Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Firefox Internet Explorer Microsoft Mozilla Software Upgrades Windows Technology

Testers Say IE 11 Can Impersonate Firefox Via User Agent String 252

Posted by timothy
from the turnabout-is-sometimes-funny dept.
Billly Gates writes "With the new leaked videos and screenshots of Windows Blue released, IE 11 is also included. IE 10 just came out weeks ago for Windows 7 users and Microsoft is more determined than ever to prevent IE from becoming irrelevant as Firefox and Chrome scream past it by also including a faster release schedule. A few beta testers reported that IE 11 changed its user agent string from MSIE to IE with the 'like gecko' command included. Microsoft may be doing this to stop web developers stop feeding broken IE 6-8 code and refusing to serve HTML 5/CSS 3 whenever it detects MSIE in its user agent string. Unfortunately this will break many business apps that are tied to ancient and specific version of IE. Will this cause more hours of work for web developers? Or does IE10+ really act like Chrome or Firefox and this will finally end the hell of custom CSS tricks?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Testers Say IE 11 Can Impersonate Firefox Via User Agent String

Comments Filter:
  • Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BrokenHalo (565198) on Monday March 25, 2013 @05:55AM (#43268729)

    Unfortunately this will break many business apps that are tied to ancient and specific version of IE. Will this cause more hours of work for web developers?

    Too bad if it does. Their excuses wore out long ago.

    • The main culprits I've seen which do this are telephone system providers (Mitel/iPecs etc).

      The issue being that people are very touchy about updating telephony software, primarily following the old adage, "if it ain't broke don't fix it".
      • Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rudy_wayne (414635) on Monday March 25, 2013 @06:26AM (#43268851)

        The main culprits I've seen which do this are telephone system providers (Mitel/iPecs etc).

          The issue being that people are very touchy about updating telephony software, primarily following the old adage, "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

        The problem is that it is IS broken.

        • Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Bacon Bits (926911) on Monday March 25, 2013 @10:14AM (#43270393)

          The main culprits I've seen which do this are telephone system providers (Mitel/iPecs etc).

            The issue being that people are very touchy about updating telephony software, primarily following the old adage, "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

          The problem is that it is IS broken.

          There's a significant difference between "broken" meaning "functions in an anachronistic or extremely sub-optimal fashion" and "broken" meaning "complete loss of function". If you've got the latter, you'd gladly take the former.

          This is why people tend to dislike new technology when it completely replaces an existing old system rather than complimenting it or existing along side it. Systems don't survive to be old if they don't meet the needs of the people who use them, and almost any new system will have some period of time where the new system does not meet their needs.

      • by ArhcAngel (247594)

        The issue being that people are very touchy about paying for updating telephony software,

        We are currently upgrading our phone system (less than 200 PID) because updating JUST the software on our current system to get official support from the vendor is going to cost >$50K and a new system with all licensing and a year of support as well as added functionality will cost slightly >$100K and isn't already EOL'ed. [wikipedia.org]

    • by jimshatt (1002452)
      Except that it wont. If the business app was tied to a specific version of IE, then it still is tied to that specific version of IE. IE6 still sends out MSIE, regardless of the existence of IE11, IE12, or IEFoxHunt.
      • by Bozzio (183974)

        Exactly. Thanks for mentioning this. I was going to post the exact same thing.

    • Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jimicus (737525) on Monday March 25, 2013 @07:39AM (#43269163)

      Too bad if it does. Their excuses wore out long ago.

      They did, but business apps that are tied to specific versions of IE are endemic and quite often it's not as simple as paying money and getting the software updated. We're not talking one or two apps here that need updating; we're talking hundreds if not thousands of applications, some of which quite clearly haven't had any major UI work done in five or ten years.

      In the last fortnight, I've seen - and this is in just one small business:

        - A web app that requires a specific ActiveX plugin to print - evidently a stylesheet for printing or even generating a PDF is too difficult. This plugin only works on 32-bit versions of IE; under 64-bit versions the plugin installer silently fails to work. (The plugin developer does have a 64-bit version available, but it's commercial software. You can't just download a 64-bit version from the developer's website yourself).
          - This web app is provided for franchisees by their franchisor. (I won't name the franchise, but I guarantee you've heard of it). As with any franchise-type arrangement, the franchisee can ask their franchisor nicely but cannot force anything - and in this case, the franchisee simply cannot say "In that case I won't use your tool; I'll find something else to do the same job", using it is a condition of the franchise.
        - Several web apps that require you to explicitly click the "broken mode" button in IE - they're generating IE6-only HTML when IE is used but IE isn't detecting this and automatically downgrading.
          - Quite often these apps will work just fine with Chrome, Firefox et al. It looks like they're detecting an IE User-Agent string and generating IE-6 specific HTML rather than checking the IE version.
          - These apps are provided by a third-party and you have to use them otherwise you can't do business with that third party. The business itself doesn't care about your idealistic attitude that IE-dependant websites must die; they need to meet payroll this month and one of the ways they do this is by working with various third parties.
        - Web applications that quite simply do not function in anything but Internet Explorer in any form, no matter what you do with your user-agent string. You'd be amazed (and faintly disturbed) how many project managers read as far as "no need to deploy your own client app" when first considering web development and didn't get the bit about "with careful development, client platform independent".
            - Much of this is actually Microsoft's own doing - they purposely encouraged this sort of behaviour back in the days of IE6.

    • by CastrTroy (595695)
      MS could have alleviated a lot of pain everywhere if they would have just added a supported method of running 2 versions of IE at the same time. This way they could have continued to support businesses that were locked into corporate intranet applications that wouldn't work in anything but IE 6, and also have newer versions of IE be able to adopt proper standards without having to worry about how it affected older websites.
  • Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lesincompetent (2836253) on Monday March 25, 2013 @05:56AM (#43268735)
    I Say Firefox Can Impersonate IE11 Via User Agent String.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, 2013 @05:57AM (#43268737)

    Microsoft thought they could subvert the web by creating their own standards, and it worked for awhile, and now that same strategy ended up biting their own behinds. I'm enjoying this popcorn. It has Karma written in the container.

    • Microsoft is never the ones who get bitten. It's all the users who can't use the web apps developed for broken versions of IE, and the developers who have to figure out which dead chickens need to be waved over their sites to get them to work in each different (and differently broken) version of IE that comes out.

      Microsoft just sits back and laughs.

  • by Internal Modem (1281796) on Monday March 25, 2013 @06:02AM (#43268759)
    Wouldn't a better headline be "IE 11 user agent string changes from MSIE to IE," since most of the summary is about that?
    The headline isn't even discussed in the summary.
    However, it's obvious the standard ability of browsers to report a different user agent for dev and testing has been sensationalized here just for click generation.
    • Simplest explanation (and therefore most likely to be correct) is that they were hiding. Until yesterday's leak this was all confidential and they did not want to leak information via user agent stats.

    • by Beriaru (954082)
      It's not a mismatch: It was impersonating other headline.
    • by Xest (935314)

      It doesn't even make any sense whatsoever:

      "Microsoft may be doing this to stop web developers stop feeding broken IE 6-8 code and refusing to serve HTML 5/CSS 3 whenever it detects MSIE in its user agent string. Unfortunately this will break many business apps that are tied to ancient and specific version of IE."

      Why? Just because IE11 is coming out, doesn't magically make existing business apps suddenly change themselves to stop working with the "ancient and specific version of IE" they've always worked wit

      • by DarkOx (621550)

        You are missing the point. Its not about supporting older it apps its about not having older apps try to support broken versions of IE.

        There are lots of apps out there that see MSIE and send different pages; if they don't see IE they send a (probably) somewhat more standards compliant version. Microsoft thinks IE11 should now have behavior similar enough to the other main line browsers that users of IE11 will have a better experience with pages targeted for them. Its about IE11 users not have a degraded

        • by Xest (935314)

          I'm not sure if you misread my post but you seem to be telling me I'm missing the point and then pretty much agreeing with what I said.

      • by JDG1980 (2438906)

        No it wont, because even if IE11 now works exactly like Firefox (which it probably doesn't) you'll still have a million custom CSS tricks to make Firefox and Chrome display a site the same. Or what, you thought Firefox and Chrome consistently implemented the HTML/CSS standards? Oh, sorry to burst your bubble - no, Firefox/Chrome/Safari et. al. all require just as many hacks as modern IE versions to ensure consistency across all browsers to the greatest extent possible.

        That has not been my experience. Wha

  • You don't say! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by T-Bone-T (1048702) on Monday March 25, 2013 @06:16AM (#43268805)

    Business apps designed specifically for IE6 might not work with IE11? I'm shocked! That's terrible! What is this world coming to? Or should I say, to what is this world coming?(don't answer that)

    • by davek (18465)

      Business apps designed specifically for IE6 might not work with IE11? I'm shocked! That's terrible! What is this world coming to? Or should I say, to what is this world coming?(don't answer that)

      I think this world needs to find a quiet room in which to do long division. That is all.

