Turbo anyone?
-
Both server resources and bandwidth cost for not only Turbo, but Sync as well, would be non-trivial. This is one of the reasons I personally decline to push for these upgrades. If/when the browser is paying for itself, I think these are some of the earliest features that ought to be brought on line. Prior to that, I think resources are most wisely spent making the browser itself so attractive that few can resist its gravitational pull.
That said, promotion and public relations are primary predictors of success. And if, in the view of management, these would be regarded as promotional costs (because, say, opinion surveying or market testing has shown that such features would rapidly increase the number of eyeballs accessing the web via Vivaldi), then the costs would be justified earlier than later. I'm not in favor, however, of throwing promotional money at hunches. There is SO much that can be done with phone calls to reporters at tech journals and with "earned media," at little or no cost, spending money on promotion just to be spending money on promotion is, I believe, a bad idea.
-
My unsolicited advices above are made largely in self-interest. I want to have access to the fully-filled promise of Vivaldi, and want it to stay around essentially forever, and not be abandoned by its sole investor as a mistake, a money pit, and a bad investment. Hence, I contribute my own $.02 worth as to what I imagine to be the most sustainable path to growth and success.
-
Hi,
Trying to sum this up.
- You guys think it's a nice feature. For those on slow connections it's a must have feature.
- You do not want this as a high priority feature, but would like to see it implemented.
- It seems to be more important on mobile platforms that in a desktop browser.
Am I missing something?
Thank you guys! Let's see where this will take us. But first we need to get a beta out!
//Christian - Vivaldi Technologies
-
Yeah that seems to be the consensus.
-
Matches my opinion.
-
Hi,
Trying to sum this up.
- You guys think it's a nice feature. For those on slow connections it's a must have feature.
It's a must have for people on slow connections (developing countries, rural areas)
It's a must have for people on well developed countries on 3G/4G connections, which means fast conncetins but limited (and costly) data bundle.- You do not want this as a high priority feature, but would like to see it implemented.
Personally i consider this, not highest priority, but high priority (say, some as sync and mail)
- It seems to be more important on mobile platforms that in a desktop browser.
The border is blurred any phone has a data bundle nowadays, any phone can do tethering, many laptop have an internal 3G modem and even on desktop any people prefers the felxibility of a cellular connection over the unlimited data of landlines
So I would say almost mandatory for smarphone users, very important for laptop/tablet/hybrid users and for a part of desktop users.
The metric will vary depending on the country, on the mobile tariffs and so on.
Am I missing something?
That service could be an income source for vivaldi (if the feature will be properly explained/advertised), isn't mandatory to have it for free
If an user, thanks to "vivaldi compress" can pay 20$ instead of 40$ because a smaller data bundle (or a slower connection) , can afford a monthly fee of few $
-
I agree, it is highly desirable, but can wait on more important things.
This would be a big infrastructure change for Vivaldi, and require serious money.Cornwall has a lot of slow rural connections, and areas with no broadband, mobile phone signal and no digital TV.
I have found Turbo to be very helpful in a busy internet cafe or shared wifi, especially when some idiot comes in and starts downloading their torrents.
I also find that it confuses some sites, so I can bypass some country and ISP blocks :whistle:Even on my desktop I use Turbo very often.
If my 2 house-mates are hammering the connection already, Opera is my only option to load sites.Yes connections speeds get faster each year, but peoples expectations and demand for more, bigger and faster, mean that opening a website in 2015 takes much longer than it did on a slower PC 10 years ago.
Many idiot self-proclaimed web designers have no idea about optimisation, or that 7MB for a background image is not clever.
Multiply that stupidity across all the graphical content and CDNs in the page, and you have a slow mess.I wonder if the CoralCDN developer would consider investment from Vivaldi to make-over the old CDN.
As the web goes over to HTTPS, Coral will become obsolete, so it will have to die or change
It could provide a way to decentralise the compression and caching "if" it can be re-purposed. -
Would Google object to use of their Data Saver Plugin in Chromium-based browsers other than Chrome? (I wouldn't blame them if they did object, but I don't see any terms expressly forbidding it.)
