81–90 of 96 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could always just not allow any websites to use these features. They require your permission first.
For the time being.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You sound like someone really coping and trying to make it not aggressive. One button would not be, albeit maybe a bit out of place as it's still a standard. Two buttons, is simply aggressive. More aggressive than you screaming full caps even .
Feels a bit out of place that the website tries to aggressively make me download Firefox, with multiple links on the site for it. Like it's the 2000's again and I'd need ActiveX or something. But it's to use a standard. Sure, the standard is cool, have used it to flash Meshtastic to some LoRa boards, before advancing to use VS Code + ESP-IDF to flash in my own LoRa code.
it feels more out of place that it's a specific company getting to shove their name up as priority billing for the feature when this entire page should be focusing more on WebSerial support being in Firefox as a whole and not one dude's little devboard company.
Feels a bit out of place that the website tries to aggressively make me download Firefox, with multiple links on the site for it. Like it's the 2000's again and I'd need ActiveX or something. But it's to use a standard. Sure, the standard is cool, have used it to flash Meshtastic to some LoRa boards, before advancing to use VS Code + ESP-IDF to flash in my own LoRa code.
it feels more out of place that it's a specific company getting to shove their name up as priority billing for the feature when this entire page should be focusing more on WebSerial support being in Firefox as a whole and not one dude's little devboard company.
webserial in firefox happened because a bunch of people and companies, adafruit included, shipped code, fixed bugs, made open hardware, and did the standards grind.
clicking the name/link of the comment (kotaKat) ... defending right-to-repair, foss, anti-drm, anti-walled-garden.
someone ships open source hardware and software that work together... and you shit on it.
join in and tinker, share code and projects ... or stay addicted to being miserable. if you cannot see this as a positive, nothing will ever be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blame Apple for that.
Not a full time apple user but how does third party orion browser supports Firefox addons on apple but Firefox itself doesn't support their own addons?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is Web USB also supported?
Nope, our standards position on that is still negative, for one thing.
If the standards committee backpedaled on WebUSB it would literally destroy my company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that response increasingly makes no sense (as time passes). Mozilla prevents people from building apps that access their devices because it might be possible to do something malicious. I am so tired of being treated like a drooling idiot "for my own good".
The worry is real: there has historically not been a meaningful security barrier between a USB device and software running on the machine it's connected to. Firmware hasn't been developed with the assumption that the machine is malicious, there's probably lots of firmware which you can get RCE on by sending a weirdly formatted USB packet. Lots of devices have pretty unrestricted firmware update via USB functionality.…
An attacker could try to convince users to select something specific but that depends on the actual devices that are present and the "default" option to a confused non-technical person is to just cancel out of the list.
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…
I understand and previously agreed with Mozilla's hard line privacy and security stance. Recently I've changed my mind. I've been building a thing using everything in the web platform, even if it is Chrome only and it is great . You can build apps the blend local and remote systems together in ways that make new things possible - and it is on an open-standard runtime. But as a long time Firefox user I hate that I hav…
No web bluetooth from inside an iframe, always require consent to select a device and connect to it.
Sure, I suppose it could enable more scams by tricking people into connecting to x device but if we were truly worried about stopping scams we'd turn the internet off and then shotgun our entire species.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it feels more out of place that it's a specific company getting to shove their name up as priority billing for the feature when this entire page should be focusing more on WebSerial support being in Firefox as a whole and not one dude's little devboard company.
"one dude's little devboard company" ... that "one dude" is limor fried, who's been shipping open hardware since 2005, and before that from her MIT dorm room... webserial in firefox happened because a bunch of people and companies, adafruit included, shipped code, fixed bugs, made open hardware, and did the standards grind. clicking the name/link of the comment (kotaKat) ... defending right-to-repair, foss, anti-drm,…