4 ms·
How is that a smoking gun indicating malice?
by swells34 3y ago
How is that a smoking gun indicating malice?
- DoctorOW 3y agoBecause it is not a bug or mistake in the code but a deliberate loss in functionality based only on the name of the browser.
- Rygian 3y agoChanging behavior based on user agent is necessarily intentional on the part of Microsoft. That check lies somewhere along the line between "having the direct goal of breaking authentication flow (pure malice)" and "is a completely legitimate programming error (pure incompetence)." I am not ready to assume pure incompetence (and here's where I might be wrong).
- eNV25 3y agoIt means that the website doesn't work in Firefox intentionally. The website was proframmed to not work with Firefox user agent string.
- 13of40 3y agoIs firefox blacklisted or are chrome and edge whitelisted?
- swells34 3y agoAh I see, I thought the parent poster meant malice on the part of Mozilla, got confused by bouncing between comment threads. I could see malice, since it is Microsoft, but what's the "why" of it? I don't really see any motivation that M$ would have to block Mozilla, all it's going to do is piss off users. It's not like people are gonna get fed up and switch to Edge, they'll get fed up and switch to Chrome. If anything, M$ has a great incentive to improve Firefox adoption. The market that uses FF is the same market that is never going to choose Edge. FF and Edge both have a much better position if they can damage Chrome's market share.
- Rygian 3y agoThe cynic in me says we will understand the motivation in some antitrust trial one of these years.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]