tks

Why not set something like this up for open standards? You don’t really need a prize, I think people will do it for bragging rights (if not, maybe throw in a couple of author-signed s as well

1) Tonido.com has already been doing this “own your own cloud” thing before Opera…hardly something that merits the phrase of “reinventing the web.”

2) If servers are so bad, then why does Unite force our reliance upon (gasp) Opera’s SERVERS?!

3) Why can’t I use my own URL on my alleged home webserver?

4) No PHP support!

5) Why can’t Opera get it’s sh*t together and make an open source browser with EXTENSIONS??? Hello???

anyway good that chris isn’t the advisor for security and innovation in any browser cause def he will bring down even the all almighty IE.

about almighty i was been sarcastic ; )

Regards

Nilma Azeem

I would never claim that Opera has it right, or that we should give up web hosts, but I do think that what they have done points to the next evolution in browsers (which Opera has consistently done since they first came into existence).

I expect that what it will actually look like is an integrated home-page that uses all the various available API’s to centralize your internet hub.

Some of it will rely on external services (say, twitter or google apps) and some of it will move back onto your personal machine (serving up photos, music and video).

Really, people like you or I could already do this by designing a locally served web page that does almost exactly that, but what the browsers will do soon (and what Opera Unite points to) is for that to be built in and simplified.

That is, instead of *choosing* a home page, we will pick components that will essentially build one. That will require a built-in web-server, unless it comes from Safari: Apple can leverage web-sharing in the OS.

For some reason, Opera always manages to point in the right general direction, but always gets it just wrong enough to fail. Not like alpha release software, like an alpha release idea that others pick up, refine and run with.

I will copy a french artist :

« Billions of flies can’t be wrong : eat shit ! »

The more Internet become centralized with time, the most this centralized servers gain control of our datas. Facebook is the perfect exemple, see the licence :

« For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (”IP content”), you specifically give us the following permission [..] you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (”IP License”). »

Great.

Also, Facebook granted that the access of a deleted content is removed, but they keep the data for a “reasonable amount of time”. Define “reasonable”…

Make a comparison with the corrected licence of Opera Unite :

« For the avoidance of doubt, this clause does not apply to the files you share as an End-User of the Opera Unite, as such files are never uploaded to Opera’s site. Opera will not make a claim to own or use those files. ».

Apart that, Facebook has a curious definition of “friends”. Well, anyway I never find any interest of this social network, and I don’t care that 200M people find one, as long as they are happy with it.

>>> But this number can’t be used as an argument. <<<

Also, as Opera, Facebook can « terminate your account on the Facebook Service [...] for any or no reason, at any time in our sole discretion, with or without notice. ». This is justified in a legal way, to avoid been sued…

All licences are the same for this.

Is it centralized ? No, it isn’t. As any Apache/IIS server, it is useless if you don’t have a domain name.

You can use your IP but well, Unite permit to share URL so…

Opera server do this DNS job, not more. It is NOT a proxy.

So, it is possible to use alternative domain name service :
http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/custom-domains-opera-unite/

As any web server.

Second problem in the analysis : The license.

Well, in fact, it WAS perfectly accurate, and it is still the case for some things.

The fact that Opera don’t want be responsible of illegal uses is understoodable, and this is just stupid to criticize it.

Remember that Opera is a company, not a foundation, so they can be sued at any moment for anything and everything.

The fact that you agree to not upload illegal stuff, and as Opera keep the capacity to block websites, they are sure to avoid annoying legal problems.

Anyway, as it is a server, you can change the domain name if required.

Nevertheless, the fact that « you grant us and our affiliates the right and limited license to use, copy, display, perform, distribute and adapt this User Generated Content for the purpose of carrying out the Services » was a serious and annoying problem.

Opera ASA has corrected it :
http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2009/06/16/opera-unite-terms-of-service-updated

We can read that « For the avoidance of doubt, this clause does not apply to the files you share as an End-User of the Opera Unite, as such files are never uploaded to Opera’s site. Opera will not make a claim to own or use those files. ».

No use, no ownership, they have no right on our content.

Finally, why Opera is not Open-source ? Because it is a company who need money ? Open-source is not an Holy Grail able to solve everything. Opera don’t have serious market share unlike Firefox to call financial help from his user like Firefox did a day to pay adverts.