8 ms·

Opera Unite reinvents the Web: a Web server on the Web browser

160 points by mqt 17y ago

Tichy 17y ago
How do they deal with firewalls? Could make p2p chatting difficult.
- rarestblog 17y ago
  /They do have "Use uPnP from my router for port forwarding" option when installing/ ...also how do they deal with NAT (1 external IP for a whole office/city region)? Update: Being behind NAT I WAS able to see my computer from other computer via Internet. Kudos, Opera!
  - Tichy 17y ago
    So any computer behind the router has the ability to configure that router via uPnP? Don't know much about uPnP yet.
    - rarestblog 17y ago
      I think the main thing is that it just works. You push the button and you get your URL, no matter whether you're behind NAT, router or (probably even) firewall.
      - Tichy 17y ago
        It would be interesting to know about such a capability of computers behind the router, because it would imply that the router is not an effective firewall - which I had assumed it is. Although to be fair, I suppose you can usually disable uPnP in the router (which should be the default imo).
        jurjenhaitsma 17y ago
        I'm just guessing here, but I'd say it is based on a similar scheme as skype - the browser opens an initial route to the opera server, which essentially stays open (think ajax) while the browser is running, and then the server can route the requests back to this link. Any NAT is taken care of in the initial connection, so as long as it isn't broken, any "incoming" request will in fact be a reply to the original open connection.
        Tichy 17y ago
        OK, if they do that, it would work - but then it all would depend on the Opera server. If I create my own applications, I don't want to depend on some Opera service being up and running. At the very least there would have to be some open source application that I could install on my own server.
        pmjordan 17y ago
        If you have a UPnP capable router, it does allow apps behind the firewall to switch on forwarding for ports they need. It's often even enabled by default: There was some exploit recently that used that mechanism. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Plug_and_Play#NAT_traversal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Plug_and_Play#NAT_tra...
- mqt 17y ago
  If you have UPnP enabled, all traffic is direct. Otherwise, it's proxied through Opera's servers. http://unite.opera.com/support/#tech_location http://unite.opera.com/support/#tech_location
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
arnoooooo 17y ago
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 17y ago
  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 17y ago
    BitTorrent is for file transfer. P2P HTTP is for anything, e.g. chat or games.
alexk 17y ago
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.
GeneralMaximus 17y ago
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 17y ago
  I'm looking at it right now and it IS actually a button "Enable Opera Unite", with two-click enabling/disabling.
  - GeneralMaximus 17y ago
    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 17y ago
      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.
niyazpk 17y ago
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!
- rarestblog 17y ago
  I think it might be possible to use CNAME DNS record (athough needs testing) for that task or use modern registrars redirect domain / framed domain features. update: Just tested, no, CNAMEs don't work for Unite.
- DocSavage 17y ago
  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 17y ago
jyothi 17y ago
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 17y ago
  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 17y ago
    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.
patio11 17y ago
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.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- lucumo 17y ago
  > 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 17y ago
    "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.
jcapote 17y ago
cough http://code.google.com/apis/gears/api_localserver.html http://code.google.com/apis/gears/api_localserver.html
- whughes 17y ago
  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 17y ago
    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 17y ago
      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.
taitems 17y ago
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?
johnnybgoode 17y ago
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 17y ago
  I use Opera's bittorrent client. Why do you have to go through a second program to download torrents?
  - abefortas 17y ago
    Because it's faster. You can download torrents with Gnome-do without having to even look at torrent sites.
- iamelgringo 17y ago
  I've been using Opera 10 since the alpha was released, and I can rarely stomach opening up Firefox anymore, although I need to for firebug. Firefox just seems so... bloated. But I digress. I don't use Widgets, but I do use the BitTorrent client quite a bit. It's a lot more straight forward for smaller downloads than opening up uTorrent. For larger downloads, I do use a dedicated Torrent client, however.
dejan 17y ago
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 17y ago
  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.
uggedal 17y ago
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++
- buluzhai 17y ago
  In a nutshell, Opera Unite is a collaborative technology that uses a compact server inside the Opera desktop browser to share data and services.
  - jm4 17y ago
    The headline says as much.
- mlLK 17y ago
  Meanwhile I'll be praying this client gets supported and extended, otherwise I fear we're in for another eMule. . . Although I have a lot more faith in the Opera community than preWeb2.0 p2p applications. . .I better stop though, it's only 5am and I'm already speaking in hyperbole.
  - aarongough 17y ago
    One of the nicest points of this idea is that it leverages existing technologies really well. eMule requires both parties involved in the transfer use the same software. With Unite the receiver can just use their normal browser. I think that will go a long way to helping spread the idea. People will ask friends how they're managing to share their content like this and word will spread.
- ovidiu 17y ago
  Yeah, and it's pretty nice, because it always works without pain :)
- Quiark 17y ago
  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 :)
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
jacktang 17y ago
opera unite = web browser over p2p?
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
jrnkntl 17y ago
Is it too hard to fix opera.com/unite ?
vimalg2 17y ago
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 17y ago
  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 17y ago
    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.
- wmf 17y ago
  The Opera Unite API might be the other salient feature what everyone here is missing. Opera is likely counting on 3rd party developers on making the cool/killer apps. If I wanted to build a desktop app that contains a Web server, why would I use Unite over Jetty/Mongrel/etc? The proxy is adding some value, but how much?
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
rarestblog 17y ago
Wow! Blog in 60 lines of JavaScript. http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/opera-unite-developer-primer/ http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/opera-unite-developer-pri...
- jeresig 17y ago
  "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-api http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/#asynchronous-database-ap...
paul9290 17y ago
So could you create a p2p cache program or website? Where users share .mp3s .avis and other media files via their cache?
mikeliu 17y ago
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.
p_bclr 17y ago
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...
ovi256 17y ago
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 17y ago
  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 ?
chanux 17y ago
Nice work for sure. Kudos to Opera devs. Anyway I was using $python -m SimpleHTTPServer in some use cases of Unite.
jmtame 17y ago
I think I'll stick with dropbox for my filesharing.
mbrubeck 17y ago
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.
KWD 17y ago
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.
Readmore 17y ago
Can't wait for Apple to steal this idea and make it better ;)
ynniv 17y ago
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.
runinit 17y ago
I wish for the day where my internet connection can keep up with these services. Where is 100/100mbit when i need it?
zandorg 17y ago
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.
joshu 17y ago
Does anyone here actually USE opera?
- Pistos2 17y ago
  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).
- Quiark 17y ago
  I do now, because firefox with only 1 GB of RAM has become a pain and Opera is nice and fast. (Any tips how to slim ffx down are welcome)
- ramchip 17y ago
  I think Opera is actually quite popular here.
- lhorie 17y ago
  You'd be surprised. Aside from myself, I know at least two non-techies who use Opera from their own accord.
tekbar 17y ago
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 http://www.FilesOverMiles.com Feedback on the service would be appreciated :)
zouhair 17y ago
Looks a lot like Tonido, with the hassle of having to keep the browser open.
akkartik 17y ago
Holy crap, Kas Thomas got it right. (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=656107 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=656107)
JeffJenkins 17y ago
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.
sfphotoarts 17y ago
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.
ErrantX 17y ago
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 :(

