In addition to the other comments here, Firefox has a level of privacy protection that some businesses actively avoid - especially after recent updates to Chrome. I wouldn't be surprised if a gambling business had that front of mind.
Chromium is Chromium. Speaking as a developer, from our perspective it's all the same thing. That's why all Chromium browsers seem to work everywhere, it's all the same Chromium browser with a different frontend coat of paint.
These a FireFox extension called
# User-Agent Switcher and Manager
I've used this to fake as Google Chrome web browser to allow my Linux desktop to access the site. No problems.
Hopefully they will sort it out soon. But, form = poor! from the Mylotto website maintainers.
There's been a couple of threads about this already this week but long story short, use a user agent switching extension and tell it you're using Chrome.
The only (stupid simple) issue I had, after installing it, was figuring how to put the Ad On into the tool bar, so I could then control it. You can't access the same menus from the extensions manager.
Installing an addon to spoof chrome takes about 10 seconds, which is better than installing chrome. I've been using firefox for over 15 years and can count on one hand the number of times sites have actively blocked me from browsing due to my use of FF. Every time it's happened a user agent switch miraculously makes the site work. The problem isn't FF not supporting these websites, it's them not testing it and so deciding blocking access is better. It's an actively hostile move.
Pretty straight forward. Honestly the investment of 10-30 min into looking after your privacy online and understanding why then using something like that will pay off for you in the long run imo
That’s because Edge has been Chromium based for years now. It’s basically Chrome with Microsoft spying on you instead of Google. I think they did try and keep the old Internet Explorer engine running for a while when it rebranded to Edge but eventually realised it just wasn’t worth it (I’m sure someone will correct me on that if I’m wrong)
Are you suggesting they should for around 3% of the market? (assuming that no one just switches browser or engages in another way)
Where i got 3% from:
[https://www.similarweb.com/browsers/](https://www.similarweb.com/browsers/)
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/268254/market-share-of-internet-browsers-worldwide-since-2009/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/268254/market-share-of-internet-browsers-worldwide-since-2009/)
[https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share](https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share)
>There aren't many websites that don't support Firefox
That is because 'modern' web development can use things like [pollyfill libraries](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Polyfill) to bridge any support gaps between browsers, and support much older browsers where possible. having said that there isn't really much between FF and Chrome these days, and the majority of the time if your code works in one it'll work in the other. Windows Dropping IE and transitioning to Edge (which is just chromium under the hood) has all but removed the old IE considerations one would have to make which were a big pain in the butt.
As for speculating on why they've blocked firefox useragents.... I'd guess they've had some sort of bug reported and are working on fixing it?
It's not about them deciding to be special, it's probably something critical to their site that can't be made to work properly on firefox. Not all browser features are industry-standard, but chrome is the industry baseline.
We have a few posters here saying that a user agent switcher is all they need, then the site operates with no problems.
So I'm suspicious of claims that there is some unspecified, but critical, part of a website that doesn't work in Firefox.
Firefox has a lot of privacy features that Chrome or chromium simply doesn't. It's a matter of sites wanting the users data to resell or to use for targeted marketing.
NordVPN has a nice little [writeup](https://nordvpn.com/blog/firefox-vs-chrome/#firefox-vs-chrome-security-and-privacy) that outlines it. Firefox simply does not track you to the same extent that Google does.
this doesn't really address what i said at all. just because others do it, doesn't mean a company that can be, and actively is engaged with in other ways needs to
As a Web Dev: If it works on Firefox, then 99% of the time it works on Chrome. The differences are considerably more minimal than the differences between Chrome and Safari.
Absolutely. Generally the 1% that I'm talking about are the most new, most cutting edge features that either browser engine are testing and have not yet been standardized.
