Hi, Mark!
I have not used IceCat 102 myself, but the user that reported this
claimed they were using 102.3esr. I pulled the user agent string from
nginx logs from a jitsi-meet instance so some people are using it in the
wild.
I made a server-side change to correct IceCat to Firefox on the server
side and asked them to try again [1]. The single change did not fix the
issue, but after the user claims that the page worked after they
disabling privacy.resistFingerprinting.
[1]
https://github.com/jitsi/js-utils/blob/master/browser-detection/BrowserDetection.js#L19
Best,
Michael McMahon | Web Developer, Free Software Foundation
GPG Key: 4337 2794 C8AD D5CA 8FCF FA6C D037 59DA B600 E3C0
https://fsf.org
On 9/22/22 20:51, Mark H Weaver wrote:
Hi Michael,
Michael McMahon <[email protected]> writes:
I received a report that an IceCat user was not able to use Jitsi with
IceCat 102. They reported that changing the user agent string to
Firefox fixed their issue.
[...]
IceCat 102's user agent string looks like this:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 IceCat/102.0
That's not what I'm seeing with IceCat 102.3.0-guix0-preview1 as built
by GNU Guix. Using a freshly created profile, I visited a website
served by my own web server, and then looked at its logs, which revealed
that my Guix-built IceCat 102 sent the following user agent string:
"Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/102.0"
Can you tell me more about how you built or acquired the IceCat 102 that
produced the user agent string ending with "IceCat/102.0"?
Thanks,
Mark