(I noticed in vivaldi://flags , the experimental features settings page carried over from Chromium, there's a
Enable Data Saver Lo-Fi mode Mac, Windows, Linux, Chrome OS, Android
Puts the Data Saver in Lo-Fi mode when enabled. #enable-data-reduction-proxy-lo-fi
Enableflag, but I assume that does nothing or works improperly without the plugin installed.)
-
Yes, please!
I'm a big fan of speed. In fact, I've been really into Maxthon Nitro lately. But, of course, it lacks quite a bit. Would be cool if Vivaldi could use this "turbo" mode to come as close to the speed of Nitro as possible
-
I think is really needed, but not as traffic economy, but as integrated VPN, since there is more and more countries where gouvernment tries to dumbly restrict all sitizens to access sites they do not want. Turbo primarily used for that now
-
I think is really needed, but not as traffic economy, but as integrated VPN, since there is more and more countries where gouvernment tries to dumbly restrict all sitizens to access sites they do not want. Turbo primarily used for that now
If it gets used a lot to evade censorship, that unfortunately may not work for long, as the same governments may block access to the service's address, as they already try to do with VPNs.
-
One good feature less, then. Sadly.
Vivaldi is less popular than other platforms, so there is high chance to be unnoticed.
At least, in my opinion censorship is not a method for mature society, and I don't support that in anyway.
So many years and Turbo still not blocked, so I think you not right. -
One good feature less, then. Sadly.
Vivaldi is less popular than other platforms, so there is high chance to be unnoticed.
At least, in my opinion censorship is not a method for mature society, and I don't support that in anyway.
So many years and Turbo still not blocked, so I think you not right.Yeah, it may fly under the radar. Like I said, it would probably depend on how popular it got.
And yeah, I'm not generally in favor of censorship either (except for things where transmission of content victimizes someone, as in stuff like pornographically exploitative photos of children, or incitement to murder).
-
I used it on Opera when I'm tethering on my laptop from Cellphone as I have limited data plan. So even though the speed is not slow but compression saves my data plan. My vote for it.
-
Let me see if I understand this correctly…
It's the system first introduced by Opera, that proxies all your connections over a server at Opera, that compresses the data and sends it to your browser. Is that correct?
IMHO, it is useless.
1. From a privacy standpoint, it is undesirable, as it makes all your data go through a third party's server. What happens when some other party decides to root that server?
2. Technically, it should be unneeded, as any decent website already should have server side compression enabled. OK, a lot of sites still haven't enabled compression, but this is an incentive not to enable it.
3. From a routing standpoint, it just adds latency because you need to pass through the third party's server. And in case the compression server is out, a lot of people lose connectivity.
4. From an economical standpoint, it's idiotic, as somebody else will pay for it and I can't see a profit possibility. It just drains resources from the Vivaldi developers that could be used to do other things.
5. In the age of https everywhere, it's not the future, as you can't compress encrypted content, I believe. Besides, most, if not all secure sites already have server side compression. -
Let me see if I understand this correctly…
It's the system first introduced by Opera, that proxies all your connections over a server at Opera, that compresses the data and sends it to your browser. Is that correct?
IMHO, it is useless.
1. From a privacy standpoint, it is undesirable, as it makes all your data go through a third party's server. What happens when some other party decides to root that server?
It involves trusting Vivaldi to competently run a service. It's a potential point of failure, but Opera Turbo/Off Road, for example, has never been compromised, that I'm aware of.
2. Technically, it should be unneeded, as any decent website already should have server side compression enabled. OK, a lot of sites still haven't enabled compression, but this is an incentive not to enable it.
It's not just about lossless compression. Much additional data-saving can be gotten by lowering JPEG quality.
3. From a routing standpoint, it just adds latency because you need to pass through the third party's server. And in case the compression server is out, a lot of people lose connectivity.
In many of the cases for which it would be used, there's already significant latency, so as long as it's done well, the addition is negligible. At times, I've used Opera Turbo for things like tethered connections, and the decreased time to download page assets definitely make pages load significantly faster overall, despite any increase in latency. As for what happens if the compression server is out, people can just click Turbo off.
4. From an economical standpoint, it's idiotic, as somebody else will pay for it and I can't see a profit possibility. It just drains resources from the Vivaldi developers that could be used to do other things.
It's a feature. Like bookmark synching or any other feature, it'd have to be judged on its estimated cost/benefit ratio (the benefit being it attracts additional users). Both Opera (Turbo/Off Road) and Google (Data Saver) have judged the costs to be worth it.
5. In the age of https everywhere, it's not the future, as you can't compress encrypted content, I believe. Besides, most, if not all secure sites already have server side compression.
It's true that in Chrome (with Data Saver turned on), and most current versions of Opera (with Turbo turned on), the proxy is not used for HTTPS connections – the sites are connected to directly, the same as if Data Saver/Turbo was turned off.
However, that doesn't have to be the case: In Opera Mini for Android, the proxy does act as an intermediary even for HTTPS. The proxy server acts as an HTTPS client itself, reading the secure page, compressing and reformatting it, and sending it from the proxy to the phone app over an encrypted connection secured with Opera's own keys. (Obviously, this involves trusting Opera's proxy server with all transmitted information.)
-
It involves trusting Vivaldi to competently run a service. It's a potential point of failure, but Opera Turbo/Off Road, for example, has never been compromised, that I'm aware of.
Look up Eleonore exploit kit telnet…
It's only because Opera has a limited market share that this didn't grow into a commercially exploitable botnet with built-in high performance proxy.
Another problem is server side security. It allows anyone to try and brute force anything through Turbo servers, until the compression server's ip's get blocked. A script kiddie's wet dream, if you want. I'm just thinking about this one because today I had to look at some server logs and they were filled with scan errors, coming from bots and users looking for vulnerable WP installations. Some of those were coming from Turbo. They will be automatically blocked from now on, meaning legitimate users no longer can reach innocent websites. It just breaks stuff.
it's just yesteryear's solution to a problem that shouldn't be there if everyone (site owners and network providers) did their job in the first place.
I agree it would be nice in low bandwidth situations, but the sad truth is that most users will leave it on all the time.
-
Isildur wrote: It involves trusting Vivaldi to competently run a service. It's a potential point of failure, but Opera Turbo/Off Road, for example, has never been compromised, that I'm aware of.
Look up Eleonore exploit kit telnet…
Googling "Eleonore exploit kit telnet", I see various posts related to the Eleanore exploit kit. I don't see any mention of Opera Turbo being compromised.
Telnet? Are you referring to the fact that the Eleanore kit probed for the telnet URL vulnerability (CVE-2004-0473/iDEFENSE Security Advisory 05.12.04) fixed all the way back in Opera 7.50 (in 2004), long before Opera Turbo was introduced in 2009?
It's only because Opera has a limited market share that this didn't grow into a commercially exploitable botnet with built-in high performance proxy.
Not sure what you're referring to. it sounds like you're referring to a particular incident, but all you mentioned was an exploit kit.
Also, running a botnet though a single proxy would negate the point of a botnet for things like DDoS attacks, so I don't know what you mean by a "botnet with built-in high performance proxy". There's no benefit I can think of for a botnet to funnel its requests through a proxy.
Another problem is server side security. It allows anyone to try and brute force anything through Turbo servers, until the compression server's ip's get blocked. A script kiddie's wet dream, if you want. I'm just thinking about this one because today I had to look at some server logs and they were filled with scan errors, coming from bots and users looking for vulnerable WP installations. Some of those were coming from Turbo. They will be automatically blocked from now on, meaning legitimate users no longer can reach innocent websites. It just breaks stuff.
it's just yesteryear's solution to a problem that shouldn't be there if everyone (site owners and network providers) did their job in the first place.
I don't know what it means to say that it's "yesteryear's solution" when a browser market leader like Chrome is still doing it. Also, whatever site owners "should do", users still have to deal with the Internet as it is. I'm not sure what you're referring to network providers for, unless you're complaining about the fact that not all residents of Earth have broadband yet.
