3 ms·
Probably very very little... there just aren't that many Firefox users to begin with, and the number that are going to alter the User-Agent is a tiny subset. O
by zerocrates 4y ago
Probably very very little... there just aren't that many Firefox users to begin with, and the number that are going to alter the User-Agent is a tiny subset.
On your second point, I use a mix of Chrome and Firefox... can't remember the last time I ran into something that didn't work on Firefox. Is mandating Chrome really particularly common?
- _rdvw 4y agoFirefox actually does alter UA on its own, see about:compat
- zerocrates 4y agoI didn't know that, interesting! Definitely would affect one's experience of how common browser-locked sites are. Probably not relevant here though, as they seem to be pulling their data from one site's traffic; if it were on that compatibility list you'd expect to see no Firefox users at all.
- bee_rider 4y agoI agree with you, but it is sort of funny — most of the evidence for Firefox being very rare comes from querying user agents, right? If we were observing the computing universe from the outside, we might speculate that Firefox and spoofing are pretty widespread.