[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 06:51:16AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> After all, what does prevent us to just put "Firefox" back in the
> default User-Agent? We'll see if some Mozilla person raises an RC bug
> and then we would talk..:-)...That would be the pragmatic approach.

Another pragmatic approach would be to upload a Firefox package in

Now, for all those that would like to add "Firefox" in the UA to make
stupid web sites happy, why were you not advocating to add "MSIE" in the
UA to make the same stupid web sites happy when Firefox didn't have
enough "market share" to be considered interesting to support by these
stupid web sites ? Why should it be a different matter ? Why are you not
advocating to add "Firefox" in the other browsers'UA ?

If the only answer you have is that someone once said that "Iceweasel is
basically Firefox", well, that's not what the package description says:

  This browser is based on the Firefox source-code, with minor

Yes, the UA string is a pretty minor modification.

Also, for Joey, who talked about chromium being a solution, is that [1]
really the kind of solution we want ?

Oh, and when I mentioned Minefield, which replaces Firefox in the UA
string on Firefox trunk builds, I also falsely stated that was the name
of alphas and betas. Reality is that the name changes at every single
Firefox release. 2.0 betas were BonEcho, 3.0 betas were GranParadiso,
3.5 betas were Shiretoko, and 3.6 beta is Namoraka. None of these are
called Firefox, and a whole lot of people are using them. Probably much
more than Debian users with Iceweasel. So, why isn't Mozilla adding
Firefox in the UA of these builds ?


1. http://codereview.chromium.org/19025

Reply to: