Big Problem: Files in 9.5 cache don't have file extension: There is no way people will accept this
Annon
I looked at some web sites and closed Opera. I then looked at
the files in the cache directory. They weren't what they were
before.
They were in the form opr0000x with no file extension. You had
no way to figure out which out of thousands of files were
viewable images, .tmp, and .flv files or unviewable html, .js,
or .css files.
Many users go back and review cached files to look at pictures
again and to view videos again. Some people let videos download
without viewing and view them for the first time from cache with
an external media player, like VLC, for a better viewing
experience.
By taking off the extensions, Opera has made it practically
impossible for people to do things they have done since day 1, or
thereabouts. This is called going backwards.
For a substantial number of users, this is war. There is no way
in the world people are going move to 9.50 if they can't take a
second look at pictures and replay videos and do what they have
done forever.
Andrew Gregory
> I looked at some web sites and closed Opera. I then looked at
> the files in the cache directory. They weren't what they were
> before.
Try Tools -> Advanced -> Cache, or just opera:cache
HTH,
--
Andrew Gregory
<URL: http://www.scss.com.au/family/andrew/ >
Steve Thackery
SteveT
Annon
news:g3g99t$trj$1...@news.opera.com:
> Ah yes, opera:cache. It works fine. People WILL accept
> this.
>
> SteveT
No way.
The way it works now, I can go into the cache with a file
explorer and in maybe a minute, identify 200 or 300 jpgs and
pngs above 20 K or a large .tmp or .flv video from among
thousands of files.
If it is video, I can play it.
I can quickly select the images and copy them to a new directory,
where I can then open Irfanview and examine the thumbnails to see
if there is anything I want to look at further. There too I can
use Irfanview to sort by name, size, and time to find what might
interest me and separate it from what does not.
I tried once looking at the whole cache as thumbnails with
Irfanview. It took forever displaying little icons for text
files and gifs in which I had no interest while I had to sit
there.
This process saves time over individually saving images that as I
go along because I have click, say save, locate a directory, and
give it a name.
Opera cache does not provide the facilities of a full function
file manager which needs the extension to separate the wheat from
the chaff. Without the extensions, what could do in few minutes
might take an hour or more opening thousands of images from
opera:cache to see what they are.
Steve Thackery
SteveT
Steve Thackery
manager facilities. And you are right - without the extensions you are
knackered.
I wonder why they were removed. Do you suppose Rijk or a colleague will let
us know?
SteveT
Eik
wrote:
> I wonder why they were removed.
There was an explanation last year when the first beta came out but I
can't remember it specifically.
I think it was to 'help' curious users from browsing their cache folder
and running viruses/malware that may have come from web pages and would
otherwise sit harmlessly in the cache folder, and also because some
anti-virus programs occasionally caused problems if certain file
extensions were saved to disk.
The other problem with not having file extensions is that when you view
the source of a page or open a cached Javascript file from the error
console, no syntax highlighting is automatically applied because most
programs use the file extension to work out which scheme to use. I did
suggest a configuration option to let the user add command switches to the
action that launches the viewer because some text editors can be forced to
apply a specified scheme this way, but I doubt it'll change. If Opera
could be made to run, for example, "notapad2.exe /s 1 cachedHTMLFileName"
then it would at least fix this problem.
Andrew Gregory
them for very good reasons. I don't see Opera changing their minds about
it. Note also that Firefox is the same as Opera - it uses extensionless
files too. Safari goes one step further - the cache is a single database
file. You cannot access the individual files at all!
I have to assume that if three independent browser developers have all
done effectively the same thing, then they've done it for a reason, and
won't be changing their minds.
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 03:08:07 +0800, Annon <an...@annon.com> wrote:
> Opera cache does not provide the facilities of a full function
> file manager which needs the extension to separate the wheat from
> the chaff. Without the extensions, what could do in few minutes
> might take an hour or more opening thousands of images from
> opera:cache to see what they are.
Then it seems to me that what is really needed is an improved opera:cache
page. A couple more fields (MIME type and date) and the ability to sort on
any of the fields and you'd be set, I think. There's plenty of existing
"sort table" JS floating around that Opera could easily stick into the
cache page.
Actually, here's a thought:
1. Open opera:cache
2. Open the links panel (optional: expand to full size view)
3. Quick find ".gif", etc
4. Shift/Ctrl-select the files you want
5. Right-click, save as/save to download folder
Annon
in news:op.uc2wi...@news.opera.com:
> Let us assume that Opera carefully considered cache
> extensions and removed them for very good reasons.
I would not certainly accept that assumption for the reasons
stated below.
>I don't
> see Opera changing their minds about it. Note also that
> Firefox is the same as Opera - it uses extensionless files
> too. Safari goes one step further - the cache is a single
> database file. You cannot access the individual files at
> all!
>
> I have to assume that if three independent browser
> developers have all done effectively the same thing, then
> they've done it for a reason, and won't be changing their
> minds.
You make a good point of considering all of them together.
You make a further good point by citing Safari from Apple.
IE 6 does use extensions. Maybe someone could tell us if IE7
differs. I bet it does.
As always, we should recall and begin with Cicero, historian
and slumlord, and ask "Cui bono?" (Who benefits?)
That's easy. The party with an interest in whether or not web
surfers can view files in cache is the American Hollywood media
industry, which makes no secret that it would like total control
over viewers experience on the internet, as it has over air and
cable television. Keeping and looking at images in cache for free
is not part of that idea, just as time shifting HD TV broadcasts
is not part of their idea either, unless you pay the cable
company for a limited capacity, overpriced PVR.
Apple now forms part of that industry. That web users with
Apple's browser cannot access cache files should come as no
surprise.
The ancestory of Firefox goes to Mozilla to Netscape to AOL to
Time Warner, one of the biggest of all the boggies in the
industry.
So from a common practice of Firefox and Safari, the trail leads
to Hollywood and Time Warner and Apple.
The dispute between the media companies and web viewers concerns
consumers' fair use rights. Going back to the Sony betamax case,
the media companies have never acknowledged the doctrine of fair
use as applying where their profits are involved. According to
them, liberal judges on the Supreme Court ignored the law and
sided with consumers in the Sony case. McCain has promised more
judges like Scalia and Roberts who won't do things like that. The
media industry has never accepted that decision as legitimate.
Web viewers take the view that single copies of images viewed on
the internet and kept for noncommercial private personal use
in the home and never published, reproduced, performed, or
displayed are fair use under historic principles and are like
copying something in the library for a research project.
Cache extensions facilitate users' exercising their fair use
rights while elimnating them frustrates their exercising those
rights.
That's the argument pro and con. Opera sided with the companies
and against consumers.
a
Franc Zabkar
<and...@no.spam.scss.com.au.invalid> put finger to keyboard and
composed:
>Let us assume that Opera carefully considered cache extensions and removed
>them for very good reasons. I don't see Opera changing their minds about
>it. Note also that Firefox is the same as Opera - it uses extensionless
>files too. Safari goes one step further - the cache is a single database
>file. You cannot access the individual files at all!
>
>I have to assume that if three independent browser developers have all
>done effectively the same thing, then they've done it for a reason, and
>won't be changing their minds.
ISTR that earlier versions of Opera sometimes assigned the wrong
extensions to cached files. For example, I occasionally look for FLV
files in my cache and find that they have some other extension. Using
a hex editor confirms that they are indeed FLV file types.
In the past I have also witnessed the following behaviour which I find
disturbing:
HTML disguised as JPEG:
http://groups.google.com/group/opera.general/msg/e0aa4b8bf0388595?dmode=source
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Alan
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:06:37 +0100, Steve Thackery <nob...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I wonder why they were removed.
>
> There was an explanation last year when the first beta came out but I
> can't remember it specifically.
>
> I think it was to 'help' curious users from browsing their cache folder
> and running viruses/malware that may have come from web pages and would
> otherwise sit harmlessly in the cache folder, and also because some
> anti-virus programs occasionally caused problems if certain file
> extensions were saved to disk.
They seem to have made several "users are morons so we have to hide sharp
objects from them" decisions in this "upgrade".(Another one is dropping
all the normal right-click options on things you could do with files in
the Transfers window.)
> The other problem with not having file extensions is that when you view
> the source of a page or open a cached Javascript file from the error
> console, no syntax highlighting is automatically applied because most
> programs use the file extension to work out which scheme to use.
Yep. I use ctrl-F3 to view source in Ultraedit, my text editor. Previously
it would highlight HTML syntax on opening "opr12345.html". On opening
"opr12345" it just treats it all as text.
Thanks Opera for protecting us from using any files in the cache.
Robin Zalek
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:06:37 +0100, Steve Thackery <nob...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I wonder why they were removed.
>
> I think it was to 'help' curious users from browsing their cache folder
> and running viruses/malware that may have come from web pages and would
> otherwise sit harmlessly in the cache folder, and also because some
> anti-virus programs occasionally caused problems if certain file
> extensions were saved to disk.
This is a side benefit, I personally have seen virus alerts from html
files loaded into my Opera cache because they contain IE exploits. For
someone who doesn't know how to properly interpret such alerts that could
result in all manner of overreaction.
The actual reason is to optimise managing the database that goes with the
files. The filenames are assigned in an ascending order; in the event of
an Opera crash all orphaned files (i.e. saved to disk but not recorded in
the database) with names higher than the last database entry are purged
easily - that's a somewhat messier process if you have to deal with
extensions too. If you're viewing videos from the cache take my advice:
sort by size. Chances are the largest files in your cache are all going to
be videos.
The problem is that your [the original poster's] use of the cache is not
its intended purpose. Opera made changes so that the cache could work more
efficiently with in its primary task, and for the vast majority of users
this is not going to be a problem as they are never going to look in the
cache. If you are using the cache that often to save videos I'd recommend
looking into one of the many user JavaScript solutions floating around to
save the files that way. Perhaps you could let us know more about where
you are tending to get those videos from.
--
Do the obvious to get the email.
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
>
> Cache extensions facilitate users' exercising their fair use
> rights while elimnating them frustrates their exercising those
> rights.
>
> That's the argument pro and con. Opera sided with the companies
> and against consumers.
I doubt that my assuring you that such arguments were never considered
during the 9.5 development cycle will convince you. But it is still true.
Also consider that Opera dared to implement a bittorrent client into the
browser.
--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
Opera Software ASA, Documentation & QA
Tweak: http://my.opera.com/Rijk/blog/
"The most common way to get usability wrong is to listen to what users
say rather than actually watching what they do." - J.Nielsen
annon
news:g3i9vo$eqh$1...@news.opera.com:
See
http://groups.google.com/group/opera.general/browse_thread/thread
/25e408842a2789dd/afbc2372f0087a97?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=entertainment#
afbc2372f0087a97 for additional discussion on this point.
annon
wrote in news:op.uc5zm...@laptop-rock.lan:
> Op Sat, 21 Jun 2008 09:18:16 +0200 schreef Annon
> <an...@annon.com>:
>
>>
>> Cache extensions facilitate users' exercising their fair
>> use rights while elimnating them frustrates their
>> exercising those rights.
>>
>> That's the argument pro and con. Opera sided with the
>> companies and against consumers.
>
> I doubt that my assuring you that such arguments were never
> considered during the 9.5 development cycle will convince
> you.
How did you know that?
But it is still true.
Question 1.
Do you personally attend and participate in all the meetings and
discussions in the front office and among attorneys where matters
of this nature are discussed, including threats of litigation,
acqusitions, development contracts, fair use, intellectual
property and claims thereof?
Question 2.
What then is the foundation of your claim of personal knowledge
that would permit you to testify that no such arguments were
considered?
Question 3.
If no such matters were discussed, then why did Opera decide to
change something that it has done since day 1 and screw its users
who use cache file extensions?
Further analysis.
You stated:
>> That's the argument pro and con. Opera sided with the
>> companies and against consumers.
>
> I doubt that my assuring you that such arguments were never
> considered during the 9.5 development cycle will convince
> you. But it is still true.
