From: Earle Martin Date: 10:24 on 22 Dec 2003 Subject: Browser detection Did we do this one already? Who cares, let's go: I just visited powergen.co.uk. I got this message: ---- We have detected that you are running a browser not supported by this website. We currently support Microsoft Internet Explorer (Version 5.0 or above) and Netscape Navigator (Version 7.02 or above). Whilst not officially supported the site can also be used with Opera (Version 7.20 or above) and Konqueror (Version 3.1.1 or above). Your Current Browser: Netscape Your Current Version: 1.89 It is recommended that you upgrade your browser to one of the below. ---- Uh... Netscape 1.89? Let's have a look at that version string. Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030728 Mozilla Firebird/0.6.1 StumbleUpon/1.89 Oh look. It's taken the beginning and the end of the string - the end happening to be the version number of StumbleUpon (that SU appended without asking me, and I hate it for doing so, as an aside). What fucking shitwit wrote this browser detection script? Having a website that does that at all should be a hanging offense, even *if* it works, which half of the time it doesn't.
From: Earle Martin Date: 10:25 on 22 Dec 2003 Subject: Re: Browser detection On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 10:24:33AM +0000, Earle Martin wrote: > It is recommended that you upgrade your browser to one of the below. Oh, and I forgot to mention that "the below" is two broken images with no ALT tags. Fucktards!
From: Tom Insam Date: 13:23 on 22 Dec 2003 Subject: Re: Browser detection On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 10:24:33AM +0000, Earle Martin wrote: > > Uh... Netscape 1.89? Let's have a look at that version string. > > Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030728 Mozilla > Firebird/0.6.1 StumbleUpon/1.89 > > Oh look. It's taken the beginning and the end of the string - the end > happening to be the version number of StumbleUpon (that SU appended without > asking me, and I hate it for doing so, as an aside). Well, ok, but in their defence, browser version strings are COMPLETELY INSANE AND CRACK-FUELLED. And of course it's far too late for standards to get written for this stuff... .tom
From: Earle Martin
Date: 14:00 on 22 Dec 2003
Subject: Re: Browser detection
On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 01:23:04PM +0000, Tom Insam wrote:
> Well, ok, but in their defence, browser version strings are COMPLETELY
> INSANE AND CRACK-FUELLED. And of course it's far too late for standards to
> get written for this stuff...
Sure, but it's not much of a defence, though...
Lawyer: My client is innocent! Widget processing is so complicated that
it's inevitable that a widget processor will screw up from time to
time. Sure, my client's invention, the Widget-O-Matic, mangled
someone into a bloody pulp, but, you know, *shrug* that's how it
goes, isn't it?
Seriously, I'd say that the sheer crack-fuelled nature of browser version
strings is a really good reason for version "detection" not to be done at
all and the extra effort expended instead on, perhaps, making websites that
aren't actually shit.
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 14:06 on 22 Dec 2003 Subject: Re: Browser detection > [...] making websites that aren't actually shit. Whoa, hold on there cowboy, that's crazy talk!
From: Gavin Estey Date: 16:57 on 22 Dec 2003 Subject: Re: Browser detection On Monday, December 22, 2003 9:00 AM, Earle Martin <hates-software@xxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > Seriously, I'd say that the sheer crack-fuelled nature of browser > version strings is a really good reason for version "detection" not > to be done at all and the extra effort expended instead on, perhaps, > making websites that aren't actually shit. I wanted to buy a lamp and after a quick search on Google I ended up on a promising looking site. Problem was none of the links worked. I clicked around for a bit before realizing what I was looking at was a screenshot of their homepage with a little notice underneath that told me that as I was using an unsupported web browser (Safari) that I had to go and download Internet Explorer before I was allowed to visit their site. What kind of fuckwits are making websites these days? Gavin.
From: Yoz Grahame Date: 17:01 on 22 Dec 2003 Subject: Re: Browser detection Gavin Estey wrote: > What kind of fuckwits are making websites these days? I'd recommend a hates-websites list, but I fear the traffic would overwhelm. -- Yoz
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 18:21 on 22 Dec 2003 Subject: Re: Browser detection > What kind of fuckwits are making websites these days? Crack-fuelled ones, obviously.
From: James A.Duncan Date: 10:00 on 23 Dec 2003 Subject: Re: Browser detection On 22 Dec 2003, at 16:57, Gavin Estey wrote: > What kind of fuckwits are making websites these days? Indeed. Websites are so 90's. James.
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 14:42 on 23 Dec 2003 Subject: Re: Browser detection > > What kind of fuckwits are making websites these days? > Indeed. Websites are so 90's. ITYM "So second millennium".
Generated at 10:26 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi