151–160 of 316 posts
When you write software, you test it on every platform you choose to support. If it doesn't work on a supported platform, then you take the time to fix it before release.
It's not an "accident" when the software doesn't work on a platform you didn't bother to test on. That platform is being neglected by policy, not because of some "accident" in the code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Where can I read more about this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The posted link is to the error page. https://teams.microsoft.com works in FF stable.
Oh wow, I clicked on that link on mobile and was unable to go back. Pressing the back button just redirected to the same page over and over again. Usually you only see that on malicious ad sites.
Nobody here commenting on the fact that Slack blocks Firefox as well for voice/video calls? I'm not a regular Slack user, but when I tried the voice call option earlier this week first I got a notification that they were switching to some new style of video conferencing called "Huddles", and it gave me an option to choose between "huddles" and "classic" video calls, which was confusing to begin with. I choose the lat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
People can run whatever software they want. They don't need your permission, or to know how to file a bug report, or whatever other bullshit you've dreamed up. They're also allowed to complain when a site is broken in their browser. 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 actu…
My organization (which uses Teams) forcibly migrated all Firefox users to Edge a couple of weeks ago and uninstalled FF. They were citing incompatibility with some software and I assumed that meant the new ERP system being adopted by one of the larger departments.
Man, I can understand doing that for regular users who don't care, but as a developer?
Just a few weeks ago an integrator for an ERP system our customer had bought was trying to show some details in a Teams call when his PC suddenly rebooted. He came back and apologized, turns out it was a company policy forced reboot. In the middle of the day because what are timezones?
If my company tried anything like forcing which browser is installed or when my machine reboots, I'd hand in my resignation promptly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The posted link is to the error page. https://teams.microsoft.com works in FF stable.
Oh wow, I clicked on that link on mobile and was unable to go back. Pressing the back button just redirected to the same page over and over again. Usually you only see that on malicious ad sites.
My organization (which uses Teams) forcibly migrated all Firefox users to Edge a couple of weeks ago and uninstalled FF. They were citing incompatibility with some software and I assumed that meant the new ERP system being adopted by one of the larger departments.
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'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...
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…
You don't have to invent imaginary scenarios when the one before us does quite well on its own. We are not talking about an individual, we are talking about a faceless megacorp with a storied history of bad faith. Just being a faceless megacorp is reasonable grounds for losing the benefit of the doubt, but one with their history? Ascribing anything other than malice first is plain and simple naïveté.