Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chrome phasing out support for User-Agent

infoq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 329 posts

Re: Chrome phasing out support for User-Agent

#211

Post by heavyset_go »

recursive wrote: post #198
tryptophan wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its absurd that paying customers get a worse experience than just using the piratebay.

Last time I used piratebay, I saw a lot of porn and malware/scam ads. I had to find and install a torrent client. Then I had to make sure I was downloading a movie that had enough seeders. And then I couldn't watch the movie until (and if) the download finished. When I use netflix, I have a much better experience.

> When I use netflix, I have a much better experience.

If you're on Linux, you won't be able to stream at 1080p, let alone 4k. Netflix even went out of their way to disable workarounds that users developed.

Re: Chrome phasing out support for User-Agent

#212

Post by recursive »

heavyset_go wrote: post #211
recursive wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I used piratebay, I saw a lot of porn and malware/scam ads. I had to find and install a torrent client. Then I had to make sure I was downloading a movie that had enough seeders. And then I couldn't watch the movie until (and if) the download finished. When I use netflix, I have a much better experience.

> When I use netflix, I have a much better experience. If you're on Linux, you won't be able to stream at 1080p, let alone 4k. Netflix even went out of their way to disable workarounds that users developed.

1) I'm not on Linux. 2) I'd rather have the convenience of streaming at all than the best possible resolution.

I don't know what the resolution of my TV is, but I highly doubt it's over 1080p, if that.

Re: Chrome phasing out support for User-Agent

#214

Post by heavyset_go »

recursive wrote: post #212
heavyset_go wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I use netflix, I have a much better experience. If you're on Linux, you won't be able to stream at 1080p, let alone 4k. Netflix even went out of their way to disable workarounds that users developed.

1) I'm not on Linux. 2) I'd rather have the convenience of streaming at all than the best possible resolution. I don't know what the resolution of my TV is, but I highly doubt it's over 1080p, if that.

Streaming above 720p also doesn't work via Firefox on any operating system.

Re: Chrome phasing out support for User-Agent

#215

Post by ksec »

asveikau wrote: post #136
jorams wrote: post #36

The weird thing about this is that the only company I've seen doing problematic user-agent handling in recent years is Google themselves. They have released several products as Chrome-only, which then turned out to work fine in every other browser if they just pretended to be Chrome through the user agent. Same with their search pages, which on mobile were very bad in every non-Chrome browser purely based on user age…

A fair number of websites will still block perfectly working features based on what OS you use. Some examples I've seen using the latest Firefox on *BSD: Facebook won't let you publish or edit a Note (not a normal post, the builtin Notes app). I think earlier they wouldn't play videos but they might have fixed that. Chase Bank won't let you log in. Gives you a mobile-looking UI which tells you to upgrade to the lates…

I am guessing Banks only test their site against popular OS and Browser for security reasons.

Re: Chrome phasing out support for User-Agent

#216

Post by adrianmonk »

Talanes wrote: post #173
adrianmonk wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is "hard to not call this malice and artificial" people talking about their own experiences?

The "hard not to call" portion takes it from the realm of objective fact and into subjective measure.

Huh, I guess "hard not to call" could be interpreted as a disclaimer or qualifier meaning "I can't prove this, and it's only my opinion".

However, I interpreted it differently, to basically mean that because of objective fact, of all the explanations you can think of, only one of them is defensible. In other words, it's similar to saying "admit it, this is the only reasonable conclusion".

Re: Chrome phasing out support for User-Agent

#217

Post by r00fus »

mmis1000 wrote: post #85
numpad0 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had been having an issue with Google Sheets and Firefox that the app decides to change row height randomly. On Firefox only. Obvious solution to which being...

It actually insert a line break on enter, make it invisible and can't be deleted only on firefox. Pretend firefox as chrome makes it works perfectly. They lock the community thread and fixed that after several days I found the finding and post it there. Shame on you, google.

So even that workaround is being phased out with this UA support change?

Re: Chrome phasing out support for User-Agent

#218

Post by shitlord »

recursive wrote: post #198
tryptophan wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its absurd that paying customers get a worse experience than just using the piratebay.

Last time I used piratebay, I saw a lot of porn and malware/scam ads. I had to find and install a torrent client. Then I had to make sure I was downloading a movie that had enough seeders. And then I couldn't watch the movie until (and if) the download finished. When I use netflix, I have a much better experience.

You can have a similar experience with a private tracker and a seedbox. The content is curated (no malware), there's a larger selection, the quality is sometimes higher, and peers generally have better connections.

After you pick your torrent, it takes the seedbox a few seconds to download the content. Then you can stream your download using emby, vlc over http, or whatever you prefer.

Re: Chrome phasing out support for User-Agent

#219

Post by myko »

sitkack wrote: post #89
heavyset_go wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the exact opposite. Without User-Agents, sites need to depend on feature detection, and closing the feature discrepancy between Chrome and other browsers is more complicated than just spoofing your UA to get Google to serve you functioning versions of their products.

This is going to end up being the IE of Google, funny that it is also a browser (Chrome).

That's the opposite of what is happening though

Re: Chrome phasing out support for User-Agent

#220

Post by CKN23-ARIN »

> While removing the User-Agent completely was deemed problematic, as many sites still rely on them, Chrome will no longer update the browser version and will only include a unified version of the OS data.

So, nearly all of the information that makes User-Agent strings problematic will remain. They're just phasing out precise version information.

Post reply on HN