Your denial begs the question.
The orignal statement said as a matter of fact Opera took the
side favored by those who do not recognize fair use rights and
against consumers, who claim those rights.
Whether such arguments occured within Opera or did not occur or
were considered or not is irrelevant to the fact that what Opera
did, as a matter of fact, in dropping the extensions was to side
against its usersa nd consumers in the larger battle and debate
between Hollywood industry mogols and ordinary people.
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
> "Rijk van Geijtenbeek" <ri...@opera.invalid.removethis.com>
> wrote in news:op.uc5zm...@laptop-rock.lan:
>
>> Op Sat, 21 Jun 2008 09:18:16 +0200 schreef Annon
>> <an...@annon.com>:
>>
>>>
>>> Cache extensions facilitate users' exercising their fair
>>> use rights while elimnating them frustrates their
>>> exercising those rights.
>>>
>>> That's the argument pro and con. Opera sided with the
>>> companies and against consumers.
>>
>> I doubt that my assuring you that such arguments were never
>> considered during the 9.5 development cycle will convince
>> you.
>
> How did you know that?
>
>
> But it is still true.
QED...
> Question 1.
>
> Do you personally attend and participate in all the meetings and
> discussions in the front office and among attorneys where matters
> of this nature are discussed, including threats of litigation,
> acqusitions, development contracts, fair use, intellectual
> property and claims thereof?
>
> Question 2.
>
> What then is the foundation of your claim of personal knowledge
> that would permit you to testify that no such arguments were
> considered?
It is very clear that no matter what I answer here, you will find reason
to doubt it. Believers in conspiracy theories never get swayed by
arguments, logic or reason. You probably also think that people never
walked on the moon, and the twin towers were brought down by a CIA
conspiracy.
Do you claim to have better information than me on what happens in
internal discussions in Opera Software? If not, you are just guessing and
inferring motives. And you conveniently snipped the bittorrent question,
for which completely different motives could be inferred. I can assure you
that the state of the IP-rights debate was seriously discussed before
*that* feature was added.
> Question 3.
>
> If no such matters were discussed, then why did Opera decide to
> change something that it has done since day 1 and screw its users
> who use cache file extensions?
Safety reasons: don't let random surfing put potentially dangerous files
on your hard disk.
Same reason why Opera 9.5 now defaults to saving webpages as MHT archives:
the default should be as harmless as possible.
> Further analysis.
>
> You stated:
>
>>> That's the argument pro and con. Opera sided with the
>>> companies and against consumers.
>>
>> I doubt that my assuring you that such arguments were never
>> considered during the 9.5 development cycle will convince
>> you. But it is still true.
>
> Your denial begs the question.
>
> The orignal statement said as a matter of fact Opera took the
> side favored by those who do not recognize fair use rights and
> against consumers, who claim those rights.
>
> Whether such arguments occured within Opera or did not occur or
> were considered or not is irrelevant to the fact that what Opera
> did, as a matter of fact, in dropping the extensions was to side
> against its users and consumers in the larger battle and debate
> between Hollywood industry mogols and ordinary people.
We should have a 'best hyperbole of the year' award in these newsgroups.
If the loss of extensions was done to please Hollywood industry mogols,
they are rather easily satisfied, don't you think? Because it is still
trivially easy to save all content.
I'm not happy with the loss of extensions either, but that is because I
feel sorry for those people who have text editors that don't do code
coloring anymore when viewing source code. Luckily my own preferred editor
(NoteTab Pro) doesn't care and sees it is HTML anyway.
Odd H. Sandvik
says...[Regarding the removale of extensions in Opera cache.]
> > change something that it has done since day 1 and screw its users
> > who use cache file extensions?
>
> Safety reasons: don't let random surfing put potentially dangerous files
> on your hard disk.
> Same reason why Opera 9.5 now defaults to saving webpages as MHT archives:
> the default should be as harmless as possible.
So you are dumbing down Opera to spare the technically challenged.
Can I assume you have made it so these features can be turned
back on again by more sophisticated users?
--
Odd H. Sandvik
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
<jegleserde...@hotmail.com>:
> In article <op.uc60x...@laptop-rock.lan>, Rijk van Geijtenbeek
> says...
>> Op Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:12:36 +0200 schreef annon <an...@annon.com>:
> [Regarding the removale of extensions in Opera cache.]
>> > If no such matters were discussed, then why did Opera decide to
>> > change something that it has done since day 1 and screw its users
>> > who use cache file extensions?
>>
>> Safety reasons: don't let random surfing put potentially dangerous files
>> on your hard disk.
>> Same reason why Opera 9.5 now defaults to saving webpages as MHT
>> archives: the default should be as harmless as possible.
>
> So you are dumbing down Opera to spare the technically challenged.
If you want to put it that way... But what you call 'technically
challenged' consists of the big majority of computer users.
> Can I assume you have made it so these features can be turned
> back on again by more sophisticated users?
If there was a simple way, we'd do that. As you might know, we
experimented with a solution for the source editor user case, but that
turned out to be too complex to get it to work reliably. And implementing
two different caching systems is not a good idea.
--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
Opera Software ASA, Documentation & QA
Tweak: http://my.opera.com/Rijk/blog/
"The most common way to get usability wrong is to listen to what users
say rather than actually watching what they do." -- J.Nielsen
Odd H. Sandvik
> Op Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:12:37 +0200 schreef Odd H. Sandvik
> <jegleserde...@hotmail.com>:
>
> > In article <op.uc60x...@laptop-rock.lan>, Rijk van Geijtenbeek
> > says...
> >> Op Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:12:36 +0200 schreef annon <an...@annon.com>:
> > [Regarding the removale of extensions in Opera cache.]
> >> > If no such matters were discussed, then why did Opera decide to
> >> > change something that it has done since day 1 and screw its users
> >> > who use cache file extensions?
> >>
> >> Safety reasons: don't let random surfing put potentially dangerous files
> >> on your hard disk.
> >> Same reason why Opera 9.5 now defaults to saving webpages as MHT
> >> archives: the default should be as harmless as possible.
> >
> > So you are dumbing down Opera to spare the technically challenged.
>
> If you want to put it that way... But what you call 'technically
> challenged' consists of the big majority of computer users.
Sure, I understand that. Catering to the biggest audience
makes good business sense.
> > Can I assume you have made it so these features can be turned
> > back on again by more sophisticated users?
>
> If there was a simple way, we'd do that. As you might know, we
> experimented with a solution for the source editor user case, but that
> turned out to be too complex to get it to work reliably. And implementing
> two different caching systems is not a good idea.
Just make sure you don't dumb Opera down too much. While
technically challenged users are the majority, they often
take cues from the pros.
--
Odd H. Sandvik
Annon
wrote in news:op.uc60x...@laptop-rock.lan:
In other words, no. You do not have a foundation of personal
knowledge that would permit you to testify that no such arguments
were considered.
"A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is
introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has
personal knowledge of the matter." Federal Rules of Evidence
602, http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule602
> Believers in conspiracy
> theories never get swayed by arguments, logic or reason.
> You probably also think that people never walked on the
> moon, and the twin towers were brought down by a CIA
> conspiracy.
And you probably still believe Marcus Julius Brutus when he said
that he knew nothing about who assassinated Caesar. He had no
idea of who would have wanted to do such a thing. The
conservatives certainly didn't conspire to kill Caesar.
For the latest on 9/11 see "Japanese Lawmaker takes 9/11 doubts
global," Japan Times,
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20137.htm
>it is still trivially
> easy to save all content.
But going into a cache directory with 5,000 to 6,000 files,
separating the .jpg .png and maybe .gif files by size, maybe a
minimum 25KB, identifying maybe 1,000 such files, copying and
pasting them into another directory where you can view thumbnails
with Irfanview or XnView, maybe 40 a screen, and deleting what
you don't want is very easy and quick with file extensions and a
file manager but extremely time consuming without them. Opening
with Irfan View or XnView 6,000 thumbnails and identifying,
copying, and pasting isolated individual images to another
directory is extremely time consuming.
>> Question 3.
>>
>> If no such matters were discussed, then why did Opera
>> decide to change something that it has done since day 1
>> and screw its users who use cache file extensions?
>
> Safety reasons: don't let random surfing put potentially
> dangerous files on your hard disk.
> Same reason why Opera 9.5 now defaults to saving webpages
> as MHT archives: the default should be as harmless as
> possible.
>
I do not buy this claim.
I did some googling to find incidents where some Opera user
surfed the web, then went browsing in his Opera cache with
Internet Explorer, and then opened a html file that contained an
activex control, which IE processed and then hosed down his
system. I found no such incidents and question whether in the
history of man, going back at least to Asshur Nirari I, this has
ever even happened.
The user has the same risk if he had surfed to that page with IE.
The same risk exists exploring IE version 6 cache files, which
also have extensions.
As long as active X is around, people will always have dangerous
files on their computer. Taking the extension off only makes
them marginally less dangerous.
Probably dozens of .exe files in installed applications on a
computer could do damage to application functionality if executed
by someone randomly browsing application directories with windows
explorer.
Generally speaking, you address the risk of user access to files
through windows explorer at the operating system level, where you
have tools to make a computer a kiosk and turn off windows
explorer, not at the application level, one at a time.
Meanwhile, you can still download an .exe file with Opera. I
downloaded Opera_950_classic_setup.exe to install Opera 9.50.
Downloading a .exe file is dangerous. Many people can testify to
the danger of doing that. But Opera permits you to do it.
In any security analysis you have to assess dangers, likelihoods,
and benefits of what people can do.
In case of downloading .exe files and putting extensions on cache
files, users get substantial benefit from doing both. Working
with cache files without extensions is very time consuming and
costly.
While downloading .exe files is very likely and common, users who
don't know what they are doing browsing cache files hasn't proven
to be a common occurrence.
When we analyze the risks and benefits of having cache file
extensions, the risks are marginal and far less than other known
accepted risks while the costs to the thousands of Opera users
who use them are extremely high.
This reasoning does not lead to a conclusion that you should
remove cache file extensions.
Thus I do not believe this claim. This is the kind of story you
make up after the fact. It is not something that happens before
you do something.
w
> I'm not happy with the loss of extensions either, but that
> is because I feel sorry for those people who have text
> editors that don't do code coloring anymore when viewing
> source code. Luckily my own preferred editor (Note-Tab Pro)
> doesn't care and sees it is HTML anyway.
In other words, the problem doesn't affect you, so screw everyone
else.
>
> Do you claim to have better information than me on what
> happens in internal discussions in Opera Software? If not,
> you are just guessing and inferring motives.
No. I started with the accumulated wisdom of mankind which Cicero
formulated in two words, Cui bono?
Whoever did something probably benefited from it.
To find the truth you first ask who benefited? You do that
whether the victim is Nicole Brown Simpson or Caesar or file
cache extensions.
You had no foundation to make your first claim.
Your second story is contradicted by other risks which Opera
allows and does nothing about. It doesn't contain a compelling
benefit for Opera.
It has a zero ring of truth to it. There is a saying among sales
professionals, "If you can't fix it, feature it." In other words
when your product can't do something, claim a benefit like
security. Your story sounds like it came from someone trained in
such circles and accustomed to thinking in such a manner.
You did not allege a story I could believe. Your programmers
were simply lazy, saved some time and a few lines of code by
omitting the extensions, and couldn't have cared less about what
they were doing or if doing that screwed cache extension users.
With outsourcing these days, this happens all the time.
You could have alleged that the programmers say no one told them
to include them or not include them for the changes to cache.
They didn't know anyone cared. Management was to blame for lack
of leadership. I could believe that too.
> And you
> conveniently snipped the bit torrent question, for which
> completely different motives could be inferred.
The bit torrent decision occurred at a different time. One would
not assume that considerations that applied at that time applied
now. For all we know, someone in Opera could have regarded
removing file extensions as making up for bit torrent.
Steven Saunderson
<ri...@opera.invalid.removethis.com> wrote:
> It is very clear that no matter what I answer here, you will find reason
> to doubt it. Believers in conspiracy theories never get swayed by
> arguments, logic or reason.
I think the obvious solution here would be to make this dropping of file
name extensions optional. The default setting could be enabled so silly
users won't be exposed to any risk. Competent users could disable the
option and then everybody would be happy.
--
Steven
Odd H. Sandvik
Saunderson says...
I agree, but: He already said they tried that, but it was too
complicated, so they dropped it.
--
Odd H. Sandvik
Gary Waterbury
Presently, I need to use the cache for my website "A Mathematical Survey
of The English Language" http://usewords.us . I take words and phrases
and pictures and see if the Numerology of any names of pictures used
adds up to other words or phrases or pictures. I am a victim of question
1 above. I don't want to be sued for $100 trillion dollars, so I
eliminated most pictures on my website. Still, I am against preventing
the use of the browser cache for intelligence. I like "fair use". I
cannot use Opera dumbed down the way it is, nor can I use Firefox that
way. As far as Hollywood industry moguls are concerned, I think that
RONALD REAGAN=PRESIDENT in Numerology, and they didn't make him
PRESIDENT, I think it was destined to occur.
Alan
<ri...@opera.invalid.removethis.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> If no such matters were discussed, then why did Opera decide to
>> change something that it has done since day 1 and screw its users
>> who use cache file extensions?
>
> Safety reasons: don't let random surfing put potentially dangerous files
> on your hard disk.
> Same reason why Opera 9.5 now defaults to saving webpages as MHT
> archives: the default should be as harmless as possible.
Look, I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I thought you had a technical
reason for doing this.
It's really because you think users are stupid and need to be protected
from clicking on an EXE in their cache?
Is that the same reason I now can't do anything with a right click on
files in the Transfers window?
Could you at least make it a use option to get back the old bahaviours, I
will click through a disclaimer and promise not to sue you if that's what
it takes.
You've broken a lot of useful things by doing this.
I can't view source in my code editor proerly, I can't sort my cache by
type and date in FAR to quickly find and save a file.
And I really doubt if anyone is protected more.
Annon
wrote in news:op.uc60x...@laptop-rock.lan:
>> Question 3.
>>
>> If no such matters were discussed, then why did Opera
>> decide to change something that it has done since day 1
>> and screw its users who use cache file extensions?
>
> Safety reasons: don't let random surfing put potentially
> dangerous files on your hard disk.
> Same reason why Opera 9.5 now defaults to saving webpages
> as MHT archives: the default should be as harmless as
> possible.
>
One Gary Sugar, thought by some to be authorative, at
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=238293 has
different story:
"Originally posted by ArturoMendez:
...
"I would like to see an answer to the original question. Why does
the filetype not show in the cache4 file names anymore? Can it be
controlled by some setting or is this just another "enhancement"?
"It's something about (1) speed and (2) false positives from some
AV app. There is no setting. You can use opera:cache as
workaround.
So it's not safety, but speed and an antivirus application.
History readers and conspiracy watchers know when two
contradictory stories arise, one is definitely wrong, and, quite
likely, both are wrong.
I learned this lesson in the fifth grade following a broken
window. Somehow my teacher knew that no one was telling the
truth.
alias...@ao1.com
I'm getting the impression that Opera's target market is exclusively
"typical naive user" and that additional hidden processing is being
liberally added to my minimal expectations.
This is the Microsoft method, and why I go to great effort to avoid their
software.
After many years of satisfaction I haven't upgraded to 9.5 and based on
what I've just read here surely won't.
...
I have a shortcut key to explore the cache (using a 3rd-party file explorer
for sure) and now I read that files are being renamed. Waahhh!
Respect for the KISS law is lost and it wants to become a nanny-browser.
It's Opera's product and if they expect success by competing toe-to-toe
with IE, that's their choice. But it's really sad.
Odd H. Sandvik
Yup. For once, Opera has managed to disappoint me. That has never
happened before. :(
--
Odd H. Sandvik
Eik
<jegleserde...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Yup. For once, Opera has managed to disappoint me. That has never
> happened before. :(
Well it doesn't look as if they're going to go back on this so maybe we
should look at ways forward that will help with the situation?
As someone already said on a similar thread, Opera could improve things a
lot by updating opera:cache to include (at the very least) sorting
functions. Perhaps even have the ability to preview cached files by
hovering over them or clicking a link next to the name rather than click
on the main link and leave the cache page. This could be in a column, with
the information from the 'Info' panel displayed underneath the preview of
that file. It would be easy to display or scale images in the column.
Javascripts and stylesheets could have their own icon instead. Web pages
could have thumbnails, like they do elsewhere in Opera already.
Also, what about the ability to click on a link next to each cached image
that would take you to a page that uses that file and outline it, or would
that be too much?
Viewing source is also an annoyance. Can't Opera be reprogrammed to allow
users to associate command line switches with MIME types so that when the
view-source function is called, it checks whether there are switches set
for the MIME type of the file being displayed and includes them when it
launches the viewer app, otherwise it just launches it 'blind'. I don't
mind if this is hidden away in opera:config or even if it's a manual hack
for an INI file somewhere. By definition, anyone wanting to view
syntax-highlighted source is a techie and will understand the risks of
getting the switches syntax wrong, or using the appropriate syntax for
their operating system.
Actually, if Opera were to have a hidden setting to allow command switches
to be appended to the viewer app as it's launched, would it be no extra
bother to allow the user to specify the full path and switches? That way,
techies could associate whatever program they liked with any MIME type
they liked. Pressing 'View source' while looking at a HTML document might
launch Notepad++ while doing the same on a JPG might open it in Photoshop,
and an XML or RSS file could open in XML Notepad, etc.
Andrew Gregory
> As someone already said on a similar thread, Opera could improve things
> a lot by updating opera:cache to include (at the very least) sorting
> functions. Perhaps even have the ability to preview cached files by
> hovering over them or clicking a link next to the name rather than click
> on the main link and leave the cache page. This could be in a column,
> with the information from the 'Info' panel displayed underneath the
> preview of that file. It would be easy to display or scale images in the
> column. Javascripts and stylesheets could have their own icon instead.
> Web pages could have thumbnails, like they do elsewhere in Opera already.
See:
http://my.opera.com/Lex1/blog/show.dml/1014525
Opera watcher
news:op.udgdz...@ldn.000.000:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:30:09 +0100, Odd H. Sandvik
> <jegleserde...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yup. For once, Opera has managed to disappoint me. That
>> has never happened before. :(
>
> Well it doesn't look as if they're going to go back on this
> so maybe we should look at ways forward that will help
> with the situation?
I think people should continue to communicate with Opera about
the extensions. At the moment management at Opera is preoccupied
with trying to put Opera back together again.
Sooner or later they will realize how big a screwup removing them
is. They have thrown away one of the biggest advantages they had
over Firefox. Firefox does not include the extensions, and the
extensions in Opera is a big reason to use Opera instead of
Firefox. At time when Opera is telling people to switch to
Opera they will people, especially developers, switching back to
Firefox as one big advantage of Opera has gone away.
Opera will realize that removing them defeats its long term
strategic goal of increasing usage.
Tim Altman
<Operaw...@bar.com> wrote:
>Eik <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:op.udgdz...@ldn.000.000:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:30:09 +0100, Odd H. Sandvik
>> <jegleserde...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yup. For once, Opera has managed to disappoint me. That
>>> has never happened before. :(
>>
>> Well it doesn't look as if they're going to go back on this
>> so maybe we should look at ways forward that will help
>> with the situation?
>
>I think people should continue to communicate with Opera about
>the extensions. At the moment management at Opera is preoccupied
>with trying to put Opera back together again.
Thanks for that, I was wondering what they had been up to.
>Sooner or later they will realize how big a screwup removing them
>is. They have thrown away one of the biggest advantages they had
>over Firefox. Firefox does not include the extensions, and the
>extensions in Opera is a big reason to use Opera instead of
>Firefox. At time when Opera is telling people to switch to
>Opera they will people, especially developers, switching back to
>Firefox as one big advantage of Opera has gone away.
Having extensions on files stored in Opera's cache directory is of
absolutely no strategic importance.
--
Tim Altman
Desktop QA
Opera Software
Remove NO SPAM from e-mail address to reply
Odd H. Sandvik
says...
Just one of the things that made Opera better than the
next browser.
--
Odd H. Sandvik
Steven Saunderson
wrote:
> Having extensions on files stored in Opera's cache directory is of
> absolutely no strategic importance.
Wonderful. Why not leave the extensions then for the benefit of people
that want them. Of course you can make such a 'dangerous' practice
optional and reset the option by default.
--
Steven
Bill Hallman
wrote:
I, also, would like to have the extensions back!
I find myself having to use IE to capture things from the cache, since
Opera dropped them.
--
Opera 9.51.10080, winXP home edition SP3
Tim Altman
wrote:
When something is dangerous, we feel it is best not to make it
optional.
Odd H. Sandvik
says...
> dOn Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:02:46 +1000, Steven Saunderson <phe...@Syd.au>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:11:08 -0400, Tim Altman <do....@spam.me.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Having extensions on files stored in Opera's cache directory is of
> >> absolutely no strategic importance.
> >
> >Wonderful. Why not leave the extensions then for the benefit of people
> >that want them. Of course you can make such a 'dangerous' practice
> >optional and reset the option by default.
>
> When something is dangerous, we feel it is best not to make it
> optional.
But it's only dangerous for the technically challenged, and
they wouldn't look in the cache anyway. So removing this
feature only makes life a little less easy for pros, while
doing nothing for the technically challenged.
--
Odd H. Sandvik
Ed Jay
As much as I'm attached to Opera, and as much as I miss the ability to
manipulate the cache, I think they made the correct decision.
Technically challenged isn't the issue. Ignorance of the dangers that lurk
is the issue. How many people click on executable email attachments and in
doing so infect their machine? Even the technically competent people have
been know to do that, because the email was sent by 'someone they know and
trust.' It's relatively common knowledge that the way to save a youTube
video is to find it in your browser's cache. How do I know it's the video
I'm looking for? Double-click it and find out. Oops! CoolWebSearch found a
way to hide its trojan in a youTube file, and now your machine is screwed.
CoolWebSearch has even been known to hide trojans in Windows Restore-point
files, so when we technically competent people restore to an earlier system,
we infect our machines. (It doesn't take a technically challenged individual
to infect a machine, does it?)
Having said all that...I saw an Opera lng file that's been modified to show
cached file thumbnails as well as the ability to search the cache. If that
can be done, so can sort, etc., be done by an enterprising software geek.
I also note that when I launch opera:cache (or Help/Cache) I see the file
extensions clearly. I can easily identify the files by name and extension,
right click on any link, and save or move any cached file at my pleasure.
So, what's the real issue here? It's not as easy to accomplish what it once
was easy to do? What a terrible sacrifice we've all been forced to make,
just so innocent people won't inadvertently fall into traps set by errant
bastards. Think about it, and if you're so inclined, follow the lead of the
guy who added the thumbnails and develop a solution to your issues.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to reply by email)
Win the War Against Breast Cancer.
Knowing the facts could save your life.
http://www.breastthermography.info
Bill Hallman
wrote:
> dOn Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:02:46 +1000, Steven Saunderson <phe...@Syd.au>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:11:08 -0400, Tim Altman <do....@spam.me.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Having extensions on files stored in Opera's cache directory is of
>>> absolutely no strategic importance.
>>
>> Wonderful. Why not leave the extensions then for the benefit of people
>> that want them. Of course you can make such a 'dangerous' practice
>> optional and reset the option by default.
>
> When something is dangerous, we feel it is best not to make it
> optional.
>
It's dangerous to drive a car. Do you want me to stay at home in bed?
WAIT, people die in bed all the time!
Where can I hide? I can't go out side, there may be a drive by shooting.
PLEASE SAVE ME FROM MYSELF, before I do something stupid like turn on my
computer, or GOD forbid go on the Internet!!
