Live data from Hacker News

Is Google Burying Firefox With User Agent Strings?

thepowerbase.com

21–30 of 72 posts

Re: Is Google Burying Firefox With User Agent Strings?

#21
AFAIK, the chrome user agent switcher extension only changes the agent on a JS level. You can't change what is being sent to the server due to limitations in the extension API.

This explains the Adsense warning because the server-side part of the framework used (gwt) is seeing a different user agent than what the client part is seeing.

Granted, UA sniffing is bad practice on either client or server side, but if you do it and send content tailored for browser A and then see that, strangely, the client is actually browser B, then you are probably allowed to be confused and complain (better than failing in strange ways).

Also knowing that, it's unlikely that something on the server side is causing these connection reset issues because, as I just said: the server still sees a chrome user agent and producing a connection reset error (RST packet) requires connection level involvement (server or somewhere in between, but never the client browser, minus bugs).

In general: be very careful what error messages you see: the Adsense error is different from the gmail error which in turn is (likely) different from the connection reset issue.

Overall there is too much conflicting information to attribute malice or even just intent to Google here.

If I were in that users position, I'd check my firewall and/or proxy configuration (and try disabling HTTP pipelining if it's active in Firefox - it's disabled by default for a reason) as the problem is much more likely somewhere over there.

Re: Is Google Burying Firefox With User Agent Strings?

#23

I never get any errors with Firefox on Windows, so this was a interesting article. I will have to try it out some more on my Linux. However, I got loads of "Connection was reset" when trying to use the powerbase site where this article was. Server seems very very slow or something is wrong with it.

I can't even get to it. Interested to know what this is about - for the past week I haven't been able to get to pages via my ipsd2 safari search - it goes straight back to the original search listing. I switch to "classic" mode and it's all OK.

Re: Is Google Burying Firefox With User Agent Strings?

#24
post #22

Even without this bug it's a stretch to think that Google would want to bury Firefox. Google has a vested interest in Firefox's success. That's why they pay Mozilla 300 million a year. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/google-paying-mozilla-300-mill...

I'm not on the side of thinking Google are doing anything malicious here, but worth pointing out that their paying Firefox money doesn't mean they wouldn't neccesarily want to see Firefox die.

They pay that money not as a charitable donation but because the deal makes them more in advertising than it costs. From a monetary point of view, of course it would be better for them if all that advertising came from Chrome, so they still make the money but they don't have to pay $300m because they already own the browser.

Re: Is Google Burying Firefox With User Agent Strings?

#25
Mozilla turn a significant profit through Google referrals, last time I looked. The 'splintered' browser market masks a fairly comfortable arrangement for both companies, as well as Opera. Don't assume a conspiracy where incompetence or poor fortune provides a better explanation - chances are the Gecko-optimised version you were loading had a minor bug, or there's a problem with your system. Perhaps you encountered some A/B testing gone wrong?

Re: Is Google Burying Firefox With User Agent Strings?

#26
post #21

AFAIK, the chrome user agent switcher extension only changes the agent on a JS level. You can't change what is being sent to the server due to limitations in the extension API. This explains the Adsense warning because the server-side part of the framework used (gwt) is seeing a different user agent than what the client part is seeing. Granted, UA sniffing is bad practice on either client or server side, but if you d…

Note, however, that client-side UA sniffing could result in different requests getting sent to the server, from which subsequent wackiness might ensue...

Re: Is Google Burying Firefox With User Agent Strings?

#27
post #13

Could it be that this is an innocent mistake or a bug in the way that Google servers are sending HTTP. Chrome wouldn't be affected as it will be using SPDY for all Google services. As soon as Chrome switched back to the Firefox user agent it started using HTTP again and the same bug was found. Besides, this just doesn't make sense. If this was an attempt to make Firefox look bad then it's a dreadful one. This just se…

Firefox has SPDY support as of a version or two ago and uses SPDY on Google sites. I seem to that feature being on by default, even.

Re: Is Google Burying Firefox With User Agent Strings?

#28

I never get any errors with Firefox on Windows, so this was a interesting article. I will have to try it out some more on my Linux. However, I got loads of "Connection was reset" when trying to use the powerbase site where this article was. Server seems very very slow or something is wrong with it.

I get errors with Firefox on Ubuntu, but never on Windows...

Off topic: the pagination with blogs/news sites articles is total nonsense...

Re: Is Google Burying Firefox With User Agent Strings?

#29
It could just be connection problems/wifi playing up/whatever, badly timed to coincide with the tests. I'm not sure this is much evidence really... Google previously have been all for an open and competitive browser market (part of the reason they started Chrome), they're not Microsoft in that regard, and I doubt they have some code somewhere along the lines of "if (!chrome) redirect_to_the_pentium_ii_in_the_basement();"

Re: Is Google Burying Firefox With User Agent Strings?

#30
I see similar errors very often. I use Google Chrome on OS X.

I also have a mobile broadband dongle (UK - T Mobile) which does weird and unpleasant things to the connection. (All images are proxied with poor quality versions, javascript is inserted into the page asking for key combos to improve image quality; all alt tags are re-worded, etc.)

I blame any sub-optimality on the shitty broadband from T Mobile and the weird proxies; then on overload from HN, then on errors I've made.

Post reply on HN