Access to Internet, and not just the Web


  • Vivaldi Translator

    What was great with Opera, is that it wasn't a browser on the litteral sense : it was a tool to access all Internet, or as much as possible. FTP, Bittorrent, IRC, NNTP, IMAP, POP, HTTP, HTTPS, and more technology than many more. I would like this to be present in Vivaldi as well. And now, in a post-Snowden era, I wish that Vivaldi would integrate the Onion routing/TOR. To access of the rest of Internet, as well as the web. (of course, with those others protocols too ;) )



  • What if the 2.0 part of the Web was considered a new protocol as well?
    A piece of software could show FB updates as well of twitter, etc…



  • @Cqoicebordel:

    What was great with Opera, is that it wasn't a browser on the litteral sense : it was a tool to access all Internet, or as much as possible. FTP, Bittorrent, IRC, NNTP, IMAP, POP, HTTP, HTTPS, and more technology than many more.

    Yeah! and SMTP, VoIP, DSS1, PPTP, OC3, ZHP, PZU and of course PZPN.
    And I'll be proud if I can use Vivaldi for washing and making a christmas cake.
    ;)

    I have in opposition - Vivaldi is a BROWSER not a wash&go product / machine ;)



  • @BloodMan:

    Vivaldi is a BROWSER

    did you notice they are going to implement an email client? The panel is already there: right under the bookmarks… good morning!

    newscpq



  • Yes, going. And Vivaldi BROWSER programmers will be making semi-ideal mail client like Thunderbird (or OperaMail) instead of making Vivaldi BROWSER better BROWSER.
    better cache for 3 years instead of 3 months,
    better keys for 1 year instead of 1 month,
    better speeddial for 2 years instead of 2 months,
    more configuration options for 6 years instead of 6 months,
    better PUT-SOME-BROWSER-FUNCTION for X years instead of X months,
    …because someone want to access ALL internet services via program really designed for ONE internet service (www).
    Brilliant!
    ...and good night.

    Sad. ;(


  • Moderator

    @BloodMan:

    Yes, going. And Vivaldi BROWSER programmers will be making semi-ideal mail client like Thunderbird (or OperaMail) instead of making Vivaldi BROWSER better BROWSER.
    better cache for 3 years instead of 3 months,
    better keys for 1 year instead of 1 month,
    better speeddial for 2 years instead of 2 months,
    more configuration options for 6 years instead of 6 months,
    better PUT-SOME-BROWSER-FUNCTION for X years instead of X months,
    …because someone want to access ALL internet services via program really designed for ONE internet service (www).
    Brilliant!
    ...and good night.

    Sad. ;(

    My recommendation to anyone who feels a web browser should not be part of a suite including an email client, is to stay as far away from Vivaldi as possible. Don't test it, don't talk to your friends about it, and don't comment here. No one needs your negativity.

    A major part of the REASON VIVALDI EXISTS AT ALL is that its founder's vision, and many users' opinion is, that there needs to be a product like a cutting-edge browser with a jillion options, INCLUDING built-in email client. As that is the vision upon which the browser is based, you might as well tell the builder of amphibious vehicles that they should abandon water-compatibility because vehicles should only roll on land, and that's that. If you don't think Vivaldi should be in the business it IS in, feel free to keep it to yourself, and use a browser that limits itself the way you feel browsers should be limited. Then everyone can be happy. The only thing that's "sad" here is your walking into a submarine factory and telling them they need to give up their crazy idea of sailing underwater, and make surface craft instead.



  • Ayespy: And You are… prophet, the guru, and you saying for whole community to all people around the world... like a pope? OK. ;d

    Maybe I do not expressed what I think exactly:
    1. Browser should be a browser. Mail client should be a mail client. IRC client ... etc.
    2. There is no reasonable needs to buildin one in another (I mean in one .exe file) and making a multi-protocol wash machine, messing up in code, increasing size, memory usage, pooring speed and extenting limitations, and increasing exploiting possibility, and waiting for build update because part of program (eg. mail / irc part) is not ready at time, and, and, and...
    3. RSS is ok - because using http.

    Ayespy: Your arguments (from vehicles to submarines) was ridiculous but... irrelevant.


  • Moderator

    "2. There is no reasonable needs to buildin one in another (I mean in one .exe file) and making a multi-protocol wash machine, messing up in code, increasing size, memory usage, pooring speed and extenting limitations, and increasing exploiting possibility, and waiting for build update because part of program (eg. mail / irc part) is not ready at time, and, and, and…"

    You still do not understand how old Opera worked, or why it was a good idea. If you can tell me how the two programs can use different .exe's and yet still share the same user interface, then you might make sense. If you are convinced they have to be different programs, then you fail to understand Jon's vision, and the needs of such as myself. And, for the sake of argument, even if you COULD combine two different .exe's in the same UI, then what savings would be realized by fifteen people developing two programs, compared to fifteen people developing one integrated program?

