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

Tell HN: Skype on web does not support Firefox

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 166 posts

Re: Tell HN: Skype on web does not support Firefox

#111

Post by Crinus »

shawabawa3 wrote: post #78
dhimes wrote: post #44

OT, but check out the comments in the code. It doesn't instill confidence: // Adjusts the position of the given element WebDeveloper.Common.adjustElementPosition = function(element, xPosition, yPosition, offset) { // If the element is set if(element) { var contentWindow = WebDeveloper.Common.getContentWindow(); var innerHeight = contentWindow.innerHeight; var innerWidth = contentWindow.innerWidth; var offsetHeight =…

// If the x position is less than 0 if(xPosition Looks like they have some kind of policy of at least 10% of code lines must be comments or something

I write such comments sometimes, the reason is simple: when a codebase has a lot of comments in general comments often act as separators of "groups of code" (and often read like short prose), so seeing a bit of code not having them feels unbalanced and i add some generic comment. The comment acts more as a separator or header, in a "this is the part where we do XYZ", than anything else.

Also this has to be taken into account with syntax highlighting where comments are made to stand out. It doesn't work that much when comments use a faded out color (like some schemes use) or without syntax highlighting at all (well, except perhaps if you use ====== ALL CAPS COMMENTS ====== :-P).

Re: Tell HN: Skype on web does not support Firefox

#113

Post by Spivak »

jacquesm wrote: post #84
Spivak wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really about that -- most shops don't support the latest version of Opera or Brave except by accident since they're Chromium backed. If they introduced a breaking incompatbility there is very little chance we would carry patches for them. 'supported browsers' are browsers that you lose customers if you don't support. You don't lose customers by telling them to switch to Chrome. Firefox's market share is smal…

> 'supported browsers' are browsers that you lose customers if you don't support. That's a great attitude towards your users. No, you, the vendor, adapt to what your users bring. That is the standard that the web was built around. Lazy developers that only wish to cater to the one browser that they have on their desk and that refuse to recognize that the world is a bit larger than their minimal view (including screen…

If a user brought you Lynx I'm pretty sure you wouldn't jump to support them. Whether Firefox deserves support by default is a question with a different answer at every company.

Re: Tell HN: Skype on web does not support Firefox

#114

Post by zsrxx »

mcv wrote: post #100
zsrxx wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is sitting at 8.3% quota in NA and dwindling. It's reasonable not to support it.

That number should grow again. It's becoming increasingly obvious what a privacy leak Chrome is, and Firefox is just as good, making it an obvious choice for anyone who cares about privacy.

Chrome attacking the privacy and the choice of its users has been happening for years now. And Firefox keeps dying.

Re: Tell HN: Skype on web does not support Firefox

#115

Post by floatingatoll »

lovelearning wrote: post #55
SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fellow Firefox/Ubuntu user here. Are you blocking Captchas somehow? This is usually my problem (and specifically very recently with LinkedIn, hence the comment).

I don't think I have changed anything related to captchas, at least not intentionally. I see a lot of "Request to access cookies or storage on https://www.linkedin.com/ was blocked because of custom cookie permission." in console. However, my Preferences > Content Blocking is set to "Standard"; no add-ons are enabled; not a private window. I have DNS-over-HTTPS enabled. There are no linkedin-related entries in about:…

The list of cookie exceptions (deny or allow) isn’t stored in about:config. Try these steps?

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox/Pri...

Re: Tell HN: Skype on web does not support Firefox

#116

Post by tannhaeuser »

mcv wrote: post #22
realusername wrote: post #4

The worst is that just changing the user agent makes everything work.

Are we back to the "built for Netscape 4.7" days? Sites shouldn't support browsers, but standards. By all means check if a browser supports a certain standard, and provide an error message for browsers that are too far behind, but don't ban them simply for having the wrong user agent.

I don't want to destroy your illusions, but so-called "web standards" have been "whatever Chrome does" for a while now. FF is great (I'm using it all the time, even on Android until very recently), but publishers have no incentive to test on FF specifically because of ad blockers eliminating all ads irrespective of whether they're targetted/tracking ads or regular ads. Actually, from a purely economical PoV, publishers would benefit in the short term from not supporting content on any other browser than Chrome. Of course, mid-term this will only play into the hands of Google. Actually, I wonder whether we've already past that point where we can prevent the web to become a Google ads channel. At which point "standards" (as understood by WHATWG) are a moot point anyway.

