4 ms·

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_10_1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/40.0.2214.89 Vivaldi/1.0.83.38 Safari/537.36 I think it's the fir

by sonnyp 12y ago

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_10_1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/40.0.2214.89 Vivaldi/1.0.83.38 Safari/537.36 I think it's the first useragent string to contain 7 different browser/engine names.

tzakrajs 12y ago
Poor UserAgent... if only we knew...
Yver 12y ago
Opera has the same horrendous user-agent string, except with "OPR" instead of "Vivaldi".
paulojreis 12y ago
It's roughly the same as Chrome, plus the reference to Vivaldi. It's ugly, as any user-agent string is. The uglier beast, to my knowledge, is this one: Mozilla/5.0 (Mobile; Windows Phone 8.1; Android 4.0; ARM; Trident/7.0; Touch; rv:11.0; IEMobile/11.0; NOKIA; Lumia 520) like iPhone OS 7_0_3 Mac OS X AppleWebKit/537 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile Safari/537 Windows Phone 8.1 Internet Explorer.
- mynameisvlad 12y ago
  That one makes a little more sense. Some user agent detectors will look for Trident and assume it's an old version of IE and therefore not compatible. The more things you put in your UA string, the harder it'll be to fall into the "this is IE" bucket.
  - paulojreis 12y ago
    It serves a purpose, but (IMHO) makes no sense. Microsoft is trying to avoid UA-based blocking (e.g. Google once used this do block the Google Maps web app in Windows Phones) and styling (some sites only send the mobile version to webkit mobile browsers). Microsoft effectively masks its browser by changing the UA string to something which is detected as mobile Webkit, and this is (IMHO) wrong. Even if the site is "functional", a site owner should be able to opt to not support Windows Phones. Suppose you are responsible for a site which carries a heavy and valuable brand. Suppose you don't have/don't want to allocate the resources needed to correctly develop and test your site in Windows Phone. You don't know how the site will run: you won't know about bugs, you can't guarantee a solid user experience and you can't guarantee performance. Ergo, you might affect the brand you carry. Although not ideal, I think it is valid for someone to say "I want to block my site in some device/OS, because I can't guarantee the quality and it might be bad for my brand". I concede (and believe) that the end user should be able to circumvent these mechanisms by, e.g., changing the UA string. However, I don't agree with Microsoft approach of masquerading, by default, as Android and/or iOS browsers. Pardon my rant, but it's just Microsoft being Microsoft: bending standards at will and playing desperate when not it control of a given market.

by sonnyp 12y ago

tzakrajs 12y ago

Poor UserAgent... if only we knew...

Yver 12y ago

Opera has the same horrendous user-agent string, except with "OPR" instead of "Vivaldi".

paulojreis 12y ago

It's roughly the same as Chrome, plus the reference to Vivaldi. It's ugly, as any user-agent string is. The uglier beast, to my knowledge, is this one: Mozilla/5.0 (Mobile; Windows Phone 8.1; Android 4.0; ARM; Trident/7.0; Touch; rv:11.0; IEMobile/11.0; NOKIA; Lumia 520) like iPhone OS 7_0_3 Mac OS X AppleWebKit/537 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile Safari/537 Windows Phone 8.1 Internet Explorer.

mynameisvlad 12y ago
That one makes a little more sense. Some user agent detectors will look for Trident and assume it's an old version of IE and therefore not compatible. The more things you put in your UA string, the harder it'll be to fall into the "this is IE" bucket.
- paulojreis 12y ago
  It serves a purpose, but (IMHO) makes no sense. Microsoft is trying to avoid UA-based blocking (e.g. Google once used this do block the Google Maps web app in Windows Phones) and styling (some sites only send the mobile version to webkit mobile browsers). Microsoft effectively masks its browser by changing the UA string to something which is detected as mobile Webkit, and this is (IMHO) wrong. Even if the site is "functional", a site owner should be able to opt to not support Windows Phones. Suppose you are responsible for a site which carries a heavy and valuable brand. Suppose you don't have/don't want to allocate the resources needed to correctly develop and test your site in Windows Phone. You don't know how the site will run: you won't know about bugs, you can't guarantee a solid user experience and you can't guarantee performance. Ergo, you might affect the brand you carry. Although not ideal, I think it is valid for someone to say "I want to block my site in some device/OS, because I can't guarantee the quality and it might be bad for my brand". I concede (and believe) that the end user should be able to circumvent these mechanisms by, e.g., changing the UA string. However, I don't agree with Microsoft approach of masquerading, by default, as Android and/or iOS browsers. Pardon my rant, but it's just Microsoft being Microsoft: bending standards at will and playing desperate when not it control of a given market.