160 points by mqt 17y ago

Tichy 17y ago

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

rarestblog 17y ago
/They do have "Use uPnP from my router for port forwarding" option when installing/ ...also how do they deal with NAT (1 external IP for a whole office/city region)? Update: Being behind NAT I WAS able to see my computer from other computer via Internet. Kudos, Opera!
- Tichy 17y ago
  So any computer behind the router has the ability to configure that router via uPnP? Don't know much about uPnP yet.
  - rarestblog 17y ago
    I think the main thing is that it just works. You push the button and you get your URL, no matter whether you're behind NAT, router or (probably even) firewall.
    - Tichy 17y ago
      It would be interesting to know about such a capability of computers behind the router, because it would imply that the router is not an effective firewall - which I had assumed it is. Although to be fair, I suppose you can usually disable uPnP in the router (which should be the default imo).
      - jurjenhaitsma 17y ago
        I'm just guessing here, but I'd say it is based on a similar scheme as skype - the browser opens an initial route to the opera server, which essentially stays open (think ajax) while the browser is running, and then the server can route the requests back to this link. Any NAT is taken care of in the initial connection, so as long as it isn't broken, any "incoming" request will in fact be a reply to the original open connection.
        Tichy 17y ago
        OK, if they do that, it would work - but then it all would depend on the Opera server. If I create my own applications, I don't want to depend on some Opera service being up and running. At the very least there would have to be some open source application that I could install on my own server.
      - pmjordan 17y ago
        If you have a UPnP capable router, it does allow apps behind the firewall to switch on forwarding for ports they need. It's often even enabled by default: There was some exploit recently that used that mechanism. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Plug_and_Play#NAT_traversal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Plug_and_Play#NAT_tra...
mqt 17y ago
If you have UPnP enabled, all traffic is direct. Otherwise, it's proxied through Opera's servers. http://unite.opera.com/support/#tech_location http://unite.opera.com/support/#tech_location
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]

arnoooooo 17y ago

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 17y ago
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 17y ago
  BitTorrent is for file transfer. P2P HTTP is for anything, e.g. chat or games.

alexk 17y ago

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.

