

Opera Unite reinvents the Web: a Web server on the Web browser - mqt
http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2009/06/16/

======
niyazpk
This is a huge development IMHO. If executed correctly, this has the potential
to change how we look at the web. This is something that can be the starting
point of web 3.0.

[EDIT: I agree. The example applications given are not that appealing.]

I have an opinion that instead of some crappy and difficult to use address
like unite://mymac.chrismills.operaunite.com/ they should register a TLD (I
guess it is possible. Isn't it?) like .OP or something and start using that.
So my address will be simply niyaz.op

I think, (as always) someone else will come along and do it better than Opera
does and opera will be forgotten again. Sad, but true.

Anyway I love the Opera for these innovations. They are the pioneers in many
cool things in the web. Kudos guys!

~~~
DocSavage
This doesn't change how hackers look at the web. There's a reason we use
servers -- 24x7 availability with network redundancies, backup power, etc,
etc. Most hackers I know can run servers off their local box by using either
static IPs from their provider or a proxy service. But many don't because of
the reasons above. And now that there are so many great (mostly free) turnkey
hosting services like App Engine and Heroku, it's never been simpler to
offload all the server issues to a cloud.

The main target audience for this would be users who can't use any of the
cloud hosting and also don't need high availability. My folks live by a lake
with satellite broadband -- bad latency, frequent dropouts due to weather, and
a host of other issues, like simply not wanting to keep their computer on all
day, every day. They couldn't use this service. Other users would likely
confront at least one of the issues. I've just browsed the Opera material, but
I don't see a database/datastore -- maybe submitted data is supposed to go to
disk? (The blog example has submitted forms going to memory!)

So why is this a huge development?

~~~
niyazpk
This is not about reliability. We are not talking about traditional servers
and applications.

This is a huge development because when everyone can host applications for
free in their own browser we will soon start seeing new paradigms in the way
how we use the internet and how applications are served.

I am not smart enough to forecast HOW this will be done, but I have a gut
feeling that this will lead us to something really game-changing.

~~~
DocSavage
What kinds of apps is this supposed to unleash? If the application is
sufficiently complex to require programming or a database, which is true of
just about any non-trivial app, then the user is savvy enough to host apps for
free in several cloud hosting services with very easy deployment. If we're
just talking about file or photo sharing, then there are other services like
Dropbox that work well and don't require constant connectivity and compute
power on the client side.

I'm typically a fan boy of new tech, but other than a nice proxy service, I
don't see why this is revolutionary or game changing. Time will tell, but if
there really is a market for something like this, it'll be served by a really
cool and simple app development tool which autosyncs to a cloud. Building the
app in a brain-dead way is the chokepoint for people coming up with personal
apps, not the server infrastructure (at least now in 2009). Why bother with
client-side computers for a web-facing personal presence?

~~~
DocSavage
OK, I'm willing to take downvotes here, because I'm going to slap HN a little.
Why are many people upvoting niyazpk's comments (+14/4 vs other +1 comments
before I head to sleep)? To sum up his arguments: it's cool and he's got a gut
feeling that it's a web game changer. Meanwhile, there's a bunch of more
critical comments that point out Opera's insignificant examples and reasons
why the developers that can most use this technology would be better to use
more reliable cloud hosting. And these comments get some ups then get pushed
back to 1 point. Aren't we supposed to be more analytical here? If you're
going to upvote something, make sure there some substance behind the comment
rather than what's tantamount to a "that's cool, Opera rox."

~~~
niyazpk
Don't think more about the votes. Votes does not mean anything.

It just means that people agree with what I say, but that does not mean what I
say is right.

And then there is the fact that people usually just read the root comment and
do not bother reading the replies.

peace....

[EDIT: I am re-posting my comment from this thread:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=659822>

We are missing the point.

Turning a browser into a web server is not a big leap in technology. That is
not a hard problem.

Why I am excited about Opera Unite and not about this firefox extension is
that Opera themselves thinks that this will change the face of internet
applications. They are excited about it and they will persue this to the end.
That is the whole point.

It is not about technology. It is about how you push it and persue it. It is
all about your vision. ]

------
uggedal
My hunch: Opera Unite is going to be used mainly for file sharing. It's not a
reinvention of the Web, but a reinvention of DC++

~~~
Quiark
I think that file (not only mp3s) sharing is the ultimate goal of the
internet. The current state when we have big servers to which clients connect
is just a coincidence and is temporary. The future is fully distributed :)

~~~
LostInTheWoods
The idea of making a web browser that is also a web server makes a lot more
sense than the current trend of cloud computing. The privately owned data
center concept is unsustainable, and defeats the concept the internet, which
is distributed data.

