[HN Gopher] Vivaldi 4.0
___________________________________________________________________
Vivaldi 4.0
Author : 0x49d1
Score : 431 points
Date : 2021-06-09 07:41 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (vivaldi.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (vivaldi.com)
| m3kw9 wrote:
| " Simply put, the era of blindly trusting Big Tech is over.", but
| why should I trust small tech? How are these privacy features
| compared with Apple?
| fpoling wrote:
| It is really hard to subpoena a server in Iceland. Iceland gave
| asylum to Robert Fischer despite huge press from US to
| extradite him.
| premium-komodo wrote:
| I keep an eye on Vivaldi because it might be the one browser that
| isn't going insane or becoming intolerable in one way or another.
| I'd probably switch if they'd offer some subscription model so
| that it's clear what I'm paying for, and that they're not making
| money off of me any underhanded way.
| solmag wrote:
| I would love to use Vivaldi but it is by far the slowest browser
| I've tried to use.
| oblio wrote:
| Vivaldi Mail? That took a while :-D
|
| Vivaldi is developed by a team created by the former Opera
| founder and CEO. Vivaldi kind of tries to re-create the spirit of
| Opera, but I think it's going to be too hard to do it.
|
| For those who didn't use it, Opera was first a paid browser
| (which limited its reach), then an ad-supported browser (which
| again limited its reach). It then finally became a free browser
| but by then it was too late.
|
| It had its own, super fast, rendering engine (I forget its name,
| Presto?). It had a built in email client, feed reader, calendar
| (unfortunately with no Exchange or Gmail integration), a notes
| app, a powerful download manager and even a Bitorrent client. And
| a TON of features and UI flexibility.
|
| It was super compact, a marvel of engineering and UX design that
| managed to pack all those things in a package of about 5MB at the
| time, and you wouldn't even see or load the extra functionality
| like the email client if you didn't use it.
|
| Unfortunately with HTML5 and the Chrome-ification of the web, it
| couldn't keep up :-(
|
| Vivaldi tries to do the same on top of web techs and web techs
| just can't handle it. Web techs are almost as flexible but
| they're really slow and bulky.
|
| Still, I wish them luck.
| marban wrote:
| Not to forget Opera Mini which did server-side rendering for
| mobiles. Results were WAP-like quality and mostly sucked (by
| nature of device's capabilities back then).
| leokennis wrote:
| Disagree. In 2007 I used a Nokia 6300
| (https://i.imgur.com/5ezXN1R.png) and I had an unlimited data
| plan for EUR10/month (because, who was going to use a lot of
| data on 2G on a small feature phone?).
|
| I used to smoothly browse the web on it using Opera Mini. It
| had a simulated mouse and rendered most stuff excellently.
| forty wrote:
| I disagree. Opera mini allowed me to browse the web almost
| normally (I was using a Nokia E65) and I never really
| understood why I regularly see people saying the iPhone
| brought internet to smartphones or something of the sort.
| pmontra wrote:
| I also used Opera on my old Symbian phone. Probably the
| number of iPhones after two or three years was larger than
| the number of mobile devices that people actually used to
| browse the web before the iPhone. Nevertheless where I live
| (Italy) the number of Android devices were always greater
| than the number of iPhones. I'm thinking about the Galaxy S
| and S2 in the very early 2010s and the other flagship
| phones of the day. So, the iPhone brought the touchscreen
| to the masses (the iPod too), Android brought the mobile
| internet.
| forty wrote:
| Yes I give them touch screen. I admit I was a touch
| screen skeptic (the kind of person who became mad when
| someone would touch a screen so doing that on a regular
| basis seemed a really bad idea to me ^^) and did not get
| a phone with a touch screen until much later, when they
| were basically the only option :)
| jlelse wrote:
| Opera Mini is still a thing.
| Ayesh wrote:
| Yes, I gave it a spin for old times sake. It's now full of
| ads, sometimes even popping up in lockscreen.
| bookofsand wrote:
| paid => ads => free. How is a 'free browser' supposed to pay
| its developers?
| ols wrote:
| They licensed the browser for devices like set-top boxes and
| similar devices. There was also money coming from Google (for
| using it as a default search engine). I guess they had also
| some business model built around Opera Mini and relations
| with mobile providers.
| Aa9C4xPz43Gg7k6 wrote:
| Did you say that desktop should be subsidized by non-
| desktop browsers?
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| _> It had its own, super fast, rendering engine (I forget its
| name, Presto?). It had a built in email client, feed reader,
| calendar (unfortunately with no Exchange or Gmail integration),
| a notes app, a powerful download manager and even a Bitorrent
| client. And a TON of features and UI flexibility._
|
| And don't forget its MDI interface [1] which made using all
| those features a joy and is still today better than all the tab
| implementations of modern browsers (for power users at least).
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-document_interface
| muyuu wrote:
| it abandoned the Opera engine though, to focus on the UI
| experience
|
| so, technically not very different to Brave although many users
| are led to believe it kept the former Opera render codebase
| howolduis wrote:
| it forces you to provide a phone number to use it. I'm out...
| too invasive
| qwerty456127 wrote:
| > Opera was first a paid browser (which limited its reach)
|
| I'd argue that this, in combination with easy availability of
| pirated serials (and the actual quality of the engine, of
| course), contributed to Opera popularity because "why use
| freeware when you can use premium software (which other people
| supposedly even pay for) for free".
|
| I believe this works so if I were going to release a commercial
| app I would make sure to put some serials on pirate sites.
|
| Even today, if you release a new Chromium-based browser, make
| it paid but easily piratable it probably is going to enjoy more
| popularity than if you release it for free.
| whikhngbu359 wrote:
| I believe Opera was the first browsers to introduce tabs.
| slightwinder wrote:
| No, it was not. That's a popular myth, but it's wrong. There
| were other browser with Tabs before opera event tried them.
| And Operas first attempts wasn't really Tabs in the modern
| sense. It was just a poor working button-bar for an MDI,
| which was a bit cumbersome to use. They fixed it two versions
| later, around the time when the feature gained attention in
| other browsers and even Mozilla Suit got it's first Extension
| that became so insanly popular that it was build into Phoenix
| (later renamend to Firebird, then Firefox) out of the box.
|
| Though, Opera tried many things in that area. There never
| really lost the MDI-Spirit and went with different approached
| than most other TDI-Implementations. Made it more useful for
| some, more complicated for others. So for certain specific
| functions they probablly were the first ones.
| _trampeltier wrote:
| Yes, years before other browsers had tabs.
| thanatos519 wrote:
| I'm pretty sure Galeon had tabs before Opera, but maybe
| something had tabs before Galeon.
| Winsaucerer wrote:
| I loved tabs in Galeon, it's the only browser I remembering
| having it at the time, but I probably didn't try Opera. I
| was sad when Galeon went away (or removed tabs? I don't
| recall) and I couldn't find another browser with tab
| support for a while. Again, I may have overlooked Opera :)
| bzzzt wrote:
| Galeon was also the only usable Linux browser having a
| native look on Gnome (Epiphany was the other one, but I
| remember it having more difficulty with a lot of sites).
| It embedded the Mozilla engine (which was a supported use
| case back then, before Firefox) but launched a lot
| faster. Usable on a 200Mhz machine at least.
| acheron wrote:
| And in a HN thread a couple weeks ago someone posted about
| how "everyone" switched to Chrome because it invented tabs,
| if you want to know what today's web developers think.
| thanatos519 wrote:
| (Galeon had mouse gestures, too!)
| chucky wrote:
| According to Wikipedia, Netcaptor was the very first
| browser to have tabs:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tab_(interface)#History
|
| However, Opera supported an MDI interface before it
| supported tabs, and if you count that it may have supported
| multiple browser windows within one MDI window even
| earlier, which could be said to be a form of tabs.
|
| Everything depends on how you define "tabs", as usual.
| slightwinder wrote:
| I thin kyou misread that. Wikipedia says InternetWorks
| was the first browser with Tabbed Interface, released
| 1994.
| rotten wrote:
| It also had a built-in pop-up blocker which none of the other
| browsers at the time had.
| crummy wrote:
| It also had mouse gestures, right click drag left to go back,
| right click... swirl? to reload... felt like I was casting
| spells!
| tssva wrote:
| And the reason I don't use Vivaldi today is that it doesn't
| support trackpad multitouch gestures.
| StavrosK wrote:
| Reload was up/down.
| leokennis wrote:
| I was an avid Opera user around 2004. True MDI interface,
| mouse gestures...come to think of it, that was the peak of
| my web browsing.
|
| Sure, my current browser supports the latest web standards
| that enable great things and sure, my internet speed is a
| lot higher. But just from a "browsing the web" perspective,
| Opera was the high point.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| I think that came during the period of Black & White by
| Lionhead Studios. (which was a milestone in using gestures
| to cast spells by swirly your mouse around)
| danielscrubs wrote:
| They where released within one month of each other.
| slightwinder wrote:
| And Opera openly admitted that they copied B&W there,
| because they considered it a very useful feature. It even
| came in a sub-version, which at that time was somewhat
| unusual for such an important feature.
| joshuaissac wrote:
| > right click drag left to go back, right click... swirl?
| to reload
|
| I still customise my Chrome and Firefox mouse gestures add-
| ons to work exactly this way, despite having long forgotten
| where those conventions originally came from.
|
| Other gestures I have, probably also from Opera:
|
| DL: Left tab
|
| RL: Right tab
|
| D: Page Down
|
| U: Page Up
|
| RLR: Close tab/window
| AfterShave wrote:
| Mouse gestures, right click scroll between tabs, closed
| tab history & current tab history. I thank Opera for
| showing me the way.
|
| Sadly the last two were killed off in Firefox in that
| last big add-on update. I didn't find anything that works
| since then.
| thunderbong wrote:
| I still use Opera 12, by the way. Works fine for about 75% of
| the web. For the remaining, I use Vivaldi!
| iforgotpassword wrote:
| Not my experience. I use it out of nostalgia, but only for
| select sites. Many sites with modern SSL config won't load.
| Click a random link that lands you on a js-heavy site and the
| browser will stutter or often crash. Which is impressive
| because back in the day opera once had the fastest js engine
| by a mile. Goes to show how far V8 has come.
|
| But browsing traditional sites that just have a little bit of
| js and are mostly static still feel faster to navigate on
| this 8 year old browser than the most recent chrome.
| thunderbong wrote:
| Well, I browse without Javascript, so maybe that's why it
| works.
|
| And I've got a keyboard shortcut to open the current site
| in Vivaldi as a fallback.
| krisgenre wrote:
| Also, during the days of Symbian OS Opera Mini was the best
| mobile browser available. I remember logging into my bank
| account and actually doing a transaction on my Nokia N73
| running Opera Mini.
| echelon wrote:
| > Unfortunately with HTML5 and the Chrome-ification of the web,
| it couldn't keep up :-(
|
| One of the worst things to happen to the web was for Google to
| start pushing at a speed and scale only they could keep up
| with.
|
| The web is theirs now.
| grishka wrote:
| > Vivaldi kind of tries to re-create the spirit of Opera, but I
| think it's going to be too hard to do it.
|
| Oh, it's definitely recreating the experience of Opera. You
| encounter an annoying bug, you report it to their private bug
| tracker, and then they'll fix it in two years. Maybe. If you're
| lucky. And you don't get to know its status in the meantime.
| And the macOS version still feels like an afterthought
| sometimes.
|
| Still better than Chrome and by far better than Safari.
| fyhn wrote:
| I dunno, I've submitted four bugs. One solved within a day,
| one after 20 days, and two still unresolved as far as I know.
| It could of course be better, I don't think it's quite like
| you describe.
| the-dude wrote:
| Those two remaining bugs still have the opportunity to be
| resolved after only 2 years. Or 4.
| lucideer wrote:
| > _they 'll fix it in two years_
|
| Seems pretty quick, at least compared to Chromium / Firefox
| ;)
|
| > _you don 't get to know its status in the meantime_
|
| Toward the end of Opera's life (pre v15) either an employee
| or a member of the community (can't remember which) did
| actually set up a public bug tracker tracking the status of
| publicly-reported bugs. It didn't show comments or anything
| like that: just the original bug description, report date &
| status. So that was... something at least.
|
| They did also give private bug tracker access to a subset of
| community members, by invite.
| grishka wrote:
| Yeah you can still ask people who have access to look up
| the status of a bug for you[1]. It just feels so needlessly
| convoluted. Since they're already using Jira, it shouldn't
| be too hard to set it up with proper access controls so you
| could see your own tickets, at least. They must have some
| reason to not do this.
|
| [1] https://habr.com/ru/company/vivaldi/blog/561834/#commen
| t_231... (in Russian)
| rasz wrote:
| Amount of years old bugs with zero activity while they
| keep working on new features.
|
| Opera/Vivaldi CEO is really adamant about hiding both
| staff and user counts. Vivaldi even removed itself from
| User Agent string.
| starik36 wrote:
| If memory serves, they removed the user agent because one
| of the Google properties was serving it substandard
| HTML/JS even though they use the Chromium engine.
| fifilura wrote:
| Yes that is likely the case.
|
| All browsers wants to use a unique user agent.
|
| It is the only way to prove market share => $$$.
|
| But it is ridiculously difficult to modify it without
| breaking sites.
|
| Take a look at your own user agent.
|
| It is likely it identifies itself as
| gecko/mozilla/chrome/safari/IE/KHTML all in one.
| eloisant wrote:
| That's because Opera (and now Vivalvi) cares more about
| building as many features as possible than stability or even
| consistency of the experience.
| oblio wrote:
| I guess I had it good, I was using the Windows and Linux
| Opera versions. The Windows version was always solid.
| pentagone wrote:
| I used it exclusively for about a year (iirc) on Linux and
| had only some minor crashes. When they switched to Chromium
| I switched to Firefox and never had a single crash since.
| (It's not only luck, I disable all the feature-creep I know
| of in about:config)
| grishka wrote:
| I vividly remember how it took them several months to make
| Opera display Flash content correctly (at 2x scale instead
| of a blurry upscaled-after-rasterization mess) on retina
| displays when I just bought my macbook. Other browsers had
| it done in a matter of weeks, days if you installed a beta
| build. And that was 2012, back when flash was an essential
| part of the web.
| easytiger wrote:
| Well the first release of Opera with chromium was 2013 so
| it was clearly being abandoned at that stage
| httpsterio wrote:
| Flash was not an essential part of the web in 2012.
| Maybe, if you had some weird work tool you had to use,
| some video players on the web but that was mostly it. In
| 2012 flash for Android was killed and it was very well
| known that it was going out of the window in the near
| future.
| grishka wrote:
| Many video players were still using flash. VKontakte
| still had its flash app/game platform going strong,
| though you did have the option of using an iframe that
| loaded a web app from your server instead. Flash support
| was only discontinued there around several years ago.
| httpsterio wrote:
| I personally remember being rather annoyed when our uni
| project in 2012 had to be built with Flash and AS3 as it
| was well known that flash would get the axe in a few
| years.
|
| We had the option to use JS as well but it wasn't in the
| curriculum and 4 out my 5 person team didn't want to do
| any of the extra work.
|
| Even if Flash was used, it was mostly video players and
| some online games (like Newgrounds). I think YouTube came
| out with their HTML5 player in 2012 so Flash was
| definitely moving into a more niche status and I don't
| consider it essential after Flash based sites went out of
| fashion (which was closer to 2008-2009. HTML5, ECMA5 and
| CSS3 (or just HTML, JS and CSS as it's known today)
| largely made flash redundant before 2012.