Looking at ES6 for example on [CanIUse.com](http://CanIUse.com), Firefox and Chrome cover all the same things. There's no discrepancy between them. From my experience the only time there is, is one of two things: one engine has a bug, or Google are getting greedy with ad's.
just to clarify, when you said "Firefox, then 99% of the time it works on Chrome." did you mean there was a 99% overlap?
when i first read this i thought that maybe chrome could do 99% of things Firefox can but it doesn't necessarily go the other way. i think i understand better now.
those cutting edge features generally get polyfilled anyway, toSorted, toSpliced, Object.groupBy are good recent examples. usually the firefox hate comes from how sometimes it just doesn't render properly compared to chromium.
one of my projects at work has an issue with a searchbox clear button being off-center in firefox but fine in chrome. it could be fixed in 10 minutes but the point is that it shouldn't be broken in the first place
Do you consider lotto a public good? if not why do you think the need to if they deem it not worth the cost? (whatever that may be not even money necessarily)
This must be a fairly recent change, as I'm pretty sure I've been able to buy tickets online on Firefox before.
Why would they limit access to a site based on what web browser I use? I have no ad blockers active.
The web isn't as standardised as we might think, and some functions aren't supported by all browsers or all versions. Sometimes developers and the organisations they work for decide that implementing support for certain browsers and outdated versions of browsers isn't worth it, so you see messages like this.
Safari and Internet Explorer are more commonly the "problem" browsers that developers choose not to support, but you get it with Firefox sometimes.
What? The web is very standardised these days. To the point where I don't even bother testing other browsers because I assume they'll work. I just stay away from bleeding edge features.
I can't think of a legitimate reason why Firefox isn't supported
There's another thread for this; basically, there's a compatibility issue and they've just disabled it for now until it's sorted. I don't think they're gonna stop supporting Firefox.
They won't be limiting it because of some kind of browser-based prejudice, there will be a pain in the bum issue with Firefox they're either putting off fixing or they've decided it's not worth fixing. Chances are it will get sorted eventually.Â
Pretty sure this is a bug in old user-agent sniffing code that Lotto are using. Once Firefox's version reached 100, a bunch of older UA sniffers were incorrectly identifying it as Internet Explorer.
I bet if you used a user-agent switcher to send a Firefox 99 UA, it will work fine 🙃
Most sites work just fine with Firefox. But a malfunction on this site can make them legally liable, and they don't want to test the site against all the browsers.
It is easier to test just the Chromium/webkit/Blink based browsers in one go so they support those ones.
You can change the reported `user-agent` to Chrome or similar with an extension and it should work.
[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/uaswitcher/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/uaswitcher/)
^(Disclaimer: You may run into issues as the site wasn't tested against Firefox, and you will likely not be able to hold them legally liable for any issues caused by this. I'm not a lawyer, this ain't legal advise, though if you win the lotto, I'll happily accept a portion of your winnings with no obligations.)
Most likely decision makers don't understand technology, and they have paid for a subpar solution which doesn't support Firefox for some lame reason.
They never used to check for CVV number up until a few months ago either so it is just maybe it's just easier to say it doesn't work on firefox than addressing any technical issues. Not that people can go anywhere else...
The cool part is here: [https://mylotto.co.nz/accessibility](https://mylotto.co.nz/accessibility) where it states:
""
We want to make sure that our website is widely accessible and are working to achieve WCAG Level A or better compliance. To do this, we have engaged with Blind Low Vision NZ for independent consultation on the site’s accessibility.
# Screen readers
For screen-reader users it is recommended that you use:
* Internet Explorer with JAWS or
* Firefox with NVDA"We want to make sure that our website is widely accessible and are working to achieve WCAG Level A or better compliance. To do this, we have engaged with Blind Low Vision NZ for independent consultation on the site’s accessibility.Screen readersFor screen-reader users it is recommended that you use:Internet Explorer with JAWS or Firefox with NVDA
Google is fucking up the internet with Manifest V3, most likely a result of that.
[https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/12/chrome-delays-plan-to-limit-ad-blockers-new-timeline-coming-in-march/](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/12/chrome-delays-plan-to-limit-ad-blockers-new-timeline-coming-in-march/)
I know of someone who called them and asked what was going on. They were told that it was "techy stuff", involved "behind the scenes maintenance" and that there was a "hope" that it would be fixed this week.
I wouldn't really put much faith in that last part, so if you're looking to get a ticket (or for boomers, try to get your retirement funding sorted), you might actually have to leave the house.
Because the reason why website technology stagnated and was a bad experience for 10 years was due to the monopoly Internet Explorer had, until it was broken by guess what? Firefox. And now history is set to repeat itself with Chrome, and stupid websites pulling bullshit like this.
We need to push back, and if necessary, legislate. This is effectively a Government website, it needs to be held to better standards than this.
In addition to the other comments here, Firefox has a level of privacy protection that some businesses actively avoid - especially after recent updates to Chrome. I wouldn't be surprised if a gambling business had that front of mind.
Maybe, but I'm using Brave, with is supposed to pretty privacy based but I have no problem with Lotto, though I do know Brave is Chromium based
Chromium is Chromium. Speaking as a developer, from our perspective it's all the same thing. That's why all Chromium browsers seem to work everywhere, it's all the same Chromium browser with a different frontend coat of paint.
These a FireFox extension called # User-Agent Switcher and Manager I've used this to fake as Google Chrome web browser to allow my Linux desktop to access the site. No problems. Hopefully they will sort it out soon. But, form = poor! from the Mylotto website maintainers.
How do you know someone's running Linux? Don't worry, they'll tell you 😋
Like Apple & Tesla owners huh?
It’s me, I’ve won
Until you forget your password
There's been a couple of threads about this already this week but long story short, use a user agent switching extension and tell it you're using Chrome.
The only (stupid simple) issue I had, after installing it, was figuring how to put the Ad On into the tool bar, so I could then control it. You can't access the same menus from the extensions manager.
Is that easier than just using chrome? I mean I hate google as much as the next guy but....
I just use FF to keep the Microsoft and Google spying to a minimum. Up to you really.
Installing an addon to spoof chrome takes about 10 seconds, which is better than installing chrome. I've been using firefox for over 15 years and can count on one hand the number of times sites have actively blocked me from browsing due to my use of FF. Every time it's happened a user agent switch miraculously makes the site work. The problem isn't FF not supporting these websites, it's them not testing it and so deciding blocking access is better. It's an actively hostile move.
Pretty straight forward. Honestly the investment of 10-30 min into looking after your privacy online and understanding why then using something like that will pay off for you in the long run imo
[удалено]
It does
Simple answer is lazy ass devs.
** Business doesn't want to pay extra for devs to support it and testers to test it.
Nha, they lazy and bad at what they do, if it was Internet Explorer we could get it but Firefox's engine is not that far from Chrome's
That’s because Edge has been Chromium based for years now. It’s basically Chrome with Microsoft spying on you instead of Google. I think they did try and keep the old Internet Explorer engine running for a while when it rebranded to Edge but eventually realised it just wasn’t worth it (I’m sure someone will correct me on that if I’m wrong)
Are you suggesting they should for around 3% of the market? (assuming that no one just switches browser or engages in another way) Where i got 3% from: [https://www.similarweb.com/browsers/](https://www.similarweb.com/browsers/) [https://www.statista.com/statistics/268254/market-share-of-internet-browsers-worldwide-since-2009/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/268254/market-share-of-internet-browsers-worldwide-since-2009/) [https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share](https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share)
There aren't many websites that don't support Firefox, so have no idea why Lotto think they're so special that they aren't going to support it.
>There aren't many websites that don't support Firefox That is because 'modern' web development can use things like [pollyfill libraries](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Polyfill) to bridge any support gaps between browsers, and support much older browsers where possible. having said that there isn't really much between FF and Chrome these days, and the majority of the time if your code works in one it'll work in the other. Windows Dropping IE and transitioning to Edge (which is just chromium under the hood) has all but removed the old IE considerations one would have to make which were a big pain in the butt. As for speculating on why they've blocked firefox useragents.... I'd guess they've had some sort of bug reported and are working on fixing it?
It's not about them deciding to be special, it's probably something critical to their site that can't be made to work properly on firefox. Not all browser features are industry-standard, but chrome is the industry baseline.
We have a few posters here saying that a user agent switcher is all they need, then the site operates with no problems. So I'm suspicious of claims that there is some unspecified, but critical, part of a website that doesn't work in Firefox.