~~~
hexis
Eben Moglen, I believe, made some great points about the huge increase in
distributed computing power (ie, the power of the laptops in the audience) in
this talk:

[http://radar.oreilly.com/2007/08/my-tonguelashing-from-
eben-...](http://radar.oreilly.com/2007/08/my-tonguelashing-from-eben-
mog.html)

Data centers get a lot of press, and it is warranted, but regular old desktops
and laptops (and smartphones, etc!) are incredibly powerful and underutilized.
The internet doesn't have to be cable tv, it can be the telephone game with
checksums.

------
vimalg2
The Opera Unite API might be the other salient feature what everyone here is
missing. Their India-evangelist pointed me to it on twitter. Opera is likely
counting on 3rd party developers on making the cool/killer apps. Things like
setting up a photo gallery of kids now doesn't require you to sign up for any
3rd party service anymore. This is the anti-cloud in the sense that you can
own your data. (pending a security audit of their n-tier architecture)
Disclaimer: I'm not at my desk and haven't tried the new release yet. I may be
way off base with respect to the API's capabilities.

~~~
tremendo
_Opera is likely counting on 3rd party developers on making the cool/killer
apps. Things like setting up a photo gallery of kids now doesn't require you
to sign up for any 3rd party service anymore._

Indeed, but I believe Opera could get more mileage out of Unite if it targeted
office/corporate workers. Apps would be more profitable for developers, and
non-technical people at work could definitely use easier and more versatile
collaboration tools. There is potential there.

~~~
sp332
This would be an extremely hard sell. Getting IT to install a non-supported
web browser? Just so random employees can set up random servers on the local
network? This sounds like a nightmare to the people who have to support it.

------
dejan
I don't like that Opera is trying to fit in everything into the browser. I
prefer apps per tasks, don't want a OS in a browser, nor browser with the OS.

Was expecting more of Opera, I don't find this very innovative.

However, great job on the publicity :D

~~~
andreyf
Agreed, I wee the things coming out of MozLabs a lot more innovative - "the
future of the internet", if it can be predicted, seems to be along the lines
of Moz JetPack, not Opera Unite.

------
johnnybgoode
I wonder if this will just be another one of those forgotten features that
Opera has. There are LOTS of those, by the way.

Edit: Even diehard Opera fans have to admit there are a lot of cool features
barely anyone uses. Opera Widgets? Opera's BitTorrent client?

~~~
jules
I use Opera's bittorrent client. Why do you have to go through a second
program to download torrents?

~~~
abefortas
Because it's faster. You can download torrents with Gnome-do without having to
even look at torrent sites.

------
tekbar
Actually, P2P communication inside _any_ browser has been possible since the
release of Adobe Flash Player 10. Two Flash 10 clients can directly
communicate with each other over most NATs and firewalls (in contrast to
Opera, Flash 10 supports NAT punching).

Just over two weeks ago I've launched a web-based service that uses these
capabilities of Flash 10. The service enables users to send files directly
between each other. No software to download. If interested, you can check it
at <http://www.FilesOverMiles.com>

Feedback on the service would be appreciated :)

------
Tichy
How do they deal with firewalls? Could make p2p chatting difficult.

~~~
mqt
If you have UPnP enabled, all traffic is direct. Otherwise, it's proxied
through Opera's servers.

<http://unite.opera.com/support/#tech_location>

------
patio11
There are reasons we don't run web servers on our laptops. Putting the server
inside the browser instance just makes these reasons more acute.

(Hey guys, I found this awesome site earlier today -- it has 16 hours of
downtime a day, but scheduled irregularly, and any given session might be
terminated at any time if the owner gets kicked out of the coffee shop where
he is getting Wifi or quits out of Opera while playing WoW. Aside from that,
yeah, awesome site.)

And they want to write web _applications_ on this? Oh, THAT is going to be
fun.

~~~
lucumo
_> There are reasons we don't run web servers on our laptops._

Ehrm, I do. It's great for developing on localhost and some quick sharing with
someone near me.

 _> And they want to write web applications on this? Oh, THAT is going to be
fun._

I don't think they're aiming to "host" the next Google... From the site I
gather that they want to run applications that are for the user of the browser
to enjoy by doing something together with his/her buddies.

~~~
carbon8
_"Ehrm, I do. It's great for developing on localhost..."_

Yeah, we all do; this is HN. That's not what he's referring to, and that's not
what Opera Unite is for.

------
jyothi
There is no mention of security in the PR article.

Wondering how easy or difficult it would be for someone to hack into my local
opera web server? Possibly the answer is as much as they can hack into your
normal web server.

