71–80 of 96 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is Web USB also supported?
Nope, our standards position on that is still negative, for one thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely disagree. I've been using the web since 1994, and it's always distributed applications. I mean what were WAIS and Veronica except attempts to build applications - and they were (vastly inferior) predecessors to the web. The web is the most ugly, horrible, messy, fantastic and beautiful Commons in human history and I love it. Yes, people will block it and Balkenize it and make it ugly and make terrible ap…
I think you're both right. What I dislike about it, is how we went from walled gardens to ads, tracking, and guilt tripping adblock users (while IMO whatever you see or don't want to see is up to the client). It is a huge cat and mouse game. (That guilt tripping is what worries me in relation to WebUSB and webserial.) In a TUI, it is still completely unacceptable that the client would spam the user with ads. And if i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now with Webxxx, the user needs to make sure that it is the right URL, not a fake teanns instead of teams, so he is unsure every time he has to use it. Some random download, once it works, can be reused and you have more trust that it works after the trial was positive. And if it is open source, you can review the code before compiling. I can't review the code of some random server, as my browser only receives a rand…
But the alternative is binary flashing software AND a binary blob to flash. This doesn't preclude it being open source in anyway. Infact with a WASM toolchain you could even compile in the browser.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [...] the website tries to aggressively make me download Firefox, with multiple links on the site for it. > What makes it aggressive? The parent comment already contained the answer to your question (the multiple links are what makes it aggressive, in GP's opinion). Your comment might have been seen as more constructive if it engaged with that directly.
I don't remember that being there, maybe it was edited. But 2 buttons are not "aggressive". C'mon. Really dude? You believe that shit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't remember that being there, maybe it was edited. But 2 buttons are not "aggressive". C'mon. Really dude? You believe that shit?
Wasn't edited. 2 large download buttons on a page that barely scrolls is as aggressive as it gets. What, you'd only consider 5 buttons aggressive?
Mozilla's response to "Request for Mozilla Position on an Emerging Web Specification", June 2020: > For raw device access as envisioned in a number of APIs (Web USB, Web Bluetooth, Web NFC, and Web MIDI), the risks of exposing those APIs to users cannot be reasonably conveyed. This is pretty much an intractable flaw of allowing raw, non-semantic access to devices regardless of the protocol used to do so. > The specif…
Which is odd because the very next thing a user will do (Which you've allowed for years) is download and execute a .exe or .dmg/.app from that same malicious-site.com which will do the same thing
Mozilla's response to "Request for Mozilla Position on an Emerging Web Specification", June 2020: > For raw device access as envisioned in a number of APIs (Web USB, Web Bluetooth, Web NFC, and Web MIDI), the risks of exposing those APIs to users cannot be reasonably conveyed. This is pretty much an intractable flaw of allowing raw, non-semantic access to devices regardless of the protocol used to do so. > The specif…
Maybe there should be a WebDevice which you can buy which plugs into a USB port and does all the things (for the things plugged into it) and exposes a "webdev(ice)" to the browser? There's an overengineered solution. Nonetheless in an industrial situation the things are exposed to the controller, not to the machines on the floor. [Edit: Not strictly true, they may be published as visible "tags" through various mechanisms.]
How about wifi?
There's a nasty shear layer / fault here. Don't build a house right on top of it.
Woah this is a MASSIVE deviation from FF's previous philosophy on allowing WebSerial. This is a GOOD thing!
I hope this signals a departure from us being stuck without web usb in firefox too. It's a shame that I've been stuck using chrome for it. And maybe we'll get web bluetooth too.
what the fuck since when they are allowing webserial / webusb? I've always agreed with the reservations about browsers being able to control peripherals. I'd rather download a python script i can inspect.
It's handy for situations where you have inexperienced people needing to flash microcontrollers. Meshtastic is a great example, it's meant for a wide variety of users from people that can actually write code to people that have only maybe heard of a raspberry pi in passing. You buy a transceiver on Amazon, go to the meshtastic website, plug in the transceiver, and hit "flash". Also, I don't want to have to download y…
and the CIA
> needing to flash microcontrollers
what the fuck since when they are allowing webserial / webusb? I've always agreed with the reservations about browsers being able to control peripherals. I'd rather download a python script i can inspect.
You could always just not allow any websites to use these features. They require your permission first.