As you probably know "some stuff on top of that" is rather broad in Opera's case, assuming they keep current functionality. If they have business sense they'll also want to keep their 300 million users, I doubt they'll do that by killing their product and making an Opera branded Chromium instead.

http://my.opera.com/ODIN/blog/300-million-users-and-move-to-...

It states that for the user, it's going to be the same browser. It also states Opera extensions will keep working, so at the very least we know they'll be making something not as chrome as the other chromium browsers.

It won't be exactly like Chrome, I never said it would - it will add stuff to it and remove some stuff. And I do think that can be a viable product that keeps many of their users.

I agree Opera might be more different than Chrome than SRWare for example. But it will still be 99% chromium in the core engine. To make significant changes in there would mean forking chromium and not being able to easily update from upstream - which would be silly.

Do you realize what you're saying?

edit: replied to you as if you were fleitz. Point stands as you basically parroted what he said.

You would upgrade your Laravel framework with composer, which runs on Git. And it'll most likely just work without any "Gem hell" that i've come to experience with some other languages.

Laravel says, hack shit directly on your webserver.

If you're supposed to use composer, why don't the docs say this? Instead the docs say, unzip and hack.

The docs clearly explain that your bundles go to the "bundles" directory, controllers go to the "controllers" directory, views belong in "views" and so on. And your whole application resides in a directory called... "application". You'd actually have to be pretty advanced and amazingly stupid at the same time to make a functional app in the framework core folder and than destroy it by overwriting.

Rails docs don't tell me to unzip the framework and start hacking, but they do instruct me to run "gem install rails", wait a couple of hours till it's done, then run "rails new blog", "cd blog" and then start hacking. Neither set of docs tell me how to setup version control before i begin my work, and they shouldn't. That's not the job of the framework docs.

And of course you're gonna hack your application directly on the server, albeit a local one, as PHP applications are typically developed. This in no way prevents you from using version control and proper deployment techniques.

Everything you said I rail against daily. Stop bringing your bad habits into PHP, we have enough of them already.

What does a botnet cost?

If you're not part of any minority or have no radical politics, yeah you might not need it. But even then, you would want the comfort of the advertising industry and your future employer not being able to disrespect your privacy. (Public data and privacy? Yes.)

Why then is it good to kick people out for using pseudonyms? Why does it have to be a requirement? Do the benefits of real names even compare to the benefits of pseudonymity? I don't think they do.

Whether or not the benefit of real names matters, Google has decided that they think it does. I happen to agree, but even though I (obviously) disagree with the idea that Twitter allows pseudonyms, I don't feel justified in complaining that they don't require real names. That's their decision just as much as this one was Google's.

And while I realize that what I'm writing comes off as a slightly less sensitive version of "If you don't like it, then leave," type of comment, and I'm not trying to be inflammatory, I really don't understand why people who disagree with Google's real names policy can't just up and go elsewhere. This isn't remotely as serious (in my humble opinion) as mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts that we're seeing so much of lately.

Again though, that's just from my perspective, and may very well be a result of a white privilege.

That type of comment is doesn't say anything, there's no real argument in it. It's simply dismissing criticism. You can dismiss any criticism whatsoever using it.

The sweeping "if you don't like it leave" doesn't really work. There's good reasons to use a platform despite deficiencies, no platform is exactly how I'd do it. Perhaps Google+ is technologically better, or the audience on Google+ is better for what I have to say. Maybe I want to keep in touch with real life acquaintances and they are on Google+. Do I have to convince every contact I have to switch to a platform that is worse in different ways?

Even if I vehemently disagree with their stance on publishing your true identity; there's reasons to use a platform despite it and keep complaining about their bad policies.

As of this morning, I have sent emails to each of those account holders asking whether or not they have alternate payment methods available, as I will be canceling my Paypal account shortly so as to opt out of their mandatory arbitration clause.

If I choose to accept their mandatory arbitration and continue to use the platform, then that is my choice. That it causes me considerable inconvenience to opt out of their policy is my problem alone. So long as there are other ways to pay, then it isn't Paypal's responsibility to cater to me or my beliefs.

Does this mean that I might have to cancel some accounts (namely PRGMR.com, which I use and love) and replace them with other, perhaps more expensive alternatives? Yes, but that is the choice that I am making regardless.

If G+'s benefits to you are greater than your conviction against their real name policy, then that is the choice that you have made. You're of course entitled to your opinion on it, but nobody's forcing you to use it even if it is perhaps the most convenient way to do what you want.

Besides marketshare, bad press has an impact as well. Leaving a service is NOT the only way of protest.

I can understand not caring about pseudonymity, but I see no good reason (for individuals as opposed to corporate entities) to be actively opposed to it. Why do you think you have any right to know my name, and what harm comes from not knowing it?

The reason for this is perhaps anecdotal, but in my personal experience, I generally find richer, deeper and more meaningful discussion when real names are involved.

This is anecdotal at best, and HN is a notable exception to that rule, but that is my experience. If I were president of the world, I would not change Twitter's rules, as that is within their right to provide pseudonymity, but if I were president of Twitter, I might just change it. (Though from a business perspective, what they have has been working for them, and I'm profit-minded enough to wager I wouldn't mess with that.)

I try to be free, but because i have a Google account (for GMail), i keep being harassed by Google, around 10 times a week, to join Google+.

I don't want to use Google+ (by principle, because i have no problem using my real name online). But i want to keep my GMail account. And this is getting increasingly difficult.

Europe's Data Directive applies to all users outside of the US and Canada. The data directive gives me the right to ask them all data they have on me, and the right to have them remove it.

As a European they have given me that right by setting up a company in Ireland.