I would guess a bulk of internet users would fear to use this service. They
would continue to upload than share local directories online.

~~~
rarestblog
One thing I REALLY trust Opera with - is the security. I've been using browser
for ages and never had I security breach through Opera.

~~~
bhrgunatha
There are a whole range of fundamental differences between securing a client
application and securing a server application.

I'm not saying that the Opera browser will de facto become insecure, but it's
just opened itself up to a potentially huge range of unknown exploits - all
servers or software services require some knowledge and configuration to make
them secure.

I wish them well, but I foresee this causing a lot of security problems.

------
rarestblog
Wow! Blog in 60 lines of JavaScript.
[http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/opera-unite-developer-
pri...](http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/opera-unite-developer-primer/)

~~~
jeresig
"For now, entries are stored in a simple array, so will be lost when the
service is restarted, but it wouldn’t be so hard to extend the example to
provide a means of retaining the blog entries."

Oooof... that hurts. It looks like they want you to do File I/O and create
your own storage layer. Opera really needs to implement client-side SQL:
[http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/#asynchronous-database-
ap...](http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/#asynchronous-database-api)

------
ovi256
This could be huge combined with webhooks and a JS asynchrounous DOM
modification capability. Think about a web-chat app that does asynchronous
true push chat. No Comet and heavy JS.

It would work like this : you would connect to the web chat. Your browser
would give the server an URL on its internal server where the server can post
updates. Just like a webhook. The internal server would run a JS callback each
time it got something posted to update the page. BAM! True bidirectional push!

~~~
ovi256
A pity that it would need to be standardized by the W3C to have a wide
userbase and thus be a viable option. And standardization would take how long
? 20 years ?

------
mikeliu
Didn't Windows Home Server do this a long time ago? They also had easy file
sharing and gave you your own subdomain with a web interface to get at your
content. Although Unite is a lot easier to configure/start and you don't need
a dedicated device, I still don't think the core audience is the average user.

It's a little awkward if you need to leave your laptop on 24/7 for your
friends to access...For the average user, an internet service is more than
enough.

------
alexk
I think that internet based services are so great because they free users from
technical details like "files", "sharing", "web servers" etc and let them
focus on features - "communicating", "editing". That's why it's strange to see
Opera promoting the old all-in-one idiom leaving user with a bunch of files on
his personal computer again. Maybe I just don't get all the details and will
gladly accept counter-arguments.

------
joshu
Does anyone here actually USE opera?

~~~
Pistos2
I use Opera. Have been since version 4.x, and haven't ever changed. I only
keep Firefox around for Firebug and Flash (nice place for Linux Flash to crash
in a closeable sandbox).

------
zouhair
Looks a lot like Tonido, with the hassle of having to keep the browser open.

------
ErrantX
2 inital thoughts occur.

Firstly if this takes off it will make my job insanely difficult (nigh
impossible) because identifying where content came from will probably be even
harder (aka impossible).

Secondly it will make my job even busier because it's a hot bed for virus
distribution, cracking and intrusion... they better damn well secure this! :D

From my perspective I suspect this will be another Google Hello episode :(

------
akkartik
Holy crap, Kas Thomas got it right.
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=656107>)

------
p_bclr
Don't get me wrong, the perspective behind this really interests me. I think,
however, that it's a infrastructure question.

Following the Google Gears argument I would agree that it is much more
interesting to keep your private data localy than to serve local directories.

I'm expecting a free Opera Client-Side App Hosting (that auto-syncs with you
browser :) to emerge from Opera if this catches on...

------
KWD
With the direction of broadband ISPs being going to bandwidth caps, 'hosting'
on personal PCs is not something I'd be looking at getting into at this point.
It's kind of like why I would choose using Vimeo or Youtube to host a video
instead of my own web server, bandwidth is not going to be free. I never see
this getting beyond a miniscule niche.

------
arnoooooo
A nice use for this would be peer to peer in the browser. EDIT: I mean
distributed p2p, since this is already p2p by itself.

~~~
rarestblog
Opera had P2P (bittorrent) client for ages (even though it's implementation
was(probably still is) really disappointing).

Edit: "Distributed P2P"?? You need to clarify that, since this sounds like
like "Database-ready MySQL". (P2P is "distributed" by design)

~~~
wmf
BitTorrent is for file transfer. P2P HTTP is for _anything_ , e.g. chat or
games.

------
ynniv
Now I have to worry about browser uptime? People don't need a server in their
browser, they want reliable services that are easy to use. This could easily
have been a nice user interface to a "launchd" and some services. Server side
JS might be nice, but there is no benefit to it being coupled to a browser.

------
zandorg
I had this idea in 2002, except searching of this network via the Gnutella
network. I called it the Transient Web.

I came to the conclusion that this would just create fractured webpages, and a
site one week could be gone the next. This is really bad for things like
Archive.org to keep track of.

------
mbrubeck
It's a different approach, but to the third-party developer (and the end-user)
it definitely has some overlap with Google Wave. Interesting to see the two
different approaches to web-based collaboration, and it'll be even more
interesting to see how they compete and/or combine.

------
JeffJenkins
I doubt anyone will remember this, but way back around the .com bubble ICQ
actually had a feature built in where you could host a website off of your
computer using it and your contact list could access it. I don't think I
really used it, but it was a neat feature.

------
taitems
The EXE installed all the text with its localisation IDs instead of the actual
text it is supposed to be localising (eg. D_SERVICE_INSTALL_INTRO). Does this
happen for anyone else?

------
GeneralMaximus
This is great!

Now when someone asks me what the phrase "jumping the shark" means, I will
have an example to give them.

EDIT: A second look at Opera Unite tells me this is a neat idea, but only if
it ships as a separate product and not as part of the browser. Imagine a one-
click webserver you can use to share music, files and photos from your PC
without having to put them "in the cloud". Opera could have _charged_ for this
service, and people would have paid gladly.

Putting this in the browser is, IMO, stupidity on a whole new level.

~~~
rarestblog
I'm looking at it right now and it IS actually a button "Enable Opera Unite",
with two-click enabling/disabling.

~~~
GeneralMaximus
What I meant to say was that this should not be part of the browser. That just
bloats it up. A separate app would have been much better.

Opera's target audience consists mostly of geeks, anyway. Downloading and
installing a separate app would not have been a problem for these people.

~~~
gnoupi
Downloading an external webserver or ftp is not a problem for most geeks. But
it takes configuring, knowing what you're doing, etc. The goal of Opera Unite
is rather to bring this possibility, to another audience, to have easily such
services.

------
chanux
Nice work for sure. Kudos to Opera devs.

Anyway I was using

$python -m SimpleHTTPServer

in some use cases of Unite.

------
paul9290
So could you create a p2p cache program or website? Where users share .mp3s
.avis and other media files via their cache?

------
sfphotoarts
this is actually really interesting. I can see a lot of new apps coming from
this. I just installed it and tried it and so far I like it. The fridge app is
a good idea but needs some design work. Photo sharing worked, its not just a
file enumeration, they make pretty web galleries and there's an interesting
chat app too.

------
runinit
I wish for the day where my internet connection can keep up with these
services. Where is 100/100mbit when i need it?

------
Readmore
Can't wait for Apple to steal this idea and make it better ;)

------
jmtame
I think I'll stick with dropbox for my filesharing.

------
jrnkntl
Is it too hard to fix opera.com/unite ?

------
jacktang
opera unite = web browser over p2p?

------
jcapote
_cough_ <http://code.google.com/apis/gears/api_localserver.html>

~~~
whughes
What does this have to do with Opera Unite? It has the word "server" in the
API name. Does that mean I can link to Apache and say that they beat Opera to
the idea? Opera's not saying they came up with the first local server; they're
just giving the end-user the ability to serve their own content easily and
without relying on the cloud.

~~~
rarestblog
I think implied was the fact that content serving from browser has been
available through Gears (which a lot of people have installed), but it hasn't
quite caught on. The difference (as I see it) is that Opera makes it REALLY
easy (I can start playing with Opera right away, whereas Gears API looks scary
at first sight).

~~~
mbrubeck
Opera Unite and Gears LocalServer are completely different. (I'm using the
LocalServer API for the application I'm writing at work.)

LocalServer saves a set of static files (e.g. HTML, JavaScript, CSS, images)
from the web. When the browser requests those files later, they will be served
from the LocalServer disk cache instead of the remote server. So the pages
will load faster and can be available offline (if the pages are designed to
run without accessing any other network resources). It's like a browser cache
on steroids. For an example application, see the latest version of WordPress,
which has an option to load the admin UI into a LocalServer cache.

LocalServer lets you serve requests from disk to browser on a single computer,
while Unite lets you serve requests from one computer to another over the
internet. LocalServer is useful for offline work, while Unite is useful for
communicating on a network.

If you used Unite for a single-user application (where the client and server
are all on one machine) then it might provide some of the functionality of
Gears LocalServer. But I suspect that the use of a central proxy server in
Unite would eliminate both the performance benefits and offline features for
this scenario.

