Gosh ! I must say I am really dissapointed. I thought the N900 very proudly boasts about rendering only Desktop website pages no matter what the website is...But To my utter shock yesterday I tried logging on to one site (You know one of those sites '@##$' which cannot be mentioned publicly, If you know what I mean ) and it gave me Mobile Page like an WAP site. Goodness Gracious have I been made a fool here by having made understood that the N900 only returns Desktop website pages..No Matter what the website is...And which is not the case currently with me.

blame the website, they spesifically have included n900's user agent:
into the mobile devices list.

facebook tried to do the same but I guess they got so much bad feedback that it was reverted in under a week. don't suspect sites you mentioned doing the same though...

I can give you a solution but it costs $4,99 per minute

just kidding, install this:
http://maemo.org/packages/view/hideuseragent/

I'm sure that solution works, but even if it didn't, the discovery of one site or even a few that behave that way in no way obscures the fact that your N900 can browse the overwhelming majority of sites just like a desktop computer can.

OK, Dont get me wrong here, But I am just trying to understand what will this do ? and How will it help ?

You are kidding?

Do you understand at all what is happening with user agent and where the responsibilty for porviding desktop like webpage starts and where it ends!

Standards, Standards, and again standards. It´s not browser developers mission to hack their browser to hide from web developers who do not know their ****. Microb introduces itself as it does and if web developer chooses to show desktop like webpage to only firefox/ie versions that meet their needs then it´s web developers call. Not browser developers.

it modifies the user agent of your browser.

the porn sites you are trying to visit redirects your n900 to mobile pages because they have the n900's default user agent in a list of mobile device user agents. e: probably because their mobile services are paid and computer services free, trying to prevent cheapasses for using free services with mobile phones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_ag...identification

Did you understand my message at all?

You are scolding me for agreeing with you. Learn to read.

So once I install it will it, pose no harm to the Browser in anways like to get this enabled, it may hinder or restrict anything else. Inshort will it cause any damage or harm to the Browser or is usage ?

I agree with slender in principle, but I understand why webmasters started doing what they do now. It was most likely a chicken-egg poblem.

The original (brilliant) idea was that it was the browsers task to choose between various representations of a web page - desktop, mobile, CSS for mobile, ... etc.
This would have enabled browser designers to include a switch in the UI, so that you as a consumer could set your browser to "use mobile content if available" or "use desktop version".

A browser would send something like "give me the page freepreview.htm; I prefer a mobile version if you have one; I could also deal with plain HTML if necessary" to the server, and the server would try to find the best match for the browser's request - without having to know which browser it is and which phone it's running on.

Now, in these days, there was no mobile content to request. Browsers could have been written to do just that, but there wasn't anything on the other end except the full desktop version.

Plus: especially Nokia's early S60-browsers did not request the mobile versions, nor did they fetch the stylesheets made for mobile devices if available. Even with a screen resolution of 240x320 and expensive data rates in those days, the webkit-based browsers were considered desktop-like and it was a concious decision (based on the marketing claim) they should not retrieve mobile web pages.

Then, they introduced a weird mechanism of describing capabilities on a per-device-basis that would allow website to tailor content depending on factors like screen resolution, java script support etc.

In the end, if you wanted to be sure that your content looked good on mobile phones, you quickly found out that a huge number of mobile devices didn't identify themselves as such (by requesting mobile content). So you had to do what's common practice today: browser sniffing. If it's MicoB, assume N900 and deliver mobile.
Disadvantage: Server takes control, user can do little to influence the decision (except playing with the UA string, which may have other unwanted side effects).


The worst thing I ever experienced in this context is, again, a Nokia site:
Nokia betalabs always comes up in its mobile version on my desktop. My guess is they have a whitelist of known desktop browsers and deliver mobile to anything that's unknown - like my browser that has a non-standard UA string and accept header.