SD
> I installed 9.5 and started surfing. It worked.
>
> I looked at some web sites and closed Opera. I then looked at
> the files in the cache directory. They weren't what they were
> before.
>
> They were in the form opr0000x with no file extension. You had
> no way to figure out which out of thousands of files were
> viewable images, .tmp, and .flv files or unviewable html, .js,
> or .css files.
>
> Many users go back and review cached files to look at pictures
> again and to view videos again. Some people let videos download
> without viewing and view them for the first time from cache with
> an external media player, like VLC, for a better viewing
> experience.
>
> By taking off the extensions, Opera has made it practically
> impossible for people to do things they have done since day 1, or
> thereabouts. This is called going backwards.
>
> For a substantial number of users, this is war. There is no way
> in the world people are going move to 9.50 if they can't take a
> second look at pictures and replay videos and do what they have
> done forever.
I complained about this during the beta too. Can this be optional????
John H Meyers
> Ah yes, opera:cache. It works fine. People WILL accept this.
I'd agree if you could tell me how to Copy, Move, Delete, Wipe,
Open With, Send To, apply "Unlocker," or all the other things
which you can do only in Windows Explorer, but NONE of which
you can do directly in Opera, unless it's been made more powerful
than the nearly useless 9.27 version of Opera:cache
Only if you were to add to Opera:cache context menus either the
same Windows integration which used to be (but may no longer be)
in the Transfer window, or else add a context menu function
"Open Windows Explorer here" (with this file selected)
would there be even a ray of hope of losing only a little convenience,
rather than blowing up the original well-paved highway,
leaving an obstacle course of boulders.
It appears to be another piece of the dumbing down of Opera,
to be more on the level of other browsers,
which one then might as well use instead, no?
"No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the public."
[H. L. Mencken]
--
Soon to be ex opera user
wrote
> Having extensions on files stored in Opera's cache
> directory is of absolutely no strategic importance.
>
Bye Bye Opera.
John H Meyers
> I have to assume that if three independent browser developers have all
> done effectively the same thing, then they've done it for a reason,
> and won't be changing their minds.
"Big Three" auto makers once rejected all the innovations of the
upstart Tucker automobile company; while they didn't change their minds
(until much later, and sometimes never),
it was never for the benefit of the consumer and user.
> Actually, here's a thought:
>
> 1. Open opera:cache
> 2. Open the links panel (optional: expand to full size view)
> 3. Quick find ".gif", etc
> 4. Shift/Ctrl-select the files you want
> 5. Right-click, save as/save to download folder
Re-download huge FLV files again,
rather then just "Unlock" and "Copy/Move" them?
(some sites contain tricks to even prevent re-downloading,
including the fact that some Flash videos get moved
from their original locations immediately after download completes).
--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
<jhme...@nomail.invalid>:
> "Big Three" auto makers once rejected all the innovations of the
> upstart Tucker automobile company; while they didn't change their minds
> (until much later, and sometimes never),
> it was never for the benefit of the consumer and user.
From the first Google hit on Tucker automobile company:
"The Tucker's many innovations were and continue to be surrounded by
controversy. Failing before it had a chance to succeed, it died amid bad
press and financial scandal after only fifty-one units were assembled."
Analogies with cars are fun, but they usually don't get you very far :)
--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
Opera Software ASA, Documentation & QA
Tweak: http://my.opera.com/Rijk/blog/
"The most common way to get usability wrong is to listen to what users
say rather than actually watching what they do." - J.Nielsen
Steven Saunderson
wrote:
> When something is dangerous, we feel it is best not to make it
> optional.
I've never found the practice of leaving extensions on cache file names
dangerous at all. If Opera wants to offer the dropping of extensions as
a security 'enhancement' then this is fine by me and presumably many
others. But to force this neurotic approach on competent users who find
it troublesome seems very counter productive. Why annoy your existing
users ?
--
Steven
Andrew Gregory
<jhme...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> Re-download huge FLV files again,
> rather then just "Unlock" and "Copy/Move" them?
Not at all. Every time I've saved something out of the cache, it's saved
directly.
> (some sites contain tricks to even prevent re-downloading,
> including the fact that some Flash videos get moved
> from their original locations immediately after download completes).
It's not Opera's job to circumvent measures sites have taken to prevent
downloading. Find a third-party userjs to make you a download link,
there's plenty around for sites like Youtube, for example. If you're
annoyed at what sites do, this newsgroup is not that sites complaints
department. Take it there.
Personally, I'm tired of all the whining about missing extensions. IMO,
how Opera implement their caching mechanism is entirely their business.
Opera should be free to take whatever action they deem necessary to
improve the operation of their cache. It's been mentioned, for example,
that the cache could store things in their compressed state. That would be
great - more cached data for the same disk space. Maintaining extensions
prevents that.
If Opera decide that a full database implementation in a single file,
ala-Safari is best, then bring it on! If that annoys the small but noisy
group of people who are sounding more and more to me like a bunch of
content pirates, then so be it. There is still, to the best of my
knowledge, exactly one browser vendor who will keep them happy.
Eik
> If that can be done, so can sort, etc.
If you can tell me how to run user Javascript on the opera:cache page I
might even try!
Ed Jay
I don't know, but perhaps the lng modification might help?
Matthew Winn
wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:53:04 -0400, Tim Altman <do....@spam.me.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > When something is dangerous, we feel it is best not to make it
> > optional.
>
> I've never found the practice of leaving extensions on cache file names
> dangerous at all.
I'd be interested to know if there are any examples of people causing
themselves problems by ignorantly running an infected executable from
Opera's cache. I can't imagine any sane or plausible scenario where
this would happen.
I think removing extensions is more dangerous than providing them,
because it encourages people to "try things out": passing files to
inappropriate applications in an attempt to work out what the file
type is. The passing of files to applications that can't handle them
has been the cause of several security issues in the past (mostly in
Windows and IE). It wouldn't be a problem if all other software was
completely free of bugs, but we don't live in that world. There's a
far greater risk of someone hitting a buffer overflow by, for example,
handing a non-image file to an image viewer than there is of someone
tracking down their browser's cache and double-clicking executables
just to see what happens.
--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"]
John H Meyers
> Safety reasons: don't let random surfing
> put potentially dangerous files on your hard disk.
o The files are on the hard disk anyway, just without part of the file name.
o Only people who have knowledge will even find Opera's cache.
o Those same people will, after considerable inconvenience,
restore the original file names anyway, so that they can use them.
o Some AV programs (e.g. my Symantec AV Corporate)
RELY ON THE FILE EXTENSION
to decide whether to check the file for malware as it is being stored!
In this case, the extension removal DISABLES the anti-malware program
from recognizing (and immediately quarantining) the files!
IMO, Opera is not a better defender against malware
than the AV program I use, and should have left the job
to companies (e.g. Symantec) which specialize in that,
just as they (e.g. Symantec) should keep their hands
away from tinkering and interfering with web browsers.
--
John H Meyers
> From the first Google hit on Tucker automobile company...
Rather poor research, missing the entire real story,
which would take us far from the main discussion if pursued further.
BTW, an old dictionary entry for Uranium also once read:
"A worthless white metal, not found in the United States" ;-)
Whereas it's actually very valuable (when "depleted")
as tank armor, as well as for projectiles to pierce same :)
--
John H Meyers
> I also note that when I launch opera:cache (or Help/Cache) I see the file
> extensions clearly. I can easily identify the files by name and extension,
> right click on any link, and save or move any cached file at my pleasure.
For me (still under 9.27), I can not "save" directly from cache without
re-downloading, I can not "move," I can not "Send to," "Unlock," "Delete,"
"Mail to," "[Un]Zip," "Analyze with FileAlyzer," or even "Open [with],"
nor do anything else which full Windows integration offers -- of course,
there are other OS platforms under which these benefits may not be seen,
or may work differently, so I notice the difference a bit more.
I also note this tiny little discrepancy:
Although my Windows "cache4" directory
actually contains 602 recent objects at this moment,
ONLY ONE is listed in "opera:cache" -- WHY ARE THE OTHER 601 ITEMS MISSING?
(okay, only 600, disregarding "dcache4.url" :)
If 9.5 does the same, even "opera:cache" is good for NOTHING!!!
> So, what's the real issue here? It's not as easy to accomplish what it once
> was easy to do? What a terrible sacrifice we've all been forced to make,
> just so innocent people won't inadvertently fall into traps set by errant bastards.
You have evidently "bought the premise" :)
Apply "cost/benefit" -- those "traps" are very hard to spring,
especially upon anyone who happens to use any real anti-malware,
which nowadays even comes integrated with most any new computer
(unfortunately only in "trialware," demanding money for extension,
though free and sometimes better alternatives can also
be readily obtained), or upon whoever runs under MacOS, Linux,
or Vista, which of course are already impenetrable :)
Clearing cache (e.g. automatically upon exit)
also renders them completely moot,
much the same as the entire "temporary downloads" folder.
> Think about it, and if you're so inclined, follow the lead of the
> guy who added the thumbnails and develop a solution to your issues.
I'll look forward to someone developing a "rename all cache files
to restore the original file names" JS -- although even that
is not quite possible without "Unlocker" :)
--
John H Meyers
>> Re-download huge FLV files again,
>> rather then just "Unlock" and "Copy/Move" them?
> Not at all. Every time I've saved something out of the cache,
> it's saved directly.
The mechanism must have changed since 9.27, which I just tested
by trying to save Google's logo GIF from my opera:cache,
after first unplugging my ethernet cable -- Opera 9.27
just sat there, trying to contact google.com ......
I've also just noted that of the 600 actual recent items
in my real "cache4" directory in 9.27,
my "opera:cache" lists ONLY ONE,
making the entire notion of using "opera:cache"
to access the actual store of files
a completely ridiculous notion, unless 9.5 has fixed this.
> It's not Opera's job to circumvent measures sites have taken to prevent
> downloading. Find a third-party userjs to make you a download link,...
A very good, direct, better original functionality has been crippled,
which evidently, according to the small survey of those whose opinions
are sampled here, in addition to the once present Windows integration
of the Transfers list, was among the advantages admired by professionals,
even though, as with most things which expand their markets,
such advantages often erode to move towards completely different objectives,
more mass market driven than something they would design for themselves.
It may be inevitable, but so is the loss of some of Earth's original,
pristine and ecologically sound features, and the loss of other values
which inspired some earlier generations,
another type of "progress" not necessarily to be embraced :)
> Opera should be free to take whatever action they deem necessary
> to improve the operation of their cache.
> It's been mentioned, for example,
> that the cache _could_ store things in their compressed state.
> That would be great - more cached data for the same disk space.
> Maintaining extensions prevents that.
Not even Opera's two principal and fine representatives here
have claimed any current operational improvement at all,
nor any intention of it being a step towards your imagined goal,
other than declaring it "safer" for users who know not what they're doing,
and who probably couldn't even stumble into an "unsafe" action
if they were challenged to try,
while the many "whiners" have shown how operationally worse
the functionality now is for the professional uses they previously
were making of the entire sleek and brilliant original design,
more appreciated by those professionals, but perhaps less so
by the wider world of users who know not what they were missing,
who can more easily believe that the stated benefit is real,
no less not at any greater but unappreciated cost.
It's kind of you to rally to Opera's side, however;
we all appreciate what we've gained from Opera, and also
how much its representatives have devoted their support here,
to all of us, over the course of time.
Best wishes to you, to Rijk, to Tim, and to Opera Software.
--
John H Meyers
> It's been mentioned, for example,
> that the cache _could_ store things in their compressed state.
> That would be great - more cached data for the same disk space.
> Maintaining extensions prevents that.
Windows (with NTFS) happens to have a "compressed file" attribute,
which if set causes Windows itself to compress the stored file,
no matter how named, thus not even preventing any such thing.
"Windows Update" tends to turn that on for all its saved "patches,"
for example, thus exchanging some running time for disk space
(well, you can't get something for nothing :)
IMO it's "grasping for straws" to consider reducing cache disk space,
however, not only because disks are now so huge (and cache is only
temporary storage), but because _speedup_ is the issue
most significant in the current "competition" between browsers,
and compression trades off some speed
just to be miserly on cache space,
in this case only temporarily, at that.
If you really want to save disk space,
the "one file per [news] message" mail/news storage
has long been quite a Gas Guzzler -- possibly also intended
with a view towards execution speed instead -- has this
space waster been improved in 9.5?
--
Eik
<jhme...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> I've also just noted that of the 600 actual recent items
> in my real "cache4" directory in 9.27,
> my "opera:cache" lists ONLY ONE,
Have you tried reloading the cache page? That's only a web page generated
by Opera and can be cached just like any other page, meaning you can end
up looking at a cached view of your cache!
Odd H. Sandvik
Thanks for the list of good points you've collected
here.
--
Odd H. Sandvik
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
<jhme...@nomail.invalid>:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 03:37:54 -0500, Rijk wrote:
>
>> Safety reasons: don't let random surfing
>> put potentially dangerous files on your hard disk.
>
> o The files are on the hard disk anyway, just without part of the file
> name.
Those extensions make them potentially dangerous on many systems.
> o Only people who have knowledge will even find Opera's cache.
"A little bit of knowledge..."
Also, it reduces the potential attack vector for potential *other*
vulnerabilities.
I think there is little point in discussing this until eternity...
--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
Opera Software ASA, Documentation & QA
Tweak: http://my.opera.com/Rijk/blog/
"The most common way to get usability wrong is to listen to what users
say rather than actually watching what they do." -- J.Nielsen
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
Also note that this might be a difference between 9.2 and 9.5.
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
<jhme...@nomail.invalid>:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:16:59 -0500, Ed Jay wrote:
>
>> I also note that when I launch opera:cache (or Help/Cache) I see the
>> file extensions clearly. I can easily identify the files by name and
>> extension, right click on any link, and save or move any cached file at
>> my pleasure.
>
> For me (still under 9.27), I can not "save" directly from cache without
> re-downloading, I can not "move," I can not "Send to," "Unlock,"
> "Delete," "Mail to," "[Un]Zip," "Analyze with FileAlyzer," or even "Open
> [with]," nor do anything else which full Windows integration offers --
> of course, there are other OS platforms under which these benefits may
> not be seen, or may work differently, so I notice the difference a bit
> more.
You are not capable (after identifying the file you need using inline find
in opera:cache) of adding an extension using your file manager, and then
use the file manager to perform those actions? Yes it is a bit of a
hassle, and people that used to spend their time working with Opera's
cached files will be worse off with this policy. But what's the big deal?
What usecases are there for this, apart from saving flv files a few times?
(not a retorical question) At the times I wanted to save some youtube
videos, I just sorted my cache files on size and peeked into the biggest
ones, not exactly a big deal. I'm way more concerned about the problems
the change caused for those using EditPlus as their source viewer.
..
>> So, what's the real issue here? It's not as easy to accomplish what it
>> once
>> was easy to do? What a terrible sacrifice we've all been forced to make,
>> just so innocent people won't inadvertently fall into traps set by
>> errant bastards.
>
> You have evidently "bought the premise" :)
>
> Apply "cost/benefit" -- those "traps" are very hard to spring,
> especially upon anyone who happens to use any real anti-malware,
> which nowadays even comes integrated with most any new computer
> (unfortunately only in "trialware," demanding money for extension,
> though free and sometimes better alternatives can also
> be readily obtained), or upon whoever runs under MacOS, Linux,
> or Vista, which of course are already impenetrable :)
Given the number of people who don't keep their software up-to-date, this
is not so reassuring... But yes, it is a cost/benefit analysis that the
security guys at Opera made.
Andrew Gregory
<jhme...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:08:19 -0500, Andrew Gregory wrote:
>
>> Opera should be free to take whatever action they deem necessary
>> to improve the operation of their cache.
>
> Not even Opera's two principal and fine representatives here
> have claimed any current operational improvement at all,
See:
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=2403083
Annon
news:op.udrk5...@rijk-01.lan:
>But what's
> the big deal? What usecases are there for this, apart from
> saving flv files a few times? (not a retorical question)
> At the times I wanted to save some youtube videos, I just
> sorted my cache files on size and peeked into the biggest
> ones, not exactly a big deal.
Go back and read the original post: "Many users go back and
review cached files to look at pictures again."
Note also the discussion about fair use rights in earlier posts.
The big use that you failed to recognize that has been in this
thread from the beginning is photo collection.
Opening Irfanview to view thumbnails in a 5,000 file cache to
obtain a fewer larger jpgs wastes a lot of good time and is a
very big deal.
It is easy and quick with extensions and a file manager.
>I'm way more concerned about
> the problems the change caused for those using EditPlus as
> their source viewer.
Which is something that you do yourself.
In other words, you are concerned about yourself and screw
everybody else.
That is not a formula for winning friends and influencing people.
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
> "Rijk van Geijtenbeek" <ri...@opera-dot-com.invalid> wrote in
> news:op.udrk5...@rijk-01.lan:
>
>
>
>> But what's
>> the big deal? What usecases are there for this, apart from
>> saving flv files a few times? (not a retorical question)
>> At the times I wanted to save some youtube videos, I just
>> sorted my cache files on size and peeked into the biggest
>> ones, not exactly a big deal.
>
> Go back and read the original post: "Many users go back and
> review cached files to look at pictures again."
Thanks for reminding. Seriously, I am not aware that 'many users' used
their cache for this purpose. See also below.
> Note also the discussion about fair use rights in earlier posts.
>
> The big use that you failed to recognize that has been in this
> thread from the beginning is photo collection.
>
> Opening Irfanview to view thumbnails in a 5,000 file cache to
> obtain a fewer larger jpgs wastes a lot of good time and is a
> very big deal.
If it's about 'obtaining', why not save them directly when they show in
the browser? Ctrl+click on the image is a handy shortcut to make this even
easier. The problem with FLV files is that you can't save them directly
from the browser interface, which is why I assumed (actually, still
assume...) the case of saving FLV files from the cache is more interesting.
> It is easy and quick with extensions and a file manager.
Did you take a look at this workaround to make the opera:cache page behave
more like a file manager?
http://operawatch.com/news/2008/07/advanced-search-thumbnails-sorting-in-opera-cache.html
>> I'm way more concerned about
>> the problems the change caused for those using EditPlus as
>> their source viewer.
>
> Which is something that you do yourself.
>
> In other words, you are concerned about yourself and screw
> everybody else.
No, I use a text editor that doesn't need cache extensions for code
coloring. I guess that is even worse in your view.
> That is not a formula for winning friends and influencing people.
--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
Opera Software ASA, Documentation & QA
Tweak: http://my.opera.com/Rijk/blog/
"The most common way to get usability wrong is to listen to what users
say rather than actually watching what they do." - J.Nielsen
John H Meyers
JHM:
>> I've also just noted that of the 600 actual recent items
>> in my real "cache4" directory in 9.27,
>> my "opera:cache" lists ONLY ONE
Eik:
> Have you tried reloading the cache page?
I did many a "reload" (with both tool button and F5) with no change.
I seem to recall this from some time ago,
when I also had found that searching "opera:cache" for files
was likely to never find many things actually stored in the
"cache4" folder, and thus was not a useful pursuit at all;
this is just the most extreme case I have encountered.
I found my (unanswered) previous inquiry about this (Sept 2007) here:
http://groups.google.com/group/opera.general/browse_thread/thread/fb962c1b72c09e06/
Rijk has followed up in this thread with:
> Also note that this might be a difference between 9.2 and 9.5
Any particulars?
Thanks.
.
John H Meyers
> You are not capable (after identifying the file you need
> using inline find in opera:cache)...
I've been asking whether 9.5 can actually do this,
having observed in that 9.27 (and earlier),
"opera:cache" can be (sometimes horribly) incomplete.
I did not exaggerate that case where "opera:cache"
listed ONE file, while the current Opera session
still had _600_ files in my "cache4" directory!
> adding an extension using your file manager, and then
> use the file manager to perform those actions?
> Yes it is a bit of a hassle,
> and people that used to spend their time working with Opera's
> cached files will be worse off with this policy. But what's the big deal?
> What usecases are there for this, apart from saving flv files a few times?
> (not a retorical question)
> At the times I wanted to save some youtube
> videos, I just sorted my cache files on size and peeked into the biggest
> ones, not exactly a big deal. I'm way more concerned about the problems
> the change caused for those using EditPlus as their source viewer.
A single person's use is not necessarily reflective of a larger population,
and although this newsgroup is not reflective of all Opera users,
the collective response thus far might be indicating something,
at least among those people interested enough in Opera's
special contributions to the browser field to participate.
I also look very frequently for images; these are not the largest files,
and simply can not be found by trying every single file, currently
(as of 9.27), many are also missing from "opera:cache,"
which naturally keeps bringing up my unanswered questions about that.
If you have had A/C and power steering for a while,
and then the manufacturer suddenly and irreversibly disables them,
perhaps to trim the increasingly expensive fuel consumption,
only for your benefit, as they see it,
you will still be able to drive and steer your vehicle,
and perhaps can make adjustments (e.g. drive slower) to compensate.
Yes it is a bit of a hassle, but what's the big deal? ;-)
IMO Matthew Winn also brought up excellent issues,
to which I hope to see thoughtful answers:
http://groups.google.com/group/opera.general/msg/e48458335c8ab9b9
I mentioned also how there can actually be an interference
with some "extension-based" policies in our own "corporate AV" suite.
> But yes, it is a cost/benefit analysis that the security guys at Opera made.
As with politicians, sometimes they might misread the sentiments,
as well as benefits and costs, as perceived by a wider population :)
Matthew Winn's remarks (at link above) may also suggest
some issues which they may never have considered,
which are quite relevant to comprehensively evaluating "cost/benefit."
The previous mail storage reorganization (now being reorganized once again)
is an example of the possible evolution of thinking; in any case,
this discussion, though lengthy, must be having educational value
by covering a broad range of perspectives and issues,
whether or not Opera acts immediately upon it,
and I think it has been worth having.
Thank you very much for your dedication, and for all the time
you devote to so many discussions with serious users.
--
John H Meyers
JHM:
>> Not even Opera's two principal and fine representatives here
>> have claimed any current operational improvement at all,
AG:
> See: http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=2403083
Just like the very issue of this entire thread,
the problem is that there's so much to wade through there,
before one has a hope of finding whatever it is that you could have
pointed to immediately, with just a bit more information,
if you wanted it to help it to be found :)
I saw something about there being a possibly new index for cache files,
but I don't see how such an improvement is any direct consequence
of omitting extensions from file names.
One interesting other item of note, however, was a detailed quote
from Microsoft about how IE assigns extensions to cache file names
(which parallels another recent post by Matthew Winn);
if Opera was having to do the same, it could be offered
as some rationalization for such a claim,
but I wonder whether it is so for Opera,
and whether it's anything but minor in overall impact?
And why does Microsoft still continue to keep those extensions anyway?
Do they want to lose the "browser war?" ;-)
--
John H Meyers
> AG:
>> See: http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=2403083
The first time I followed that link, apparently I was directed to
the start of the entire series of postings, where I started
scrolling to try to find out what I was supposed to see,
which apparently I didn't find.
When I came back and waited longer, however,
I now see that one specific "#" tag is actually indicated,
eventually going to one specific post by "jonnyrein"
Quoting an excerpt from that post now:
Upon recovering from any crash that might happen after commit,
we will delete files with a higher value than last stored max filename.
If we had to search for filename and extension this would become much slower,
hence the design choice of removing extensions.
Two things spring to mind:
o Dropping extensions (making all users who rely on accessing cache
now spend a great deal of their own personal time making up for it)
is based primarily on being faster to recover from (hopefully
very rare) crashes? Does it "delete entire cache" any faster?
o Do appended extensions change the sort order of file names?
Can one not just inspect the first N characters of each file name,
to determine which files to delete?
I would ask for a bit deeper explanation,
as this whizzes right past the gray matter of my brain,
not sticking at all to what's left of it ;-)
Also, "a gigabyte or two of cache" -- my, I never thought
of allocating gigabytes to my cache :)
[I actually tried to use memory-only at one time,
as a possible different sort of speed factor,
though Opera did not comply]
Sorry that I missed the intended reference the first time around
(or if I missed the logic, the second time :)
--
John H Meyers
It's also occurred to me that "security" completely vanished
from Jonny Rein's explanation; everyone proffers his own idea
of "what it's all about," and none of the propositions
stands up very well in court, so to speak,
as already appears shortly following in that blog, too,
faintly reminiscent of the U.S. explanations
(changing over time as they failed fact-checking)
of why it needed to invade Iraq.
Our AV system may be instructed, for speed,
to only examine certain file types when initially stored,
but it doesn't care what name when actually scanning a file;
I have never seen a "false positive" in all my years
of using Opera (and all other browsers) with NAVCE/SAVCE,
even when scanning ALL files, all the time,
but it's trivial to exempt any directory entirely,
if one were to think that's a real problem with any cache
("false negative" is the far greater risk here).
I hope that time brings full perspective,
and that the "best values" will eventually emerge;
I presume that 9.5[1,2,...] is a greater browser
in many other ways meanwhile,
although the "bottom line" for any user
depends on that person's own individual needs.
--
Annon
wrote in news:op.udt1e...@laptop-rock.lan:
> Op Fri, 04 Jul 2008 23:42:22 +0200 schreef Annon
> <an...@annon.com>:
>
>> "Rijk van Geijtenbeek" <ri...@opera-dot-com.invalid> wrote
>> in news:op.udrk5...@rijk-01.lan:
>>
>>
>>
>>> But what's
>>> the big deal? What usecases are there for this, apart
>>> from saving flv files a few times? (not a retorical
>>> question) At the times I wanted to save some youtube
>>> videos, I just sorted my cache files on size and peeked
>>> into the biggest ones, not exactly a big deal.
>>
>> Go back and read the original post: "Many users go back
>> and review cached files to look at pictures again."
>
> Thanks for reminding. Seriously, I am not aware that 'many
> users' used their cache for this purpose. See also below.
>
>> Note also the discussion about fair use rights in earlier
>> posts.
>>
>> The big use that you failed to recognize that has been in
>> this thread from the beginning is photo collection.
I repeat: the application is internet photo collection.
>>
>> Opening Irfanview to view thumbnails in a 5,000 file
>> cache to obtain a fewer larger jpgs wastes a lot of good
>> time and is a very big deal.
>
> If it's about 'obtaining', why not save them directly when
> they show in the browser? Ctrl+click on the image is a
> handy shortcut to make this even easier.
When I view the images I don't focus on what I might want to
save. I do that later while viewing thumbnail images en masse by
the hundreds with an image viewer program, 40 to a screen, with
which I can delete the ones I don't want en masse quickly by the
dozens using the shift key, the cursor keys, and the delete key.
Having to save individual images when I view them would mean
lost time asking if I might want to keep them or not and
thousands and thousands of additional click, save, save clicks.
Life is short. I don't have time to waste on clicks and saves not
necessary with 9.27.
> Did you take a look at this workaround to make the
> opera:cache page behave more like a file manager?
>
> http://operawatch.com/news/2008/07/advanced-search-thumbnail
> s-sorting-in-opera-cache.html
>
With opera:cache you can't quickly and easily select, cut, and
paste cache files by the hundreds, thousands for that matter,
into a work directory like you can with a file manager program,
such as windows explorer.
In a file manager program you can sort the files by size and
select for cutting and pasting all files above threshold. You
locate the cutoff point, hold down shift, end, and control-c.
You can paste them in a work directory, control-v, and then
delete non image files by displaying just .htm, .js., .css. and
.swf files, which more advanced file managers can easily do,
selecting those extensions and deleting them.
With small number of just image files, you can open the work
directory with an image viewer, delete the crap, like ads, and
see if anything that reamins is worth keeping.
opera:cache is not a general purpose file manager.
Eik
<jhme...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> o Do appended extensions change the sort order of file names?
> Can one not just inspect the first N characters of each file name,
> to determine which files to delete?
Presumably, Opera goes into a loop asking the file system to delete
filenames based on a variable that increments on each iteration of the
loop until the file system returns an error. Having file extensions would
require extra steps, which would slow things down. If that isn't the case
then I don't know why Opera couldn't just reaqd the first 8 characters of
the file name.
> Also, "a gigabyte or two of cache" -- my, I never thought
> of allocating gigabytes to my cache :)
Well my first browser had a cache of 300KB and I never thought it'd ever
get into tens of MB! In fact, today I keep it at a very low 10MB (recently
raised from the 4MB that I've been using for years) however it does seem
perfectly normal for a cache to be 100MB or more. With hard drives in home
PCs about to reach the terabytes level (aren't one company even promissing
a 5TB drive for 2010?), I don't think it's unreasonable to assume within a
couple of years some people will think nothing of assigning a 'mere' one
or two GB for their cache.
It's good that Opera are looking forward, but at the same time I think
they need to solve the problems they create. Improving opera:cache would
be good because as convenient as it is for people to browse their cache
directory, it's primary purpose is to store temporary files for Opera. Yet
it's useful for us to be able to browse it and copy files - easily. Being
able to Ctrl+click on an image to save it is not reliable because some
sites either cover inline images with transparent GIFs to try ans stop
people saving them, or they display the photo as a background image. This
is very annoying if you browse in cached-only mode and want to right click
on individual images to load them - You can't load a background image this
way.
For me, viewing source has become more of an annoyance and it could be
fixed by allowing users to assign 'Execute program' commands to MIME
types, complete with command switches. This would not only allow source
code to open up highlighted correctly (as long as your editor supports
syntax overrides through command switches) but one 'view source' command
could be used on any element to open it in other programs. For example,
using it on a GIF could open it in Photoshop.
Annon
news:op.udvd3...@ldn.000.000:
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 03:01:19 +0100, John H Meyers
> <jhme...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> o Do appended extensions change the sort order of file
>> names?
>> Can one not just inspect the first N characters of each
>> file name, to determine which files to delete?
>
> Presumably, Opera goes into a loop asking the file system
> to delete filenames based on a variable that increments on
> each iteration of the loop until the file system returns
> an error. Having file extensions would require extra
> steps, which would slow things down.
Any claim that performance lies behind eliminating the cache
extensions contradicts the safety, nanny rationale consistently
put forth here by Opera and raises the classic question: Mr.
Witness, on which occasion were you not telling the truth: when
you told the first story or when you told the second one?
This raises the next question: if you didn't tell the truth one
time, why should we believe you another time?
Actually the programming claims make no more sense than anything
else said here. Keeping extensions might mean three additional
characters kept in a table but that is trivial, especially in an
era where you have gigabytes for cache and memory. You can
increment the first 8 of 11 characters as easily as the first 8
of 8. The additional code to find the latest cache file
regardless of extension is trivial work and need only be coded
once.
More and more it is looking like the truth here is that the
coders at Opera cut a corner to same themselves some work and
never thought about the effect on users, possibly because Opera
contracted out the work at a fixed price to people who could not
have cared less about how it affected users.
Andrew Gregory
> Eik <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:op.udvd3...@ldn.000.000:
>
>> Presumably, Opera goes into a loop asking the file system
>> to delete filenames based on a variable that increments on
>> each iteration of the loop until the file system returns
>> an error. Having file extensions would require extra
>> steps, which would slow things down.
>
> Any claim that performance lies behind eliminating the cache
> extensions contradicts the safety, nanny rationale consistently
> put forth here by Opera
Performance and security are not mutually exclusive. Characteristics that
enhance performance may as a side-effect improve things from a security
and safety point of view as well.
> Actually the programming claims make no more sense than anything
> else said here. Keeping extensions might mean three additional
> characters kept in a table but that is trivial, especially in an
> era where you have gigabytes for cache and memory. You can
> increment the first 8 of 11 characters as easily as the first 8
> of 8. The additional code to find the latest cache file
> regardless of extension is trivial work and need only be coded
> once.
The storage requirements might be trivial, but the code required to keep
everything in order might not. Without seeing the code there is no way to
tell. I can see where keeping track of a simple index won't take much
processing, but needing to search a database of cached files looking for
the correct extension that goes with a particular index I can easily see
taking significantly longer.
Charles Lindsey
>Thanks for reminding. Seriously, I am not aware that 'many users' used
>their cache for this purpose. See also below.
Well you should be aware of it by now. I regularly use it to go back and
find PDF files (which are easily recognizable by their extension).
>If it's about 'obtaining', why not save them directly when they show in
>the browser? Ctrl+click on the image is a handy shortcut to make this even
>easier.
Yes, if I had realized at the time that I was going to need it again, then
I would have saved it at the time.
But it is usally much quicker, when you find later that you need it, to
locate it in the cache than to try to locate it in your history file.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: c...@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Matthew Winn
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 03:01:19 +0100, John H Meyers
> <jhme...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
> > o Do appended extensions change the sort order of file names?
> > Can one not just inspect the first N characters of each file name,
> > to determine which files to delete?
>
> Presumably, Opera goes into a loop asking the file system to delete
> filenames based on a variable that increments on each iteration of the
> loop until the file system returns an error. Having file extensions would
> require extra steps, which would slow things down. If that isn't the case
> then I don't know why Opera couldn't just reaqd the first 8 characters of
> the file name.
Personally I'd have thought that cache cleaning is something that
could be handled by a low-priority background task that would kick in
whenever the CPU had nothing better to do. There's no reason why it
needs to be made as fast as possible.
> > Also, "a gigabyte or two of cache" -- my, I never thought
> > of allocating gigabytes to my cache :)
>
> Well my first browser had a cache of 300KB and I never thought it'd ever
> get into tens of MB! In fact, today I keep it at a very low 10MB (recently
> raised from the 4MB that I've been using for years) however it does seem
> perfectly normal for a cache to be 100MB or more. With hard drives in home
> PCs about to reach the terabytes level (aren't one company even promissing
> a 5TB drive for 2010?), I don't think it's unreasonable to assume within a
> couple of years some people will think nothing of assigning a 'mere' one
> or two GB for their cache.
Only if they do, indeed, think nothing.
The whole point of a cache is to speed up access to frequently-used
resources. A 1GB cache would be worthless to me because 90% to 95% of
it will be data that I will never access again. It'll just be sitting
there, uselessly occupying space until it eventually gets replaced by
more up-to-date useless data.
What I'd rather see is intelligent caching, where the unchanging parts
of the sites I visit regularly are semi-permanently locked in cache.
For example, if I have my cache set at 100MB and then browse 200MB of
data on a site I've never been to before, when I return to my regular
sites I'd like to find that I still benefit from the cache, rather
than find my entire 100MB filled with stuff I don't want. I'd like
half the cache reserved for long-term caching and half for short-term
window history.
As far as I can see, the only possible justification for a huge cache
is to compensate for a poor caching algorithm that allows single-visit
new pages to displace old pages that have been visited many times.
With the right caching algorithm there's no need for a huge cache.
Andrew Rybenov
> For example, if I have my cache set at 100MB and then browse 200MB of
> data on a site I've never been to before, when I return to my regular
> sites I'd like to find that I still benefit from the cache, rather
> than find my entire 100MB filled with stuff I don't want.
That's quite possible, by, for example, adding usage count to cache items.
Other way: by keeping list of cache items. With each usage an item goes up
one position in the list. When cache is full, some "tail" items are deleted.
(I, of course, have no idea how Opera cache is implemented.)
--
Andrew Rybenkov
Opera 9.27.8841 ROCKS on WindowsME
John H Meyers
> More and more it is looking like the truth here is that the
> coders at Opera cut a corner to same themselves some work...
Modifying what's already in place is always more work
than leaving it alone, isn't it?
So I'd presume that some benefit was thought to exist
(and some of it may really exist),
motivating an investment to be made in changing it,
but it might turn out that when more things are considered,
such as unanticipated consequences that weren't factored into plans,
plus user reactions, interactions with other software (e.g. AV),
input of other very experienced software designers, etc.,
perhaps the matter is worthy of further thinking and consideration.
There was once, for example, a new and improved thing
called "New Coke," which "bombed" in the marketplace,
giving rise to yet another innovation called "Classic Coke,"
which was more or less back to the original again,
and it's not the first (or last) time that such a thing has happened
(restoration of "flipback" as distinct from a "mouse gesture," for example).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke
--
old...@ao1.com
Except that the cane sugar used for a century was replaced by high fructose
corn syrup. Other manufacturers also converted at this time.
This is when the obesity epidemic began. (Yes, kids, there was a time when
most people were slim- not built like blubber bubbles.)
Obligatory context: I sometimes drink a soda when using Opera.
Jones
news:bqei64d1aseubj73i...@4ax.com:
>>Sooner or later they will realize how big a screwup
>>removing them is. They have thrown away one of the biggest
>>advantages they had over Firefox.
> Having extensions on files stored in Opera's cache
> directory is of absolutely no strategic importance.
>
Mr. Altman and others at Opera would be well advised to read the
Harvard Business School Book "The Customer Is Always Right!:
Thought Provoking Insights on the Importance of Customer
Satisfaction from Today's Business Leaders"
http://www.amazon.com/Customer-Always-Right-Importance-
Satisfaction/dp/0070342091/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215753
623&sr=8-7
Ken Knox
While I agree that it's often critical to listen to one's customers, I do
not hold the view that the customer is always right...to go a step
further, my experience is that it is often a great disservice to that same
customer to allow him to think that he's always right. :-)
--
Ken
Opera 9.24 - <http://www.opera.com>
John H Meyers
> While I agree that it's often critical to listen to one's customers,
> I do not hold the view that the customer is always right...to go a step
> further, my experience is that it is often a great disservice to that
> same customer to allow him to think that he's always right. :-)
It is a good service to show a customer how a change has really
benefited him/her, but thus far, the rationalizations have been
inconsistent ("security," says one, while "faster to recover after crashes")
says another), and both cases have been very weak and unconvincing,
no less completely inattentive to the extent of customer reliance
upon existing capabilities broken by the change.
The customer should also not do the vendor the disservice
of letting them think that they are always right,
and in this case, I think the customers have the better case.
A literate and famous passage:
"Finally, I always go to sea as a sailor,
because of the wholesome exercise and pure air of the forecastle deck.
For as in this world, head winds are far more prevalent than winds
from astern (that is, if you never violate the Pythagorean maxim),
so for the most part the Commodore on the quarter-deck
gets his atmosphere at second hand from the sailors on the forecastle.
He thinks he breathes it first; but not so. In much the same way
do the commonalty lead their leaders in many other things,
at the same time that the leaders little suspect it."
[Herman Melville, "Moby Dick," Chapter 1]
Image:
(observe the striking coincidence with current events in page center)
http://books.google.com/books?id=XV8XAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11
Text:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10894896
Pedagogy (and alternate meanings in that specific passage):
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3709/is_200501/ai_n9520890/pg_15
--
Ed Jay
Amazing, isn't it?
>
>Text:
>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10894896
>
>Pedagogy (and alternate meanings in that specific passage):
>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3709/is_200501/ai_n9520890/pg_15
I'm wondering that for a widely-used product, such as web browser used by
more than a million people, why should a few customers think they have a
right to complain and make demands, when the manufacturer is doing its best
to satisfy the vast plurality? I haven't counted the number complaints about
the cache file extensions, but between this group and the Opera blogs, the
number is well below 100.
I agree that it's philosophically troublesome to have two or three different
and conflicting explanations for the reason behind the design decision, but
usually that only means someone is speaking or guessing without the
appropriate knowledge base.
It's truly fascinating to me that those who are complaining the loudest
consider themselves technically adept, but even with the example provided
with the english.lng hack (<http://tinyurl.com/63rwmo>), nobody has taken
the time to work out a satisfactory solution to put an end to the whining.
Thanks for the Melville parable, but do you really think this issue is of
leviathan proportion considering the ratio of 'complainers' to Opera's
overall market base? I think a good read of the first verse from Stevenson's
Requiem is more in order. :-)
I think it's time to stop complaining and work out a hack that does what we
all want. Get to work...we're waiting. :-))
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to reply by email)
Win the War Against Breast Cancer.
Knowing the facts could save your life.
http://www.breastthermography.info
John H Meyers
> I'm wondering that for a widely-used product, such as web browser used by
> more than a million people, why should a few customers think they have a
> right to complain and make demands, when the manufacturer is doing its best
> to satisfy the vast plurality? I haven't counted the number complaints about
> the cache file extensions, but between this group and the Opera blogs,
> the number is well below 100.
The fastest answer to that fallacy might be to mention
that our SMTP server once got "blacklisted" by "Spamcop"
(causing us much grief and loss) for only FIVE MESSAGES
detected world-wide as spam, out of all the MILLIONS
of messages we send -- Spamcop's founder (it's long since been sold)
defended interpreting those five messages as representing millions,
when applied statistically to "spam trap" addresses,
which themselves are only a tiny fraction of all "harvested"
addresses, world-wide.
Are you denying the validity of sampling and polling,
or suggesting that "all who do not post in Opera newsgroups
are in favor of the change"?
> I agree that it's philosophically troublesome to have two or three different
> and conflicting explanations for the reason behind the design decision,
> but usually that only means someone is speaking or guessing
> without the appropriate knowledge base.
Both of those I referred to are active Opera employees,
heavily involved with developing what was just released.
> It's truly fascinating to me that those who are complaining the loudest
> consider themselves technically adept, but even with the example provided
> with the english.lng hack (<http://tinyurl.com/63rwmo>), nobody has taken
> the time to work out a satisfactory solution to put an end to the whining.
It was absolutely satisfactory before it was ever changed,
and an external band-aid can not nearly compensate
for the breaking of functionality which can only be restored from within
(of course you, too, are assuming you are technically adept enough
to declare otherwise, although not enough to supply a solution).
> Thanks for the Melville parable, but do you really think this issue
> is of leviathan proportion considering the ratio of 'complainers'
> to Opera's overall market base?
Statistical fallacy already explained.
Why do people pay any heed to Rush Limbaugh,
who is only one person out of 300 million Americans? ;-)
http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html
One of the reasons I include occasional wider references
is also to share things making life more interesting and pleasurable
overall, in addition to having at least some relevance and insight
for a current topic and discussion
("all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" :)
> I think a good read of the first verse from Stevenson's
> Requiem is more in order. :-)
Must not be this one:
http://www.bartleby.com/188/521.html
http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/2022.html
Live well!
--
Ed Jay
>On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:21:10 -0500, Ed Jay [re]wrote:
>
>> I'm wondering that for a widely-used product, such as web browser used by
>> more than a million people, why should a few customers think they have a
>> right to complain and make demands, when the manufacturer is doing its best
>> to satisfy the vast plurality? I haven't counted the number complaints about
>> the cache file extensions, but between this group and the Opera blogs,
>> the number is well below 100.
>
>The fastest answer to that fallacy might be to mention
>that our SMTP server once got "blacklisted" by "Spamcop"
>(causing us much grief and loss) for only FIVE MESSAGES
>detected world-wide as spam, out of all the MILLIONS
>of messages we send -- Spamcop's founder (it's long since been sold)
>defended interpreting those five messages as representing millions,
>when applied statistically to "spam trap" addresses,
>which themselves are only a tiny fraction of all "harvested"
>addresses, world-wide.
Poor analogy. Straw man.
>
>Are you denying the validity of sampling and polling,
No.
>or suggesting that "all who do not post in Opera newsgroups
>are in favor of the change"?
You present an absurdly false argument. All who do not post in Opera who
don't like the change fall into at least a couple of categories. Those who
don't know about the NG or Opera forums, and those who shrug and moved on.
>
>> I agree that it's philosophically troublesome to have two or three different
>> and conflicting explanations for the reason behind the design decision,
>> but usually that only means someone is speaking or guessing
>> without the appropriate knowledge base.
>
>Both of those I referred to are active Opera employees,
>heavily involved with developing what was just released.
That's not necessarily a correct observation. The fellow who wrote the blog
post (re the future giant cache) claimed to be intimately involved, but I
don't think the others, despite their obvious knowledge of the product, have
made the same claim. That they probably were not heavily involved is
supported by their explanations.
>
>> It's truly fascinating to me that those who are complaining the loudest
>> consider themselves technically adept, but even with the example provided
>> with the english.lng hack (<http://tinyurl.com/63rwmo>), nobody has taken
>> the time to work out a satisfactory solution to put an end to the whining.
>
>It was absolutely satisfactory before it was ever changed,
>and an external band-aid can not nearly compensate
>for the breaking of functionality which can only be restored from within
>(of course you, too, are assuming you are technically adept enough
>to declare otherwise, although not enough to supply a solution).
I believe that I'm adequately technically adept to supply the solution, but
to paraphrase Fermat's famous scribbling in the margin of his notebook[1]:
'I have discovered a truly marvelous solution to this problem, but I don't
have the time nor inclination to present it here.' IOW, I'm not so concerned
with the issue that I feel compelled to work on the solution.
[1] "Cuius rei demonstrationem mirabilem sane detexi."
>
>> Thanks for the Melville parable, but do you really think this issue
>> is of leviathan proportion considering the ratio of 'complainers'
>> to Opera's overall market base?
>
>Statistical fallacy already explained.
>
>Why do people pay any heed to Rush Limbaugh,
>who is only one person out of 300 million Americans? ;-)
You really don't want this liberal's explanation. :-)
>
>http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html
>
>One of the reasons I include occasional wider references
>is also to share things making life more interesting and pleasurable
>overall, in addition to having at least some relevance and insight
>for a current topic and discussion
>("all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" :)
>
I'm with you on that. :)
>> I think a good read of the first verse from Stevenson's
>> Requiem is more in order. :-)
>
>Must not be this one:
>http://www.bartleby.com/188/521.html
>http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/2022.html
It is, indeed. I'm saying let the issue rest.
>
>Live well!
Right back at you.
John H Meyers
> You present an absurdly false argument.
Anyone who suggests that the only 100 complaints here
represents all of the objections that exist
among a million Opera users
ought to be looking in a mirror when saying that.
> The fellow who wrote the blog post (re the future giant cache)
> claimed to be intimately involved, but I don't think the others,
> despite their obvious knowledge of the product, have
> made the same claim. That they probably were not heavily involved
> is supported by their explanations.
Their titles and roles are posted here,
and it is rather obvious by both these and their everyday writings
that they are "heavily involved" and represent the company,
though unofficially,
even if they do not write the main software themselves.
> I believe that I'm adequately technically adept to supply the solution, but
> to paraphrase Fermat's famous scribbling in the margin of his notebook[1]:
> 'I have discovered a truly marvelous solution to this problem, but I don't
> have the time nor inclination to present it here.'
After 300 years of subsequent efforts by so many,
during which the only proof ever found was extremely complex,
as well as a couple of hundred pages long, many doubt that Fermat
ever had a genuine proof of the nature which he claimed.
> IOW, I'm not so concerned with the issue
> that I feel compelled to work on the solution.
On the other hand, no amount of work on "squaring a circle"
will ever be fruitful, and "proof of impossibility"
also happens to exist for this,
so another reason why it is advisable not to work on it
is that it is likely impossible,
despite your goadings to others to try nonetheless.
The obvious and simply best approach is to leave it as it was,
where the problem never previously existed to begin with.
Breaking things and then recommending that others
try to find work-arounds is not ideal software practice.
--
Ed Jay
>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:28:05 -0500, Ed Jay wrote:
>
>> You present an absurdly false argument.
