Closed Bug 71568 Opened 23 years ago Closed 23 years ago

[UA]should User-Agent string be give version of Mac OS?

Categories

(Core :: Networking: HTTP, defect, P4)

Product:
Core
Component:
Networking: HTTP
Platform:
PowerPC
macOS
Type:
defect

Tracking

()

Status:
VERIFIED FIXED
Milestone:
mozilla0.9.4

People

(Reporter: dbaron, Assigned: sdagley)

References

(
URL
)

Details

Attachments

(1 file)

Patch to make UA indicate when client is running on OS X
1.01 KB, patch
Details | Diff | Splinter Review 
Someone sent me a question by email asking how the UA string on OS X would be
different from the UA strings on other versions of MacOS.  Currently, it won't,
but that seems odd, considering the other platforms.  Do we want to give more
version information in the UA string on macs in general.  (That would be useful
for, e.g., bugzilla's sniffing and correct setting of the OS field.)
Considering the potential problems with giving the kernel version on Linux, it
would probably be a bad idea to give out the exact version number of Mac OS X.
The exact OS version is not something that web sites need to know.
The EXACT version number, no, but it should report the underlying OS properly, like:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Mac OS X; en-US; 0.8.1)

Mac OS X is inherently G3+ only, and *completely* different from classic Mac OS,
and PPC only implies that it's running on anything from a 601 to a G4. This
would help conform the Mac platform to something that looks more like the
Windows examples on http://www.mozilla.org/build/revised-user-agent-strings.html
This would also be quite useful for website statistics. It would be great to be
able to see how many users coming by a website were MacOS 9 or less, and how
many were OS X.

- Adam
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Priority: -- → P4
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.0
*** Bug 86866 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Commenting on bug 86866:

IMO, uname -srm reveals too much information (Darwin version).

If a site requires plug-in foo, the author can say it requires plug-in foo.
Letting the potentially ignorant site admin kick out people with an unapproved
platform is a bad thing. Plug-in foo may exist--the site admin just isn't aware
of it.

Mozilla is supposed to have platform parity. The platform information can be
used mainly for:
* Gathering statistics (might be a good thing if it motivates site admins 
  to use standard cross-platform formats, but does a site admin have the 
  right to know details? Probably not.)
* Excluding users of unapproved platforms (bad thing)
If one really wants to focus on the issue of site admins blocking based on 
unsupported platforms, then UA should never report windows vs. mac vs. unix.

aside from stats, it could also be useful for download links, just like people 
use windows revs to direct them to the right download, you could direct the user 
to an OS X vs. classic download.

i can understand the issue of not wanting to report every dot rev, that seems to 
make sense.  so maybe just reporting the major version would be enough.  my only 
concern there would be when 10.1 comes out will there be some issue that some 
site designers might find useful to know (for download, etc., just like you need 
to know 98 vs. 95).

*** Bug 92346 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
IMO sending different files for download depending on the UA string is evil. I
might be using Mac OS X and downloading a Classic version of a piece of software
for testing purposes. Or I might be downloading a file that it supposed to end
up on a Mac running Mac OS 8.6 in the next room. Or I might be downloading a
Windows file to help a relative who has a slow connection. And so on.

If you make files available for download, the right thing to do is to provide
links for all versions and letting the user choose.
The platform I'm using, my UI language etc. are none of the site admin's
business--even it might be interesting to gather statistics.

Differentiating with the various Windows versions is no reason to give the exact
version number of Mac OS X. IMO, the Windows version could just say "Windows"
regardless of the version.
Personally, I have no problem of distinguishing between Win9x (Win95, 98, ME)
and WinNT (WinNT 3.x, 4, W2K). Similarily, I see no problem in reporting that
the user runs Mac OS X. But any more detail (like the version number within the
OS family) can be a problem, because it might hint at bugs in the OS of the user.
By the way, IE, iCab, Opera, Lynx and OmniWeb don't say they are on Mac OS X.
*** Bug 93812 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
taking bug from dbaron and targeting 0.9.4
Assignee: dbaron → sdagley
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Target Milestone: mozilla1.0 → mozilla0.9.4
Keywords: nsenterprise+
pinkerton, sfraser, can I get an r=/sr= on the attached patch for indicating 
running under OS X in the UA?  Thanks,
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
why not make the two similar?

PPC MacOS X
PPC MacOS 9

What about OS 8, and OS 11, 12, ...?
To address pinkerton's question:

The original request made of me was a way to differentiate between the Classic 
and OS X versions.  I didn't see any reason to change the Classic UA

To address dbaron's question:

The 'proper' name for the currently shipping OS X is Mac OS X 10.0.4.  It remains 
to be seen if Apple christens version 11 as OS X 11.0 or Mac OS XI.  I understand 
the amount of detail on the version of Windows being run is going to be reduced 
so indicating just Mac OS X seemed to be the right thing to do.

okies. r=pink

this change seems fine to me (r/sr=darin)
I agree. Check out the attached patch; there's enough info here to tell whether
the user is running OS X & greater, or OS 9 or lesser. OS X denotes a major
architectural change, which could be useful for some websites to know, and is
certainly useful for stats.

- Adam
Asa and his computer are having a spat right now so I'm putting the a=Asa in the 
bug for him

Checked in
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 23 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
VERIFIED (for tever).

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:0.9.3+) Gecko/20010905
Netscape6/6.1b1 

While we are giving our opinions here...

MacOS X is more like NeXTstep than MacOS 5-9. 
I think UA strings should at least reveal the basic OS architecture, so pre-X
vs. X+ is a good break point. Similarly, OS/2, Win3.1, Win 95/8 and Win NT
probably all should be (and are) differentiated in the UA string.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
*** Bug 106109 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: