Are Opera Users the Most Valuable?

In Opera you can either use your own way of doing things with the OS, or you can utilize a currently non-existent WIMPy method that you subscribe to. I’m not necessarily against WIMPy methods, but they all too often come at a cost, which in Firefox profiles is really no different. After you finally locate whichever subdirectory was used to store the GM or Stylish stuff (or AdBlock Plus), you still face all kinds of barely usable files with cryptic names.
 
I much prefer to only block one single element that slows down loading or plays annoying audio than mercilessly target all ads, whether benevolent or even good (i.e. content-appropriate). For the record, I haven’t done even that in years.
 
Concerns about Flash are legitimate, since it can affect stability, CPU usage, memory usage, and play annoying audio. Things like Stop Autoplay or FlashBlock are great for that purpose. I don’t do this either, but especially on Linux it may make a significant difference. If ads on a website are so annoying to you that you have to block them, seriously, just don’t visit that place. They’re going to be paying for bandwidth while you’re stealing their revenue.
 
And your comments about Chrome are false, even if the situation improved somewhat compared to a little over half a year ago. I quote from Chrome’s AdBlock extension:
 

New in version 2.0: Ads are actually BLOCKED FROM DOWNLOADING now, instead of just being removed after the fact!

Note that Chrome doesn’t actually support this all the way, so a few resources might still load before AdBlock can get to them (emphasis added), in which case we’ll remove those as usual. AdBlock does block resources flawlessly in Safari — get it at safariadblock.com.

Um, since when do you need to deal with “barely usable files with cryptic names” with Greasemonkey, Stylish, or ABP?

If you actually create (and modify) things, rather than merely consuming things others made.

It looks like your whole notion of Opera’s superiority is based on your utter ignorance regarding other browsers. What you’re describing is the backward and archaic Opera way. For Firefox and Chrome, it’s all point-and-click.

The only one who’s using words like superiority is you. What I’m describing is what’s best for me (i.e. more or less the way things are done in Opera), and while I would be perfectly happy to have that supplemented by some WIMPy stuff I’d barely use, I don’t want that to come at the expense of doing things the way I consider simplest. You consider a WIMPy way of doing things best. It’s not the end-all solution for everyone, so just get over it.

If we look at facts instead of basing the discussion on your astounding ignorance regarding anything non-Opera, Opera’s superiority is simply a figment of your wishful imagination.

The entire strawman you’re attacking is simply a figment of your wishful imagination. Now let’s look at what I actually said:

What has been done and what can be done are two very different things (emphasis added). Both lucideer and I are Opera users who could make something like it in Unite (although lucideer knows far more about Unite so he could do it much faster, but that’s besides the point). Combine it with some UserJS and perhaps some macros for the necessary GUI, and done. But neither of us is interested for pretty much the same reasons[1], nor are most of the other people who could do it. The failing you speak of is mostly lack of interest, not some kind of inherent limitation (emphasis added). I don’t know why you consider it such a great thing to block the money supply of most sites you visit (emphasis added).

in one short sentence you are simply RATIONALIZING to yourself your inabilities and lack of tools opera provides, to be OK with your choice.

Actually, I used to use Proxomitron before I changed my stance on the matter of ads (probably also helped by the switch to broadband, a faster computer, and the rise of more civilized ads). The filters I had in Proxomitron were a heck of a lot more advanced that what you can do in either Opera or AdBlock Plus (although you can do roughly similar things when combined with UserJS/GreaseMonkey). My choice is not to visit any websites where I think the ads are too annoying.
 
I already outlined my position: sometimes blocking ads is necessary due to the nature of the ads, but for the most part it is not the right thing to do. When it is necessary to block ads, typically this is because they’re Flash, and the thing you really want to block is thus Flash, not just Flash ads. Opening, say, YouTube in the background can have the same devastating and annoying effects as any random Flash ad.
 
Incidentally, Ars Technica wrote an article about this a few months ago that roughly aligns with my views (though they seem to forget about the fact that too many ads seem completely random and that too many consist of Flash) http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

and i do not believe that you can work around opera inherent limitations with some unite application. if it could be possible, then others would succeed.

