Waterfox 56.2.3 (UA … rv:56.0; Waterfox) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.2.3) outdated according to the Outdated Browser service

[grahamperrin]

Hi

Please be aware that Waterfox 56.2.0 (tagged in GitHub) is a recent release, not yet outdated.

Given what's below, I don't expect the Outdated Browser service to grant an exception.

Any advice that you might like to share will be gratefully appreciated.

Essentially

For Waterfox 56.2.0, https://udger.com/resources/online-parser reports, in my (edge) case:

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0

– no hint that it's anything other than an outdated Mozilla Firefox.

Background

A few brief points.

Recent months

1. Waterfox 56.0 was based on Firefox 56.0.2 whilst Firefox 56.0.2 was supported by Mozilla
2. introduction of a default Waterfox-specific user agent string proved to be an issue for a significant number of sites – maybe not a problem for 'power users', but enough of an issue for a subsequent release of Waterfox to (again) default to a string that is primarily associated with Mozilla Firefox
3. Add Waterfox support - it's very recent & up to date browser-update/browser-update#397 (2018-05-23) understandably notes that given the current default UA string of Waterfox, Waterfox cannot be distinguished from outdated Firefox
4. re: User-Agent: Waterfox BrowserWorks/Waterfox#178 (comment) (2018-05-23) under User-Agent: Waterfox · Issue #178 · MrAlex94/Waterfox I began experimenting with string A below.

Looking ahead

From The Waterfox Blog | Waterfox, Its Legacy and Looking to the Future (2018-04-28):

… The future variant will be:

• Based on ESR releases …

Some of the technical flesh to that bone is, if you like, at BrowserWorks/Waterfox#267 (comment) (2018-03-27) under Waterfox Quantum? · Issue #267 · MrAlex94/Waterfox

Experimental string A

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:56.2.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.2.0

Truly there will never be a Firefox 56.2.0.

The distinction might allow services such as http://outdatedbrowser.com/ and Browser-Update.org to be enhanced; maybe to associate Firefox/56.2.0 with Waterfox (not with Firefox) and recognise Waterfox 56.2.0 as current.

(Note to self: experiments with this string A lapsed when other things took priority. Resuming this morning.)

Experimental string B

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0

Of course that's not experimental where the browser is truly Firefox. However if I choose to use that string for Waterfox 56.2.0 – and this is not an invitation to others to follow suit, at this time – it'll be sane for me to treat it as experimental.

My own environment – edge case

$ pkg info waterfox | grep Version
Version        : 56.2.0.31
$ date ; uname -v
Thu 31 May 2018 08:08:04 BST
FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT #3 r334382: Thu May 31 01:37:12 BST 2018     root@momh167-gjp4-hpelitebook8570p-freebsd:/usr/obj/usr/src/amd64.amd64/sys/GENERIC 

That's exceptional, edge case, FreeBSD. The majority of Waterfox users use platforms that are Tier-1 for Mozilla Firefox support purposes.

[grahamperrin]

Meta, tracking: (LIST) Waterfox issues yet unresolved. · Issue #538 · MrAlex94/Waterfox

[grahamperrin]

Re: the closing comment in browser-update/browser-update issue 397

In lieu of experimental string 'A',

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:56.2.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.2.0

I'm now using an experimental string 'A-01',

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:56.2) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.2

[grahamperrin]

From the opening post:

no hint that it's anything other than an outdated Mozilla Firefox.

tl;dr

Strings for Waterfox are now distinct from strings for Firefox 👍

The three strings that are primarily associated with Waterfox 56.2.3 (released yesterday):

• Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT x.y; Win64; x64; rv:56.0; Waterfox) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.2.3
• Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X x.y; rv:56.0; Waterfox) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.2.3
• Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:56.0; Waterfox) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.2.3

Please, are these suitable for whitelisting?

[SuperOP535]

https://github.com/burocratik/outdated-browser/wiki/FAQ#-went-to-the-website-outdatedbrowsercom-and-i-get-a-message-saying-that-my-browser-is-outdated-when-its-not

[grahamperrin]

@SuperOP535 I did recently read the FAQ (thanks) but didn't want to repeat myself, #296 (comment) asks:

Is there a URL I can visit to more positively test?