Jump to content

Talk:Opera (web browser)/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

"Overall" share

I can't verify the information that "Opera's overall market share is about 11% on mobile devices" from the sources given. Remember that according to WP:NOR "anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires another reliable source for that interpretation." Also, the references give usage share, although the article says market share. Are these copies of Opera that are installed but possibly not used? -- Schapel (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You have to do a bit of math to determine the statistics. The Safari on iPhone statistics are taken from [1]. The iPhone can only use Safari without special software not supported by Apple, so we can assume that nearly every device on the web that has the iPhone operating system is also using Safari for iPhones (we can ignore the handful that aren't). The other statistics are from [2].
    • Safari for iPhones: 0.09%
    • Internet Explorer Mobile: 0.03%
    • Opera Mini/Mobile: 0.02%
    • Blazer: 0.02%
    • Danger web browser: 0.02%
    • Total mobile browser use: 0.18%
  • Dividing by the total:
    • Safari for iPhones 50%
    • Internet Explorer Mobile: 17%
    • Opera: 11%
    • Blazer: 11%
    • Danger web browser: 11%

—Remember the dot (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not the math I'm concerned about. This seems to be a synthesis of existing data to create a new interpretation of the data, which is disallowed by the no original research policy. According to the policy, it "is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." Can you find reliable sources that make all the same arguments you do? -- Schapel (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
All of the statistics came from the same source. [3] has most of them, and the operating system statistics allow us to differentiate between Safari for desktops and Safai for iPhones. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether all the numbers came from the same source. You're analyzing the numbers in a way that I've never seen done before. That's original research, which is disallow on Wikipedia unless you have a reliable source that give the same analysis. -- Schapel (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
In all fairness, Schapel, the passage you cited talks about making an argument, not about presenting numbers. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Right. The numbers in question were the logical conclusion of an argument. The argument went as follows: Safari Mobile, Pocket Internet Explorer, and Opera Mini and Opera Mobile (among others) are mobile browsers, and the iPhone runs only Safari, therefore we can sum up the total usage attributable to mobile browsers, and then calculate the portion of mobile browser usage attributable to each mobile browser. That was a completely new argument and analysis that I have never seen published anywhere, and as such looks like original research. If someone could cite a reliable source with such an argument and analysis, and it were simply a matter of presenting new numbers in this article, that would be okay. -- Schapel (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
You may or may not be aware that there was a discussion and resulting proposal some time ago (no, it's not policy as far as I'm aware, before you ask) that stipulated that simple facts well-known to everyone in the field would not have to be supported by references. This would typically include such statements as "since the structure of nucleic acids is composed of phosphate, base and sugar", or, "since gravity accelerates objects towards close objects of appreciable mass". Which browser variants run on mobile platforms is shown by the reference. I don't understand the nature of this missing link you seem to be looking for. BTW, the iPhone Safari part you cited is not relevant to how the figures were calculated. Safari for iPhone is just another browser that runs on a mobile device. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
There wasn't any piece missing. It was putting those pieces together to make a new analysis that was the problem. You cannot draw new conclusions on Wikipedia. The conclusion that 11% of visitors who are using mobile devices are using Opera is a new conclusion. The reasoning behind the conclusion is, as far as I can tell, completely original and not published anywhere else. It's a great piece of work, but as an original piece of reasoning, isn't allowed on Wikipedia. It should be published elsewhere. -- Schapel (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "List of devices that ship with Opera"

I've removed the section "List of devices that ship with Opera". This is for two reasons. First, the Opera Powered products gallery, which was the main source for this list, is clearly incomplete, as it has no mention of cell phones or PDAs that come pre-installed with Opera Mobile (see [4] for an example). Secondly, it includes products such as the Nintendo DS and Wii, which do not come with Opera, but Opera may be bought for them. This throws into doubt whether or not any of the other products listed actually come with Opera, or whether Opera must be purchased separately.

For these reasons, I do not think that the current revision of "List of devices that ship with Opera" should be included in the article. If someone would like to improve it, making it more complete and backing it up with better citations, then we could put it back in.

For reference, here is the section that I removed:

List of devices that ship with Opera

See the Opera Powered products gallery

Another option would be to boil this information down to one paragraph and add it to the "Market adoption" section (with better references, of course). —Remember the dot (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

History

Do the article need the second introduction paragraph "Development of the Opera suite began [...]" ? It belongs to the History section. --Fenring (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes because the lead section is supposed to summarize the rest of the article (see WP:LEAD). —Remember the dot (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the history is one of the important points. You don't find any history summary on the lead of Mozilla Firefox article. The lead should be straightforward about product's features. In Firefox featured article you can find enumeration of main features in the lead and in the feature section beginning also. And I think it's better. --Fenring 20:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Features

Can we add "page zooming", "mouse gestures" and "fit to width" (and explain it in "Usability and accessibility") to the enumeration at the beginning of the section ? These are very useful features. --Fenring (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The beginning of the section is just assorted features that don't fit into "Usability and accessibility", "Security", and "Standards support". It is not a complete list or enumeration. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I actually think that "mouse gestures" is worth mentioning (isn't it already in the article?) since Opera kind of chapionship this feature, and I think it would fit in "Usability and accessibility" section. BTW, Opera also has a "mouseless browsing" mode which is better than any other major browser. -- AdrianTM 18:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused by your message. Opera's mouse gestures have significant coverage in the article, and keyboard-only and voice control is also mentioned. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, if I compare with Firefox, I find the enumeration of major features in the lead, and again in the beginning of the features section. I think it makes the article really clear. You can explain the features further below in the article or in sub articles. And (I repeat myself) in the features enumeration, I'd include page zoom and fit-to-width, which are (if not unique) very representative of Opera browser. I don't want an exhaustive list of features. Just the main ones. --Fenring 20:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This article follows the same pattern as Mozilla Firefox: an overview of the features in the lead, general features just below the "Features" header, and subsections within the "Features" section for related features. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you've done a great job on this article. Yet, I find the lead of Mozilla Firefox more direct. 1st paragraph : basic definition (what it is). 2nd, features (how it is) : "Features included with Firefox are tabbed browsing, spell checker, incremental find, live bookmarking, an integrated download manager, and a search system". In this article the first paragraph is ok, but I'd rather introduce the features enumeration (it's not in the lead now) instead of the history summary. And my second point is : I'd add "page zooming", "mouse gesture" and "fit-to-width" in that enumeration, in the very beginning of the article.--Fenring 23:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've replaced the summary of Opera's history with a more appropriate summary of Opera's features. The lead section here is now similar to the lead section of Mozilla Firefox. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Opera security

The lead states "Opera's overall security as measured by known, unpatched vulnerabilities compares favorably with that of other browsers." Opera does have fewer publicly known unpatched vulnerabilities as measured by Secunia. That is a concrete fact. Saying Opera's overall security compares favorable with that of other browsers is an interpretation of that concrete fact that amounts to original research. We need a reliable source for that interpretation. We should also be clear about the publicly known part, as there may be security vulnerabilities that are known but not publicly known, and the Secunia part, as other security sources such as SecurityFocus measure more unpatched vulnerabilities in Opera than in Firefox. Please stick to what the sources say. Misrepresenting what sources say looks to be the main problem with this article. -- Schapel 14:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok with the word 'publicly'. Though you've been very much active on Firefox's article, and if you look at it, you'll read : "Because Firefox has fewer and less severe publicly known unpatched security vulnerabilities than Internet Explorer [...]". No mention to Secunia's measures in that sentence either. Here is another sentence based on what the Secunia source clearly says : "According to Secunia, Firefox is the second less secure browser after Internet Explorer". About SecurityFocus, I found equal numbers of vulnerabilities for Opera and Firefox. Please verify your OR. So here is an off-topic question : why compare Firefox and Opera security on Opera's article, and not on Firefox's ? I sometimes find your PoV a bit biased towards Firefox. Your page even show that you support that browser. Please be neutral on WP. --Fenring 14:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Why compare Firefox and Opera security on Opera's article? That's my point. To compare the security of those browsers, we need a reliable source to cite. I can't find any that compares the security of those browsers, therefore we should not do original research to attempt to. In regards to comparing the security of Firefox and Internet Explorer, there are ample sources cited that make that comparison in the Firefox article. I don't see that I'm being not neutral. I'm asking that the same policies be enforced equally in both articles. Where is the statement "According to Secunia, Firefox is the second less secure browser after Internet Explorer"? That statement should not be in Wikipedia unless properly cited. About SecurityFocus, they added a new Firefox vulnerability just today, so my statement was true earlier. -- Schapel 16:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The statement was a personal and verifiable synthetic claim about the information in the Secunia primary source. It is a descriptive claim about the material which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. There are a lot of reliable sources that compare security of the three or four major browsers. So the quite insisting comparison between IE and Ff's security in Firefox article can be considered biased. What you are saying is that we need to add more references that compares security of Opera compared to other browsers? --Fenring 18:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course. All Secunia gives is the number and severity of publicly known unpatched vulnerabilities. We can compare the numbers for various browsers and state that Opera has fewer publicly known unpatched vulnerabilities than others, according to Secunia. That is the descriptive claim about the material which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. On the other hand, saying Opera is more secure than other browsers, or better than other browsers, or compares favorably to other browsers, or making any comparison about the relative security of different browsers, is an interpretation of that descriptive claim. We need a source to cite for that interpretation, because making that interpretation requires specialist knowledge. It would depend on other factors, such as how long it takes Opera to patch vulnerabilities, how long it takes for those patches to be distributed to users, how well Opera informs its users of vulnerabilities and exploits, the severity of those vulnerabilities, and many other factors. I would start out by attempting to find a reference that says Opera is more secure than Internet Explorer, as that would be the easiest to find. -- Schapel 19:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree. The sentence can be reformulate to add 'publicly' and 'secunia'. But actually, in your search, you'll find much more references saying Opera is and has always been the safest browser on earth [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11],... So, according to WP rules, we could add that claim to the lead. --Fenring 20:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Many of the references you give don't actually say that. The ones that do simply compare the numbers of publicly known unpatched vulnerabilities and assume that the one with fewest is more secure. This is such an obvious mistake we shouldn't use those references. The ones that make that mistake also look a lot like blogs, which are not considered reliable sources. Can you find "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that literally say Opera is more secure than other browsers, and are not simply comparing numbers and jumping to conclusions? -- Schapel 22:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I know, safest browser on earth was a bit "language abusive" (do you say that in english?). Did you notice this one compares fix rates, not only publicly known unpatched advisories numbers. But the best source I can find seems to be webdevout's one. It shows a lot more analysis than simply counting present publicly known unpatched advisories. It claims that 'Opera has shown a much better record than Microsoft at fixing its browser's vulnerabilities. Opera even caught up with its public vulnerabilities in June 2005 and has fairly consistently stayed on top of them ever since, which Firefox hasn't quite managed to do' while being very objective in its analysis saying nothing can be perfect. It shows a good view of overall security in the 3 major windows browsers. I think it's a great secondary source. Here is another source actually drawing the conclusion that Opera seems safer. --Fenring 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The first two sources don't seem to reach any conclusion, leaving the reader to interpret the numbers. That last source looks fine to me. It's from a recognized publication, the Guardian, that seems to have editorial oversight, and reaches a conclusion. You can say According to Jack Schofield of the Guardian, "Opera looks to be more secure than Firefox, but the difference is pretty small." That looks great as a source to support the statement that Opera's security compares favorably with that of Firefox. You also say Opera browser is a safer alternative to Internet Explorer. If you want to add a statement about Safari, you'll have to find a reliable source to verify that, too. -- Schapel 13:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, SecurityFocus reports 1 outstanding vulnerability for Opera 9.24, 1 outstanding vulnerability for Firefox 2.0.11, 11 for Safari 3.0.3, and 43 for Internet Explorer 7. But by all means, continue your discussion of how to best improve the article. Let's get this sorted out. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Two days ago, SecurityFocus listed no outstanding vulnerabilities for Firefox. Was Firefox more secure than Opera then? If so, is it not now? If not, how can we use mere numbers to determine that Opera is more secure than Firefox now? This is the problem with using numbers determine the most secure browser. -- Schapel 13:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Drawing these conclusions is objective and based on facts, but it's neither verifiable, nor useful. As you wrote, it's more interesting to find data that scale through time instead of present and ever changing state (especially with so low numbers and low severity). About your previous post, the first source has an analysis of the numbers, and conclusions. The webdevout does not simply republishes the secunia data. It compiles and analyses it in an deep way. But sorry for pointing to the wrong page. This is the one drawing the conclusion I was citing. So if summarize, we have these reliable claims :
  • '[...Opera is] the only vendor that maintained its patch rate between versions[...]'
  • '[...]Opera has shown a much better record than Microsoft at fixing its browser's vulnerabilities. Opera even caught up with its public vulnerabilities in June 2005 and has fairly consistently stayed on top of them ever since, which Firefox hasn't quite managed to do.'
  • '[...]Opera looks to be more secure than Firefox, but the difference is pretty small.'
  • 'Opera is a safer alternative to most other browsers on the market today[...]'
Which one to choose. I personally think we should formulate a sentence based on the second claim. As it has the objectivity to tell it's based on factual numbers. The parts I don't like : "which Firefox hasn't quite managed to do" which seems to point the finger to Firefox, and "pretty small" and "most other" which are vague. What do you think of something like "overall security better than IE, and even Firefox". maybe more neutral and simple, and implies that Firefox is more secure than IE (what the sources clearly say too).--Fenring 22:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Saying Opera has better overall security than IE seems to be fine, as we have at least one reliable source that clearly makes that statement. Saying Opera has better overall security than Firefox seems to be problematic, as the only truly reliable source we can find is one person's opinion, and even then they say it's a small difference. If you want to say that, you'll need to find a more definitive statement that backs up that claim. With the sources listed so far, I think the strongest statement about overall security a reader could verify is "Opera's overall security is better than IE and on par with Firefox." You can make other, more specific claims (such as Opera's "patch rate" is better than Firefox), but remember to be neutral you cannot ignore claims critical of Opera (for example, Opera has a longer average window of exposure to exploits than Firefox). -- Schapel 23:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering about that window of exposure. Firefox has had several flaws that have remained open for weeks or even months. How can the window of exposure then be 1 day? Also, what about the severity? A very serious security flaw that's left open for one day is worse than a trivial one that's left open for two days, right? In any case, the numbers don't add up for me. -Baffley (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Opera mini is adware again

