I've seen similar issues simply by using Linux as my main desktop... some sites just won't work because of it, or seem to filter out "Linux" in the user agent. Which kinda sucks.
There was some site/app for creating dinner reservations that I had trouble with... I used my phone in the end. I don't recall the specific site. I also saw it a few months ago on a site, where the backend api seemed to be blocking any useragent with linux.
This is one of the reasons why all of my browsers identify as a recent Chrome version. All of those problems just up and disappear. I started doing that when Google claimed (lied) that some of their products no longer support Firefox and would block me from accessing right up until my browser identified itself as Chrome. No bugs, no issues.
If market competition law wasn't reduced to dead ink, lying about your competitor's product, or abusing your dominance in one market to dominate another market, would at minimum carry painful fines.
I agree that lying should be illegal, but “domination” is vague. One could argue (and I would agree) that there’s nothing wrong with dominance if it comes down to just offering a superior product.
And why should the cross-market context be treated differently?
I noticed the WebKit quirks file even has rules for new websites, like claude.ai.
That feels like a bad idea in my opinion… in my mind it would make sense to wait for Anthropic to address any browser compatibility issues, especially since claude.ai is clearly software that is being regularly worked on.
I can understand quirks for old websites/ones from companies that work very slowly, but this seems strange to me.
The reason stated in the article seems sound to me: if it’s broken ins safari/ff but works in chrome, users conclude that the browser is the problem and switch to chrome.
Web services could have at least one developer using Firefox and another one using Safari. I'm the one with Firefox for my customers. Their web apps work with at least Chrome and Firefox. Safari is on them, if they have a Mac. Nobody ever complained.
That’s why they suggested one developer use Firefox and another one use Safari.
Ideally websites should also test with the beta versions of Firefox, Safari, and Chrome to find and report regressions (browser bugs or web spec changes) so they can get fixed before the release breaks your website.
This is the exact same situation that got Microsoft tied up in endless antitrust investigations 30 years ago. Of course that was back when the US still had a government rather than a service bureau for billionaires.
Oh, I thought Chrome did have a similar list - maybe I got confused with WebKit. This very site has one quirk: https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/25738effd8eeca9b8d15e4...
I've seen similar issues simply by using Linux as my main desktop... some sites just won't work because of it, or seem to filter out "Linux" in the user agent. Which kinda sucks.
Could you give an example? I've been working with a Linux desktop since 2009 and everything seems to work.
There was some site/app for creating dinner reservations that I had trouble with... I used my phone in the end. I don't recall the specific site. I also saw it a few months ago on a site, where the backend api seemed to be blocking any useragent with linux.
Ditto. The only thing I can remember of is Apple Maps. They used to allow only Windows or something? But they relented eventually.
This is one of the reasons why all of my browsers identify as a recent Chrome version. All of those problems just up and disappear. I started doing that when Google claimed (lied) that some of their products no longer support Firefox and would block me from accessing right up until my browser identified itself as Chrome. No bugs, no issues.
If market competition law wasn't reduced to dead ink, lying about your competitor's product, or abusing your dominance in one market to dominate another market, would at minimum carry painful fines.
I agree that lying should be illegal, but “domination” is vague. One could argue (and I would agree) that there’s nothing wrong with dominance if it comes down to just offering a superior product.
And why should the cross-market context be treated differently?
The cross-market context is analogous to tying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
> Safari and Firefox change how big sites render based on the domain. TikTok, Netflix, Instagram… even SeatGuru. Chrome doesn’t. Why is that?
Because the Chrome implementation is implemented server-side.
I noticed the WebKit quirks file even has rules for new websites, like claude.ai.
That feels like a bad idea in my opinion… in my mind it would make sense to wait for Anthropic to address any browser compatibility issues, especially since claude.ai is clearly software that is being regularly worked on.
I can understand quirks for old websites/ones from companies that work very slowly, but this seems strange to me.
The reason stated in the article seems sound to me: if it’s broken ins safari/ff but works in chrome, users conclude that the browser is the problem and switch to chrome.
Web services could have at least one developer using Firefox and another one using Safari. I'm the one with Firefox for my customers. Their web apps work with at least Chrome and Firefox. Safari is on them, if they have a Mac. Nobody ever complained.
Go debug a web app on Safari yourself then. I use Firefox because the Developer Tools rock. Safari is the IE of our times.
If Safari and Firefox had the exact same lists of sites and fixes I might agree, but they don't.
That’s why they suggested one developer use Firefox and another one use Safari.
Ideally websites should also test with the beta versions of Firefox, Safari, and Chrome to find and report regressions (browser bugs or web spec changes) so they can get fixed before the release breaks your website.
Just ditch Chrome and then the website owners see shrinking traffic.
and how, pray tell, might we convince the masses to do this?
Mindcontrol, space lazers, weather machines, genetically engineer actual firefoxes. Just a few ideas worth considering.
I'll have my ai agent get on this right away
This is the exact same situation that got Microsoft tied up in endless antitrust investigations 30 years ago. Of course that was back when the US still had a government rather than a service bureau for billionaires.