Before I begin, I will echo what others have said, in that sites that restrict access to certain user-agents are mostly wrong in doing so.
I can also fully understand Ubuntu changing the Firefox application name and branding to Shiretoko, so as differentiate it on a users system, and to allow both to be installed side-by-side. I do not however, understand the reasoning behind changing the user agent. The user agent is a valid method of identifying a browsers capabilities to visited websites. Some web-servers and javascript libraries rely on the user-agent to handles how content is rendered and to deal with browser quirks. The only valid reason I can think of to change the user-agent of what is, in essence, standard Firefox 3.5, would be if the functionality were different, or the rendering engine rendered differently. I don't think that this is the case. This decision, adds unnecessary difficulties for end users, for no technical reason I can think of (I'll happily stand corrected if I am wrong though :) Cheers and keep up the good work. P -- Shiretoko user agent string breaks compatibilty with major websites https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/397211 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
