I cancelled my subscription since I received a notification that my browser is not supported.
Perhaps I should have mentioned my issues with DRM as well, but this may have gone too far. One message is clear, too many messages are noise.
I agree but admit that I share some responsibility as DRM is optional and I choose to enable it for some sites. Quite often, when a site is less essential to me (or its DRM features) I decline them. The more we decline them, the more probable that there will be free alternatives of some services.
Often with stuff like this, it still works when you clean cache and set your user agent to Windows and Chrome.
Would be curious to see if it works, OP.
The truth is that it mostly worked other than some issues with full screen but firefox has better ways around it.
I really wanted to make the statement since I saw the notification that encouraged me to switch to another browser. Firefox is fully compliant and so should be their service. And should be DRM-free but that will be another discussion in the future.
I'm guessing it's completely compatible, I've had sites that show that and they've always worked fine after a useragent change. I have no idea why they'd say it doesn't work when I probably does, but I guess that's what you get when google rules everything
Either Linux or GNU/Linux is OK to me. It's the practice that makes the difference. While I mostly use Debian, which defines itself as GNU/Linux and I appreciate every aspect of it, I recognise that Arch Linux (which drops the GNU) has a much healthier approach to free software than Red Hat (recently at least), which defines itself as GNU/Linux but adds clauses to RHEL which are against the spirit of free software.
I prefer using GNU/Linux because, as a statement, respects things that are important to me. Of course, I am totally cool with other people using any term they feel more comfortable with.