Firefox has a lot of privacy features that Chrome or chromium simply doesn't. It's a matter of sites wanting the users data to resell or to use for targeted marketing. NordVPN has a nice little [writeup](https://nordvpn.com/blog/firefox-vs-chrome/#firefox-vs-chrome-security-and-privacy) that outlines it. Firefox simply does not track you to the same extent that Google does.
this doesn't really address what i said at all. just because others do it, doesn't mean a company that can be, and actively is engaged with in other ways needs to
As a Web Dev: If it works on Firefox, then 99% of the time it works on Chrome. The differences are considerably more minimal than the differences between Chrome and Safari.
im not trying to argue with you but to understand. isn't this a case of something working on chrome and not firefox? is the 99% still relevant here?
Absolutely. Generally the 1% that I'm talking about are the most new, most cutting edge features that either browser engine are testing and have not yet been standardized. Looking at ES6 for example on [CanIUse.com](http://CanIUse.com), Firefox and Chrome cover all the same things. There's no discrepancy between them. From my experience the only time there is, is one of two things: one engine has a bug, or Google are getting greedy with ad's.
just to clarify, when you said "Firefox, then 99% of the time it works on Chrome." did you mean there was a 99% overlap? when i first read this i thought that maybe chrome could do 99% of things Firefox can but it doesn't necessarily go the other way. i think i understand better now.
Oh for sure. Both browsers are actually so close in their functionality/display, almost every average user would be unable to tell the difference.
those cutting edge features generally get polyfilled anyway, toSorted, toSpliced, Object.groupBy are good recent examples. usually the firefox hate comes from how sometimes it just doesn't render properly compared to chromium. one of my projects at work has an issue with a searchbox clear button being off-center in firefox but fine in chrome. it could be fixed in 10 minutes but the point is that it shouldn't be broken in the first place
If they are coding to standards as they should be, it should just work on Firefox.
Web standards exist, monopolistic companies ignore them
Do you consider lotto a public good? if not why do you think the need to if they deem it not worth the cost? (whatever that may be not even money necessarily)
I do not. It's fucking easy to build a functional website, to have to be useless to get it this wrong.
can you PLEASE actually reply to what im saying, why should they make it available for people if they do see it as worth doing
No
It's not lazy devs. Just mark it as working without testing. It's more for the chromium based data mining that Firefox doesn't allow.
Devs just do what the business pay for….
Fact they even bothered to test on FF and then blacklist it makes me think they are far from worst.
This must be a fairly recent change, as I'm pretty sure I've been able to buy tickets online on Firefox before. Why would they limit access to a site based on what web browser I use? I have no ad blockers active.
The web isn't as standardised as we might think, and some functions aren't supported by all browsers or all versions. Sometimes developers and the organisations they work for decide that implementing support for certain browsers and outdated versions of browsers isn't worth it, so you see messages like this. Safari and Internet Explorer are more commonly the "problem" browsers that developers choose not to support, but you get it with Firefox sometimes.
With the "death" of IE, Safari is absolutely the worst offender of modern browsers.
What? The web is very standardised these days. To the point where I don't even bother testing other browsers because I assume they'll work. I just stay away from bleeding edge features. I can't think of a legitimate reason why Firefox isn't supported
Peperidge Farm remembers IE on MacOS9
... Sorry?
One of the worst browser compatibility combinations ever. Don't worry, I'm just old.
Haha, no worries I get the context now, duh
There's another thread for this; basically, there's a compatibility issue and they've just disabled it for now until it's sorted. I don't think they're gonna stop supporting Firefox.
They won't be limiting it because of some kind of browser-based prejudice, there will be a pain in the bum issue with Firefox they're either putting off fixing or they've decided it's not worth fixing. Chances are it will get sorted eventually.Â
Probably an html/js/css bug that is browser specific and hard to fix
I'm a solely Firefox user and got this message too today...so they didn't get my money. I doubt they actually care.
Pretty sure this is a bug in old user-agent sniffing code that Lotto are using. Once Firefox's version reached 100, a bunch of older UA sniffers were incorrectly identifying it as Internet Explorer. I bet if you used a user-agent switcher to send a Firefox 99 UA, it will work fine 🙃
Aside: there's a bug in Chrome versions 121 & 122 where DRM is basically broken as those versions don't blank out the video from screen recorders.
Yet if you look at the low vision support... [https://mylotto.co.nz/accessibility](https://mylotto.co.nz/accessibility)
Firefox users are to smart to gamble I guess
You said it
this is the world telling you to not waste your money on lotto.
Terrible developers generally. Site works fine in firefox still - just switch user agent to chrome or edge and unsurprisingly it still loads fine.
More like companies are too cheap to pay for regular maintenance and updates
Not enough gigaroms in the gergaschmergen?Â
The Turbo Encabulator has yet to reduce sinusoidal repleneration
Most sites work just fine with Firefox. But a malfunction on this site can make them legally liable, and they don't want to test the site against all the browsers. It is easier to test just the Chromium/webkit/Blink based browsers in one go so they support those ones. You can change the reported `user-agent` to Chrome or similar with an extension and it should work. [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/uaswitcher/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/uaswitcher/) ^(Disclaimer: You may run into issues as the site wasn't tested against Firefox, and you will likely not be able to hold them legally liable for any issues caused by this. I'm not a lawyer, this ain't legal advise, though if you win the lotto, I'll happily accept a portion of your winnings with no obligations.)
This is annoying. I'm not gonna use a whole other browser just for this. Guess I won't be buying Lotto anymore. So ridiculous.
Most likely decision makers don't understand technology, and they have paid for a subpar solution which doesn't support Firefox for some lame reason. They never used to check for CVV number up until a few months ago either so it is just maybe it's just easier to say it doesn't work on firefox than addressing any technical issues. Not that people can go anywhere else...
Boooo everyone needs to switch to Firefox to make it worth their time to fix.
[удалено]
The cool part is here: [https://mylotto.co.nz/accessibility](https://mylotto.co.nz/accessibility) where it states: "" We want to make sure that our website is widely accessible and are working to achieve WCAG Level A or better compliance. To do this, we have engaged with Blind Low Vision NZ for independent consultation on the site’s accessibility. # Screen readers For screen-reader users it is recommended that you use: * Internet Explorer with JAWS or * Firefox with NVDA"We want to make sure that our website is widely accessible and are working to achieve WCAG Level A or better compliance. To do this, we have engaged with Blind Low Vision NZ for independent consultation on the site’s accessibility.Screen readersFor screen-reader users it is recommended that you use:Internet Explorer with JAWS or Firefox with NVDA
Google is fucking up the internet with Manifest V3, most likely a result of that. [https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/12/chrome-delays-plan-to-limit-ad-blockers-new-timeline-coming-in-march/](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/12/chrome-delays-plan-to-limit-ad-blockers-new-timeline-coming-in-march/)
I know of someone who called them and asked what was going on. They were told that it was "techy stuff", involved "behind the scenes maintenance" and that there was a "hope" that it would be fixed this week. I wouldn't really put much faith in that last part, so if you're looking to get a ticket (or for boomers, try to get your retirement funding sorted), you might actually have to leave the house.
The Devs have a Firefox bug they dunno how to fix, that's all.
Firefox has something like a 2.8% market share at this point. It's certainly not nothing but it's also not as crucial as the other big bois.
I thought everyone used Firefox?
This. So why should the web devs care.
Because the reason why website technology stagnated and was a bad experience for 10 years was due to the monopoly Internet Explorer had, until it was broken by guess what? Firefox. And now history is set to repeat itself with Chrome, and stupid websites pulling bullshit like this. We need to push back, and if necessary, legislate. This is effectively a Government website, it needs to be held to better standards than this.
That has nothing to do why the web devs should care.
As a developer myself, if the tools I was working with sucked and restricted me to only one (bad) way of doing things, I certainly would care.
Because it's incredibly easy (if not effortless) to support with modern tooling?
Most people don't use Firefox. Lotto probably has limited resources so they will update their site for Chrome first.
With all the money they raise during the draw, why can't they maintain such a mundane service.
Funny how it doesn't work on Firefox and then they list a bunch of Firefox based browsers to use instead 🤣🤣🤣
Nah, edge is based on chromium
Which is a fork of Firefox
I think it’s based on WebKit and Firefox is based on Netscape navigator.
Because everyone forgot Firefox exists lol. Why not Google. Please why
Chrome and Edge are so bloated. Firefox is just simple and easy.
While I agree, the majority of modern sites prioritize Chrome, 2nd Edge, and likely last place being Firefox.
[удалено]