Beginning with the "Opera Mini 4 final" version, the opera mini browser is using two new adware hooks: it adds undesired sites to your rss feeds and your bookmarks. No matter how many times you delete this spam, they will always appear again (restored by the server-side software). At this moment (December, 2007), the spamming ads that repetitively appear in my phone (connecting from Spain) are Terra.com, ELPAIS.com, Marca.com and two Opera self-advertisements (Opera Community and Opera Mini Blog). This takes more than 50% of the available screen space.

I think this new commercial behaviour should be cited in the "Other editions" > "Mobile phones" where it says "It is offered free of charge" instead of "It is distributed as adware" and where the article says "Opera is offered free of charge for personal computers and mobile phones" (first paragraph). 158.42.250.70 (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of a reliable source that discusses this? —Remember the dot (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Presto in CS3?

Could someone please confirm that Presto is still being used in Adobe Creative Suite 3? Articles that need updating are Opera (web browser), Presto (layout engine), and Adobe Creative Suite. And please put your reference in those articles, thank you. Samsara noadmin (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Opera Mini and Norwegian content

I've reverted this unsourced addition to the article twice:

Because the Opera servers are in Norway, web sites often behave as if the user is in Norway, serving Norwegian ads and occasionally using the Norwegian language by default.

The problem can't be that common since I can't find any site that talks about it. I checked and the English edition of Opera Mini does send "Accept-Language: en" (for English) when it requests a web page. Any Norwegian content must come from IP address sniffing to determine geographic location, which I will admit can result in ads targeted to Norwegians. However, if a web site disregards the Accept-Language header and instead decides to send a Norwegian-language page based on IP address sniffing, that is a bug in the web site, not a bug in Opera Mini.

Do you have any examples of sites that display in Norwegian instead of English when using Opera Mini? —Remember the dot (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Preview release" = officially available and distributed stuff via official downloads, NOT weeklies

Please don't put weekly builds in the infobox. The weeklies are not preview software. They are pre-preview, and only available momentarily to enthusiasts from a blog. They disappear as soon as a new one appears. The preview versions, however, persist on the official web site, forever. :) --Mareklug talk 22:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

mmh, but on the opera server i can find every weekly, so they don't disappear... mabdul 0=* 15:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That's good to hear, in the interest of full access of any Opera build. If they would only all mount on my Macintosh (the dmg images...). However, it does not change the merit of what I just said. But thank you for this correction. :) --Mareklug talk 19:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

High performance

I agree that historically, a feature of Opera has been high performance compared to other browsers. On the other hand, Safari is fast, and recent performance improvements to Firefox make it about as fast as or even faster than Opera. I'd like to see a source that states that Opera has "high performance" compared to Safari or Firefox to justify saying that high performance is a current feature of Opera. If Opera is simply faster than Internet Explorer, I think the statement should be clarified to state that instead. -- Schapel (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Web Browser Market Share

User:Nexia90210 added a market share table at the start, but I'm not sure the source is adequate. As mentioned in the reference, the source is Net Applications, "a marketing company which obtains its data from the Alexa Toolbar or related products". But how can you gather web browser statistics using client-side browser-dependant software? Opera never had an Alexa toolbar. I think that a better source would be the W3C browser statistics page (although that one probably also has a slight bias as web developers visit W3C websites more than casual users). --Vladimir (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The page you linked to is not the W3C browser statistics page. That website (w3cschools.com) is not run by the W3C. It's actually run by a team of programmers in Norway. Found this out from their about page: http://w3schools.com/about/about_refsnes.asp

And also, this page: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0 seems like a good source for browser market share data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.91.47 (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there was also some stuff related to Secunia vulnerabilities copied over, but it doesn't seem to be doing anything. Wouldn't be bad for the article if it did :) --Vladimir (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, best usage stats could be retrieved from Google search, or the Yahoo! homepage or even Wikipedia itself. All toolbars are IE and FF based. Plus Opera doesn't even support any third party toolbars, thus nullifying those toolbar based stats providers completely.—IncidentFlux [ TalkBack | Contributions ] 11:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Opera_(web_browser)/Archive_6&oldid=1137059640"