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!
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!)
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.
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 :)
I think it's very useful for transferring big files (like movie files for a project or from the last trip) to friends. Instead of using megaupload or having them install a software (like DC++, connecting to hubs and so on) to download it. It's like having your own apache server but way much easier to use for normal people.
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.
Technically this is nothing revolutionary. I worked on a project that included a jetty server and SQLite database as part of the download. For the user it was a single button click and updates were automatic. The purpose of the server was to supply services that are difficult with central servers, like watching your page views to see what you were interested in. The local server talked only to your browser and the central server, but it could have easily talked to your friends. The advantage it had over the cloud is that it was using free compute power and it could be an assistant without violating any privacy issues. Of course, generalizing the service raises other issues. You certainly dont want 50 or 100 servers running on your machine.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"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."
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!
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 ?
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.
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.
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).
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 :(
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.
[+] [-] niyazpk|16 years ago|reply
[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|16 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] mqt|16 years ago|reply
You can use your own domain since Unite listens on port 8840.
[+] [-] villagegal|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] axod|16 years ago|reply
share photos? yeah can already do that, chatroom? Mibbit obviously, share files, check... etc
Users can already do everything shown in the examples, so there isn't a clear compelling reason to use it yet.
[+] [-] rarestblog|16 years ago|reply
update: Just tested, no, CNAMEs don't work for Unite.
[+] [-] est|16 years ago|reply
So why don't Opera just use a Newsgroup-like name system
[+] [-] uggedal|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Quiark|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dauntless|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mlLK|16 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] russell|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ovidiu|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] buluzhai|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rits|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sidmitra|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vimalg2|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tremendo|16 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] wmf|16 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] dejan|16 years ago|reply
Was expecting more of Opera, I don't find this very innovative.
However, great job on the publicity :D
[+] [-] andreyf|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnnybgoode|16 years ago|reply
Edit: Even diehard Opera fans have to admit there are a lot of cool features barely anyone uses. Opera Widgets? Opera's BitTorrent client?
[+] [-] iamelgringo|16 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jules|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tekbar|16 years ago|reply
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|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mqt|16 years ago|reply
http://unite.opera.com/support/#tech_location
[+] [-] rarestblog|16 years ago|reply
...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!
[+] [-] patio11|16 years ago|reply
(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.
[+] [-] jyothi|16 years ago|reply
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|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rarestblog|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeresig|16 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] ovi256|16 years ago|reply
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|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeliu|16 years ago|reply
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|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshu|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pistos2|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Quiark|16 years ago|reply
(Any tips how to slim ffx down are welcome)
[+] [-] ramchip|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lhorie|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zouhair|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ErrantX|16 years ago|reply
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|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] p_bclr|16 years ago|reply
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|16 years ago|reply