    (There is such a thing a seamless user interface, where two (or more) programs APPEAR to share a single interface, and I suppose that could be done here - though I'm not convinced that is the only way.) There is an extension called Simplemail that one can install in FireFox. It STOPS web activity to conduct mail activity, and does so very inefficiently. Opera was able to interweave the two activities, intelligently. With a multi-process structure like Blink uses, it seems to me another process would be no more burdensome than another tab.



  • @BloodMan:

    1. Browser should be a browser. Mail client should be a mail client. IRC client … etc.
    2. There is no reasonable needs to buildin one in another (I mean in one .exe file) and making a multi-protocol wash machine, messing up in code, increasing size, memory usage, pooring speed and extenting limitations, and increasing exploiting possibility, and waiting for build update because part of program (eg. mail / irc part) is not ready at time, and, and, and...

    I basically agree. I really don't understand why you want to put everything into one "suite".
    This is what old Opera did. Tried to satisfy everybody, adding more and more functions, used by very few people (but very active in the forum). In the end you spend 90% of your time and resources to develop and debug functions which are used by 0.1% of the community. :sick:
    I really like what I have seen of the Vivaldi browser so far, and I hope they make the right decisions to create a successful product. B)


  • Moderator

    I continue to see posts promoting the idea that it was a "mistake" for old opera to have email. The very fact that no browser integrates email is a prime REASON Jon is building Vivaldi. You may think he is wrong, but I continue to be baffled why anyone would use a product from someone whom they believe should not be building that product, but rather, a different one.

    People who don't want the features of classic Opera, should be following neuOpera or Chrome, not Vivaldi.



  • @helsten2:

    @BloodMan:

    1. Browser should be a browser. Mail client should be a mail client. IRC client … etc.
    2. There is no reasonable needs to buildin one in another (I mean in one .exe file) and making a multi-protocol wash machine, messing up in code, increasing size, memory usage, pooring speed and extenting limitations, and increasing exploiting possibility, and waiting for build update because part of program (eg. mail / irc part) is not ready at time, and, and, and...

    I basically agree. I really don't understand why you want to put everything into one "suite". …

    They don't want to put everything into one suite. But there are some things that they do want to put in. Mail is just one of them. A key thing so many users forget in their rush to embrace "simplicity" is that a browser feature which seems "bloat" to them is "essential" to another user. That 0.1% number you quoted is significantly larger than that, out in the "community" regarding mail; but the key point is that the community is made up of users each wanting certain important (to them) features, and who together may constitute only a few percent of the total users - but that same thing is true across a great many different features. Hence the community is made up of a collection of users each wanting many different things in a browser, but collectively seeking a browser which can deliver the most to all of them as users. The whole is made up of the sum of the parts, though each part may individually be small.

    There are a myriad of other browsers out there presenting themselves to be simple and single-focused… but there are almost none any more (apart from old Opera) that are truly feature-rich and highly configurable - elements which some users desperately need. And there's little point in making a browser configurable if it lacks features to configure. As I understand Jon & company's vision, this is what they want to deliver in Vivaldi - a rich-featured, configurable browser "for their friends". So arguing against that is arguing against the very DNA of this browser and its developers... hence, it's pointless. Neither I nor other folks here are telling you to go use some other browser, but if you can't bear the kind of browser Vivaldi's vision is heading toward, then you'd probably indeed be happier elsewhere.


  • Moderator

    @RRR13:

    @helsten2:

    I basically agree. I really don't understand why you want to put everything into one "suite".
    This is what old Opera did. Tried to satisfy everybody

    You want to understand why Vivaldi is following the plan that it was created to follow? :lol:

    Exactly. "Vivaldi should not be Vivaldi. It should be something else." Such a person (say, being Jewish) would join a Christian congregation and then complain that both old and new testaments are included in the sermon, when only the old testament applies to human life. You're in the wrong pew, buddy.



  • @Ayespy:

    I continue to see posts promoting the idea that it was a "mistake" for old opera to have email. The very fact that no browser integrates email is a prime REASON Jon is building Vivaldi. You may think he is wrong, but I continue to be baffled why anyone would use a product from someone whom they believe should not be building that product, but rather, a different one.

    Well, I am one of those guys. This means that I will not use any email client embedded in a browser - unless it is better than any the specialized mail clients out there (very unlikely). I also assume I can disable the mail function if I don't want it (as I could in Opera).
    Of course, I would use the browser - if I think the functionality and implementation is better than my current default browser (Opera).
    But my major concern (also based on the "old" Opera experience) is the time and resources it takes to develop, debug and maintain these "extra" functions. This killed "old" Opera. I hope it won't kill Vivaldi.
    Jon knows the history. I am sure he also knows when to say "No". ;)



  • @helsten2:

    @Ayespy:

    I continue to see posts promoting the idea that it was a "mistake" for old opera to have email. The very fact that no browser integrates email is a prime REASON Jon is building Vivaldi. You may think he is wrong, but I continue to be baffled why anyone would use a product from someone whom they believe should not be building that product, but rather, a different one.

    Well, I am one of those guys. This means that I will not use any email client embedded in a browser - unless it is better than any the specialized mail clients out there (very unlikely). …

    Curiously, I'm also one who never used the mail feature in old Opera because I personally prefer my stand-alone client - but I strongly support those who want to see it integrated into the Vivaldi browser. That's in large part, because I recognize how much it aids their workflow for certain users when well-integrated and not just a limited-integration, bolt-on appendage like a mail extension. I recognize that whatever helps other users materially in adopting and using this browser will help me in the long run, whether or not I ever use the same features. That's because it's that mass of users together, each running Vivaldi for his own reasons, in his own way, and with his own mix of built-in features, who will make it a financial success for those developing it. And if that happens, we'll all be here in years to come celebrating what a great ride it's been.


  • Moderator

    @helsten2:

    @Ayespy:

    I continue to see posts promoting the idea that it was a "mistake" for old opera to have email. The very fact that no browser integrates email is a prime REASON Jon is building Vivaldi. You may think he is wrong, but I continue to be baffled why anyone would use a product from someone whom they believe should not be building that product, but rather, a different one.

    Well, I am one of those guys. This means that I will not use any email client embedded in a browser - unless it is better than any the specialized mail clients out there (very unlikely). I also assume I can disable the mail function if I don't want it (as I could in Opera).
    Of course, I would use the browser - if I think the functionality and implementation is better than my current default browser (Opera).
    But my major concern (also based on the "old" Opera experience) is the time and resources it takes to develop, debug and maintain these "extra" functions. This killed "old" Opera. I hope it won't kill Vivaldi.
    Jon knows the history. I am sure he also knows when to say "No". ;)

    As an insider, Jon understands, better than any of us, what did and did not spell the end of Presto (hint - it was not too many features, including email - if it were, he would not have promised it here, before the project even got off the ground.) You may rest assured he knows what to work on, and what to leave for later (or never).



  • @Ayespy:

    You still do not understand how old Opera worked […]

    O rly? I understand. Im coder with 25yrs experience…

    @Ayespy:

    […] or why it was a good idea.

    …and I say it was bad idea. Thats all.

    @Ayespy:

    fifteen people developing two programs, compared to fifteen people developing one integrated program

    OR, 12 developers working on ui/ext/browser/installer/whatever part, 3 on mail client part (where one understand POP3/SMTP/IMAP/SSL and rest don't). Then Vivaldi (and community) will wait for mail-part for Vivaldi before build release.
    [yup, im unfair now but that worst scenario may happen in real world]

    @Ayespy:

    With a multi-process structure like Blink uses, it seems to me another process would be no more burdensome than another tab.

    Sounds like commercial break…
    On the other hand: Tell me name of program with multi-function (I mean: fire+water) that are useful / success etc. ?

    I understand You (but I disagree), so please You understand me - I do not reject Vivaldi cause builldin mail client ;d Just simply: I say its a bad idea.

    ...and good morning.



  • And it's perfectly true the suites did not pass the market exam.
    We may say Jon S von Techker vision of a single application for both web+email is his personal view.



  • @BloodMan:

    O rly? I understand. Im coder with 25yrs experience…

    I think he means that you have not used the mail client in the old Opera, and therefore you do not understand how useful it was to have mail integrated into the browser.


  • Moderator

    Then you and Jon will simply have to disagree on this, as it is one of the founding ideas of Vivaldi - not a run down a side street.

    I suspect, btw, that there are 1,2, or 3 mail developers who occasionally check in with the browser developers to ensure their part of the project will dovetail with the rest.



  • I just don't understand; why do people see this thing happening where a bunch of like-minded people are gathering around a common vision and feel the need to gate crash and constantly rain on the parade? It's some new perverse form of trolling!

    I think I'm right in saying that most people here see what Vivaldi is aiming for and like the direction it's going, so can everyone who seems to have the POLAR OPPOSITE VIEW please just shut up!? You're not winning any popularity contests or scoring any points and frankly it's already annoying as heck…


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.