| addicted wrote:
| There;s a difference between still being around and being
| an "essential part" of the web.
|
| Flash was almost certainly not an essential part of the
| web. 2012 was 5 years after the iPhone and by then
| Android and iPhone constituted the majority of web
| browsing, and neither supported flash at all.
|
| You couldn't very well say something was an essential
| part of the web if it wasnt supported on those devices in
| 2012.
| [deleted]
| pbsb wrote:
| Kind of off topic, but what do you mean by chrome-ification of
| the web?
| oblio wrote:
| Chrome is taking over the web and a ton of features start/are
| only in Chrome. Youtube had a "bug" which made it 2x slower
| in Firefox, for example.
| takeda wrote:
| Yep, it's the IE thing all over again.
| pjs_ wrote:
| Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those
| programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can.
|
| - Jamie Zawinski
| metalliqaz wrote:
| What do you mean "on top of web techs"? Aren't all browsers web
| techs...??
| oblio wrote:
| The Opera UI was built using Qt widgets. So native, C++ code.
| The Vivaldi UI is built using React, I think.
|
| Native UIs are much faster than web UIs, for example.
| metalliqaz wrote:
| doesn't this also apply to Firefox?
| hansel_der wrote:
| 'modern' browsers use/incorporate a lot of the tech that is
| used to build web-sites(-apps). i.e. convergence of content
| and presentation
| littlecranky67 wrote:
| Loved Opera back in the day. It had "page specific settings"
| that would let me allow to set HTTP/Socks5 proxies on a per-
| page setting - today you cannot even set a proxy anymore
| without changing your system settings (not browser settings).
|
| If anyone asks, I used this heavily to bypass country
| blocks/redirects on a per-page level and also with privoxy on
| some privacy invading sites.
| mobilio wrote:
| I still miss Opera 12.16...
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| foxyproxy does this. i set up a ssh passthrough and routed
| foxyproxy with only specifed pages to use local proxy which
| meant they would be routed through the ssh. it worked for
| what i wanted
| herjazz wrote:
| I miss Proxomitron
| gsich wrote:
| Firefox has proxy settings. Socks5 is bugged though. Doesn't
| support user/password authentication.
| 0ld wrote:
| > today you cannot even set a proxy anymore without changing
| your system settings (not browser settings).
|
| you can in firefox settings
|
| you can also do it in chrome with the cli parameter --proxy-
| server
| pantulis wrote:
| > you can in firefox settings
|
| Obviously a remnant from the Netscape codebase. They will
| fix it.
| JohnWhigham wrote:
| Forgot to mention that China owns them, so say goodbye to data
| privacy.
| Al-Khwarizmi wrote:
| Just to clarify in case someone's wondering, a browser named
| Opera still exists and gets updated now, but neither the people
| behind it nor the underlying technology are the same as in the
| old Opera this post is referring to.
|
| As an old-time classic Opera user since version 5 or so, I do
| use the current Opera because I find it somewhat better than
| Chrome (it has more built-in stuff, including mouse gestures,
| Whatsapp/Telegram support, etc. I hate the barebones
| browser+extensions model) but unfortunately it's miles behind
| the old Opera experience.
|
| I have also tried Vivaldi, and while it's a worthy effort, I'm
| sure many people will love it and I recommend trying it, it's
| missing one of the Opera characteristics I valued the most:
| Opera had practically zero UI lag/latency, whereas Vivaldi is
| rather slow, as the parent post says.
| Bayart wrote:
| Vivaldi is exactly as slow or fast as any Chromium-based
| browser. A this point I've surrendered to the notion of the
| web never getting faster, but just eating away any efficiency
| gains in computing.
|
| I like Vivaldi for the feature set. It's rich enough for the
| regular power-user, but the presentation is straightforward
| enough that you don't feel like you need to pimp your browser
| like you would Emacs. I felt home with Opera, and I feel home
| with Vivaldi now.
| bugfix wrote:
| There is a noticeable delay when opening a new window or
| moving a tab out of the main window. This happens instantly
| on Chrome/Edge/Brave.
|
| I've tried switching to Vivaldi at least 5 times since
| release, but can't get used to this delay.
| rasz wrote:
| Fullscreen takes ~1 second in Vivaldi. Closing a Tab takes
| 300-1000ms. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uCA2qIIG1M
| kunagi7 wrote:
| Try the same test with Vivaldi 3.7, 3.8 or 4.0... They've
| optimized the browser interactions quite dramatically so
| it's much faster than the video shows. But... It's still
| slower than Chromium's UI.
| Bayart wrote:
| You're absolutely right, the painting, or whatever you
| call that, of the UI elements of Vivaldi itself are
| definitely sluggish.
|
| I was thinking of the normal in-page stuff. My apologies
| if I misled anyone.
| arp242 wrote:
| > Vivaldi is exactly as slow or fast as any Chromium-based
| browser.
|
| That is not my experience at all. I tried a few different
| versions over the years (including the beta with the mail
| client, but not yet this 4.0) and the UI always _feels_ ...
| slow, and not quite snappy enough to be comfterable. It 's
| really hard to describe this and I'm not the kind of person
| who quickly gets annoyed by this sort of thing, but for me
| personally it's too much and every time I tried it it was
| annoying enough to give up after a day or two. It's like
| using some remote connection with X or vnc (okay, maybe not
| quite _that_ bad, but definitely reminiscent of that).
|
| In comparison, Chromium or Firefox doesn't have this at all
| on the same computer.
|
| Maybe it's a Linux thing; I don't know. I can imagine it's
| not the highest priority for them. A lot of it seems in the
| UI layer (and not the rendering layer), which is vastly
| different from Chromium. I hope they will improve this at
| some point (and I'll try out this version, too) because
| outside of this Vivaldi looks pretty neat.
|
| I still miss Opera Presto :-(
| taylodl wrote:
| As someone who now uses Vivaldi as their daily driver I can
| vouch that it's a bit slow, especially on older hardware.
| Obviously it's not intolerable, but it would be nice to see
| some improvements in that area.
| rasz wrote:
| If you ever get curious how can UI be so slow, after all
| "its just js, js is fast", here is how they handle closing
| browser Tabs currently:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/vivaldibrowser/comments/nrasof/fix
| _...
|
| tldr: Tab bar is just a DIV full of SPANs, one SPAN per
| Tab. Pages are in a list of DIVs containing iframes.
| Switching a Tab is a simple process of moving "active"
| class from one SPAN to another and changing style of one
| iframe to "visibility: hidden; z-index: -1;" while another
| one gets "visibility: inherit; z-index: initial;". So far
| so ~good. So how does Vivaldi handle Tab close? You would
| guess closing a Tab would entail -
| switching iframe visibility away from Tab being closed
| first - instant visual feedback for the user -
| removing SPAN representing Tab we want closed -
| maybe fixing widths of remaining SPANs
|
| What actually happens is a horror show normally reserved
| for second semester CS students trying OOP for the first
| time. List of all Tabs gets traversed multiple times, most
| of them rewritten couple of times, everything generating
| individual DOM changes.
|
| 10 Tabs open and you close the first one = ~30 DOM Reflows.
|
| 100 Tabs open and you close two in the middle = ~300 DOM
| Reflows.
|
| 100 Tabs open and you close first 10 = ~3000 DOM Reflows.
|
| Stuttering UI is the staple of Vivaldi, codebase is full of
| functions running in linear/polynomial time to the number
| of Tabs open/Tab position on the list, in places where O(1)
| is trivial. Vivaldi is a browser that used to Resize
| contents of every single Tab opened when you resized its
| window - resizing was slower the more Tabs you had in Tab
| bar :o, going fullscreen could take 10 seconds.