The only inherent limitation I can think of is that site preferences potentially aren’t comprehensive enough for some things that some might want.

to be honest others that tried provided proof that they are capable of doing stuff, i do not remember you actually producing anything. if you know a lot about opera/unite (and you have to to spread such claims) where are your unite services?

I already wrote, “lucideer knows far more about Unite so he could do it much faster, but that’s besides the point.”

where are services that give you the right to brag about you being superior to oh so many others that tried and failed?

What on earth are you talking about? If anyone “tried and failed” I bet they just got bored or didn’t have enough time, but the only things I’ve actually seen (not that I follow the Unite community very intently) are things that aren’t trying to replicate AdBlock Plus, presumably because they feel no reason to, so the only so-called failing involved is that they don’t do precisely what you want, but just what the authors consider useful.

You won’t be able to do all the things you might be able to do with a near-native GUI approach such as XUL, true, but I don’t know if that makes it a mere shadow. Besides, point & click has been emphasized as opposed to utilizing the keyboard, which pretty much eradicates the potential advantages of XUL.
 
I’m not saying I wouldn’t like it if a bit more were possible, and of course you can’t replicate things 1:1 as it is, but you are underestimating what can be done with Unite.

@solcroft
Unite is very different to XUL – they’re entirely different things really. XUL is many times more powerful than Unite, it can do many things that are completely impossible in Opera full stop. XUL is a wonderfully powerful technology – in particular, XULRunner is a vastly underappreciated platform, it’s inclusion in Firefox 3.0 should really be better advertised as I’m sure it would be of interest to many developers who are unaware they already have it on their systems (particularly non-Firefox users like myself who have no real active interest in developing extensions – seriously, if you’re not a Firefox user, but have it installed, you can run xulrunner with the -app switch and develop super simple, quick GUI apps with it, it’s sweet).
However, that said, XUL serves a very different purpose to Unite. I’d highly recommend you yourself “crawl out from underneath your rock” and actually have a look at what Unite actually is before attempting to make arguments on a subject about which you quite evidently haven’t got a clue.
If you’re too lazy to look into it (which you seem to be), a very quick overview of the main things that enable what myself and Frenzie described above (Unite+UserJS stuff):
Unite has local file access – this is far more limited than XUL’s for security reasons, it can’t read/write ANY files on your system, only ones the user selectively permits it to, however it enables a lot of persistence, settings access/storage/etc.
Unite has cross-domain access – XUL obviously does too, as does Greasemonkey (since UserJS is inevitably involved here), both serve their respective purposes
UserJS has direct access to the page it executes on and can also set event listeners for resources – Greasemonkey can’t do this, and this makes UserJS a lot more powerful than GM – XUL can obviously do this quite easily however
So, as I said, XUL is vastly more powerful than Unite. XUL can also do things like executing arbitrary native code, which enables people to develop (or include) native libraries for use in extensions and make seriously powerful add-ons – something that’s not at all possible in Opera by any means. However, the fact that you can do more in XUL doesn’t mean that Unite is useless – what I’ve mentioned just above is more than enough to do what needs doing.
The idea that Opera users somehow don’t have a clue what happens outside their isolated “Opera world” does seem a fairly prevalent one oddly enough, it’s quite funny given that most Opera users I know switched from Firefox, and those that didn’t switched from something more obscure than Opera – Opera users are generally the type that shop around a LOT more than others I find. Just my 3¢…

yeah.
 
i know that you were replying somebody else, but i’d like you to honestly tell me – what unite is for? i was almost killed by opera fanbois when i told them, that this is a sharing tool (and most sharing tools are already built-in) and nothing else. what makes unite so special in your opinion, if xul can do the same and can do it better and easier?
 
because in all honesty, i think that unite is something that was created because someone at opera management DESPERATELY wanted opera to be unique and do not have extensions like every other browser. problem is, that this technology is now saturated, developers couldn care less and users are not using it (look at number of downloads and active services – with 50mln users 200 active unite services is equal to ZERO adoption rate)