Re: Tell HN: Skype on web does not support Firefox

#117

Post by Spivak »

debaserab2 wrote: post #96
zsrxx wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is sitting at 8.3% quota in NA and dwindling. It's reasonable not to support it.

I can’t imagine making the case to anyone at my work that we can/should voluntarily stop supporting 8.3% of our audience.

- 8.3% average globally doesn't necessarily represent 8.3% of your users or market.

- 8.3% is almost much larger than the metric you actually care about -- the percentage of users that will not use Chrome (or your desired set of supported browsers).

Re: Tell HN: Skype on web does not support Firefox

#118

Post by h0h0h0h0111 »

Crinus wrote: post #111
shawabawa3 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

// If the x position is less than 0 if(xPosition Looks like they have some kind of policy of at least 10% of code lines must be comments or something

I write such comments sometimes, the reason is simple: when a codebase has a lot of comments in general comments often act as separators of "groups of code" (and often read like short prose), so seeing a bit of code not having them feels unbalanced and i add some generic comment. The comment acts more as a separator or header, in a "this is the part where we do XYZ", than anything else. Also this has to be taken into…

But even then, "Set negative x values to 0" would be a more informative header than repetition of just one part of the statement

Re: Tell HN: Skype on web does not support Firefox

#119

Post by ryandrake »

mellosouls wrote: post #99
gregdoesit wrote: post #67

Original Skype for Web developer here. I was part of the launch team who built the first version for this product in 2014[1]. Back then we supported Chrome, IE 9+, Safari and Firefox. Already we had internal debates to support Opera, but the decision was to focus on the largest browsers. For each browser, we had to add support in our standalone plugin, that was (and still is) required to install for audio/video calls…

I appreciate the inside perspective on this, and the frustration is understandable from the pov of the Skype for Web team. The Edge team made the right decision though from this user's perspective. I want a browser, not a Microsoft utility dashboard. Another vote against bloat here I'm afraid.

I’m not a Skype user or an Edge user so I don’t have a dog in this particular race but in general I can’t stand it when these “software barnacles” latch on and get bundled with the software I actually want.

We just had a similar article related to this kind of bloatware yesterday [1]. When you’re in a big company and your job performance is measured by something like “number of installs,” well by golly, you’re going to advocate for anything that juices that install rate. When you’re measured by “number of daily active users” you’re going to use notifications and spam to beg users to use it. And in the extreme case of your project being ignored by users and you need to justify it’s very existence, you’re going to pull out all the tricks and dark patterns you know, in order to force people to have/use it.

It’s a shame that success in software tends to me measured with these vanity metrics. It’s a big reason we have so much unwanted software that gets bundled with wanted software, and why so many apps beg you to use them.

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20803817

Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20804737

Re: Tell HN: Skype on web does not support Firefox

#120

Post by HenryBemis »

edm0nd wrote: post #110
gregdoesit wrote: post #67

Original Skype for Web developer here. I was part of the launch team who built the first version for this product in 2014[1]. Back then we supported Chrome, IE 9+, Safari and Firefox. Already we had internal debates to support Opera, but the decision was to focus on the largest browsers. For each browser, we had to add support in our standalone plugin, that was (and still is) required to install for audio/video calls…

Is it true that Microsoft revamped Skype in order to comply with law enforcement wiretaps and log everything for subpeonas?

So you mean the change in their model (some years back) from P2P to via-their-servers?

Having ZERO trust to Microsoft's ethics, and with the dark history of leaving things unpatched for 3-letter agencies to go berserk, it makes that theory semi-valid. I am sure that Microsoft will neither xobrifm, nor deny this allegation ;)

Edit: every time I see something massive breaking in the news about system vulnerabilities that existed 2-5-10 years, it makes me think that NSA/CIA/USA lost control of the tool/vulnerability, and they run to patch before other state agents get the chance to equally abuse that.

Post reply on HN