| taylodl wrote:
| That's _AWFUL_! But it does explain things...
| siproprio wrote:
| I always thought they're slow because of JavaScript, but
| not because of crappy code!
|
| That actually explains a lot.
|
| It would be interesting to know if they lose a lot of
| users because of slowness, but since it hasn't been
| fixed, I guess they don't?
| drdavid wrote:
| The Vivaldi mail thing must have been in the works for a while.
| Since very early on, they offered an email address at their
| .net domain. It wasn't integrated or an email client, but they
| had that aspect setup early on.
| 55555 wrote:
| I use a browser probably 12 hours per day. Maybe there's enough
| people willing to pay a dollar or two a month for that to be a
| possible business model again.
| scroot wrote:
| Though I'm not sure what they are up to exactly, isn't this
| what The Browser Company [1] is trying to do?
|
| [1] https://thebrowser.company/
| 0x49d1 wrote:
| They've actually added option for donations:
| https://vivaldi.com/contribute/
| awful_waffle wrote:
| This honestly sounds like a great idea. At this point I'd pay
| money for a browser that was private, fast, and dev-friendly,
| simply to avoid the moral dilemma of switching from FF to a
| Chrome clone.
| todd3834 wrote:
| Is Safari an option for you? (Mac?)
| kristofferR wrote:
| Safari is about the least dev friendly browser there is.
| Their API support is atrocious, especially for web
| extensions.
| CaptainZapp wrote:
| What's wrong with Firefox?
|
| It's an honest question, since as a user I really love it.
| Is it the 'dev-friendly', which Firefox lacks?
| awful_waffle wrote:
| FF is my daily driver (since Quantum in '17) but I've
| found it really just isn't holding up these days:
|
| * Profiling functions between Chrome/FF reveals that
| Chrome is frequently considerably faster (usually 60%+)
|
| * During WebGL work I'll often hit blue screens around
| memory management (this seems to be a relatively recent
| development)
|
| * Similarly, trying to profile a WebRTC application with
| video feeds will consistently trigger a blue screen. (I
| can tell this is from FF, as the browser itself flashes
| white a few times before the system goes down.)
|
| * Things like the UI changing - while minor - are enough
| to cause inconvenience, plus the occasional random
| feature removal (View Image context menu option)
| indicates that I'm not necessarily the target audience
| for the browser.
|
| I actually slightly prefer the devtools in FF than
| Chrome, but there are a number of quirks that have
| started appearing over the past year or so, ranging from
| actual bugs to just weird UX.
|
| As I write this, I'm realizing I'd love a browser that's
| seen more as a devtool than a catch-all web navigator
| which happens to have a profiler built in.
| CaptainZapp wrote:
| Thanks. You make a few interesting points. It just
| doesn't seem to hit me so bad as an average user.
|
| I actually liked the UI they implemented in Android.
| Alas, I seem to be in a minority
| awful_waffle wrote:
| I actually quite like the mobile browser, it hasn't
| really given me any issues yet. The fact it supports add-
| ons like uBlock is awesome.
| cpeterso wrote:
| If WebGL and WebRTC are causing bluescreens, that is
| probably a GPU driver bug (though I realize that users
| don't care whose fault a crash is). If you have steps to
| reproduce, even if not 100% reliable, you can file a
| Firefox bug in Bugzilla. Mozilla has contacts at
| Microsoft and can pass along the bug.
| m45t3r wrote:
| Yeah, no user application should cause a blue screen of
| death or kernel panic under normal circumstances, unless
| it is either a bug or they're messing with something from
| the kernel (but in this last case, you generally need to
| run the program with high privilege anyway).
| jbnjkkm wrote:
| The new UI overhaul looks awful, they killed most useful
| plugins with the big update awhile back, and
| ideologically/politically Mozilla has become equivalent
| to an impoverished Google so personally speaking I'm
| horny for something new in the browser space
| jamespo wrote:
| There are salty power users of the old insecure XUL based
| plugins who can't let their deprecation go.
| dvdkon wrote:
| I'm salty because WebExtensions _still_ can 't do
| something as seemingly simple as bind global keybindings
| years after the transition. I actually supported the
| switch, but back then I was optimistic about missing
| features being added soon.
| arendtio wrote:
| My biggest issue is, running it with a 4k resolution on
| Windows seems to be considerably slower than Chrome
| (Intel graphics). With a full-hd resolution I didn't
| notice the difference and on a different PC running Linux
| I don't have any performance issues either.
| lkozma wrote:
| One small thing in the latest redesign: if you have two
| tabs, one active, one not, the visual cues suggest
| exactly the opposite. The active one seems like a
| clickable button, the inactive one seems pushed down and
| not clickable.
|
| After misclicking hundreds of times, I still couldn't
| train myself to go against my perception and follow the
| designer's "bold vision", using it feels like writing
| with my left hand or steering a bicycle with a crooked
| wheel.
| kome wrote:
| ah then i'm not the only one. i had to change color
| scheme.
| jamespo wrote:
| Might want to check https://color.firefox.com
| SekstiNi wrote:
| This is the way. Additionally I went into about:config
| and set browser.proton.enabled to false, which fixed most
| of the issues I had with the new design.
| kordlessagain wrote:
| If it had a decent search agent in it, without ads, I'd pay
| for it.
|
| Because, let's be honest, advertising sucks and anyone that
| thinks advertising and search belong together sucks even
| more.
| kmonsen wrote:
| This is what neeva tries to do, it's currently free in
| beta.
| mcintyre1994 wrote:
| Opera had some ridiculously powerful keyboard shortcuts and
| performance as well for the time. I used to play this web game
| years ago and past beginner level the only way to compete was
| to use Opera because you could use a combination of keyboard
| shortcuts to send attacks/defences from multiple tabs within
| milliseconds.
| [deleted]
| FlyingSnake wrote:
| I'm a long time Firefox user and I still use Firefox for personal
| use. However my workspace is Google Heavy and Google Meet is a
| 2nd class citizen on FF. I hate chrome, and Vivaldi is the best
| blink based browser that fills this niche. I just love the tree-
| style tabs and Vivaldi was the only blink based browser that
| provided that. I really love it so far, and it's perfect for my
| use case.
| ACS_Solver wrote:
| I want to offer Vivaldi some praise, I switched to it as my main
| browser a few years ago, and it's been great. I had to look for a
| new browser when Firefox (that I had used since the Firebird
| days) kept breaking my settings and plugins with their updates.
| After yet another Firefox update I wasn't able to restore the
| browser to how I want it to be, so I tried Vivaldi.
|
| I'm not even a big fan of the original Opera, but love Vivaldi's
| features such as easy screen splitting between two tabs and one-
| click actions to disable images or apply certain filters to a
| page. Picture-in-picture and pop-outs for media are also great,
| periodic tab reload is occasionally very useful.
|
| Ideally I'd like to use a fully FOSS browser, but my patience
| with Firefox ran out, and Vivaldi is Chromium + custom open-
| source parts + closed-source UI layer. Good enough for me, though
| not ideal.
| kjakm wrote:
| I hadn't even thought of tab tiling as a feature I might need
| until now. Just took a look and seems incredibly useful!
| [deleted]
| thefz wrote:
| To me tab tiling is invaluable. I just wish it had session
| syncing, that would be great. I use Vivaldi a lot.
| thunderbong wrote:
| Vivaldi does have session syncing.
| hulitu wrote:
| Also Vivaldi is faster.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| I find this statement a bit puzzling. Vivaldi is the slowest
| browser I've tried in recent years. The couple times I used
| it I always went back to Firefox after a few weeks because I
| couldn't stand the sluggish UI anymore. Maybe it improved by
| now, but I find it hard to believe it's now supposed to be
| faster after Firefox' massive performance updates.
| salmo wrote:
| It's weird how this cycles. Firebird/Firefox was originally
| an amazingly light browser (discounting some niche Linux
| ones that embedded Gecko).
|
| Then it got huge, and Chrome was amazing. And it seemed
| impossible for FF to be able to work out the technical
| debt.
|
| Now Chrome often makes the fan kick in on my MBP and
| Firefox is lighter again in CPU and memory.
|
| I think Safari is probably best in this regard on this
| machine, but I just don't enjoy using it. Not sure why.
| Maybe I'm old and it's just change.
|
| Sadly, I did hit my first work website that only worked in
| Chrome this week. No FF, no Safari.
| toyg wrote:
| _> I think Safari is probably best in this regard on this
| machine, but I just don't enjoy using it_
|
| Safari always gives me the feeling of being too basic.
| The extension ecosystem is very small, and settings
| panels try their hardest not to actually give you any
| options beyond the essential ones. It's a browser for
| people who _endure_ the web, not enjoy it.
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| I don't think your last sentence is a particularly
| generous summation. :)
|
| Maybe I'm an anomaly in the HN crowd, but I never really
| got into extensions even when I was using Firefox or
| Chrome as a daily driver. I have an extension for
| 1Password, an extension for a read-it-later service (for
| years Instapaper, lately GoodLinks), and somewhat
| grudgingly, an ad blocker. And sometimes a user style
| sheet extension. I've tried other extensions at various
| points and they've never really stuck, not even the
| "vertical tab" style extensions that I want to love but
| always find ugly and distracting. (OmniWeb, RIP, is the
| only browser I ever used that had what I thought was a
| great implementation of this.)
|
| And I use Chrome daily at work now, because there are a
| few internal sites that require it (and one that
| inexplicably requires IE 10, which Chrome turns out to be
| better at faking than Safari), and... it's fine? But it
| feels just a little slower, it's harder on the battery,
| and there's very little about it that I miss when I'm
| back in Safari on my personal Mac. Maybe if I was deep
| into web development again, this would change, since
| Safari's dev tools always seem to be a few steps behind
| Chrome's. Maybe there's some magic can't-live-without
| extension I could find on Chrome or Firefox that would
| sway me to stick with one for the long haul. But for
| years, I've enjoyed the web, and I've enjoyed it on
| Safari. [shrug emoji]
| handrous wrote:
| Safari's respect for battery life and ability to limit
| the harm a misbehaving/disrespectful tab (which is lots
| of them, these days) can do to overall system
| responsiveness are what keep me using it, and those
| definitely help me _enjoy_ the web, to the extent that it
| can be enjoyed anymore. It 's the best at both of those
| of any major browser I'm aware of, and in fact I don't
| know any that are even close--something like Surf might
| match or beat it, I guess, being very small and using the
| WebKit as the rendering engine, but I wouldn't bet on it.
|
| [EDIT] but yes, FF and Chrome/Chromium destroy it on a
| feature basis. I just value those other things _so much_
| , and both of those options are so bad at those things,
| that I prefer Safari anyway.
| lucian1900 wrote:
| I didn't like Safari at first either, but after using it
| for performance reasons I prefer it in general now.
| Simple sane UI and it helps that it syncs to my phone and
| table seamlessly.
| sirius87 wrote:
| Same. Huge fan of Opera 12, I was active in their community
| sites and reported bugs when possible. I'm glad to see them all
| coming back.
|
| I'm skeptical of trusting Vivaldi Sync with my passwords, so
| that's turned off, but I use Vivaldi on my Linux desktop and
| Android phone, syncing bookmarks, notes, speed dials. Works
| great!
|
| It's also hackable in the sense that the browser chrome uses
| plain old HTML/JS/CSS, so you could literally dive into
| `/opt/vivaldi/resources/vivaldi/style/common.css` and change
| the way the browser looks (may have to re-patch after every
| browser update).
| Bayart wrote:
| >may have to re-patch after every browser update
|
| I remember having some kind of flag on pacman, back when I
| was using Arch, to do that automagically.
| sirius87 wrote:
| I'm on an Ubuntu based system, so an apt-get Post-Invoke
| hook would do the job for me [1]. I haven't bothered
| though. I just manually run a bash script that appends my
| !important changes to the end of the file.
|
| But apparently there's an official way to apply CSS mods
| using vivaldi://experiments/ and Settings > Appearance
|
| [1] https://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/debian-ubuntu-linux-hook-
| a-scr...
| eingaeKaiy8ujie wrote:
| A closed source browser? lol
| Vinnl wrote:
| Off-topic, but: does anyone know how Vivaldi is funded? I tried
| looking for it for a bit, but couldn't find any income streams.
| haunter wrote:
| First hit in Google
|
| https://vivaldi.com/blog/vivaldi-business-model/
| csabakissi wrote:
| that link doesn't work: Error establishing a database
| connection
| henryackerman wrote:
| Seems like the website was hugged to death...
| ivanbakel wrote:
| You can access the archived version: https://web.archive.or
| g/web/20210506194445/https://vivaldi.c...
|
| The short version is: they get money from things like
| search engine deals, which guide Vivaldi users to third-
| party services.
| vorticalbox wrote:
| The ad blocker is also set up to allow ads that support
| vivaldi by default.
| oblio wrote:
| It did work before we killed it. HN (and other news sites)
| hugged the Vivaldi site to death :-D
| yunohn wrote:
| They spoke about this business model in the release post too.
|
| I'm just finding it really hard to believe that it's
| sustainable and makes them enough money to run a team...
| lucideer wrote:
| > _I'm just finding it really hard to believe that it's
| sustainable and makes them enough money to run a team..._
|
| Firefox is funded the same way, and they seem to have
| plenty of income...
| yunohn wrote:
| Firefox makes the vast majority of that income via their
| Google partnership. Vivaldi claims they do not get paid
| by Google.
| kingofclams wrote:
| I'm not sure, but I have a feeling the majority of
| Vivaldi users wouldn't be using google
| yunohn wrote:
| Frankly speaking, I'm pretty sure most users of both
| Firefox and Vivaldi are using Google.
|
| But my point was more around how the minimal amount of
| money coming from other search engines or sponsored
| bookmarks can't sustain a browser dev team.
| zamadatix wrote:
| There were a couple years recently Firefox was primarily
| sponsored by either Yahoo or Bing (can't remember which)
| and that deal supported the entire Mozilla foundation
| same as the Google deal as well as Firefox (which also
| makes their own browser back end) not just a browser
| front-end dev team.
|
| So there are definitely other decent sources of income
| besides Google for these deals and since it's a
| significantly more focused organization it doesn't seem
| implausible to me.
| yunohn wrote:
| These deals are based on market share, user activity and
| usage, and so on. No search engine is paying Vivaldi as
| much money as Yahoo or Google did to Firefox. It would be
| laughable to expect that kind of sponsor money for a
| niche browser that also reduces ad tracking. That's how
| these things work.
| zamadatix wrote:
| It'd be laughable to expect Vivaldi needs the exact same
| 600 million dollar search deal that floats the entire
| Mozilla foundation to fund a custom Chromium UI.
|
| As I said, there are definitely other decent sources of
| income besides Google for these deals and since it's a
| significantly more focused organization it doesn't seem
| implausible to me.
| addicted wrote:
| It was Yahoo.
|
| But here's why there's confusion. Yahoo search at the
| time (or shortly before or after) switched to using
| Bing's search and ad engine.
| lucideer wrote:
| Firefox makes the majority of that income via their
| Google partnership _today_. Recently, the majority of it
| was coming from Yahoo.
|
| The browser's market share will ultimately determine the
| market value of the search partnership, so Vivaldi will
| likely have a much lower income from it than Firefox, but
| it's in no way limited by whether they partner with
| Google or with any other search provider. For a smaller
| more efficient team, not maintaining their own browser
| engine, it could easily compare in sustainability to
| Firefox's income stream.
