Sign in / up

back to article Google makes Opera bloggers an offer they can't refuse: Use Chrome

Google is warning Opera web browser users they must switch to Chrome in order to use Blogger.com, the search giant's blog-hosting service. No technical incompatibilities have been found to justify the alarm. After a reader tip-off, El Reg created a Google blog using Opera 12.0 for Mac this morning, and received this message: …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. heyrick Silver badge

    Chrome

    I'm using an older Firefox and the fancy Google logos (the specials you can interact with) are now replaced by a message telling me to use Chrome.

    The last time I tried Chrome (about a year and a half back, so maybe it is different?), it wanted to install itself someplace weird like "documents and settings", with one complete install per user. Once I found this out, it was instantly uninstalled (on an eeePC with SSDs, there's not enough space free for rubbish like that).

    Plus, I rely upon NoScript and ABP. Until Chrome can offer similar (or Opera, or...), then sorry, no deal. If this means Google intentionally breaks itself to promote its own browser at the cost of standards, then I guess that's their issue. Not mine. Google might be almighty, but there's always a possibility of a startup coming along if Google get unfirendly. After all, once upon a time AltaVista was god and Google was a surprise startup when people were asking "who needs another search engine?".

    1 0
    1. Clive Summerfield
      Reply Icon

      Re: Chrome

      "Plus, I rely upon NoScript and ABP. Until Chrome can offer similar (or Opera, or...), then sorry, no deal."

      Hmmm, looks up to top right of Chrome browser window and spots the NotScript and ABP icons. There are many reasons for not using Chrome, but those aren't two of them.

      0 0
    2. Phil Koenig
      Reply Icon
      Meh

      Re: Chrome

      @heyrick: re: how Chrome installs in the user data folder etc:

      That is one of the main reasons I have avoided Chrome after my initial experiments with it.

      From what I can tell, the primary reason that Google did that was to circumvent limited-user application installation restrictions. I think Google may have even admitted this directly.

      In other words. places like businesses which don't want clueless users installing random junk on their PCs to keep them from screwing the company with malware, or bringing the 'net connection to its knees while they download DVD torrents, or uploading proprietary company secrets to Bulgaria - are to be sneered-at and Google wants to make it easier to do whatever the h*ll you want anyway.

      Surely it's not because they need to 'help' home users on limited accounts, because as we all know, the clueless home users are all using admin accounts with no password assigned.

      I have various other issues with it, like the auto-updates you can't control, the sharing of browsing details with the Googleplex, etc etc.

      I won't take away from Google's successes, they've built some nice products and technologies. But it's that megalomania problem...

      0 0
      1. Crazy Operations Guy
        Reply Icon

        Re: Chrome

        Actually installing to the user's directory causes quite a lot of issues, specifically with properly functioning Anti-Malware applications, since nothing should be running out of there on a properly managed system. And bbesides, shouldn't it ask 'Where do you want to install this? Program Files or Users?" and change the default depending on what rights the current user has.

        1 0
        1. Goat Jam
          Reply Icon
          Windows

          Re: Chrome

          "Actually installing to the user's directory causes quite a lot of issues, specifically with properly functioning Anti-Malware applications, since nothing should be running out of there on a properly managed system. And bbesides, shouldn't it ask 'Where do you want to install this? Program Files or Users?" and change the default depending on what rights the current user has."

          This caveat, of course, only applies to operating systems that a have a crazy, fucked up, abortion of a permissions system. ie: Windows

          1 0
          1. Crazy Operations Guy
            Reply Icon
            WTF?

            Re: Chrome

            "This caveat, of course, only applies to operating systems that a have a crazy, fucked up, abortion of a permissions system. ie: Windows"

            What do you mean? The permission system in Windows closely mirrors that of other OSes:

            Administrators Group = wheel group

            UAC = sudo

            On every Unix and Unix-like system I have used, the first user crated has full permissions and the root account is disable for logon.

            the only thing I can think that you are trying to make fun of is how Windows has much more granular permissions than other Operating Systems. Or maybe you are just spouting some FUD just because you don't like Windows.

            It would be just as fair to say that Unix-like OSes are the ones with the 'abortion of a permissions system' since you can only control Read, write and Execute for Owner, one of the Owner's Groups and World; where on Windows any object (Files, directories, registry keys, processes, User objects, etc...) can have an unlimited number of users or groups that all have varying permissions assigned to them (A hell of a lot more than just RWX)

            0 0
    3. KjetilS
      Reply Icon

      Re: Chrome

      "Plus, I rely upon NoScript and ABP. Until Chrome can offer similar (or Opera, or...)"

      I'm the other Opera user (the first one replied further up).

      You can set Opera to block all JS by default and only allow it on a site-by-site basis.

      You can also do the same with Java/Flash.

      And it has a built in blocker similar to AB. (Right click on the page, block content, click on whatever you want to block)

      2 0
    4. TeeCee Gold badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Chrome

      It'll install in a conventional manner, but you have to deliberately run the installer as admin to make it happen. I guess "Install for all users or just me" and then leaving it to the OS to handle privilege escalation in the conventional manner was too bloody complicated for Google?

      The bit that makes me weep is the update process. Google seem to have come up with an abortion of an approach that manages to preserve the worst parts of both automagic updates without asking and manual updates, while dumping the positive aspects of both. No updates or prompts advising of a new version happen at all, until I hit "About Google Chrome" in the tools menu, at which point it updates to the latest version without asking. Sheer bloody genius that one.......

