Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Sites that don't support Ubuntu browsers

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    19th Hole
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu 18.04 Bionic Beaver

    Re: Sites that don't support Ubuntu browsers

    ^^^+++^^^ This.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wheeling WV USA
    Beans
    1,678
    Distro
    Xubuntu 18.04 Bionic Beaver

    Re: Sites that don't support Ubuntu browsers

    Quote Originally Posted by Irihapeti View Post
    Maybe they're just terrified that Ubuntu users are all hackers, so they want to keep us away.
    but they're not keeping us away, just encouraging us to become hackers (BTDT).
    Social distancer, System Administrator, Programmer, Linux advocate, Command Line user, Ham radio operator (KA9WGN/8, tech), Photographer (hobby), occasional tweeter

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wheeling WV USA
    Beans
    1,678
    Distro
    Xubuntu 18.04 Bionic Beaver

    Re: Sites that don't support Ubuntu browsers

    Quote Originally Posted by crip720 View Post
    Sling specifically says Ubuntu browsers, not Linux. Don't know if same would happen with Arch or Fedora or another type. This happens when trying to watch(https://watch.sling.com/). Home page works okay(sling.com)
    it could be because they fear we can record videos while playing them. is this something Ubuntu has over the other distros?
    Social distancer, System Administrator, Programmer, Linux advocate, Command Line user, Ham radio operator (KA9WGN/8, tech), Photographer (hobby), occasional tweeter

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wheeling WV USA
    Beans
    1,678
    Distro
    Xubuntu 18.04 Bionic Beaver

    Re: Sites that don't support Ubuntu browsers

    lazy??? are you saying that doing things right is harder to do? i suppose that is true if making things easier is by using software to do it for you and the developers of that software just don't know how to do it right.
    Social distancer, System Administrator, Programmer, Linux advocate, Command Line user, Ham radio operator (KA9WGN/8, tech), Photographer (hobby), occasional tweeter

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Beans
    80

    Re: Sites that don't support Ubuntu browsers

    lazy??? are you saying that doing things right is harder to do?
    No it's absolutely not more difficult! That's kind of my point, it's a matter of willingness to understand the underlying problem and willingness to grow, especially with front end/client stuff.

    For example take a "web page designer." He/she learns to build web pages, maybe even Javascript/server side script a bit, and people start paying them. They begin to feel like a professional. Then along comes someone they perceive as a know-it-all and says, "Hey, have you seen this site? None of your pages validate."

    https://validator.w3.org/

    Rather than to accept that as new knowledge, and expand their understanding, they immediately find references that validation is not important (see "you will find what you're looking for") and build an argument against validation, how it's not important, and have a whole library of arguments and justifications against it every time the topic comes up. The irony is people sometimes spend far more energy arguing against a concept than if they had accepted: "here is something I didn't know, something that will make me a better developer."

    Another (and a personal pet peeve of mine) is the perception that coding to XHTML over HTML makes you a better developer. Before HTML 5, you could have perfectly valid HTML 4.01 pages and no value would be added by switching to an XHTML doctype. It wouldn't make it smarter or better or faster, because for 95% of published pages, HTML is more appropriate. Why?

    Because the "X" in XHTML is for extending HTML. It is extremely powerful, but very few ever understood or used it's power. With a custom DDT (Document Definition Type) you could do all sorts of things, like define context to the client.

    Code:
    The <movie>Titanic</movie> is a movie about a <adjective>titanic</adjective> ship.
    This was huge (pun intended) at the time, especially for search engines and screen reader clients. You could now tell the client I mean a movie here and an adjective there. So if you're not extending HTML, what is more appropriate?

    I have seen prospective hires discarded simply because they didn't code with an XHTML doctype, when all they were coding was . . . HTML. Totally more appropriate.
    Last edited by sdsurfer; 1 Week Ago at 02:43 PM.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    19th Hole
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu 18.04 Bionic Beaver

    Re: Sites that don't support Ubuntu browsers

    Quote Originally Posted by sdsurfer View Post
    No it's absolutely not more difficult! That's kind of my point, it's a matter of willingness to understand the underlying problem and willingness to grow, especially with front end/client stuff…
    Perhaps not harder, but it does require more care, and a consideration for others (and their differences) that is out of fashion these days. If I might risk distilling your thoughts down to a single word, you are addressing inclusivity.

