Please add mobile device:

Device: Samsung Galaxy S3 / Model SPH-L710
OS: Android version 4.3
Browser: Chrome version 32.0.1700.99
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.3; SPH-L710 Build/JSS15J) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/32.0.1700.99 Mobile Safari/537.36
Back to top

added, found in device samsung section. Also new mobile stuff added. Thanks for submitting a well done ua string add request.
Back to top

Hi,

Just alerting that I have found an empty useragent attribute in the xml.

Here is the entry (under <folder description="Browsers - Windows">):



Also based off of some other resources the smart TV and gaming console sections may be out of date. Unfortunately I do not have exact user agents at the moment but here is the corresponding regexs:




Back to top

thanks for the empty alert.

it's a given that sections, particularly in mobile/tv etc, will be out of date, I don't use any of those devices, so they depend strictly on user input, I don't try to follow those things that closely because they change constantly.

So when I get solid updates here, I add them, maybe I'll research it a bit and add a few more things, but in general I never sit and ask myself what is out of date, except in browsers, where I know roughly what is what.
Back to top

Other than this forum is this file being kept in a repository somewhere like GitHub? I've found a few repos on GitHub that people have created to store their copies of this file but doesn't seem like there is anywhere other than this forum topic that is as rich of a resource for the actual file and update requests.

Also, is there any sort of license for this file on this forum topic? If I created my own repo to track my copy of this file should I be concerned about using any particular LICENSE or not or just give credit where it is due and point back to this forum topic?

Many thanks for what you've done here for so long. I've come back here to grab refreshed copies several times over the years and just now thinking it would be great to manage within a share repository with pull requests, etc.

-Chris
Back to top

There's no git. For some of my bigger projects like inxi, sgfxi, smxi, svmi, i have googlecode svn for each of them. But those are actual programs, not data files. If I set up something for my stuff here, like the php browser detection, computer info box, this user agent xml, maybe I'd do it with googlecode git, and if I did it, I'd do all the stuff at once.

code.google.com/p/inxi/source/list there's the inxi commit stuff, he, it's been busy lately.

I don't really like using git/svn type stuff because it means I always have to update that stuff too, a price I am willing to pay when it comes to things that are distributed widely and used by various Linux distributions, who like to see version controlled stuff, for good reason, but for a basic xml data file, it's just data, almost all of it copied from various data sources across the web, which I try to give credit to in the about section when they are particularly useful, but claiming ownership of what is essentially public data in xml format doesn't seem appropriate.

If I added version tracking it would be svn so I don't have to learn or deal with git, since all my other stuff is on svn. Note that svn isn't that great, but it's what I use so that's what I use, I don't enjoy the learning curve everytime technology x or y is replaced by technology xx or yy. I wish git had been the default when I set up svn stuff, but it wasn't, so svn is what I am stuck with.

Since the data has no license, it would not be appropriate for you to add one, though maybe I'll add a creative commons or GNU documentation license if it's appropriate now that you mention it, at some point, maybe next release, we'll see. If this did have any license, it might be best for me to use the same one Chris Pederick chose for the useragent switcher, not sure, data is not the same as code.

I don't care what people do with this file, but to me it's not a great idea to create alternate locations to get it since it then becomes difficult if not impossible for people to know which is the actual official source, ie, here, then you'd never know if they are keeping up, have lost interest, stopped tracking, etc, all the normal and standard outcomes when people get bored with doing something and then stop.

That's all I can tell you.

Re the time, I have to say, I'm pretty disgusted with what the browser people are doing, this stupid endless version number inflation has really gotten out of hand, when is it going to stop, at version 295 of firefox? Unix type version numbers were a good idea then, and they are today, they allow for incremental releases, point releases, major version releases, all in a clear and readily identifiable way, it's too bad chrome/firefox have dumped that fine tradition, that's why I don't update all the time though, there's no point in tracking every single new pointless version number now.

I did this thing as a thanks to chris pederick, whose tools I rely on as a web developer, so I decided to just do the xml list, which over time has become the officially recommended one due I suppose to my duration/persistence, lol.
Back to top

2.5.13 - added BSD 2 Clause license. BSD license is a good choice because it has basically no restrictions beyond requiring the inclusion of the copyright/owner plus license information.

The BSD will have no negative or unexpected impacts on anything else, and is fully compatible with the GNU Public License, GPL, in all its forms.

The license itself is embedded in the vendor field of the license item in the About section. I also added the copyright as an item in about, so there's two new lines in about.

Also removed the null entry, but no new browsers were added, don't have time at the moment.

Usually I use gpl 3, but in this case, given a lot of people use this, I don't think any restrictions should be put on end users or redistributors beyond the very simple 2 clauses, which basically just say the copyright/owner information, and the license, have to be included on redistribution or change. Since they are included already, that's not going to negatively impact anyone.
Back to top

That's great and thanks for the quick response. I'm planning on creating a personal repo anyway because I want to track the updates you make here and the changes I make for myself (like removing a bunch of stuff since I don't need it). The license question was more to keep me from stepping on anyone's toes since I know many people including yourself work hard to keep this file updated as much as possible.

Thanks again!
Back to top

License questions I view as always valid and good.

I simply never thought of the question of licensing this, but I checked the open/free license resources and decided the BSD 2 clause is non-ambiguously totally free, yet it's still a license, and is, importantly, compatible with every other free license, like the mozilla, the MIT, the GPL, X11, and whatever else might be used in things that run this xml file.
opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause

The useragent switcher is distributed under:
GNU General Public License 3.
chrispederick.com/work/user-agent-switcher/source/
www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
so the license I picked had to be at least that permissive, ideally even more since this is just a data file that anyone should be able to use for anything.

Usually I will ignore licensing until someone brings it up, which you did, or because it's required by the project I'm involved in, though all my stuff now is licensed I think now that this one is, usually I use the gpl 3, or 2 or later in some cases.

I was wrong that FreeBSD license is the same exactly as the BSD 2 clause so I removed that aka freebsd from the xml file and all postings, it is slightly different in that it contains references to the freebsd project, which of course this xml data file has nothing to do with.
Back to top

last without webkit is: Opera 12.16
on win, linux, etc...
plz update the list
Back to top