I agree it would be nice in low bandwidth situations, but the sad truth is that most users will leave it on all the time.
Most users don't leave Opera Turbo or Google Data Saver on, to my knowledge, unless they find it benefiting them.
-
5. In the age of https everywhere, it's not the future, as you can't compress encrypted content, I believe. Besides, most, if not all secure sites already have server side compression.
It's true that in Chrome (with Data Saver turned on), and most current versions of Opera (with Turbo turned on), the proxy is not used for HTTPS connections – the sites are connected to directly, the same as if Data Saver/Turbo was turned off.
However, that doesn't have to be the case: In Opera Mini for Android, the proxy does act as an intermediary even for HTTPS. The proxy server acts as an HTTPS client itself, reading the secure page, compressing and reformatting it, and sending it from the proxy to the phone app over an encrypted connection secured with Opera's own keys. (Obviously, this involves trusting Opera's proxy server with all transmitted information.)
This would defeat the entire purpose of HTTPS; A third party should not be decrypting the data being sent over SSL to/from a remote server. If a third party acts as an intermediate decrypting and re-encrypting the "secure" data you're sharing with another party, then it's not a secure connection to that website anymore. You might as well be sharing your credit card info in plain-text. If you're using any service that you even suspect tries to do this, It would be in your best interest to cease immediately.
According to Opera's FAQ, they do not engage in this shady practice: http://www.opera.com/help/mobile/android#secure
"At Opera, we take your privacy very seriously. If you browse a secure site, like your bank or email, Opera stays out of the way. Your sensitive data is sent directly between your device and the secure site."
-
This would defeat the entire purpose of HTTPS; A third party should not be decrypting the data being sent over SSL to/from a remote server. If a third party acts as an intermediate decrypting and re-encrypting the "secure" data you're sharing with another party, then it's not a secure connection to that website anymore. You might as well be sharing your credit card info in plain-text. If you're using any service that you even suspect tries to do this, It would be in your best interest to cease immediately.
According to Opera's FAQ, they do not engage in this shady practice: http://www.opera.com/help/mobile/android#secure
"At Opera, we take your privacy very seriously. If you browse a secure site, like your bank or email, Opera stays out of the way. Your sensitive data is sent directly between your device and the secure site."
You found information on Opera Mobile for Android, not Opera Mini. Please read posts carefully before contradicting them. Opera Mini is not the same as Opera's main app for Android, Opera Mobile. Opera Mini is their browser for simpler phones and/or more extremely limited data connections, situations that require more extreme compression. (It originally was available just as a Java ME MIDP midlet, all the way back in 2005.)
It does not "defeat the entire purpose of HTTPS". HTTPS is for keeping data away from unauthorized eyes. You decide who is authorized. If you use Opera Mini, you're explicitly deciding to trust Opera.
From http://www.opera.com/turbo :
We take privacy very seriously, no matter how you are using our products.
Depending on the Opera product you are using, your connections to secure websites may either be made directly without using turbo compression, or they may be made via our turbo compression servers.
With most of our products, if you browse a secure site with turbo mode enabled, like your bank or email, we get out of the way. Your secure data is sent directly between your device and the site. With video, we can tell a site to change the bitrate that streams to your device, but we can't look at what you're streaming.
In Opera Mini for Android, our servers connect to secure websites and your device connects securely to our servers. Our servers make sure your device knows whether the website connection can be made securely or not. This is done solely to compress all of the content going to your device (including the secure content). Your privacy is still respected.
(emphasis added)
As long as Opera remains committed to acting responsibly, there is nothing inherently "shady" about this. It's simply how Opera Mini works. It is secure, so long as Opera operates their Mini service without any security breaches. If you don't trust Opera's servers to handle your private data, simply don't use Opera Mini.
It's the security equivalent of dialing into a server with RDP or VNC and using a browser at the remote server. You're OK as long as the server is secure and the admin is trustworthy.