    Your examples are excellent. They do raise further issues that are closely related to the ones you already address:

    The Internet has largely abandoned Tim Berners Lee's original vision of it being an empowerment technology—one in which people actually contribute as much as they absorb. That communal philosophy was starved of air at birth to be hijacked by a consumerist strategem wherein the vast majority of people are conditioned to mindlessly consume "stuff" that is drip-fed to them by "content providers", entertainment cartels and their increasingly vertically integrated ISPs.

    Such an environment is hostile to your (and Berners Lee's) vision of an inclusive Internet. In fact, by its very nature, it must promote the opposite: an environment of exclusivity, where silos are built to fence old users in and charge newcomers at the door. This dynamic is antithetical to the practice of validation. If one's motive is to build silos, to divide and conquer, then why would one support an opposing movement towards openness and inclusivity?

    New developers are indoctrinated in this exclusionary thinking. It rubs against their training to design webpages, or apps, or OSes for that matter, to be accessible to all. I suspect that this dynamic is at least partially the reason for the indifference and neglect that you cite in your examples.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Summerwind
    Beans
    14,157
    Distro
    Ubuntu Budgie Development Release

    Re: Sites that don't support Ubuntu browsers

    The site noted at the beginning of the thread doesn't support Opera either. There was no message pertaining to Ubuntu only Opera.
    “Start where you are. Use what you have. Do what you can".

    Ubuntu Documentation Search: Popular Pages
    Ubuntu: Security Basics
    Ubuntu: Flavors

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The Left Coast of the USA
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Kubuntu

    Re: Sites that don't support Ubuntu browsers

    Firefox is not an "Ubuntu browser", but I get that message using Firefox. I get no such message using Chrome, even without a user agent.

    On Fedora, I get the warning about "Fedora browsers" when using Firefox.

    This is not laziness. All that matters is whether or not the browser itself is standards-compliant. The OS is immaterial with a standards-compliant browser. Microsoft's browsers are not, by the way. Sometimes this sort of OS check is deliberate due to the fact that the developers and their employers have fallen victim to FUD and are convinced that Linux is an illicit tool of nefarious agents bent on stealing their content. They probably rarely have anything to do with their own server admins, who are likely serving content from Linux servers -- and those very likely Debian family like Ubuntu or Red Hat family.

    Sling.com appears to be using Windows and IIS.
    Last edited by QIII; 1 Week Ago at 01:31 AM.
    Please read The Forum Rules and The Forum Posting Guidelines

    A thing discovered and kept to oneself must be discovered time and again by others. A thing discovered and shared with others need be discovered only the once.
    This universe is crazy. I'm going back to my own.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Summerwind
    Beans
    14,157
    Distro
    Ubuntu Budgie Development Release

    Re: Sites that don't support Ubuntu browsers

    Sometimes this sort of OS check is deliberate due to the fact that the developers and their employers have fallen victim to FUD
    I noted in earlier post that Firefox on Solus was not blocked, so the message is targeted. I just updated to the Chromium based version on Edge on Windows and will have see what happens with that.

    Edit: Edge is supported.
    Last edited by Frogs Hair; 1 Week Ago at 02:05 AM.
    “Start where you are. Use what you have. Do what you can".

    Ubuntu Documentation Search: Popular Pages
    Ubuntu: Security Basics
    Ubuntu: Flavors

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The Left Coast of the USA
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Kubuntu

    Re: Sites that don't support Ubuntu browsers

    Interestingly, on Solus using Firefox I get a message saying that Sling is not supported on Firefox.

    Installing Chrome on Solus to see what happens.

    Edit: Chrome on Solus works fine. Looks like the target of their ire may be Firefox.
    Last edited by QIII; 1 Week Ago at 04:29 AM.
    Please read The Forum Rules and The Forum Posting Guidelines

    A thing discovered and kept to oneself must be discovered time and again by others. A thing discovered and shared with others need be discovered only the once.
    This universe is crazy. I'm going back to my own.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •