Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox Hello

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 239 posts

Re: Firefox Hello

#91

Post by kstenerud »

mattmanser wrote: post #63
jlebar wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A web browser should not include X functionality, but should allow a web page to implement X functionality. Exactly. Firefox doesn't include "Firefox Hello" anymore than it includes "Gmail". Instead, Firefox (and other web browsers) include XMLHttpRequest and WebRTC, which can be used to implement whatever you want. I'm getting pretty tired of hearing this trope ("teh bloat!") anytime a browser announces new functi…

My parents had an uncanny knack for always buying slightly the wrong thing when I was a kid. Betamax, Amigas, minidiscs. I used to have a cassette player that had a tape recorder on it. It made it bigger and heavier, and probably more expensive and I never used the record feature. Just because part of the product works well, doesn't mean the rest of it is good.

I would not trade my Amiga experience for any other computer of the era. It's what set my high standards for what technology SHOULD be able to do.

Re: Firefox Hello

#92

Post by windlep »

cjensen wrote: post #87
jlebar wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A web browser should not include X functionality, but should allow a web page to implement X functionality. Exactly. Firefox doesn't include "Firefox Hello" anymore than it includes "Gmail". Instead, Firefox (and other web browsers) include XMLHttpRequest and WebRTC, which can be used to implement whatever you want. I'm getting pretty tired of hearing this trope ("teh bloat!") anytime a browser announces new functi…

You're confusing Firefox Hello with WebRTC. Let me explain by analogy with a video codec: For video, Firefox contains a video codec. Surfing to YouTube lets the YouTube web page play video. Firefox does not contain a "Youtube Player". That's exactly the opposite of what they have done here. They have added basically added a "Telefonica WebRTC Player". That's wrong. They should have added WebRTC generically so that yo…

WebRTC was "generically" added to Firefox in 2013, ie: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/06/webrtc-comes-to-firefox/

Of course, with it being added generically, tons of websites immediately started using it..... nope. Ok, well, lets go back before that blog post... https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/02/hello-chrome-its-firefox-c...

Ah ha, isn't that neat. WebRTC in Firefox and Chrome and a demo of it! Wait, still pretty much zero use in the wild of WebRTC...

This is why Google/Mozilla are adding features utilizing these new specs to the browser, because they're cool and no one else is. In the case of WebRTC, it's for a good reason, its a PITA to run TURN/STUN servers to ensure that people behind firewalls can establish a connection.

Re: Firefox Hello

#93

Post by jasonwocky »

mattmanser wrote: post #63
jlebar wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A web browser should not include X functionality, but should allow a web page to implement X functionality. Exactly. Firefox doesn't include "Firefox Hello" anymore than it includes "Gmail". Instead, Firefox (and other web browsers) include XMLHttpRequest and WebRTC, which can be used to implement whatever you want. I'm getting pretty tired of hearing this trope ("teh bloat!") anytime a browser announces new functi…

My parents had an uncanny knack for always buying slightly the wrong thing when I was a kid. Betamax, Amigas, minidiscs. I used to have a cassette player that had a tape recorder on it. It made it bigger and heavier, and probably more expensive and I never used the record feature. Just because part of the product works well, doesn't mean the rest of it is good.

An Amiga cast as the wrong thing to buy? Heaven forbid.

Re: Firefox Hello

#94

Post by johntb86 »

pnathan wrote: post #48
BSousa wrote: post #6

I saw the tag line, liked what I saw until "powered by Telefonica". Seriously, I've lived in more than half of the European countries for a while, and never ever EVER saw such a shitty internet service as in Spain over their network. Lack of service for hours every day, substandard speeds... It made me anticipate a move to Portugal by one year because of their shitty service.

I am bummed - I was hoping it was just straight up peer to peer video. Why do we need an intermediary?

Computers behind some types of NATs can't use peer-to-peer video: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traversal_Using_Relays_around_N...

