What Vivaldi wants vs. what users want



  • Re: Serious SSL woes that Vivaldi shares with Chromium and others

    Hi @yngve,

    regarding "any and all servers": your arguments are funny. You seem to live in another Universe, far far from the reality of our Universe. Our reality is following.

    1. There are not only home pages in internet. There are millions of applications that don't use web servers (Apache, Nginx, MS IIS, etc.), but use libraries that implement HTTP. Switching to TLS 1.2 is not a matter of 5 min disabling SSLv3 on your Linux box. It is a matter of finding a provider that can refactor the application (the old provider does not exist any more), migrate it to the TLS 1.2, integrate it into the existing system landscape.

    2. There are tons of software providers that use outdated technologies, development processes, tools, libraries. An application that uses SSLv3 libraries could have been implemented not only 20 years ago, but also 10 years, 5 years ago or even one month ago. If somebody now in 2017 implements an application that uses SSLv3 libraries, will you say it is running for 16 - 20 years with SSLv3? Come on.
      You will not buy such software, I will not. But some customers will.

    3. Some companies have still applications running SSLv3. What if provider does not exist any more? What if company cannot afford upgrade to a version with TLS 1.2? The applications are running in DMZ, there are strict policies so that no user has advanced permissions, nobody can use Wireshark or netcat. Application with SSLv3 contains non-classified information. Backup done regularly. The company considers it acceptable to use SSLv3 for such application.

    You say effectively "No guys. We at Vivaldi don't allow you to use YOUR application in YOUR intranet with our browser". You have just zero respect to millions of such users.

    Look around. Besides home pages and some news web sites there are millions of intranets with millions of applications there that use HTTP. Your statistics refers public internet, right? Do you have statistics about intranets? Not AWS Virtual Private Cloud or similar, but the old own intranet? What about GM, IBM, VW, Daimler, General Electric? They will not tell you how many SSLv3 applications they have. What about millions of small companies?

    Are electric cars good? Sure. Someday all cars will be electric. What if the government would prohibit to drive any non-electric cars from now on? Is it fair to force millions of people to throw billions of dollars invested in their old cars and to force them to buy electric ones?
    This is exactly what Vivaldi, Chrome, FireFox do.

    Not so many years ago FireFox and Opera had courage to do things differently from the trend, from MS IE. Now there is no courage. If I had to choose between Opera, Chromium, Chrome and Vivaldi now, I would prefer Vivaldi. But all the differences are on the micro-level. On the macro-level all of them are the same: same concept, same feeling.
    Google decided not to support SSLv3. What does Vivaldi do? Vivaldi is afraid to be different from Google. Vivaldi has no courage to be different. Vivaldi has no courage to give a hand to millions of users who still badly need SSLv3.

    The worst thing is that you believe you better know what users need. No. You don't know.
    Even when somebody asks to keep SSLv3 support, you answer them "No. Go spend a lot of money and buy new applications with TLS 1.2, change your internal processes, spend 2-3 years to adapt to them".

    The recent Vivaldi release notes:
    https://vivaldi.com/blog/the-browser-you-want/
    says following:
    "Vivaldi 1.12 – Giving you the browser you want".
    This is ridiculous.
    You IGNORE the users.
    You give not what the users want.
    You give users what YOU want.



  • What's next, whining about no support for msdos v5.0? Get a grip, software gets outdated, and support for it eventually stop. Vivaldi at some point also stopped supporting windows XP which was a good OS. In 2 years and some months even Windows 7 will get no more support from their creators and sooner or later even other softwares will stop supporting it aswell.
    Some people still use outdated legacy sw? Their problem on finding a way to continue using it. As a coder myself, I have to run after new tech continuosly, we can't just sit there saying "I know only how to code for 6502, who cares about Pentiums, what about all the millions of Apple ][, Atari 800XL and Commodore 64 out there?" ;D



  • @ian-coog
    Follow Google. Have no your own opinion. Have no courage. Be afraid to be different.



  • @ian-coog said in What Vivaldi wants vs. what users want:

    here saying "I know o

    Support of XP was dropped not because of some vision, but just because of development costs. They became to high.
    Support of SSLv3 was dropped because of an idea "we will teach you to be secure". The communication security layer is pretty good isolated and uses good abstraction. That's why it doesn't prevent Vivaldi from any new features and its support is pretty cheap compared to Win XP. So this is mainly the standing of Vivaldi developers: "we will teach you, we will force you".
    This is simply not professional.

    Regarding your personal upgrades: When you act alone, you are fast. When a company has 2000, 45000, 370000 employees, they cannot replace thousands of applications just via "sudo apt-get upgrade". I takes years. Old vendors are not available. Replacement of a single old monolithic application means buying 5 new ones, that are modern, but have small focus. They need to be integrated. Other applications have to be updated to be able to collaborate with the new ones. Often internal processes need to be changed. Etc.
    Sure, this is unavoidable. This is the progress. User get tons of new features, their work becomes way more comfortable, more efficient.

    But some providers like Vivaldi say "I drop this feature because I want to teach you, I want to force you". That is the point.



  • Use those even more niche browsers that still support those wanted features. Although, no one develop them anymore or just 1-2 person who maintain it. That's including super old IE.

    Or better, build your own browsers or hire programmers to do just that. Because it seems, like you said, no major browsers devs bother to do it.
    This method far more secure (even if you use ancient protocols) than relying to global used browsers like FF, GChrome, Opera & of course, Vivaldi. You could tweak the codes based on your (or your company) need only.



  • @dleon said in What Vivaldi wants vs. what users want:

    build your own browsers or hire programmers to do just that

    ... or Vivaldi just could offer paid version with support of SSLv3. Compare to Java: Oracle offers paid support for outdated JDKs and many companies pay for that.



  • @mentallurg said in What Vivaldi wants vs. what users want:

    Oracle

    a company with a revenue of 30 billion dollars/year can allocate a team to maintain such thing, Vivaldi as of now can't.


  • Moderator

    @mentallurg ...which would require an awfully high price or an awful lot of users right out of the box, to fund the extra development team to fork, patch and maintain their own proprietary version of Chromium, or even more (and a two or three year runway) to build their own engine.



  • With an outdated OS you can not expect to be able to use modern software.
    Whether we want it or not, technologies advance, especially in computing and it is normal that some other software is no longer compatible.
    Affirming why Vivaldi does not give us the browser we want is a fallacy, also unfair for the thousands who strive to improve it, not only reporting failures that may be, but providing ideas, solutions and wishes for upcoming versions that are often met. It is therefore a direct product of the community that you accuse, only because it did not occur to you to update your OS.
    If you do not want to spend money to buy a new version of Windows, you can use Linux, for example Kubuntu, with an environment quite similar to Windows, it costs nothing, you will always have the latest version and you will not have compatibility problems with Vivaldi.



  • @catweazle said in What Vivaldi wants vs. what users want:

    If you do not want to spend money to buy a new version of Windows, you can use Linux, for example Kubuntu, with an environment quite similar to Windows, it costs nothing

    if one has own written software, rewriting everything from windows to linux will cost even more money on formation of the coder(s) and pratically everything must be rewritten from scratch, and starting with 0 knowledge on the platform is a disaster in terms of time taken and quality of the product.



  • @ian-coog said in What Vivaldi wants vs. what users want:

    @catweazle said in What Vivaldi wants vs. what users want:

    If you do not want to spend money to buy a new version of Windows, you can use Linux, for example Kubuntu, with an environment quite similar to Windows, it costs nothing

    if one has own written software, rewriting everything from windows to linux will cost even more money on formation of the coder(s) and pratically everything must be rewritten from scratch, and starting with 0 knowledge on the platform is a disaster in terms of time taken and quality of the product.

    With a small difference, almost all Windows programs, especially those of older versions of this OS, usually work without problems in Linux with Wine, I know.
    Apart from that many programs that include, or are available for Linux also don`t have problems with importing MS files.
    Linux is much more compatible with Windows programs than Windows with Linux programs, so switching to this OS does not cost as much.
    Apart from this it is also not a problem to install Linux in dual boot, it even offers you this possibility and even automatically creates the necessary partitions to work as first or second OS, apart from Windows.
    After this when turning on the PC you will see a menu where you can choose which OS you want to use



  • @catweazle so one should install linux to continue using windows in a virtual machine? :D I really fail to see the use in this. If I know that I can't rewrite a program for another OS, I'd stick simply to that OS I have.
    If I had an old 1990's legacy DOS program that is not working on win7 or even on a VM running DOS due to HW incompatibilities, the only choiche would be finding an old 486, refurbish it and installing DOS 6 and hoping for the best.
    I know because I had to do that for an old badge reader, the software is reading thru a parallel port and that's hard to find on modern PCs. It still works today.
    The OP wants to use some software layer that has been declared harmful, outdated, unsupported etc., he better stick to older software that supports it and accept all the risks, but for sure he can't ask others to do the same.



  • @ian-coog said in What Vivaldi wants vs. what users want:

    @catweazle so one should install linux to continue using windows in a virtual machine? :D I really fail to see the use in this. If I know that I can't rewrite a program for another OS, I'd stick simply to that OS I have.
    If I had an old 1990's legacy DOS program that is not working on win7 or even on a VM running DOS due to HW incompatibilities, the only choiche would be finding an old 486, refurbish it and installing DOS 6 and hoping for the best.
    I know because I had to do that for an old badge reader, the software is reading thru a parallel port and that's hard to find on modern PCs. It still works today.
    The OP wants to use some software layer that has been declared harmful, outdated, unsupported etc., he better stick to older software that supports it and accept all the risks, but for sure he can't ask others to do the same.

    Not for use in a virtual environment, Linux has a program called Wine, which is an emulator for Windows programs.
    But if you're right that in a very old computer you can only run programs for this old system.
    But even in a 486 you can install different versions of Linux to rekindle it and then if it is capable of running new programs, of Linux, of course, or use it as a small server.
    But having a PC with XP, although a discontinued OS, the PC is capable of running newer OS, Windows 7 will probably work without problems.
    But the alternative is this, keep the XP and install Linux as a second OS, so you keep your programs for XP and you can use Linux to navigate with Vivaldi.


Log in to reply
 

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