Full Article Attached Evangelism Update

Saturday August 25th, 2001

Yancy writes in "Macromedia is finally allowing Mozilla-based browsers access to their website! Please use the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of their website to thank them." Macromedia is one of the major sites that is targeting with their evangelism effort.

Along with this, Katsuhiko Momoi sent in news about a new Tech Evangelism catagory in Bugzilla. Click full article to learn more about it.


by jelwell

Sunday August 26th, 2001 3:31 AM

I think when they redid the site with the new look they just forgot to block Mozilla based web browsers. Maybe they'll remember soon. :P Joseph Elwell.

#2 Re:

by klee

Sunday August 26th, 2001 4:26 AM

No, in, they already explicitley check for NS6 and Mozilla.

#3 And works now!

by odd

Sunday August 26th, 2001 6:29 AM

And finally works with Flash!

#4 Mozilla/Shockwave

by PsychoCS

Sunday August 26th, 2001 7:26 PM

Yes!! I noticed this about a week ago and practically jumped for joy! Now the only major plugin that Mozilla needs is that of MSN Gaming Zone (though I have a feeling M$N is making us wait on purpose)...

#10 Re: Re:

by jelwell

Monday August 27th, 2001 11:31 AM

Just because they recognize it doesn't mean they didn't forget to block it.

I don't see any code, there or on any other page of theirs that redirects unwanted browsers out.

You don't prove that they forgot to do something by pointing out something different. The browser_ns6() function is never even called by their homepage, and neither is the browser_ns() function.

Joseph Elwell.

#23 Re: Re: Re:

by shin

Tuesday September 4th, 2001 2:49 AM

Maybe because the redirect is a serverside one... that seems more intelligent than a javascript one.

#5 Re:

by asa

Sunday August 26th, 2001 10:00 PM

C'mon Joe. Arun has been busting his butt over this and finally succeeds and all you can do is diminish his efforts and by suggesting it was an accident? Did you miss the Netscape all-hands where Chris Nalls specifically congratulated Arun (and others) on the work they put in making this happen?


#9 Re: Re:

by jelwell

Monday August 27th, 2001 11:23 AM

Yes, I did miss it. Was this all-hands recently? I have not been to an all hands in 4 weeks. Last Wednesday there was no dial in number and the previous 3 I was in India.

I want to personally congratulate Arun (and others). Thanks for spanking those guys.

Joseph Elwell.

#6 What about the plugin though?

by thoffman11

Monday August 27th, 2001 6:33 AM

It appears that the shockwave plugin still doesn't work for Mozilla/N6

#7 since when

by archen

Monday August 27th, 2001 9:26 AM

I've had flash with Mozilla for quite a while and it's worked fine (On Win32). Just download the Flash plugin installer for Netscape 4, and try to install it. If you don't have N4 (like me) the installer gets upset, but you just manually find the mozilla plugins directory '/bin/plugins'. If you do have N4 it probably just dumps the plugins in the N4 plugins directory and you'll have to manually move it.

If you still have problems (on Win32) there are probably other evil forces at work.

#8 Not Flash

by johnlar

Monday August 27th, 2001 10:30 AM

Its not Flash that is the problem, its Shockwave, that doesn't quite work.

#11 Looks like it works now.

by jelwell

Monday August 27th, 2001 11:32 AM

I was even surprised to find the Shockwave installer autodetect both Netscape 6.1 and Mozilla (as well as IE) on my win2000 machine.

Joseph Elwell.

#12 re: Looks like it works now

by thoffman11

Tuesday August 28th, 2001 7:38 AM

The website still doesn't regonize Mozilla as a browser that it has a player for, but the installer works...interesting thing, it said I had moz .9.4 on my machine, and I haven't gotten latest since .9.3 came out.

#13 Re: Looks like it works now.

by wholmeswa

Tuesday August 28th, 2001 8:06 AM

FWIW, I tried downloading the new Shockwave and install into my copy of NS 6.1. This still has not fixed the crasher problem I'm having exiting the "History IQ" game at (Yes, I have reported it to Netscape via a trouble report and numerous talkback dumps.)

Would it be useful if I also reported this problem to Macromedia? (I'm not sure how good the communication of this type is issue is between Netscape/AOL, and Macromedia.)

Wayne Holmes

#14 GeoCities

by kberk

Tuesday August 28th, 2001 7:46 PM

Now if we can only get to fix their Add-Square.

#15 Bank of America

by andrewgaul

Tuesday August 28th, 2001 8:01 PM

Bank of America is currently incompatible with Netscape 6.x/Mozilla. I mailed the webmaster, but (s)he did not have an encouraging response, saying that they would "look into the situation".

#16 Re: Bank of America

by ksheka

Tuesday August 28th, 2001 8:22 PM

Better than Citibank, who's answer was "We don't support it".

#17 Well then...

by Waldo

Wednesday August 29th, 2001 10:25 AM

Be sure to let Citibank know that if thy won't support you, you won't support them.

Then switch to another bank.

#19 Works for me

by paparhga

Thursday August 30th, 2001 6:30 PM

well, the on-line banking for the state of CA has always been working for me. I sign-in through this url and had no problems whatsoever.

Where exactly did you find the incompatibility??

#18 Fidelity (

by jrs66

Wednesday August 29th, 2001 7:08 PM

Filelity won't allow mozilla. I must use IE to see my funds, no fun. Kicker is, there's absolutly no fidelity email address on the site to report this problem to.

#20 Re: Fidelity (

by paparhga

Thursday August 30th, 2001 6:32 PM

yeah, an email address doesn't seem to exist, but a web-form for all related comments can be found at:

#21 Re: Fidelity (

by NeilPryde

Friday August 31st, 2001 4:16 PM

Wat exactly happens, tell me. Did you try to change the useragent setting in your prefs.js?

user_pref("general.useragent.override", "[some info]");

Try to replace [some info] with IE look a like information and it might work :) /Neil

#22 Re: Re: Fidelity (

by rkl

Saturday September 1st, 2001 7:29 AM

Since this is a relevant thread in this Evangelism article, I'll point out that changing your user agent string to match IE's is not a good thing. Why ? Simple:

The sites monitoring their Web logs will add your accesses to their "%age of users running IE", distorting IE"s market share. This in turn will further convince them that IE is "the only browser we're going to support" and you can bet that means IE-only proprietary extensions too.

It's a good thing that the agent-changing pref is only in your prefs file (which <1% of end-users will ever hand-edit) and doesn't have a UI.

It's a bad mistake that Opera made for example - you can pick between several user agents in their UI (any bets that a lot of users fake Opera as IE to get into browser-sniffing sites ?) and this hinders Opera's visibility no end (same "oh that's IE, let's add it to IE's market share" problem I mentioned above).

Personally, I'd be in favour of pulling the Mozilla option from the prefs file too and also obfuscating the string in the binary to stop people with binary editors changing it (yes, you could get the source, change it and re-compile, but that's a huge task for users). We need to make sure that Mozilla (and NS 6.X) are properly ID'ed in Web site logs.

If a site doesn't support Mozilla/NS 6.X, e-mail them and tell them you'll take your business elsewhere unless they do. If you can fake Mozilla to look like IE and get into the site, then you're far less likely to complain to the Webmaster, IMHO (and by the time they throw in the IE-only extensions, it'll be too late to complain !).