
Otter Browser – Aims to recreate the best aspects of classic Opera UI using Qt5 - bjoko
https://otter-browser.org/
======
abrowne
There's also Falkon, now a KDE project, which I prefer. The UI is more like
Firefox, and it's QtWebEngine-only, which is maintained, unlike QtWebKit these
days.

[https://www.falkon.org/](https://www.falkon.org/)

~~~
kodablah
> maintained, unlike QtWebKit these days

Seems somewhat revived/maintained by annulen [0] as pointed out in these
release notes. Also, QtWebEngine seems to usually be behind a Chromium version
or two which, among other reasons, is why I use CEF in my Qt-based browser
(granted I'm behind a couple versions on public releases, but that's my
fault).

0 -
[https://github.com/annulen/webkit/tree/master](https://github.com/annulen/webkit/tree/master)

~~~
abrowne
Yes, that QtWebKit revival is interesting and worth watching. I haven't
followed, but I'm still not sure if it's up-to-date. This blog post from a
WebKitGTK+ (with a section about QtWebKit) developer from 2017 is the best
info I could find: [https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2017/08/06/endgame-for-
we...](https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2017/08/06/endgame-for-webkit-woes/)

And yes, QtWebEngine does not keep up with Chromium, but it is updated to some
degree. I wish Qt and distros could at least keep better up-to-date with
security fixes, but it's easier said than done!

------
warpech
Screenshots: [https://otter-browser.org/screenshots/](https://otter-
browser.org/screenshots/)

~~~
vfclists
I find open source websites which can't provide a simple slideshow for viewing
screenshots very depressing.

Do these developers seriously expect interested viewers to click back and
forth just to see their graphics?

~~~
stonogo
This is the first time I've ever heard 'clicking a mouse button' declared an
egregious violation of the user's effort. Is this a widespread concern? How do
you use the web?

~~~
Markoff
most of the people nowadays surf from mobile

------
aphextron
The problem I really have with all these alternative browsers is one of trust.
It always comes down to just blindly trusting the signed binaries posted
online by "some internet guy" on a random website. Even Chromium suffers from
this. For an application which I will be entering credit card details, social
security numbers, and all other imaginable form of private data, this is non-
negotiable.

~~~
drdaeman
I believe it's not exactly correct to separate browsers and non-browsers this
way.

On desktop systems, a malicious program typically can access most data from
the other applications. Personally, saw a few non-browser programs that had an
"extra functionality" that swept the drives and phoned back home - and never
saw a browser with malicious extras (except for third-party browser
extensions). Not saying this couldn't happen, just that I feel that direct
approach is somewhat less likely.

~~~
giancarlostoro
One browser that does phone home is UC Browser[0]. I agree with you though,
you don't _truly_ know what will happen when you install any application on
your desktop without proper inspection. With so many security researchers out
there I'm surprised they don't inspect software for that kind of thing and do
public reviews, and showcase evidence of phoning home without consent /
notifying the end-user in an obvious fashion.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Browser](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Browser)

------
stinos
Having used Opera for many years this sounded intriguing. After playing around
with it for a bit, less so. Ok it got the mouse gestures, thanks, but for the
rest: lots of small quirks which make it feel way too alpha (UI looks messy,
different colors for menu bars and address bar/tabs, search box is pretty
small, seems to use multiple icon themes or so, buttons with text clipped,
ALT-D goes to address bar but doesn't select all text, the new tab page
doesn't show icons nor tile images nor address so you have to hover to find
out what a tie does, ...), doesn't feel particularly fast, and it doesn't have
mail which was like the single thing making me stick with Opera for too long
:P

Apart from that it's pretty cool nonetheless, and good that people still
remember the proper Opera of back in the days.

~~~
pferde
Perhaps report your findings to the developers, to potentially have them
fixed?

------
walkingolof
The Vivaldi (Vivaldi.com) browser is what Opera would have been if the 12
linage had continued into this day.

~~~
xeeeeeeeeeeenu
I doubt that Opera would've become a poorly performing browser with UI built
with node.js.