    • I say that this is the kind of nonsense up with I will not put.

  • Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ledow (319597) on Monday March 25, 2013 @06:25AM (#43268845) Homepage

    The day that the first website was able to detect what client was being used to view it, we were in trouble.

    Whether it was people trying to "fix" ancient Opera (and still some sites had such tests until very recently), people telling you what browser to use (i.e. not accepting Netscape / IE of certain versions - I still know of a UK bank that stops you logging in as certain browsers, but fake the user agent string and it works 100%), or just plain faffing about (i.e. iPlayer detecting the user-agent to see if it's "allowed" to download the iPad streams, etc.).

    The day that you were able to tell what someone was running and make a decision based on that, we basically lost the point of a standard. If someone has a client that can't render a standard page, then that's their problem and we should have left them to it - eventually they would have complained to the relevant person and their browser would become closer to the standard. We would also have killed off abominations like non-standard HTML tags and everything else.

    If you have CSS, in this day and age, that does detection of the user-agent, then that's your problem - you manage it and if it ever affects my usage of it, I'll be complaining and going elsewhere. If you have a browser that can't change the user-agent at will and still work, then that's a crap browser (purely because the user should be in control of the website they are displaying and not the other way around). Precisely because we're all too stupid to just make browsers and websites conform to a common standard.

    Personally, I use Opera - have done for nearly a decade now. If it doesn't work in Opera, I move on and go somewhere else. The number of times it's stopped me doing something I wanted is vanishingly small (probably 4-5 incidents in all that time), and I've blamed the website every time - not Opera (because in every instance, faking the user-agent to something else has fixed the problem, so it's not the browser). It's cost several small companies my custom (not that they would be able to tell, or care).

    Fact is, my life is too short to play games with accessing your website. If I can't, I move on. End of. I've even moved my bank accounts because of it (NatWest, in the UK, had a website that refused to work with anything but ancient versions of IE or Netscape - yes, it actually said Netscape even in the era of Firefox - and they refused to fix it "for security reasons", so I moved on. Presumably they've fixed it now, but I don't really care because the damage was done by not being able to log into it at my convenience).

    You have a website because you want people to come to it and see your content. Hiding that content, because you don't know how to properly display it, is so counter-productive, I can't even begin to explain it. If the fancy shit you're pulling messed up my browser (which conforms to all the ACID tests and general compatibility with EVERY OTHER SITE on the planet), maybe you should take that fancy shit off?

    • by Spad (470073)

      NatWest, in the UK, had a website that refused to work with anything but ancient versions of IE or Netscape - yes, it actually said Netscape even in the era of Firefox - and they refused to fix it "for security reasons", so I moved on. Presumably they've fixed it now, but I don't really care because the damage was done by not being able to log into it at my convenience

      They haven't. You still have to fake UA strings to use most browsers with their online banking site.

      • NatWest, in the UK, had a website that refused to work with anything but ancient versions of IE or Netscape - yes, it actually said Netscape even in the era of Firefox - and they refused to fix it "for security reasons", so I moved on. Presumably they've fixed it now, but I don't really care because the damage was done by not being able to log into it at my convenience

        They haven't. You still have to fake UA strings to use most browsers with their online banking site.

        Bollocks - the website works perfectly fine in Firefox without having to fake anything. I bet if I tried it in Chrome, it would also work fine.

        • by Inda (580031)
          I second your bollocks.

          Yes, there were early problems. Problems like "Firefox 11 is not supported" a day after I replaced FF10 with it.

          Natwest soon learned. I can't remember the last time I had browser issues with them.

          Natwest trying to get people to install CleanMyPC or whatever it's called, sure, I'll rant with you all day about that, but not browser support.
          • by Inda (580031)
            Redirects. I'll rant about their redirects too if you like. Why can't I stay on their domain to do my banking? Why must I be redirected? Who knew that https://www.nwolb.com is actually part of Natwest? Not me and not their internet security staff when I phoned them (tell me I have malware again! I dare you.)
    • Re:Sigh (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Xugumad (39311) on Monday March 25, 2013 @07:10AM (#43269027)

      > The day that you were able to tell what someone was running and make a decision based on that, we basically lost the point of a standard

      Well, sort of. If the browser gets the standard wrong, and the options are:

      1. It doesn't work for that browser.
      2. Degrading the result for everyone.
      3. Implementing a browser-specific work-around.