| Vinnl wrote:
| Haha, that'll teach me for thinking I can find information
| just by browsing through the menu items. Thanks!
| [deleted]
| asutekku wrote:
| They at least have some sponsored bookmarks if you don't
| configure them bt yourself.
| lightdot wrote:
| By merchadising their produc... er... users! :)
|
| That being said, according to their blog, browser users aren't
| tracked or profiled by Vivaldi.
|
| They claim to make money from search engine partner deals and
| from bookmark partner deals. And to be honest, I have no reason
| to think that the statement isn't true.
| roachpepe wrote:
| If it's free, then you're the product. Or will eventually be,
| plenty of projects have started out with good intentions and a
| noble cause only to be ultimately bought out, userbase and all.
| Creating something like Vivaldi 4.0 is not cheap, someone has
| poured cash in - who that is, I think the end-user should be
| entitled to know.
| apocolyps6 wrote:
| I really want to like Vivaldi. It's the only browser (afaik) that
| supports tabs on the side. Right now I use "Tree Style Tabs" on
| Firefox with some custom CSS to get rid of the original tab bar.
|
| Unfortunately I get a massive delay when fullscreening youtube
| videos in Vivaldi. The video first maximizes to the left half of
| my screen, and only then expands to the whole thing. Sadly a
| dealbreaker. FWIW its a little faster if I have the browser
| already maximized.
| keithnz wrote:
| edge supports vertical tabs
| jjjdjjddddsfsd wrote:
| I switched from Vivaldi to Edge because unfortunately Vivaldi
| become unusably slow for me beyond a certain amount of open
| tabs (hopefully just a bug they'll fix eventually).
|
| I miss the little search bar for tabs that Vivaldi shows in
| the vertical tabs view.
| vitorsr wrote:
| To complement:
|
| Since as early as October 2020 on testing [1] and as early as
| January 2021 on stable [2].
|
| [1] https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/articles/vertical-
| tab...
|
| [2] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/deployedge/microsoft-
| edge-r...
| nik736 wrote:
| It's down.
| smarx007 wrote:
| HN hug :)
| https://web.archive.org/web/20210609074720/https://vivaldi.c...
| mxcrossr wrote:
| I'm kind of surprised HN could take them down
| throw737858 wrote:
| I think it follows spirit of old Opera 12 very well. It is even
| opensource (kind of).
| rplnt wrote:
| For true old Opera experience there's Otter.
|
| https://otter-browser.org/
|
| But it's being developed by a very small community, and
| probably can't keep up, haven't tried it in a while.
| inter_netuser wrote:
| website is down.
|
| how much spyware is in their browser? is it fully open sourced?
| j_koreth wrote:
| I'm not aware of any spyware in the browser.
|
| I believe the source is online but not licensed under a free
| license (Someone is free to correct me on that).
| chucky wrote:
| The browser engine, being a Chromium variant, is open-
| sourced. The source code for the UI is not available under an
| open source license it seems:
| https://help.vivaldi.com/desktop/privacy/is-vivaldi-open-
| sou...
| dagurp wrote:
| More on the subject https://vivaldi.com/blog/vivaldi-
| browser-open-source/
| edu wrote:
| It's down, archive:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20210609074720/https://vivaldi.c...
| 627467 wrote:
| I love the tiling capabilities of Vivaldi, it's been impressing
| people over videoconference too.
|
| I tried to use built in mail and calendar, but unfortunately my
| (work) life is too dependent on the little integrationa of Google
| calendar and gmail
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| Not going to download it just to find out that they didn't bother
| supporting Office365.
| diveanon wrote:
| Don't blame them, office365 is a pain in the ass to support.
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| I know. That's why I wrote the comment.
|
| There's honestly very little value in yet another IMAP
| client. Fixing a little bit the broken ecosystems around
| Exchange would be a million times more useful to the world.
| oblio wrote:
| Talk about entitlement.
|
| 1. It's a beta product.
|
| 2. It's free.
|
| 3. They support IMAP/POP3 so you can make do with that for now.
| amyjess wrote:
| Have the Vivaldi developers confirmed whether or not they'll
| continue supporting Manifestv2? I think I heard something along
| those lines but I Can't remember where.
| kitd wrote:
| I use Vivaldi regularly for one reason: my company has disabled
| access to the developer tools on Chrome and FF. With Vivaldi
| (being Chromium) I have full access again!
|
| Just don't tell them I told you ...
| amitport wrote:
| what was the company's reasoning to disable access to the
| developer tools on Chrome and FF? why?
| kitd wrote:
| I don't have the precise wording to hand but it was along the
| lines of "security, protecting assets, etc, etc"
| e3bc54b2 wrote:
| My company does this too. Try installing Firefox in a
| nonstandard location, that fixed it for me. Now I enjoy regex
| search, unlock origin and tampermonkey and have little more
| peace of mind.
| everybodyknows wrote:
| >regex search
|
| Meaning search over within browser window i.e. "Find in
| Page"?
| traveler01 wrote:
| I like Vivaldi but I do enjoy using my main browser also for web
| development. BUT, they do a browser for power users but couldn't
| care less with developers since they haven't fixed the broken
| responsive mode in the developer tools.
|
| Gonna keep using Brave...
| rob74 wrote:
| One killer feature for Vivaldi Mail would be supporting M$ two-
| factor authentication. Since my company made Exchange 2FA
| mandatory, I had to give up Thunderbird and use the Outlook 365
| web interface due to lack of alternatives under Linux. That would
| definitely be in the spirit of giving you an alternative to Big
| Tech (at least on the client side). But I'm not sure if it's even
| doable though?!
| rplnt wrote:
| I really tried to like Vivaldi, and it could be a good browser,
| but is so unbearably slow. The whole UI is unresponsive. Opening
| a new tab can take almost a second. Price for javascript apps I
| guess.
|
| edit for clarification: This was on OSX, on Windows it was OK.
|
| Used it for almost a year as a secondary browser, no change, gave
| up.
| kunagi7 wrote:
| After the 3.7 release they've improved UI responsiveness quite
| dramatically. In my laptop (i5, 8200U), opening a new tab or
| settings used to take 1 to 2 seconds, but now it hovers around
| 250~300ms.
| grishka wrote:
| I found a bug that slowed it down a great deal. It was the fact
| that they put multiple `filter` styles onto the tabs, even when
| those filters did nothing useful. It was still extremely taxing
| on the GPU driver.
|
| But, since you can customize the UI with your own CSS (there's
| a hidden setting you need to enable first, in
| vivaldi://experiments), I put a simple `* {filter: none
| !important}` in there. After I did, it felt as if I bought a
| new computer.
|
| The fun part? They still haven't acknowledged it. Even after I
| gave them the exact steps to fix it.
| dagurp wrote:
| Where did you report it? I'd like to take a look.
| grishka wrote:
| VB-60356
| Matthias1 wrote:
| I just did some tests and was unable to replicate your
| results. I'm on an i5 2019 Mac, and Vivaldi takes about 200ms
| to open a tab, with or without CSS filters. (200ms is
| bearable, but it is slower than I would like.) I have
| Hardware Acceleration on and Use Animation off.
| silentbugs wrote:
| Which part exactly is being slowed down by these filters?
| Could you post a link to the bug report if it's public?
| grishka wrote:
| I'm not sure about the internals, but when those filters
| are there, the GPU process causes a lot of CPU load on
| every frame. So much that it often hits 100% of the single
| core it uses before it's able to draw at 60 fps. Oh and it
| redraws the tab bar a lot. It redraws it every time you
| scroll a page, and it continuously redraws it when there's
| a tab playing audio in order to animate those waves
| emanating from the speaker icon. Yes, it redraws the entire
| tab bar for a 16x16 animated icon.
|
| They unfortunately don't have a public bug tracker.
| rasz wrote:
| Settings/Appearance/Window Appearance: disable "Use
| animation"
| IlliOnato wrote:
| Can you give more details? I can see how to enable custom
| CSS, but where I go from there? Where to put the custom CSS?
| grishka wrote:
| Settings -> Appearance. There will be a section to choose a
| folder with your custom css files.
| timothevs wrote:
| I may be obtuse, but I am not seeing that on Vivaldi 4.0
| on the Mac?
| grishka wrote:
| https://i.imgur.com/21ueqSf.png in the lower part of the
| window (I'm too lazy to switch the language sorry).
|
| You need to restart it for the checkbox to take effect.
| andai wrote:
| Do you have an older machine, or is it even slow on new
| machines?
|
| I tried Vivaldi last year on my computer which is about ten
| years old now. Vivaldi was extremely sluggish (Chrome and
| Firefox still run fine), I was hoping to come back to it once I
| upgrade my computer.
| rplnt wrote:
| It was a relatively new hw, MB Pro 2017. No issues with other
| browsers.
| hulitu wrote:
| My experience with an 10 years old computer with win 7 is
| that firefox is slow and vivaldi is faster. I don't use
| chrome. On Android vivaldi is much faster than firefox.
| zaphirplane wrote:
| Is it based on electron. - drum roll - :)
| neolog wrote:
| That just means it's based on chromium, which makes sense for
| a browser.
| pantulis wrote:
| But not that much for a new/mail reader -- even 100% native
| Mailmate sweats with my 50k message GMail archive. While it
| may work for casual users, I'm not really that convinced it
| is the killer feature Vivaldi users are expecting.
| atlemo wrote:
| No :)
| dartharva wrote:
| It is indeed bloated. Its main redeeming quality in my opinion
| was that it was the only chromium-based browser that allowed
| sideloading extensions freely, but now that's gone too since
| Chrome and Brave have apparently started allowing it as well.
| globular-toast wrote:
| Odd because the one thing I remember about Opera from back in
| the day was how fast it was. This was back when Firefox was
| king amongst in-the-know users but IE6 was most popular
| overall. Opera was so much faster and smoother than everything
| else.
| rplnt wrote:
| Opera was fast and stable, especially with more tabs open.
| Way into the Chrome era too. Too bad Google used it's
| monopoly to drive other browsers to death. Only Firefox
| survived really.
| hellpirat wrote:
| Is this super app? Oo
| philonoist wrote:
| If only we had a Vivaldi based on the Firefox.
| thayne wrote:
| If Vivaldi were fully open source I would probably use it. But
| it's not.
| alexyz12 wrote:
| I wonder how they plan to not become evil? It is explicitly
| planned or just that they are trying to offer a new alternative
| to the current evil thats not evil yet? Either one is fine, just
| wondering out loud.
| shortformblog wrote:
| Since discussions about the browser's approach to design
| philosophy and privacy are coming up in this thread, I'll just
| flag that I did an interview with Jon von Tetzchner earlier this
| year where he talked about some of those things, as well as the
| lineage with Opera: https://tedium.co/2021/02/05/vivaldi-browser-
| history-profile...
| niq999 wrote:
| Using Vivaldi as my main browser since a few months ago. Tab
| grouping and tiling is great. The side panel is neat for checking
| on Skype without installing the app.
|
| I didn't experience any slowdown, but not being able to drag and
| drop files from downloads is a pain in the ass. It's been brought
| up on the forums and left at that years ago.
| alichapman wrote:
| Anyone else getting 500s trying to access this?
| frr149 wrote:
| From the post:
|
| (...)we offer Vivaldi Translate, a built-in, privacy-friendly
| translation feature, powered by Lingvanex and _hosted by Vivaldi_
| , keeping translations _out of the reach of companies like Google
| or Microsoft_.
|
| Now I'm supposed to trust Vivaldi instead of Google or MS...
| Stopped reading right there.
| bitigchi wrote:
| For an open-source recreation of Opera 12, there is Otter:
| https://otter-browser.org
| warpech wrote:
| Thanks for the link!
|
| Browsing the source code, I love the author's habit to make a
| code commit every single day [0]. That looks like a powerful
| way to move the project forward while avoiding fatigue.
|
| https://github.com/OtterBrowser/otter-browser/commits/170f36...
| idoubtit wrote:
| I used Otter as a second browser for some time, but, despite
| all my empathy from the project, a few years ago I stopped.
|
| - Installing and upgrading was a pain on Linux, and compiling
| was even worse. At first there were no AppImage for it. Then
| they were created but at first they were half-broken (the whole
| process of creating an AppImage is hacky and Qt projects were
| especially hard). It seems the AppImage broke again in 2018.
|
| - The web engine comes from Qt. IIRC, it's an old fork of
| webkit. Many sites were not compatible, and I suspect the
| situation goes worse with every year.
|
| I recommend trying Otter, but don't expect it to replace your
| everyday browser.
| bitigchi wrote:
| It's in the process of switching to QtWebEngine, which is the
| Chromium version.
| thanatos519 wrote:
| I'm trying Vivaldi again since as an expat I depend on single-
| click in-browser translation.
|
| For me, the killer feature is built-in no-nonsense vertical tabs,
| something I had in Galeon many years ago because it used the Gtk+
| tab widget. I hate hate hate that Chromium cannot do this,
| because dogma.
| warpech wrote:
| FWIW, Microsoft Edge also has vertical tabs.
| thanatos519 wrote:
| Sorry, you lost me at 'Microsoft'.
| approxim8ion wrote:
| https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/vivaldi.html
|
| Seems like your bar is low, but not that low.
| fuzzylightbulb wrote:
| Got anything more current than 2018?
| kunagi7 wrote:
| The last update was made in 2018. That's a long time. It
| would be nice to revisit this now that they've have added
| more services (Mail, translations, expanded Sync) and see
| their impact to the browser's privacy.
| warpech wrote:
| Perhaps that was to be expected after you wrote that you
| used to use Galeon.
| bellyfullofbac wrote:
| Neat! I'm not the grandparent poster, but I also can't stand
| horizontal tabs, probably because I'm a tab hoarder. But with
| screens wider than they are tall, vertical tabs make sense,
| and each new tab doesn't truncate all other tabs' titles.
|
| I looked up MS Edge's implementation, it seems it only shows
| the tabs either on top or on the left of the window, with
| Vivaldi you can set it at any edge of the window, I have mine
| on the right side.
| thanatos519 wrote:
| Indeed, for least distraction, content should start at the
| top left of the screen. For this, I already had my tabs on
| the right, but now I am trying bookmarks/address bar at the
| bottom.
|
| Not sure I'll keep it this way ... but what I about
| Vivaldi is the choice. If I wanted training wheels, I would
| already be using macOS.
| gbrhaz wrote:
| Vertical tabs without the 'tree' aspect (at least when I last
| used Vivaldi). Firefox with Tree Style Tab extension is still
| the best option I've found so far.
| mcintyre1994 wrote:
| I switched from Firefox + Tree Style Tabs to Vivaldi + Tab
| Stacks and I mostly prefer it. The ability to tile tabs
| within a group is the killer feature, as well as it being
| much better supported by being native. Stack by host is great
| too. The big tradeoff is that you only get one layer of
| nesting, but I find it's generally worth that tradeoff for
| me.
| Theizestooke wrote:
| Does it have the ability to containerize websites, like Firefox
| does?
| ckotso wrote:
| I've been using Vivaldi as my main/work browser for the last ~1
| year. Tab tiling and tab groups have been absolute game changers
| for my workflow and curbed my objections departing from the
| firefox camp.
|
| It used to feel quite slow with too many open tabs when I started
| using it, and would improve by hibernating them every now and
| then (which is built-in functionality). It seems to have improved
| significantly with recent releases, haven't had to hibernate tabs
| for quite some time now.