~~~
walkingolof
I use it everyday and find its features and compability !

------
giancarlostoro
Looks nice, their front-page really could use some pagination love, I
shouldn't get more than 10 weeks worth of updates on 1 page. I have to scroll
all the way to the bottom before I can see the FAQ which is something I'd want
immediately available without having to scroll down too far, or on it's own
page, otherwise people will just think they don't even have an FAQ.

------
fxfan
I couldn't find any mention of rendering engine or capabilities and plugin
system.

~~~
kkarakk
opera 12.x FOSS version spinoff

~~~
lucideer
Opera 12 rendering engine was entirely closed source, so a FOSS spinoff isn't
possible. This is mainly working on recreating the UI experience only, with a
very different rendering engine.

~~~
signal11
Interesting - I’ll try it out, quite curious to see how it compares with
Vivaldi, which has an Opera-like UI with the Chromium engine.

~~~
lucideer
Otter predates Vivaldi (at least publicly)—I think Otter started very very
soon after Opera 12 was discontinued. It's also open source (which imo was
Opera's downfall), and uses an engine that is not the dominant one on the
market (albeit a close cousin); I think both of these points are on its
favour.

On the other hand, Vivaldi seems to have more resources behind it, as well as
the name of Jon von Tetzchner, which helps adoption. It just seems to be
making the same mistakes Opera did (closed source, so the community can never
bring it forward independently), with the added downside of being really no
different from the market leader under the hood (rendering).

~~~
Jitnaught_
Vivaldi's source code is available
[https://vivaldi.com/source/](https://vivaldi.com/source/)

~~~
lucideer
Opera 12s source is also available, yet it would still be illegal for someone
to fork it as it'sa closed licence. Available source is not open source—the
difference is having a legal right to continue development.

~~~
userbinator
Of course, legality doesn't stop some people ;-)

There have been very interesting creations, like 10 versions of Windows on one
live DVD, made by those who couldn't care less about the legal aspects. Such a
"underground" browser would be an interesting thing indeed... there was a
discussion here on HN about the source code leak not long ago.

~~~
lucideer
I'd very very much like to see such an underground effort. We can dream...

------
zerr
The only reason I prefer Chrome over competitors is the speed of startup
(including cold) even with _lots_ of open tabs. I close and start the browser
many times and so far nothing beats Chrome.

~~~
em-bee
firefox solves that by not loading all tabs except the active one. tabs are
then loaded when they are opened.

~~~
zerr
I know but ff startup is still slow, including warm.

------
nkkollaw
My problem with alternative browsers is that I'm locked-in because of a few
plugins, and I cannot be bother reinstalling all settings and plugins
(including plugin settings) when I change computer.

Any browser that will let me sync settings and plugins, and that has the
plugins I need (Slither, Pocket, AdGuard), I'll try and continue using if it
works for me.

Otherwise, it's hard.

~~~
catacombs
> Any browser that will let me sync settings and plugins, and that has the
> plugins I need (Slither, Pocket, AdGuard), I'll try and continue using if it
> works for me.

Firefox does this, no?

~~~
nkkollaw
Yup. I did use if for a while.

------
mda
It is admirable that they took on this job, but I would probably stay away
from it for serious things because of security aspect. Modern browsers (Chrome
- Firefox) are probably a much safer choice.

~~~
amelius
On the other hand, browsers with a large user base are a more
likely/profitable target for hacking.

~~~
smacktoward
_> A system or component relying on obscurity may have theoretical or actual
security vulnerabilities, but its owners or designers believe that if the
flaws are not known, that will be sufficient to prevent a successful attack.
Security experts have rejected this view as far back as 1851, and advise that
obscurity should never be the only security mechanism._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity)

~~~
boffinism
Security through obscurity is bad, but the original comment wasn't about
security through obscurity in that sense.