      Which would you really prefer? Yes, user agent testing is heavily mis-used, but it's not the terrible idea it's made out to be.

      I'll give you a specific example; we had an issue with file uploads with Safari over SSL. For some reason if the connection was kept alive, Safari would frequently start uploading the file but never complete. The work-around was to force connection close for Safari; it wasn't perfect, but it massively reduced the frequency with which the issue appeared.

      • Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ledow (319597) on Monday March 25, 2013 @07:39AM (#43269161) Homepage

        "I'm sorry, your car doesn't have a standardised fuel cap. Is the fix to:

        1) make your car have a standard fuel cap?
        2) force everyone to use your new fuel cap ?
        3) make pumps sense by the numberplate which model of car they are filling up and change the fuel cap to the right one each time?"

        Whatever option you choose, 3) is really incredibly stupid and puts the onus on fuel stations to make the changes rather than the idiot that wanted to be different for no good reason. It might be *A* solution, but *THE* solution is to just look at the guy who can't fuel up their car with a "You pillock" look until they realise they've bought a turkey - and then let Ford / GM / whoever supply an adaptor to him rather than you having to carry 20 adaptors for all the different types of fuel cap there are.

        All you've done is encourage Safari to be the exception to the rule, with a broken implementation that now doesn't have to be fixed (because you "fixed it" for them on your end).

        By way of analogy, if - say - a browser can't upload more than a 2Gb file, then you're choosing to detect the browser that can't, chop the file up into little bits just for them, and pass it on. You're fixing their crappy browser for them, so you have to take all the burden for their mistakes. That's just not sensible compared to say "Sorry, you're browser is crap and can't handle downloads the size of your average DVD from 5 years ago. Maybe you should investigate alternatives."

        • And your solution puts the onus on the user to become an expert in software. The whole point of the exercise is to give the user what he wants/needs. If some part of the system is broken, it usually ends up being someone downstream or upstream that gets the blame. After all, if you are refusing to support broken browsers, then you might be encouraging a gigantic company to fix their software (yeah, like that ever happens, short of a world-ending cataclysm), but you are also jeopardizing your users' exper

        • by Xugumad (39311)

          Have you ever tried telling a userbase that there's a problem with their browser and they should change? If you're lucky enough that they read the notice instead of just hitting reload a few dozen times then complaining it doesn't work, generally they'll tell you that it works elsewhere, and why not on your site.

          It also presumes they can move browser; less of an issue with Safari, but we've had to put in work-arounds for IE6/7 for users who are locked into those browsers by their employer (who really, reall

    • If someone has a client that can't render a standard page, then that's their problem and we should have left them to it - eventually they would have complained to the relevant person and their browser would become closer to the standard.

      Not every client can get their browser changed. Not every client is willing to lift a finger to improve their standard either, and can happily move on to a competitor who's more than willing to accommodate them.

      If you have CSS, in this day and age, that does detection of the user-agent, then that's your problem

      Tell that to clients who want a particular design. They don't care about standards, they care that the pages look correct across all browsers, including legacy versions of IE dating back to 7 (or, even in some cases, 6), and on mobile devices. They're not going to say "oh, IE 7 doesn't support [stand

    • Re:Sigh (Score:4, Informative)

      by twdorris (29395) on Monday March 25, 2013 @07:50AM (#43269197)

      If someone has a client that can't render a standard page, then that's their problem and we should have left them to it - eventually they would have complained to the relevant person and their browser would become closer to the standard.

      Are you new here? You may not remember the days when this mess all started. IE was king and you *had* to work around it. You couldn't just let it be "their problem" and "left them to it". That's so "counter-productive, I can't even begin to explain it". These customers (sheep running IE) would come to *you* in droves asking why they couldn't view your website. And your response was going to be "because IE doesn't display my standards-compliant page"? Wow...no...that doesn't work.

      Nowadays, things are clearly different. Which is great. But to suggest developers should have never used the user-agent tag to distinguish browser differences is ludicrous.

    • by Kjella (173770)

      Sure, in an ideal world it's not needed. But in the real world browsers have bugs and no matter how much you blame the browser to the average user your website is broken. Unless you want to limit yourself to the minimal subset of HTML that no browser has managed to screw up you want the ability to work around browser bugs, which means you need to know what browser they're running. That is why so many file formats have a field to let you know what software wrote it. Honestly if you haven't had to implement a

    • I specifically prohibit my developers from looking at the user agent string. Heck, I use IE9 as a browswer, and I've changed the user agent string to 'null'. Anyway, if it doesn't render correctly in Chrome, Firefox and IE, then we find a new way of doing things. Browswer specific code is never allowed. Not even for detecting mobile browsers. There's already a link to the mobile version. If they want to use the main site, that's their business.

  • ...karma really DOES exist!
  • by erroneus (253617) on Monday March 25, 2013 @06:42AM (#43268913) Homepage

    Well... yeah but no. Their being different enough to make everyone else think all the other browsers were broken worked. Only web deveopers knew differently. And the business apps only worked under MSIE thing ensured people wouldn't migrate their client machines from Windows.

    I have to wonder what Microsoft will pull next. As their game ran its course and more and more things went the standards route, what's next?

  • by danhuby (759002) on Monday March 25, 2013 @06:47AM (#43268927) Homepage

    I've been developing web applications full time since 1996 and I've never once had to resort to browser detection via user agent strings. It's just bad practice.

    The fact that some people have been doing this has led to the very convoluted user agent strings we see today, rather than a simple description of the browser / rendering engine and version.

    It's perfectly possible to write code that works cross-browser without having to detect browsers via user agent strings. The closest I've come to any sort of browser specific code is occasionally including IE specific CSS to work around IE bugs, but this included in an IE specific way and is ignored by other browsers.

    A browser vendor should be able to put whatever they like in the user agent string, and if that breaks a web site or application, then so be it. It's the fault of the developer for making assumptions.

    • by gl4ss (559668)

      sure, but if you managed to get ie 6.0 into the support contract then you'll keep it as that and refuse to serve pages to anything else.

      why? so you can bill for removing that requirement.

  • Bork Bork (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheP4st (1164315) on Monday March 25, 2013 @06:48AM (#43268939)

    Back in 2003 msn.com deliberately sent Opera a faulty style sheet that broke the page, in response and to make a point Opera released a Bork version of their browser that turned msn.com into Swedish Chef talk. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-984632.html [cnet.com]

    Karma is a Bitch.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This affected all 17 Opera users, especially the 3 of those that actually went to MSN.com...

      • by TheP4st (1164315)
        Wow... original, did you come up with that yourself?
      • Actually, in 2003 Opera was not that obscure. The wikipedia statistics have 94.43% for IE. Netscape and Mozilla each had about 2.5% and Opera had 0.66%. Back then, on any *NIX system, Netscape was old, Mozilla was crashy (and slow), Opera was fast. On Macs, the same was roughly true, except you had IE 5.5, which had transparent PNG support (which Windows lacked), but implemented an old draft of CSS standard. On Windows you also had IE, which was ubiquitous, but Opera was the best choice technically. T
    • Re:Bork Bork (Score:4, Informative)

      by Kjella (173770) on Monday March 25, 2013 @08:11AM (#43269287) Homepage

      Back in 2003 msn.com deliberately sent Opera a faulty style sheet that broke the page, in response and to make a point Opera released a Bork version of their browser that turned msn.com into Swedish Chef talk. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-984632.html [cnet.com]

      Of course the actual story is that Opera had a bug which that style sheet worked around, when they fixed it in a new version the page looked broken because they still got the modified style sheet. So yes it was deliberate but not malicious, in fact someone had made extra effort to make it work on Opera however the PR opportunity was far too good for Opera to pass up. That's one problem with browser-based hacks, if you're not around to maintain them should you assume the next version of IE will be 100% standards compliant or that most the IE6 hacks would also be required for IE7. It wasn't as obvious as you'd think, to the clients it looked like your site was incredibly fragile when it broke horribly on any new browser version. Those were dark days, long before real standards compliance.

      • by Poingggg (103097)

        No, Opera did not have 'a bug which that style sheet worked around'. I am too lazy to find a link, but when Opera changed the user agent to 'IE' (or Firefox, I'm not sure) without changing the renderer or anything else, the pages rendered perfectly. So there was no bug in Opera, MS borked the stylesheet they served to Opera.

  • The OP says Firefox and Chrome have a faster release schedule but fails to mention the content of those releases by Firefox and Chrome are minor where the updates of IE are major. You can't say that because Firefox and Chrome release a new "version" every month that they're better or more innovative. They just consider everything worthy of a version upgrade. Add a built-in pdf viewer, increment the version number; change the font style, bump the version up one; add some other good or inconsequential feat
    • by Cenan (1892902)
      It is better... In an ideal world, every tiny change would get it's own unique version number. Fix->Test->Release
      If you have a fix, why sit on it till 999 other issues have cropped up and are (supposedly) fixed? And no, a version number plus a list of KB articles for updates is not the same thing. It doesn't matter if all you change is the font, if that one thing is what breaks it for someone. But it makes it a hell of a lot easier to figure out why it's not working anymore, as opposed to a mammoth 1
      • by Merk42 (1906718)
        Oh yes, Firefox 137 sounds much better!
      • by Imagix (695350)
        Because big users can't afford to test every little point release that you make every 2nd day. Acceptance testing may take weeks.
  • by DrXym (126579) on Monday March 25, 2013 @07:29AM (#43269113)
    Bad JS has code such as "if (document.all || /MSIE/.test(navigator.userAgent)) isIE = true;" or some variant thereof. So changing the user agent and also removing any IE specific extensions like document.all, CreateObject() etc would be a good way to force browsers down the other path which is presumably more browser agnostic. IE could implement a whitelist test which enables the cruft on intranets which absolutely refuse to work otherwise.

    I suppose we have to be grateful for MS in doing this providing they're now supporting standards rather than half implementing them. Sites shouldn't be testing for Gecko or Webkit either though or they'll be creating a problem for themselves down the line just like the one with IE 6/7 now. They should be programatically testing the features they need and avoid what the browser engine is as much as possible.

  • Firefox can do the same thing with a plug-in, used it alot for testing mobile devices as I would enter their user agent string.
  • Microsoft is more determined than ever to prevent IE from becoming irrelevant as Firefox and Chrome scream past it by also including a faster release schedule.

    The faster release schedule doesn't have a damn thing to do with Firefox and Chrome gaining ground over Internet Explorer. In fact the fast release schedule has blatantly hurt Firefox gaining ground over Internet Explorer as enterprise after enterprise has blatantly refused to distribute Firefox until they pull their head out of their ass on their re

  • IE has always identified itself as Mozilla, i believe the current versions still identify themselves as mozilla/4.0 (ie netscape 4).

  • This is why I don't develop for IE at all. I need a web platform that doesn't break CSS and HTML code. If Microsoft wants to change the string from MSIE to IE then they better have finally fixed CSS and HTML handling. If they have I'm more then happy to support IE as part of my web platform, if not then I'll just have to put an update to block this new IE 11.
    • by Merk42 (1906718)
      What sort of CSS/HTML issues are you having with new versions of IE? This isn't IE6 anymore.
    • I hate web developers like you.

      First, I am getting really tired of websites that don't work on mobile platforms. How hard is it to pick up a tablet or phone and test your website on it before releasing it to the masses. It's the 21st century more people are likely to browser your website on a mobile device then a desktop so stop only creating websites for desktop browsers. More phones ad tablets don't need the mobile version either, most people do not test full desktop sites on a tablet which is why most

      • by Murdoch5 (1563847)
        I stopped reading after I read this:

        First, I am getting really tired of websites that don't work on mobile platforms. How hard is it to pick up a tablet or phone and test your website on it before releasing it to the masses. It's the 21st century more people are likely to browser your website on a mobile device then a desktop so stop only creating websites for desktop browsers. More phones ad tablets don't need the mobile version either, most people do not test full desktop sites on a tablet which is why most of them don't work. My Nexus 10 has more pixels then MOST desktop workstations, fucking deal with it properly and stop formatting a website like I am using a VGA phone.

        I never said I don't develop for mobile platforms, a mobile platform is still a web platform, the fact you didn't realize that is fine but it doesn't mean you can call me out for not targeting mobile devices.

        Secondly, I do all development for free, I don't change for the web sites I create because frankly they're not meant for professional installations, if you take what I give you and you leave the scope I place on it then don't cry to me when it doesn't work.

        So wh

  • Hopefully, the managers and developers who thought that tying their business processes to a specific version of Internet Explorer was a good idea cause such incredible expenses to their companies that they get fired for being the incompetent idiots that they are.

  • Firefox has been doing a pretty good job of impersonating bloated IE for the last few years.

  • Any app that still depends on an ancient, deprecated version of MSIE should be sunsetted. Developing new, modern replacements for those apps is exactly the kind of capital investment that companies have been putting off since 2002. It is long overdue, and it is the kind of investment that will actually get the economy growing at a much better pace. Good riddance to old cruft.
  • ... comes around.

    Back when Netscape ruled the Web and Microsoft still didn't 'get' the Internet, they (Microsoft) had to impersonate a Netscape identity to keep web sites from rejecting it. Looks like we've come full circle.

This login session: $13.76, but for you $11.88.

Working...