Re: Firefox Hello

#95

Post by hayksaakian »

nothrabannosir wrote: post #51

I hate being "that guy", but what about sites like https://appear.in/ that do this without (seemingly?) depending on browser support? Is this using some novel p2p technique that can't be implemented using just JS? When you send a FF Hello invite to a Chrome user, it works fine. I.o.w.: why is this not just a website?

i mean it says:

> Hello is super easy to use and your friends and family don’t even need Firefox to join your conversation. As long as they have a compatible browser, they’re good to go.

as far as i've read this is basically appear.in but with some native buttons in firefox, and optional firefox account integration.

Re: Firefox Hello

#96

Post by ferongr »

windlep wrote: post #92
cjensen wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confusing Firefox Hello with WebRTC. Let me explain by analogy with a video codec: For video, Firefox contains a video codec. Surfing to YouTube lets the YouTube web page play video. Firefox does not contain a "Youtube Player". That's exactly the opposite of what they have done here. They have added basically added a "Telefonica WebRTC Player". That's wrong. They should have added WebRTC generically so that yo…

WebRTC was "generically" added to Firefox in 2013, ie: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/06/webrtc-comes-to-firefox/ Of course, with it being added generically, tons of websites immediately started using it..... nope. Ok, well, lets go back before that blog post... https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/02/hello-chrome-its-firefox-c... Ah ha, isn't that neat. WebRTC in Firefox and Chrome and a demo of it! Wait, still pretty muc…

Facebook uses WebRTC for calls on the release versions of Firefox. That probably counts for something.

Re: Firefox Hello

#97

Post by windlep »

Since no one realizes that Mozilla actually develops stuff in the open (vs. code/project-dumps like Google after its 'done'), here's the Mozilla project page for Hello (previously called Loop): https://wiki.mozilla.org/Loop

A bunch of the hypothetical questions here on HN could be answered easily by skimming over this page and some of the pages linked in.

Edit: I'm not suggesting its bad or good to get a project to a more polished state before open-sourcing it, mainly just pointing out that for good/bad, Mozilla does happen to keep the entirety of the process very open.

Re: Firefox Hello

#98

Post by zanny »

windlep wrote: post #92
cjensen wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confusing Firefox Hello with WebRTC. Let me explain by analogy with a video codec: For video, Firefox contains a video codec. Surfing to YouTube lets the YouTube web page play video. Firefox does not contain a "Youtube Player". That's exactly the opposite of what they have done here. They have added basically added a "Telefonica WebRTC Player". That's wrong. They should have added WebRTC generically so that yo…

WebRTC was "generically" added to Firefox in 2013, ie: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/06/webrtc-comes-to-firefox/ Of course, with it being added generically, tons of websites immediately started using it..... nope. Ok, well, lets go back before that blog post... https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/02/hello-chrome-its-firefox-c... Ah ha, isn't that neat. WebRTC in Firefox and Chrome and a demo of it! Wait, still pretty muc…

I've had good experiences with talky and I know hangouts uses webrtc.

I think the biggest problem is the lack of accounts, chat, logging, and persistence in webrtc. Thats what keeps it from being a p2p communication protocol in general whereas now its just a toy for video calls.

I mean, when you cannot share links during your video call easily, somethings wrong.

Re: Firefox Hello

#99

Post by mkal_tsr »

I've updated my user.js helper/repo to disable Hello/"codename Loop" - https://github.com/m-kal/PrivatePanda

-----

Dear Mozilla,

Firefox is a browser. Can you please stop with the feature creep? That'd be lovely. Remember, you're a browser, not an operating system. Oh, you'd like to be an operating system? Cool, then make an OS (o hai there Firefox OS) and keep that functionality there. Stop adding extra features that are not needed to browse the internet.

It seems only Lynx cares about an authentic node-to-node / client-to-server relationship without all the privacy concerns :-(

Re: Firefox Hello

#100

Post by tn13 »

I am happy to see Firefox adding any sort of functionality as long as they dont break the web standards. For example it would be bad if Firefox Hello comes as "hello.firefox.com" but does not work in Chrome.

But if it comes as a Firefox only extension I am fine with it.

Post reply on HN