>
>Anyone who suggests that the only 100 complaints here
>represents all of the objections that exist
>among a million Opera users
>ought to be looking in a mirror when saying that.
Don't try to put words in my mouth to win your argument. I said nothing to
suggest that there were only 100 complaints. In fact, I said that there were
probably many complaints, and I offered reasons that they don't appear in
this NG or in Opera forums.
You originally made the absurd suggestion that I believed that people whose
complaints we don't see must be in favor of the change. Another ridiculous
attempt at putting words into my mouth to win your argument.
I'm always amazed at those who lie in an attempt to make their point. They
don't seem to realize that their lies speak loudly to the invalidity of
their point.
>
>> The fellow who wrote the blog post (re the future giant cache)
>> claimed to be intimately involved, but I don't think the others,
>> despite their obvious knowledge of the product, have
>> made the same claim. That they probably were not heavily involved
>> is supported by their explanations.
>
>Their titles and roles are posted here,
>and it is rather obvious by both these and their everyday writings
>that they are "heavily involved" and represent the company,
>though unofficially,
>even if they do not write the main software themselves.
Their postings indicate to me that they are involved in the company, but
nothing I've seen indicates they are involved in the design-decision-making
policy. Once again, you are guilty of inventing facts to support your
argument, and once again, your facts hold no water.
>
>> I believe that I'm adequately technically adept to supply the solution, but
>> to paraphrase Fermat's famous scribbling in the margin of his notebook[1]:
>> 'I have discovered a truly marvelous solution to this problem, but I don't
>> have the time nor inclination to present it here.'
>
>After 300 years of subsequent efforts by so many,
>during which the only proof ever found was extremely complex,
>as well as a couple of hundred pages long, many doubt that Fermat
>ever had a genuine proof of the nature which he claimed.
And, because that's your opinion it makes it a fact, right? In fact,
regardless of the complexity of the proof (who would have expected
otherwise?), one mathematician received his PhD and international acclaim
for finally providing the proof.
>
>> IOW, I'm not so concerned with the issue
>> that I feel compelled to work on the solution.
>
>On the other hand, no amount of work on "squaring a circle"
>will ever be fruitful, and "proof of impossibility"
>also happens to exist for this,
>so another reason why it is advisable not to work on it
>is that it is likely impossible,
>despite your goadings to others to try nonetheless.
Another nonsensical argument.
>
>The obvious and simply best approach is to leave it as it was,
>where the problem never previously existed to begin with.
That's your opinion, not a fact founded in information you have in hand.
>
>Breaking things and then recommending that others
>try to find work-arounds is not ideal software practice.
It's your opinion that something was broken. It's Opera's word, and they are
the designers y'know, that it wasn't broken, but fixed for whatever their
reasons were for fixing what they felt was a problem.
John, I have no difficulty debating issues, provided the people I debate
with don't use straw man arguments, or invent facts, or try to put their
ill-conceived words in my mouth. I consider each of these techniques to be a
form of lying in a lame attempt to win an argument. You have employed each
of these techniques in this thread. If you'd like to debate me, stick to the
known facts and quit trying to throw bullshit around to support your
opinion. I really don't want to engage in a pissing contest with you.
Having said the preceding, I understand your disappointment and apparent
anger at Opera's decision. I also understand that regardless of the
ambiguous reasons offered by Opera for the change, the company made it clear
that it has its reasons, and the situation isn't going to change. I further
understand, based on the partial fix that's been made available to us that
it's possible to conjure up a workaround. In the spirit of all of these
facts, I again suggest you give it a rest, as it seems to this reader that
you're beating a dead horse.
John H Meyers
JHM:
>> Anyone who suggests that the only 100 complaints here
>> represents all of the objections that exist
>> among a million Opera users
>> ought to be looking in a mirror when saying that.
EJ:
> Don't try to put words in my mouth to win your argument.
> I said nothing to suggest that there were only 100 complaints.
> In fact, I said that there were probably many complaints,
> and I offered reasons that they don't appear in
> this NG or in Opera forums.
Someone claiming to be you wrote these exact words:
> I'm wondering that for a widely-used product, such as web browser
> used by more than a million people, why should a few customers
> think they have a right to complain and make demands,
> when the manufacturer is doing its best
> to satisfy the vast plurality? I haven't counted the number complaints
> about the cache file extensions, but between this group and the Opera blogs,
> the number is well below 100.
[...]
> Thanks for the Melville parable, but do you really think this issue
> is of leviathan proportion considering the ratio of 'complainers'
> to Opera's overall market base?
Verify the precise quotes (and full context) here:
http://groups.google.com/group/opera.general/msg/d8fd40b9af30bc30
With full headers:
http://groups.google.com/group/opera.general/msg/d8fd40b9af30bc30?dmode=source
> I'm always amazed at those who lie in an attempt to make their point.
> They don't seem to realize that their lies speak loudly
> to the invalidity of their point.
Find out who is impersonating you, then,
and save your remarks for him or her,
or else point out my misreading, thanks.
> [re Opera employees who posted explanations of this decision]
> Their postings indicate to me that they are involved in the company,
> but nothing I've seen indicates they are involved
> in the design-decision-making policy.
They (or just "he") involved himself in EXPLAINING the design decisions,
as someone who is well-connected within the company,
also referring to having talked directly with "the security guys,"
and the various explanations appear contradictory,
as well as not holding up well to fact-checking against reality.
> Once again, you are guilty of inventing facts to support your
> argument, and once again, your facts hold no water.
Your retort illustrates good traits for use in politics
("spin" the truth, accuse the reporter instead,
and dodge responsibilty for one's own acts and errors,
more of which will be found below).
[about "Fermat's Last Theorem"]
JHM:
>> After 300 years of subsequent efforts by so many,
>> during which the only proof ever found was extremely complex,
>> as well as a couple of hundred pages long, many doubt that Fermat
>> ever had a genuine proof of the nature which he claimed.
EJ:
> And, because that's your opinion it makes it a fact, right?
Let's quote just one of my sources:
"I don't believe Fermat had a proof.
I think he fooled himself into thinking he had a proof."
- Andrew Wiles (the very guy who did complete,
with some help explained below, the hugely long missing step
in what is currently considered the first actual proof,
as quoted in http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/proof/wiles.html )
Those interested may note an expanded quote below).
> In fact, regardless of the complexity of the proof
> (who would have expected otherwise?),
> one mathematician received his PhD and international acclaim
> for finally providing the proof.
Wiles received his PhD in 1980,
while his step of the "Fermat proof" was published in 1995,
so unless PhDs are awarded for anticipated future achievements,
you still have your facts wrong, though you may attempt
to deflect that by slinging the accusation at me instead.
Wiles' proof was also in error, as it turned out,
and needed a substantial and complex addition
(see last link above, or expanded excerpt below).
[about "impossibility proofs"]
> Another nonsensical argument.
They save a lot of time for those who are sent on impossible quests,
by people who would just like to think that they are possible :)
Lyrics by Michael Flanders, in "The Bestiary of Flanders & Swann":
"There's no limit to my genius, but I just don't have the time"
(as I recall my recording of the performance,
though slightly different below)
http://f2.org/humour/language/nonsense.html#Sloth
http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=3530822107858643873
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00004S6FO [original recording]
---
Just for math buffs' interest, an expanded quote from Wiles' "Nova" interview:
AW: It was an error in a crucial part of the argument,
but it was something so subtle that I'd missed it completely until that point.
The error is so abstract that it can't really be described in simple terms.
Even explaining it to a mathematician would require the mathematician
to spend two or three months studying that part of the manuscript in great detail.
NOVA: Eventually, after a year of work, and after inviting
the Cambridge mathematician Richard Taylor to work with you on the error,
you managed to repair the proof. The question that everybody asks is this;
is your proof the same as Fermat's?
AW: There's no chance of that. Fermat couldn't possibly have had this proof.
It's 150 pages long. It's a 20th-century proof.
It couldn't have been done in the 19th century, let alone the 17th century.
The techniques used in this proof just weren't around in Fermat's time.
NOVA: So Fermat's original proof is still out there somewhere.
AW: I don't believe Fermat had a proof.
I think he fooled himself into thinking he had a proof.
But what has made this problem special for amateurs is that
there's a tiny possibility that there does exist an elegant 17th-century proof.
---
Perhaps there's even a tiny possibility of making up, partially,
for Opera's no longer identifying the type of cached files,
and the fact that, as of 9.27 at least,
"opera:cache" not only has no "OS integration" at all,
but does not even list all of the files,
and in fact sometimes lists only one out of 600 of mine,
but my "opinion" is that it's easier and better
for the browser to provide that, will full OS integration as well,
by doing nothing more (or less) than what it always previously did.
> I understand your disappointment and apparent anger at Opera's decision.
Another wild guess and equally wild miss -- do you have anything
to add from your own knowledge or useful insight about the issues,
or at least something of related interest?
Thanks for the enjoyable discussion, and, as always, I hope that
some added knowledge, insight or perspective may have crept in above,
either about the product and this topic, or about the evaluation
of those commenting upon it, or something else of interest to someone
who might also be interested in what has appeared during the discussion.
Best wishes for happy browsing, including through the entire universe
of all knowledge known to mankind.
--
domesti...@gmail.com
Post:
http://my.opera.com/garywalsh/blog/2008/07/16/show-file-extensions-in-opera-cache-campaign
Button:
http://files.myopera.com/garywalsh/blog/Opera-Cache-Campaign_450x250.png
I wish the cache was the *only* problem in 9.51/9.52 :(
gary (";)
Odd H. Sandvik
> Join the 'Show File Extensions in Opera Cache' Campaign
>
> Post:
> http://my.opera.com/garywalsh/blog/2008/07/16/show-file-extensions-in-opera-cache-campaign
This is gonna sound funny, but I had to fire up Firefox to
see that page. In Opera I get a "The proxy server received an invalid
response from an upstream server" error. Apparently, deleting
cookies for that domain should fix it, but I can find none
in the cookie manager. Weird.
> Button:
> http://files.myopera.com/garywalsh/blog/Opera-Cache-Campaign_450x250.png
This one works in Opera. :)
--
Odd H. Sandvik
self
says...
>Yes it is a bit of a
> hassle, and people that used to spend their time working with Opera's
> cached files will be worse off with this policy. But what's the big deal?
> (not a retorical question)
What is the big deal?
Well I have a use for the cache- I use every day to locate articles that
I recall seeing.
Once a week i transfer all my cache files to an archive folder.
There I delete all but the html files. I then use Copernic to add them
to my index of all files I have seen in the last 3 years. I then use
this resource almost daily to search for articles that I might recall if
only one or two terms that were in it.
I am unable to do this indexing now in Opera 9.5 because the file
extensions are missing, and are essential for the indexing process.
So this is not a theoretical problem for me, nor is it about viewing the
odd movie, something that I do not do.
I would request that Opera restore the file extensions.
--
Pat
David W. Hodgins
> Once a week i transfer all my cache files to an archive folder.
> There I delete all but the html files. I then use Copernic to add them
Which operating system are you using? It shouldn't take much to write
a script or batch file to identify the html files (by scanning for <html>),
and then only move those files, to the archive folder, adding the .html
extenstion.
On linux, I can do this in a few minutes. On windows, might take me a while
to refresh my memory on batch files, and figure out which program would be
best to use for the scanning.
Feel free to contact me by email (see sig), and I'll throw something together.
Regards, Dave Hodgins
--
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
David W. Hodgins
> Once a week i transfer all my cache files to an archive folder.
> There I delete all but the html files. I then use Copernic to add them
In linux ...
for i in `grep -il "<html>" *` ; do cp $i /pathtoarchive/$i.html ; done
In xp, put the following in a batch file, to do the same thing ...
FOR /F %%i IN ('findstr /I /M "<html>" *') DO copy %%i \pathtoarchive\%%i.html
Add a cd to the appropriate directory, in the script, or batch file, prior to
running the above command.
For xp, the same command can be run from a command prompt, but use single percent
signs, instead of double.