Loading Profile...
Flock 2.5 userAgent Value Issue
In examining the Flock 2.5 userAgent value, the identifiers for flock and flock version number are missing. For example, see below for the Flock 2.0.3 userAgent value and the Flock 2.5 userAgent value.
Flock 2.0.3 userAgent value
mozilla/5.0 (windows; u; windows nt 5.1; en-us; rv:1.9.0.5) gecko/2008121620 firefox/3.0.5 flock/2.0.3
Flock 2.5 userAgent value
mozilla/5.0 (windows; u; windows nt 5.1; en-us; rv:1.9.0.10) gecko/2009051221 firefox/3.0.10
Moreover, removing the identifiers for flock and flock version from the Flock userAgent value makes the Flock userAgent value similar to the Firefox userAgent value. For example, see below for the Firefox 3.0.10 userAgent value.
Firefox 3.0.10 userAgent value
mozilla/5.0 (windows; u; windows nt 5.1; en-us; rv:1.9.0.10) gecko/2009042316 firefox/3.0.10 (.net clr 3.5.30729)
Is removing the identifiers for flock and flock version number from the Flock 2.5 userAgent value an oversight or does it mark a new syntax for Flock userAgent values moving forward?
I hope this is simply an oversight for the following two reasons:
1.) removing the identifiers for flock and flock version number from the Flock userAgent value would make Flock the only current major Browser not to have such identifiers in their userAgent value. (For evidence of this please see here: http://www.stevestechresource.com/str... )
2.) removing the identifiers for flock and flock version number from the Flock userAgent value would make it difficult if not impossible for a script to "positively" identify a Flock Browser. Instead, a script would have to identify a Flock Browser on a "negative" basis, that is, if the Browser cannot be identified as some other Browser (such as IE, Firefox, Safari) then it must be Flock, which, needless to say, is not developer friendly.
Regards,
Steve
Flock 2.0.3 userAgent value
mozilla/5.0 (windows; u; windows nt 5.1; en-us; rv:1.9.0.5) gecko/2008121620 firefox/3.0.5 flock/2.0.3
Flock 2.5 userAgent value
mozilla/5.0 (windows; u; windows nt 5.1; en-us; rv:1.9.0.10) gecko/2009051221 firefox/3.0.10
Moreover, removing the identifiers for flock and flock version from the Flock userAgent value makes the Flock userAgent value similar to the Firefox userAgent value. For example, see below for the Firefox 3.0.10 userAgent value.
Firefox 3.0.10 userAgent value
mozilla/5.0 (windows; u; windows nt 5.1; en-us; rv:1.9.0.10) gecko/2009042316 firefox/3.0.10 (.net clr 3.5.30729)
Is removing the identifiers for flock and flock version number from the Flock 2.5 userAgent value an oversight or does it mark a new syntax for Flock userAgent values moving forward?
I hope this is simply an oversight for the following two reasons:
1.) removing the identifiers for flock and flock version number from the Flock userAgent value would make Flock the only current major Browser not to have such identifiers in their userAgent value. (For evidence of this please see here: http://www.stevestechresource.com/str... )
2.) removing the identifiers for flock and flock version number from the Flock userAgent value would make it difficult if not impossible for a script to "positively" identify a Flock Browser. Instead, a script would have to identify a Flock Browser on a "negative" basis, that is, if the Browser cannot be identified as some other Browser (such as IE, Firefox, Safari) then it must be Flock, which, needless to say, is not developer friendly.
Regards,
Steve
I’m upset
3
people have this question
I have this question, too!
Tell me when someone answers.
The more people who ask this question, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who ask this question, the more it gets noticed.
-
Inappropriate?Hi Steve,
It was done intentionally because we were having too many reports of websites not working in Flock, even though they worked in Firefox. Many sites have browser detection that tells anyone not using a known recent major browser version to upgrade, so for instance some Flock user were being told to "upgrade to IE6 or later" in order to view some sites!
The ideal way to deal with this would be to convince all those sites to adjust their browser detection for Flock. But that would take a lot of convincing. We're a small company with relatively limited resources compared to the other major browsers. We thought our users would be better served by us continuing to improve Flock, instead. So we simplified our UA string to basically be the same as Firefox.
--Chris
The company says
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?Hi Chris,
It was necessary to give to the user the option of use of the given option in the course of program installation, or at its first start in the form of the prevention. By the current moment from the given innovation there is more than harm, than advantage.
--Vadim
I’m frustrated
-
Inappropriate?Hello all,
It may make sense to try and detect the presence of two strings, or of the presence of one and absence of another (such as when detecting Safari vs. Chrome), when trying to detect Flock. Of course, this is assuming the same Gecko build date is used on all versions of Flock 2.5...you'd probably need to maintain an array of Gecko build dates that Flock uses once 2.5.1 (or whatever) is released.
In JavaScript:
if (navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Flock") !== -1 || (navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Firefox") !== -1 && navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Gecko/2009051221") !== -1))
{
document.write("You're using Flock!");
}
else
{
document.writeln("You're not using Flock, so you're not cool.");
}
In PHP:
$userAgent = $_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'];
if (stripos($userAgent, 'flock') === true || (stripos($userAgent, 'firefox') === true && stripos($userAgent, 'gecko/2009051221') === true))
{
echo 'You're using Flock!';
}
else
{
echo 'You're not using Flock, so you're not cool.';
}
The JavaScript works, but I haven't tested the PHP. Some modifications may be necessary, as I'm doing it from memory.
Hope this helps! -
Inappropriate?@Chris:
Hello,
and what about something like:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.13) Flock/2.5.2 Gecko/2009080717 Firefox/3.0.13
That not making a big difference finally, but this way Flock can be spotted.
(Or may be a private JS class like Opera do)
I’m frustrated
EMPLOYEE
