So you want them to open source as soon as they’ve written their main() function? Open sourcing a project without any running code behind it wouldn’t get NEARLY the attention they wanted – and with a product launch like this they are looking for attention and that surprise factor. If they had open sourced their design then some of their UI decisions could have been adapted into other browsers prior to the debut of the product, which would make them look like a copier rather than an innovator in some things.

I’m with you in the “Windows-only” disappointment, but why are you disappointed that they developed the product first before open sourcing it? What difference does that make to you as a user? Why would that make a difference in your excitement level?

Tim – I actually don’t have this concern, just wondering if browser vendors are worried… Google is a much bigger company than Opera

The non-traditional title bar also kept confusing me, I kept aiming my mouse at the last window in the background.

The installer bothered me, I don’t like download-installers (beta I know). Also for me it installed to “\username\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Chrome\Application” in XP. Odd.

This is all the idea behind this browser – “The Show Belongs To The Site Itself Not The Browser”.

I wish Opera would go this direction:

Simple, Focused, Fast browser.

All we need is as big as possible window, Interaction with on line services (Why invest in the mail plug in? Use Gmail / Hotmail / Yahoo Mail, the same goes for the RSS reader etc…) and as fast as possible rendering engine.

I hope Opera will copy its slick and minimalistic design.

It clearly says that they will push non standard (proprietary) technology, and justify themselves by invoking open-source.

For interoperability sake, who cares of open-source if the features are proprietary. The philosophy of Opera has always been the opposite : closed-source for open standards. And it makes more sense for us developers.

Please, stick to standards !