[Solved] Problems with default pm user-agent

Enkidu · Unread post by **Enkidu** » 2014-06-18, 09:54

Hi,

I am new to Palemoon, using "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20140612 PaleMoon/24.6.1". Using the original pm user agent for e.g. Google, it results in very limited functionality. Using e.g. "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:26.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/26.0" I have full functionality! See attachments for details.

So I'd suggest by default to change ua to a more ff like string in order to improve user experience with pm. (Or alternatively implement a choice to switch ua.)

I know experianced users can switch ua. But I's like to support non exp. users!

Tnx in advance,
Enkidu

Unread post by **Moonchild** » 2014-06-18, 10:18

By default, Pale Moon includes a "firefox compatibility" part of the UA (which is not present in your UA). Make sure general.useragent.compatmode.firefox is set to true.

You can also contact Google and tell them that Pale Moon is not a limited mobile-class browser. Also, Google should know better than to use UA sniffing for their website. Tisk tisk.

Enkidu · Unread post by **Enkidu** » 2014-06-18, 10:27

Moonchild wrote:By default, Pale Moon includes a "firefox compatibility" part of the UA (which is not present in your UA). Make sure general.useragent.compatmode.firefox is set to true.

Tnx! That's it! I have no idea why it was set to false. (I used pminstaller.sh and used a copy of my ff profile...)

Moonchild wrote:You can also contact Google and tell them that Pale Moon is not a limited mobile-class browser. Also, Google should know better than to use UA sniffing for their website. Tisk tisk.

Well... Yes... If you have good contacts to Google you might be heared.

Cheers,
Enkidu

Supernova · Unread post by **Supernova** » 2014-06-18, 11:34

Enkidu wrote:Well... Yes... If you have good contacts to Google you might be heared.

Yeah sure that google is far from an open company and the likeliness of it resulting to anything remains low (Google, helping low market share browser with proper website coding ?), but still worth trying. ^^

BlakeyRat · Unread post by **BlakeyRat** » 2014-07-17, 15:03

Moonchild wrote:You can also contact Google and tell them that Pale Moon is not a limited mobile-class browser. Also, Google should know better than to use UA sniffing for their website. Tisk tisk.

You are correct, Google should not be doing that. Unfortunately, many websites use UA sniffing and tell me that my browser (PM 24.6.2) is "outdated". As the Firefox version number gets higher and higher, stupid websites that do UA sniffing are going to think we are using an "outdated" browser. I can see this becoming a bigger and bigger problem in the future.

Yesterday, I went to a website that completely blocked me and would not allow me to proceed because my browser is "outdated". I was able to go into about:config and add a site-specific UA over-ride, but people shouldn't have to do that. I know that there are extensions for changing the UA, but I think things need to be easier than that.

The UA of Palemoon should probably be configured to match the current version of Firefox. It is unfortunate that this is needed, but, the reality is you cannot fix all the stupid and broken websites, so, the only option is to modify Palemoon.

Unread post by **Night Wing** » 2014-07-17, 15:13

BlakeyRat wrote:Unfortunately, many websites use UA sniffing and tell me that my browser (PM 24.6.2) is "outdated".

It just isn't Pale Moon being affected. If I use Firefox 24.6.0 ESR, which is the newest ESR version of Firefox to check my Hotmail email account, I get the "outdated browser" prompt from Outlook.

mikeysc · Unread post by **mikeysc** » 2014-07-17, 16:07

I'm sporting a sleek custom UA string, "Firefox/28.0 (Pale Moon)", and so far it's working. No website I visit needs to know anything more unless I tell them. I fought this UA battle many years ago over IE compatibility and had given up on caring about it until recently. Sometimes I used to put something totally off the wall in the UA string just to give the website owner a hint. Think I will do that again.

Parsifal · Unread post by **Parsifal** » 2014-07-17, 16:56

mikeysc wrote:I'm sporting a sleek custom UA string, "Firefox/28.0 (Pale Moon)", and so far it's working. No website I visit needs to know anything more unless I tell them. I fought this UA battle many years ago over IE compatibility and had given up on caring about it until recently. Sometimes I used to put something totally off the wall in the UA string just to give the website owner a hint. Think I will do that again.

Do you, or does anyone happen to know what is the UA string of Firefox 24 ESR ?
I'd like to test on the basis of true equivalency between Firefox and Pale Moon 24.x and see how sites manage with that.
I'll have a try with your string but replacing 28 by 24 : Firefox/24.0 (Pale Moon)

KNTRO · Unread post by **KNTRO** » 2014-07-18, 03:30

Parsifal wrote:Do you, or does anyone happen to know what is the UA string of Firefox 24 ESR ?

Firefox ESR 24 —32 bits— on Windows 7 64 bits:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/24.0

buggy · Unread post by **buggy** » 2014-07-19, 04:31

Enkidu wrote:I know experianced users can switch ua. But I's like to support non exp. users!

No need too much experience with that

Pale Moon forum

[Solved] Problems with default pm user-agent

[Solved] Problems with default pm user-agent

Re: Problems with default pm user-agent - improvement needed

Re: Problems with default pm user-agent - improvement needed

Re: Problems with default pm user-agent - improvement needed

Re: Problems with default pm user-agent - improvement needed

Re: Problems with default pm user-agent - improvement needed

Re: [Solved] Problems with default pm user-agent

Re: [Solved] Problems with default pm user-agent

Re: [Solved] Problems with default pm user-agent

Re: [Solved] Problems with default pm user-agent