GeneralMaximus 17y ago

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 17y ago
I'm looking at it right now and it IS actually a button "Enable Opera Unite", with two-click enabling/disabling.
- GeneralMaximus 17y ago
  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 17y ago
    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.

niyazpk 17y ago

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!

rarestblog 17y ago
I think it might be possible to use CNAME DNS record (athough needs testing) for that task or use modern registrars redirect domain / framed domain features. update: Just tested, no, CNAMEs don't work for Unite.
DocSavage 17y ago
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 17y ago

jyothi 17y ago

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 17y ago
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 17y ago
  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.

patio11 17y ago

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.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
lucumo 17y ago
> 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 17y ago
  "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.

jcapote 17y ago

cough http://code.google.com/apis/gears/api_localserver.html http://code.google.com/apis/gears/api_localserver.html

whughes 17y ago
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 17y ago
  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 17y ago
    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.

taitems 17y ago

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?

johnnybgoode 17y ago

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 17y ago
I use Opera's bittorrent client. Why do you have to go through a second program to download torrents?
- abefortas 17y ago
  Because it's faster. You can download torrents with Gnome-do without having to even look at torrent sites.
iamelgringo 17y ago
I've been using Opera 10 since the alpha was released, and I can rarely stomach opening up Firefox anymore, although I need to for firebug. Firefox just seems so... bloated. But I digress. I don't use Widgets, but I do use the BitTorrent client quite a bit. It's a lot more straight forward for smaller downloads than opening up uTorrent. For larger downloads, I do use a dedicated Torrent client, however.

dejan 17y ago

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 17y ago
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.

uggedal 17y ago

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++

buluzhai 17y ago
In a nutshell, Opera Unite is a collaborative technology that uses a compact server inside the Opera desktop browser to share data and services.
- jm4 17y ago
  The headline says as much.
mlLK 17y ago
Meanwhile I'll be praying this client gets supported and extended, otherwise I fear we're in for another eMule. . . Although I have a lot more faith in the Opera community than preWeb2.0 p2p applications. . .I better stop though, it's only 5am and I'm already speaking in hyperbole.
- aarongough 17y ago
  One of the nicest points of this idea is that it leverages existing technologies really well. eMule requires both parties involved in the transfer use the same software. With Unite the receiver can just use their normal browser. I think that will go a long way to helping spread the idea. People will ask friends how they're managing to share their content like this and word will spread.
ovidiu 17y ago
Yeah, and it's pretty nice, because it always works without pain :)
Quiark 17y ago
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 :)

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

jacktang 17y ago

opera unite = web browser over p2p?

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

jrnkntl 17y ago

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

vimalg2 17y ago

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 17y ago
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 17y ago
  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.
wmf 17y ago
The Opera Unite API might be the other salient feature what everyone here is missing. Opera is likely counting on 3rd party developers on making the cool/killer apps. If I wanted to build a desktop app that contains a Web server, why would I use Unite over Jetty/Mongrel/etc? The proxy is adding some value, but how much?

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

rarestblog 17y ago

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

jeresig 17y ago
"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-api http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/#asynchronous-database-ap...

paul9290 17y ago

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

mikeliu 17y ago

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.

p_bclr 17y ago

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...

ovi256 17y ago

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 17y ago
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 ?

chanux 17y ago

Nice work for sure. Kudos to Opera devs. Anyway I was using $python -m SimpleHTTPServer in some use cases of Unite.

jmtame 17y ago

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

mbrubeck 17y ago

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.

KWD 17y ago

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.

Readmore 17y ago

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

ynniv 17y ago

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.

runinit 17y ago

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

zandorg 17y ago

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.

joshu 17y ago

Does anyone here actually USE opera?

Pistos2 17y ago
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).
Quiark 17y ago
I do now, because firefox with only 1 GB of RAM has become a pain and Opera is nice and fast. (Any tips how to slim ffx down are welcome)
ramchip 17y ago
I think Opera is actually quite popular here.
lhorie 17y ago
You'd be surprised. Aside from myself, I know at least two non-techies who use Opera from their own accord.

tekbar 17y ago

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 http://www.FilesOverMiles.com Feedback on the service would be appreciated :)

zouhair 17y ago

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

akkartik 17y ago

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

JeffJenkins 17y ago

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.

sfphotoarts 17y ago

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.

ErrantX 17y ago

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 :(