What is the rationale behind denying UA's without Ubuntu in them access to apt.ubuntu.com? I ask because it would honestly make more sense to get rid of the UA sniffing, Mozilla's change in FF4 is something that I agree with, the less information in a UA string the better, we shouldn't be encouraging browser fingerprinting and wasting TCP packets to send the word "Ubuntu" in the HTTP request. It reeks of the same issue we as an open source community have been fighting against webapps that sniff the UA and deny us access because we're not running Windows or OS X, even though it uses nothing more than Javascript, HTML and CSS and will run fine on any browser.
If we are going to include an extension because there is a valid reason to do UA sniffing on apt.ubuntu.com (I can't think of any myself, so please do tell me the rationale) I think we should make sure it only sends the extra UA part on ubuntu.com URL's, if we are going to make Ubuntu users more identifiable we should limit only to Ubuntu services. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/709125 Title: User agent doesn't include Ubuntu in it so apt.ubuntu.com doesn't work -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
