StoutFiles
msg:3934729 | 11:57 pm on Jun 16, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Opera's going to have to "reinvent" their advertising scheme if they want anyone outside the group of people that already use Opera to use this.
|
Brett_Tabke
msg:3934736 | 12:08 am on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0) |
>Opera's going to have to "reinvent" their advertising scheme What advertising scheme?
|
StoutFiles
msg:3934769 | 12:39 am on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Exactly.
|
MWpro
msg:3935119 | 1:02 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Best feature on Opera is the "control + Z" undo feature to recall closed sites you have been to. Ever close something thinking you had everything just to realize you need more information from that site? Control + Z.
|
Trace
msg:3935194 | 2:15 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0) |
I haven't found anything on how to block the use of these new services anywhere. In a corporate world this is a nightmare. Bandwidth use is going to sky rocket and not to mention the crazy security risk. We've had to block the execution of "opera.exe" on all workstations on our domain. How many other companies are going to do the same?
|
mattglet
msg:3935210 | 2:27 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Trace- Not sure if you understand how Unite works from a bandwidth/usage standpoint. Check out Brett's post above: | It is *not* just like p2p. It is a proxy cache. Opera's proxy cache, keeps a copy of the object until it is replaced or updated on your machine. Your machine only fesses up one copy of it to the proxy cache. Everyone else pulls from the cached copy. Thus, it is not a true "web server". You could serve a picture a million times off your feed, and all you do is send one copy to the proxy cache server. This is *really* what Opera Turbo was testing in the beta tests (the proxy caching mechs). |
|
|
Trace
msg:3935260 | 3:10 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Thanks, I had seen the post. But that only applies to serving sites, not the music streaming or file transfers... they better not be caching my files.
|
mattglet
msg:3935286 | 3:35 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Hmm, good point. I'd bet they are though... Mitchman, care to confirm?
|
Mitchman
msg:3935792 | 9:25 am on Jun 18, 2009 (gmt 0) |
@Brett_Tabke: No data is stored in the the proxy, and it can be circumvented easily by using dyndns.org or similar services.
|
Brett_Tabke
msg:3935865 | 11:56 am on Jun 18, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Ok, tha nks Mitchman. Then how can a machine possibly handle any activity at all?
|
Mitchman
msg:3935904 | 1:11 pm on Jun 18, 2009 (gmt 0) |
What do you mean? With direct connection, the performance is decent but obviously not like a dedicated webserver. Check [unitehowto.com...] for one test.
|
Brett_Tabke
msg:3935988 | 2:44 pm on Jun 18, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Then what is the point of the proxy server? Is it just acting as - essentially - a dynamic dns provider?
|
Mitchman
msg:3936566 | 9:08 am on Jun 19, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Yes, that's the best case scenario. If you have an open port, it will just be a "dns forwarder". If you do not have an open port, it will act as a regular proxy for the data. The point is that it "just have to work".
|
tangor
msg:3938611 | 6:15 am on Jun 23, 2009 (gmt 0) |
| Opera's worth a lot to the world. We could live without Microsoft, no problem |
|
Okay. Works for me if it works for the world. :)
|
| This 44 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 44 ( 1 [2] ) |
|
|
