On Thursday 19 May 2011 06:27, singhals ([email protected]) opined: > Bob Melson wrote: >> <rant> >> It has nothing to do with the original topic, but reading the above >> brought to mind some of _my_ pet peeves, large among 'em those sites >> which will recognize every browser known to man, but only if they're on >> a windows >> and/or mac/os box. Or those who don't understand that Firefox and >> Seamonkey are different branches of the same (mozilla) development tree >> and piss and moan about an "unrecognized" browser (seamonkey) while >> merrily serving pages to that very same browser. >> >> Yeah, yeah, I _know_, 'tis a windows/mac world out there and those of us >> who've chosen to eschew either/both have only ourselves to blame - but, >> dammit, a browser is still a browser, notwithstanding the o/s it's >> running >> on. If the page being served will display correctly in, e.g, firefox >> over there, it likely will display equally correctly in firefox over >> here. >> >> Sheesh! >> >> </rant> > > (G) Now, Bob, chill /out/. Somebody told me, once upon a > time, how to make my computer lie about its browser and OS. > Can't say I remember the details now, but someone must. > Won't make a lot of difference, because the other side will > then grouse and complain because your OS is unsupported, but > ...? > > Cheryl Shouldn't have to do that, however. If browser-of-choice runs in both environments, then that should be sufficient. The server side software developer should be concerned with _content_ and not what o/s the client is running. Back in the day, when I wuz a contractor at MCI, the web-based product we were supporting was designed to run ONLY on windoze with IE - anything else was either an error message or a meaningless hash. Poor design, but kept a bunch of programmers employed (and lots of headaches for us sysadmins). Steamed Ol' Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes -- Thomas Paine