| amarant wrote:
| Looks pretty good, but I'm a bit sceptical of the translation
| feature. They introduce it by saying Google has access to
| everything you translate, so therefore you should instead use
| their service, which sends the texts you translate to their
| servers in Iceland.
|
| The formulations try really hard not to say "trust us with your
| data instead of big tech", which seems like an attempt to hide
| the fact that they do have access to everything you translate,
| much like Google would have... The only question is who you trust
| more - Vivaldi or Google?
| 1_player wrote:
| One thing is for sure. Vivaldi isn't in the ad tech business,
| or if it were it's not the biggest ad tech business in the
| world, and does not have any precedent in wanting to know
| everything I do, write, read, search, talk with to build an ad
| profile.
|
| Who do you trust less with your most personal data - Vivaldi or
| Google? I think the answer is pretty easy.
|
| It's just that, if you're the average person, you're already
| being spied upon massively by Google and you're trying to
| figure out if a company orders of magnitude smaller is a
| credible threat to your data.
| thanatos519 wrote:
| Vivaldi.
| kome wrote:
| vivaldi :)
| j_koreth wrote:
| I'm surprised it took this long for Vivaldi Mail to come out. I
| believe it was teased relatively early on in Vivaldi's life
| although I don't envy the developers that had to work with IMAP.
|
| I am glad to see that some love given to RSS in a browser since
| it's been marginalized in all mainstream browsers. It's
| frustrating to see a refuge of decentralized media consumption be
| thrown away considering privacy concerns.
|
| I am not the biggest fan of the licensing policy along with the
| inclusion of a third party translating service but I welcome any
| competition to the market.
| dagurp wrote:
| The translation service is hosted at Vivaldi
| andris9 wrote:
| For IMAP they seem to use emailjs-imap-client that is written
| by myself for Whiteout.io a long time ago. IMAP command tags
| are still prefixed with `W` that would stand for [W]hiteout.
| Nice to see my old code being useful :D
| luke2m wrote:
| Glad to see translation, because I do trust Vivaldi more than
| Google.
| Renaud wrote:
| I switched to Vivaldi from Chrome earlier this year as I was
| uncomfortable with the level of Google integration in that
| browser.
|
| Vivaldi is based on Chromium and has lots of improvements over
| Chrome, like gestures out of the box, side panels, lots of clear
| options. And Chrome extensions work perfectly. I've had no issues
| so far.
|
| The complexity of managing a browser engine that does what
| everyone expects requires humongous resources so I can understand
| the move to Chromium. As long as the google bits are removed and
| the extensions work, it's great to have an alternative to Edge
| and Chrome.
|
| I mostly use Firefox as my daily browser and nothing would make
| me abandon it but it's nice to be able to segregate your various
| professional/private persona using different browsers.
| ProAm wrote:
| How are you installing Chrome extensions without signing into
| Chrome first? I find I cannot install any of them for Vivaldi
| without signing into Chrome (which sort of defeats the purpose)
| BugWatch wrote:
| You can always use multiple ("specialized") instances of
| portable Firefox (with MultipleInstance=true in ini file).
| That's how I do it, and I've been using portable Firefox
| versions exclusively for 10+ years, I think.
| Renaud wrote:
| Thanks for reminding me to try that again.
|
| Last time was a couple of years ago and I had some trouble
| between instances but maybe I didn't do it right.
| kyoji wrote:
| You are probably already aware, but there is an official
| extension that offers this functionality via sand-boxed tabs:
| https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-
| account...
| barberpole wrote:
| Vivaldi was a great musical genius.
| mattowen_uk wrote:
| > As Vivaldi Mail supports IMAP and POP3
|
| And there was me hoping for Exchange-Sync support for Microsoft
| 365 email integration, to release the local reliance on Outlook
| 365 which gets worse with every revision :(
| Maxburn wrote:
| Ugh, me too! First thing I checked but no ability to add
| exchange.
|
| Unfortunately my org does not publish exchange as IMAP either.
| globular-toast wrote:
| I've been using Thunderbird at every Microsoft infested company
| I've been at for approaching ten years now. It works fine for
| email, address book and accepting invitations etc. The only
| thing I have to use the (awful) web interface for is making
| appointments, but I rarely have to do that. There may be a way
| to make it work but I haven't bothered to look.
| Al-Khwarizmi wrote:
| Doesn't Microsoft 365 support POP3? My workplace uses that
| horrid mess called Microsoft 365, Office 365 or whatever name
| it has today, and its Outlook, but I can retrieve the emails
| from GMail connecting via POP3. But I don't know if you're
| looking for some more advanced functionality (not much of an
| expert in email, I just did the first thing I found to be able
| to process my email in a tolerable UI, it worked, so I moved on
| to more productive things).
| mattowen_uk wrote:
| For Mail/Calendar/Contacts/Tasks type syncing, you really
| need Exchange-Sync.
|
| Once you've experienced all three working seamlessly on a
| mobile phone against Exchange (Online or on-prem) you realise
| how fragmented other 'Mail' sync systems are.
| junon wrote:
| I'm not seeing this exact question answered elsewhere, but since
| Vivaldi is based on Chromium, does it have _any_ code that
| randomly reaches out to remote servers (including but not limited
| to Google) aside from, of course, those which are requested by
| web page content?
| rasz wrote:
| Almost (1) all of it got removed or has option to disable,
| altho not always clearly explained (2).
|
| (1) it touches Vivaldi server on startup.
|
| (2) "Google Service DNS to help resolve navigational errors"
| equals https://medium.com/cloud-security/google-chrome-dns-
| security...
| junon wrote:
| Thanks!
| swiley wrote:
| It's great there are alternative browsers but being closed source
| and requiring a phone number is worse than Chrome.
| eggman314 wrote:
| Require a phone number?
| merlinscholz wrote:
| https://login.vivaldi.net/profile/id/signup
|
| Last line on the page: "Before using Vivaldi Webmail and the
| blogging platform, we'll ask you to verify your phone number.
| That's it."
| fpoling wrote:
| It is otherwise impossible for a small company to provide
| free email.
| swiley wrote:
| What you mean is free email that (supposedly) delivers to
| hotmail? I could pass out email addresses to everyone on
| my floor and it wouldn't cost me a dime.
| tannhaeuser wrote:
| AFAIK Vivaldi is Webkit/Blink based so it'd be interesting to
| read a reflection on why the original Vivaldi code base was
| abandoned, if its abandoning was regretted, and on the state of
| the Web as a sustainable media format in general.
| siproprio wrote:
| I just can't stand the vivaldi UI. It's just too slow.
|
| Especially everything tabs feels awful. From new tab, to drag-
| and-drop.
| rasz wrote:
| Firefox:
| https://www.wykop.pl/cdn/c3201142/comment_b4JWi49tKJUfE8oOvx...
|
| Opera:
| https://www.wykop.pl/cdn/c3201142/comment_Rn6fiEoSZpDpNfvzIj...
|
| Vivaldi:
| https://www.wykop.pl/cdn/c3201142/comment_1KXF2VcFzD3BIAFVIJ...
| siproprio wrote:
| Yep.
| timwis wrote:
| Doesn't backing a chromium-based browser like Vivaldi or Brave
| push the industry further toward browser monopoly? (or at least
| in the rendering engine sense, as we once had with IE)
| 0x49d1 wrote:
| Using Vivaldi as my main browser for several months now. There
| are some problems with Google Docs, but other then that almost
| everything is fine. I really like company's attitude to its
| users, various researchers agree that they really don't leak what
| they say they don't. Firefox is superb too, but mobile browser
| experience is not there yet (I mean the new Android browser).
| Brave is another option, but I feel that Vivaldi is way more
| under my control and made "for me", even considering that Brave
| is open sourced.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-09 23:00 UTC)