      0 0
    5. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Chrome

      Errm Opera has had those for about 2+ years now...

      0 0
  2. Lars Silver badge
    WTF?

    Learning from Microsoft

    Was it DDos or something. Funny they are concerned with such a small (and good) player as Opera.

    0 0
  3. Don Mitchell

    IE 9 too?

    I've seen features (like image search) go dark for IE 9 within the last week. Have other's noticed this? As their browser climbs to the top, will Google snuff out its competition by making search and youtube only usuable by chrome?

    0 0
  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Similar message in gmail for firefox

    I noticed a similar message showing up in gmail last week on a not-so-updated version of Firefox (seems like firefox push out a new update every week now, gah.).

    0 0
  5. edge_e
    Joke

    Do no evil!

    0 0
  6. Graham Wilson
    Flame

    More bully-boy tactics.

    It never ends.

    Once upon a time, such tactics at law used to be considered as restrictive trade practice.

    Again, the only solution is legislation. The Googles and Microsofts of this world only begin to understand when fines hit hundreds of millions of dollars.

    ...But then it doesn't bother me, I'd never use Blogger.com anyway.

    0 0
  7. Antoinette Lacroix

    If it doesn't run with Opera, give it a miss. .

    1 0
  8. ScissorHands
    Devil

    What comes after the Swedish Chef version?

    When Microsoft targeted Opera with broken pages on MSN, Opera released the "Bork" version, that rendered MSN in "Swedish-chef-speak". I hope Opera unleashes a "Mahnamahna" version this time.

    1 0
  9. Jason Hindle

    For those who want to use Opera safely

    There's always WordPress. A blogging site now owned by a browser company must be looking very tempting at the moment.

    Loved the sub heading BTW.

    0 0
  10. stanimir
    Unhappy

    User agent

    a) Blindly using user agent (on the server) for any decision is beyond stupid.

    b) I am (have been) seeing "Try Chrome" for ages with Firefox using google docs. Blocking scripts w/ ABP does the trick but it's retarded from google to keep pushing its own browser after numerous "dismiss" action.

    Given b) I am not sure how this article makes it to the news section.

    1 0
  11. Phil Koenig
    Megaphone

    The minority IS right

    "Robot" wrote:

    " In fact, the HP TouchPad does a better job in CSS rendering than Opera. Of course it is possible that Opera is the compliant one, and the others are all non-compliant, but the "minority is right" situation is not necessarily a good thing for web developers."

    Actually, the person who invented CSS was then and is now still working for Opera. Opera has historically been the most CSS-compliant web browser in the world.

    What would be good for web developers is if they weren't so lazy and actually learned what a W3C standard is.

    2 0
  12. Phil Koenig
    WTF?

    To the Google defenders, I give you the Swedish Chef..

    If Google's claim about incompatibility were actually technically true, one would have expected them to have a dialogue with Opera about it before trying to chase all Opera's users away from their websites.

    The fact that they didn't appear to make any such effort, to me, is telling. Especially since no one seems to have actually uncovered a rendering problem with current versions of Opera there.

    Perhaps Opera needs to release an update to their "Swedish Chef version", which converts all text on Google properties to Swedish Chef speak.

    1 0
  13. Smartypantz

    EVIL assholes

    And the worlds most swollen parasite, they are.. mmrrhh..

    0 0
  14. Smartypantz

    Programming for the web browser

    "the browser is the operating system."

    This is the stupidest idea i haver ever seen. All the "cloud providers" keep pushing it because they want to own your data. Nevertheless it has been a pipedream from day one.

    it boils down to: "we want the same amount og functionality in the browser, as in native applications. and we expect a lot less complexity" !?!?! WTF?

    everyday i praise my self lucky that i am NOT the one programming FUCKING javascript for the MOTHERFUCKING webbrowsers (unlike my poor colleagues).

    Luckily i spend my time in a somewhat predictable environment (sysadm, a bit of serverside java and bash+perl)

    1 0
    1. heyrick Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Programming for the web browser

      "everyday i praise my self lucky that i am NOT the one programming FUCKING javascript for the MOTHERFUCKING webbrowsers (unlike my poor colleagues)."

      At a cinema near you: The Code Warrior, starring Samuel L. Jackson...

      0 0
  15. Bernd Felsche
    Mushroom

    Standards optional for Google?

    Imagine if ...

    ... your web site(s) only had to support standards and not browsers.

    Oh I remember: That's what (Sir) Tim Berners-Lee had in mind when he invented the mechanisms for the WWW in 1990

    Google not evil? Perhaps.

    But it's certainly not doing any good by attacking browsers instead of encouraging compliance with standards.

    0 0
  16. Gil

    I think the real story here is that somebody out there still uses Opera!

    Welcome to 1999!

    0 1
  17. Brian Sherwood Jones

    El Reg already has the answer

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/28/facebook_to_buy_opera/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/29/facebook-opera_n_1551978.html

    It looks like part of the google-facebook quest for market.

    0 0
  18. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    While we Applaude Google... for something or other...

    And we condemn Opera for being backwatered yesterdays news that was crap then.... like 10 years ago it was crap....

    The people in Google play dirty because they are dirty....

    Still anyone who uses Opera deserves to be cast out of the camp as one does with the unfortunates blighted with poxes and boils.

    0 2

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like