Furthermore, Internet Explorer was _not_ dominant when development of the Opera browser began. I'm not even sure wheter Internet Explorer _Existed_ at the time the development started. IE had a minimal marketshare when Opera was released, and Netscape was the Major competitor.
And, the relatively low marketshare. Well, heh, its kinda difficult to find out that a person is running Opera, if he doesdn't configure it to identify itself as it specifically. Opera defaults to identifying itself as Microsoft Internet Explorer for Windows. You can see the amount of people that _specifically_ has changed the settings, but you cannot see how many actually uses it.
1) Source availability is relevant to millions of users who either want to enjoy the benefits of open source passively or actively work on the code. For any software I find source availability as much relevant to list as, for example, system requirements. Don't use NPOV as a killer phrase -- your POV is no more or less neutral than mine, we just happen to disagree.
2) While you are correct that IE was not yet relevant in 1996, its market share dropped rather quickly in the months after Opera's first release, see: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/exhibits/14.pdf - still, the paragraph could perhaps be reworded. - reworded now.
3) Good point, I wanted to add that but forgot about it. I will do so right now. -done- Question to some other Opera user: Can anyone confirm that Opera identifies as IE by default? In my installation, it identifies as Opera, but I'm not sure if I have changed it.
3) I cannot say about the windows version, but I can confirm it for the linux version. :) --arcade
1) Yes, adding the status of source code to any program info may be useful, but with non-cross-platform Windows programs the general assumption is that they are closed source, so it may be sufficient to simply list notable exceptions from this rule here (e.g. Mozilla, Open Office, AbiWord). However, the Linux software pool, for example, is becoming increasingly hybrid when it comes to source availability, so the importance of the distinction grows.
3) Yes, but I'd like to get some independent confirmation. If nobody adds anything until tomorrow I'll mail the Opera folks, perhaps they can also give info on how this behavior has changed over the releases. -- just noticed STG's confirmation, so it may be sufficient to add to the article.
Honestly, its ridiculous. Its like the 'whaling' part of the beginning of the article about Norway. A sentence put in to initiate negative feelings towards whatever is in question, due to introducing a controversial subject at the beginning. Its as far from NPOV as its possible to get it.
Hi Arcade,
when it comes to operating systems, I do agree that the source status should be added. mIRC is one of the examples covered by the rule of thumb I already described.
But of course, if you _want_ wikipedia to be thought of as 'biased', then sure. Only 5 out of the last 5 norwegians I've shown it to has dismissed wikipedia as biased due to the mentioning of Whaling in the opening paragraph. I'm pretty damn sure people who develop closed source applications will think the same. (OH, fyi, I don't write closed source applications, and I almost do not use Opera, only galeon ;) --arcade
Hi,
I don't know why you keep bringing up Norway -- I really have nothing to do with that, I assure you! Nevertheless, regarding your implication of bias, I don't think that just because someone may be offended by a certain information, this information being listed implies that we have a bias in a certain direction. The entry is purely factual. I think you should re-read Neutral point of view, especially when I have rewritten it ;-)
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)