I do not work for Opera and I am not privy to their plans. This paragraph is just wishful speculation.I must now take a personal shot at the POW extension for Firefox. It's terrible. Less than a hundred thousand people have downloaded it. More than half a million people have downloaded server plugins for Winamp, and they're terrible too. Plugins and extensions are especially dangerous because they are not maintained by the publisher. You don't want to wake up and find that an automatic update to Firefox has killed off your server due to an "incompatibility". At that point you must either reinstall an older Firefox and disable updates, switch server technologies, or wait for an update to the extension that may never come.Even standard features are not frequently used by normal people. When Unite enters mainstream Opera, most people will not know or care. Most will not use it unless someone else decides that it's the next cultural bandwagon to drunkenly drive into the nearest tree. But if it's already there to use, if people like it, it's part of the program. No extra setup or anything. And it ahould be updated for bugs and stability along with the rest of the program, tested for problems before each update is released. That's what options like POW intrinsically lack.I am much more curious as to whether Opera will automatically be a repeater for certain data. This includes automatically making itself available for download to reduce load on Opera's servers, automatically participating in the peerlist distribution even if the user does not have a server to add to the list, or even adding the peerlist to addressbar results. The last would assume an opt-in or opt-out listing policy, a list update on startup, and the appearance of included results filtered by characters typed into the addressbar. A personal fansite for a product may appear as a preemptive result when preparing to start a normal web search, or if say Pepsi had an OperaUnite page, it may appear as a suggested destination when headed toward Pepsi.comI'll shut up now.

  29. Me? Apache? Are you MAD? 🙂 I'm just saying that if this is built on standards, and has compliant javascript, it should be possible for other interested parties to build a high-demand server that can mesh into the existing system.

Comments are closed.