Don Spam's Reckless Son wrote on 27/08/2020 8:35 PM:
NFN Smith wrote:
AK wrote:
I am finding more and more sites not accepting Seamonkey.
The latest is Rotten Tomatoes.
I do not understand as Seamonkey is almost identical to Firefox?
Andy
The differences are less than they want you to believe.
I run NoScript, and with the RottenTomatoes scripting host blocked, I
have no problems with getting to their content, at least stuff that
isn't delivered by script. However, if I unblock that one, I'm not
finding any spoofing options, even the most current version of Google
Chrome that this site will accept.
It seems that their browser sniffing script is exceptionally aggressive.
Most of the time, sites that complain about Seamonkey may say that the
issue is compatibility, but I have yet to see a site that relies on
something that is more current than I have in Seamonkey. There's a
variety of reasons that sites may not want Seamonkey, but frequently
it comes down to them wanting to simplify, and by rejecting old or odd
(to them) browsers, they change things from being Their Problem to
being Your Problem.
On the other hand, one of the Seamonkey devs has noted that there are
things that Google is doing with YouTube that may make things
difficult for any browser that's not Chromium-derived. I haven't seen
that myself, although at Google's main search page, there's a display
quirk that goes away if I show a stock Firefox User Agent string.
Thus, for google.com, I have an about:config entry that shows Google
that I'm a Firefox user.
My own use of NoScript gets me around a lot of script-based browser
sniffing issues, although there are trade-offs, and that might not
work for you. And I also use PrefBar, which allows me to do quick
on-the-fly spoofing, when I need to.
But it is happening that there's at least a few sites out there that
may start having problems with Seamonkey. For that, you don't have to
abandon Seamonkey, but it may be useful to have an alternate browser
for getting to sites that may have issues (whether real, or just
annoying sites that don't want to deal with it) with Seamonkey.
Smith
The problem is usually - as in this case - that a site has javascript
identifying the various browsers and catering for them individually. Not
a particularly good idea in the first place and it tends to fail when
confronted with a browser it does not recognise.
I saw a posting in this forum (I think) around a year ago where someone
posted a link to Google's suggestions for resolving the problem - the
javascript should test for browser *capabilities* instead of
browser/level combinations, examples were provided on the Google-page.
Unfortunately Google themselves don't follow that advice, some of their
pages are/were broken for Seamonkey.
Edward's suggestion should help, although it requires 2.53.3 or higher.
If a site is going to test for Browser capabilities, if they detect a
browser that they haven't set up for, should they have a Default page to
feed out??
It would save a lot of hassle, I'm guessing ..... but, then, if they
were going to have a default page, why don't they just feed the default
page to everyone, I guess??
--
Daniel
Win7 User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.49.5 Build identifier: 20190609032134
Linux User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.49.1 Build identifier: 20171015235623
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey