What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers' points of view on the headlines making news.
44 Comments
- JoeMenthol, on 10/12/2007, -49/+111Just another example of how Firefox is the buggiest and least secure browser available. I honestly don't know why anyone bothers with Firefox anymore, what with it being loaded with spyware and viruses.
(Going for the negative digg record on this one!) - DD32, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24Its done serverside, So i'll take a punt that they rely on the version of .NET in the user agent string
Lets just see... (User Agents)
Firefox:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060728 Firefox/1.5.0.6
IE6:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Opera9:
Opera/9.02 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en)
Opera9 masking as IE:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; en)
(All the above, exept IE say its not uptodate)
Doing a quick check with CURL, it turns out not to be the .NET stuff.(As it doesnt matter if its included or not.)
If "SV1" is included in the Useragent, then MS knows its SP2, simple.
This Opera useragent string is Fine:
Opera/9.02 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en; SV1;)
So Its not MS's fault, Its simply the browser not passing enough information on, Better to suggest that the computer isnt up to date rather than say that its A-OK.
D - duality, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16Gee, that's a tough question.....
((Currently running Firefox Portable from my flash drive, plugged into a relative's laptop with XP installed on it.))
And yes, this computer says the same thing, even though it left the factory with SP2 installed on it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8If you block 440, then who is gona bury him?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@holmes
And that's what you have to say to an operating system that discriminates against you based on what browser you choose to install on that system? No law against using what you want, no warning on the box "Use our browser with this system or ELSE!!!", no allowance made for web developers who run both browsers?
Remarkable technology, Microsoft! Somehow, they've managed to put in an algorithm that saps all of the pride out of the user's body. Now THAT'S innovation! - antiintel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7IE6 was released at the same time Windows XP was. Not when SP2 was released.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9well, mcatrage has a good point. it's like going to windows update with firefox, why do it when you're just gonna get a 'incompatable browser' error
- Dog_Paddle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Ok i440, why do you comment stories? I'm sure 80% of the Digg populations has already blocked you, and your 1kb worth of a comment is a waste of my bandwith.
I have no idea why I'm burning a 12 year old, but whatever, he is the reason we get Pokemon on the front page. - jasonsfakename, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Maybe it was something they simply overlooked? Why does everyone assume that Microsoft is always the bad guy and out to get everyone. You don't become a multi billion dollar company by lying to your customer base. I also tested this in my firefox browser and did not see anything out of the ordinary.
- PsychoPNut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5And since you even went there on Linux, I bet you tried to update it too.
- spyder91, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5There's an extension for that.
- holmes101, on 10/12/2007, -30/+33So Microsoft doesn't like it when people use firefox. Whats new?
It's their site and they can do with it what they like, whether it's truth-full or not. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It looks like it was just a user agent issue... That's probably how they were determining whether or not a client was SP2 capable or not.
But, luckily, you don't have to take my word for it...if you visit the site right now, you can probably see the actions their taking to resolve it.
When I visited the site using my normal browser on Windows (Firefox), I received this...
http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2001067920100010429
On IE, I received this:
http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2005115762638926344
It appears that the developers decided to add a line to echo back the user agent that the browser was sending to the page in an act of desperate troubleshooting. I've done it before with Intranet sites that I've had user agent parsing issues with, but I can't imagine being in the position of (effectively) breaking a customer facing site for troubleshooting purposes.
It's clear MS has a few Digg/Ars readers on their staff that noticed this slightly embarrassing situation and are...right now...in the process of resolving it.
It's somewhat comical to see "panic troubleshooting" being engaged in on a public Microsoft web page. I can't help but feel bad for their developers. - PsychoPNut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3they worked fine
- DD32, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The Windows XP site:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/default.mspx
Linked to within the linked article... - Xilon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Who cares, if his posts stay at +1 then I'd be fine with that, as long as no one reads his ***** or comments on it. He probably wants negative points... don't give them to him, block him instead.
- VSKBadCRC, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I'm not sure this news article is accurate, I don't see the problem they're describing. If I go to microsoft.com I'm shown the normal site layout, nothing on the main page tells me that I'm using the wrong browser or that I'm lacking any Windows updates.
If from this main page I go into the Windows Update section, I'm told that I need to be using Internet Explorer for the automated update capabilities of the website, or I could simply download them from a link provided on said webpage...
Where is everyone getting this error message from? - Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ok then i guess its NOT called compition
on a side note
i am a firefox user but i realy dont care about the issue at hand since i never use the xp page
with vista coming out the xp page will be dead unless you dont update or will be dead if a number of people just make the plan to move to an alternitive (mac/linux) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i got no such errors when i did it,
but the layout did look bloody wierd, so perhaps they're trying to fix the problem and not doing a good job of it - rboyce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Although IE 6 was released with XP, IE 6 SP2 was released with XP SP2. So zeptobyte is probably right in that it's just checking the user-agent string for "SP2." This is probably better than trying to load an ActiveX control to check, and just as compatible with Firefox.
- ziadoz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah I'm sure Microsoft are targeting all Firefox users with this deliberatley. Theres no way in a million years this could ever have been an accident. Get a grip, some people will do anything to push their favourite brands. We all (those of us with intelligence) know this is an accident/bug, end of discussion.
- redxii, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Might be that other browsers only say "Windows NT 5.1". Maybe if it said "Windows NT 5.1.2600.2180" then it could be determined that it's SP2, otherwise it isn't.
- uownedge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@holmes, I almost agree with you. Almost. The thing of it is, it's poor web development. A properly developed website will support the majority of popular browsers as well as it can. It's not really *wrong* of Microsoft if they choose to not care about this issue, but it's still poor form and bad practice.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1heres a solution
edit your user agent via config - Xilon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well it's true, why bother going to a site with a browser than isn't made by Microsoft if you know that they don't give a ***** about non-ms products... or even about the customers that do buy MS products. Just get linux and never have the problem, lol.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Pssst , foks: I figured out long ago that i440 *loves* it when you abuse him. Gives him a sproing.
- whitehatlurker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3You may HAVE had a point, but you got DUG down because it wasn't a good one. There are several browsers running on Windows XP, not all of which are MS IE.
It's yet another example of MicroSoft ignoring its customers. - smohan123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@i440
So you're a digg troll? Hmm, seems like we're feeding the fire by even acknowledging your presence. I dunno what the big deal is, since you're digged down enough that most people won't even read your comments, but maybe rational thinking is in short supply.
My method of dealing with disruptive people is to ignore them. In that case, I suppose this post is really directed to those who are fighting you, like Dog Paddle.
Honestly, it's not even worth spending time talking about so I'll end here. - bobbyi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@DD32: It's not going to be tied to the .NET version because that doesn't reliably tell what OS version you are on. It is almost certainly going by the 'SV1' token in the IE user-agent because that is what indicates that you are on SP2.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2they alwasy have.. look at when you go to msnbc.com and try to play a video... a casual user may think that firefox is not advanced enough to play thier videos. I wrote them and asked them about firefox support and they said they were actively working on it and no they didnt want to alienate users, even if we were only a small percent of the net.. that was 2 years ago.
ANd to the its their site they can do what they please.... well not after an antitrust ruling, they were already chatised in the past for making firefox break. Now they are just doing it more subtly. - Nohbudy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You could have just linked directly to the website in question.
Besides you blog spamming, this is the Microsoft website. They will assume that you use IE, so it can only be assumed that they will see you as in need to upgrade. You get the message, then its your own fault.
For the horde! - coreyb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The article was interesting, yet boring as all heck, but the ensuing onslaught in the comments section was well worth the read... does any one want a cookie?
- SilentMichael, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Anything that goes to that site that isn't Microsoft-made is going to get that message. Why only mention Firefox in the article? Oh yeah, FF vs IE is the "big thing" right now.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Not sure why, but those links were not clickable...if you paste them into the address bar they should work :-)
- eurocrisp, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Could it be that Firefox is not letting the site prod your system for information?
- highphilosopher, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2HAHA apparently I need to upgrade my Ubuntu Linux to Service Pack 2 !!!!!
- zeptobyte, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Wasn't IE6 released as a part of SP2? If so, it's likely that the site just checks that you're running IE6 or IE7. Because if you are, you have SP2. If not, you may or may not. I guess it just assumes not. I don't think this qualifies as "lying" to Firefox users. And I don't think it's picking out Firefox users either. Someone needs to try it in other browsers to see.
- cyssero, on 04/18/2009, -7/+3I blocked i440. Best move I ever made on digg.
- iNoles, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I'm not suprised of this. Since its Microsoft would use Active X Control to check to see your system is up-2-date?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6They have been lying to their consumer base for years.
Why is it so important they are lying to Firefox users now? - thefinger, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0and you have been masturbating for just as long if not longer
- i440, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1"he is the reason we get Pokemon on the front page."
Harsh. Pokémon isn't that bad you know.
You know, Dog Paddle, once you stop taking my posts (or other similar things in life) so seriously, life will improve for you. Right now, you are taking offence to my post(s). (Or so it appears.) This is not the best use of your energy. Instead, why not make fun of the fact that I have so many negative diggs in my last post? I mean really, who on earth gets -72 diggs in an article of this popularity? I have twice as many negative Diggs as there are comments in this article! At this rate, I really will start breaking records!
My comments aren't meant to offend anyone, and most of my comments aren't even meant to be taken seriously. In fact, if Digg did not have a 'block' feature, I would never make any more negative posts of any kind.
To any user — if I do offend you, then I have failed you, and you should block me now. I will tell you how.
To the right of my username, you will see how long ago I posted this message. Further still to the right, you will see an 'international no' symbol. You may click it to block me. Then, all of my posts will be buried for you, or you won't see them anymore, or however it works.
But really, why must one take offense to some frivelous comments on the internet, anyway?
P.S. — Some of you may just find my comments annoying. If that's the case, then, er, sorry. XD Like I said, please block away! - Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2its called competition
- i440, on 10/12/2007, -148/+8"(Going for the negative digg record on this one!)"
Excuse me! That's supposed to be my job...
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is