121–130 of 316 posts
It's 2023. Why are we still doing user agent detection? We're supposed to do feature detection. userAgent is deprecated. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Navigator/u...
It's unlikely they QA unstable browsers, but some in this thread are reporting the same on FF stable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine being a malicious actor in this world of ours, where as long as you could make it look like a potential mistake, you can get away with whatever, and people on the internet will simply say "Sounds like Hanlon's Razor" and you're basically in the clear :shrug:
There should be consultants who specialize in Hanlon's Razor, coming up with ways to make future plans look like stupid mistakes. Or maybe more usefully, they could discover profitable mistakes based on current conditions and events e.g. "Those two labels could be confused with each other; is there any way to make money from claiming that we confused them?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft is very heavily lobbying organizations to use edge as a standard browser right now. They're doing the same to us. It's really annoying. They're hell-bent on increasing marketshare no matter what.
It would be interesting if Google tweaked their Chromium licensing so that Edge couldn't use it. Then Microsoft wouldn't have a browser at all.
If they'd actually succeed in capturing the majority of the market, there's a big chance Google would throw in the towel and then what??
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine being someone who made a simple mistake, and people on some weird internet forum with no identity verification said "Oh, that guy must be malicious!" and you lose your job. How would you feel? It's justified, if I understand the point you're trying to make, right? Which is worse? Edit: Not that I expect much from here, but since there are a number of child(ish) replies, I might as well clarify this for the re…
I don't think anyone is assigning blame to a specific individual here, but to the corporation as a whole. A corporation that has time and time again been proven and acknowledged themselves to engage in anti-competitive behavior.
If we're chalking it up to "Microsoft sucks" then that's fine, but it'd be better imo to just say THAT, rather than sneak up to the point via this auxiliary issue of this user agent string. Someone has to answer for these individual fuck-ups, it's intentionally shitty behavior to be insinuating that someone did this maliciously under the guise of end users assuming innocence, thereby obscuring the responsibility for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Looks like someone made a boo-boo it’s simply based on the user agent, w/e string matching they do is too strict they aren’t checking for actual JS/WebASM compatibility or anything like that. Microsoft has repeatedly engaged in malicious anticompetitive behavior. Without any additional information, I therefore think it's rational to place a high prior probability on this being malicious anticompetitive behavior. Th…
Then why is it FF nightly only?
Looks like someone made a boo-boo it’s simply based on the user agent, w/e string matching they do is too strict they aren’t checking for actual JS/WebASM compatibility or anything like that. Chrome stable with a non standard user agent doesn’t work on via the windows live url but works through the O365 corporate one, same with Safari Mobile without any user agent modification. This to me looks like stupidity more th…
Devil's advocate: I don't think blocking bleeding-edge browsers is necessarily "stupidity." If you're smart enough to understand all the caveats of running a bleeding edge software program, you're smart enough to change your user agent string. If you're not, you have no business running nightly, and you're probably going to generate a lot of "yOuR sITE is BRokEN!" support emails / forum posts / bug reports for other…
If you don't want to see unsophisticated complaints and bug reports, then you need to stop looking at them. Perhaps find a different profession/hobby where your user-hostile attitude actually benefits someone.
Looks like someone made a boo-boo it’s simply based on the user agent, w/e string matching they do is too strict they aren’t checking for actual JS/WebASM compatibility or anything like that. Chrome stable with a non standard user agent doesn’t work on via the windows live url but works through the O365 corporate one, same with Safari Mobile without any user agent modification. This to me looks like stupidity more th…
Devil's advocate: I don't think blocking bleeding-edge browsers is necessarily "stupidity." If you're smart enough to understand all the caveats of running a bleeding edge software program, you're smart enough to change your user agent string. If you're not, you have no business running nightly, and you're probably going to generate a lot of "yOuR sITE is BRokEN!" support emails / forum posts / bug reports for other…
You think I’m going to source dive your tens of thousands of lines of shitty hacked up react just because I’m a nightly user? Fuck no. Do your job clown.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine being a malicious actor in this world of ours, where as long as you could make it look like a potential mistake, you can get away with whatever, and people on the internet will simply say "Sounds like Hanlon's Razor" and you're basically in the clear :shrug:
Imagine being someone who made a simple mistake, and people on some weird internet forum with no identity verification said "Oh, that guy must be malicious!" and you lose your job. How would you feel? It's justified, if I understand the point you're trying to make, right? Which is worse? Edit: Not that I expect much from here, but since there are a number of child(ish) replies, I might as well clarify this for the re…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what I see on Windows 11 + Firefox: https://imgur.com/a/aqzU2jr Seems to be recommending Edge to me, or Chrome.
Okay. So Microsoft is now being anticompetitive by not recommending a minor browser. But it is recommending it’s biggest competitor?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does using `window.navigator.userAgent` still work? Does it still return the actual user-agent? Yes, and because it does, people will use it. You (or standards) bodies can scream from the top of the mountains that it's deprecated, but it won't matter, because if it's there, it will be used.
but Microsoft should understand why this is an issue, they had to rename their windows from 9 to 10 because applications did check based on os name string and just exit after detecting it contains "windows 9" as it suppose to match windows 95 and windows 98