241–250 of 264 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but still, I'd want that to only remotely be a thing. Like require enabling a developer setting for it.
Why? The permission dialog is crystal clear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't most retrocomputing USB devices running open source firmware? Adding a descriptor "WebUSB supported" is a few commits and a firmware update away.
that's not going to work for use cases like the https://webmd.pro where you're interfacing with hardware from other manufacturers
web.minidisc.wiki is the "official" version - lots of clones around.
Does this work with Web MiniDisc Pro?
I'm pretty sure the lead dev is a Firefox user so he may be interested in getting this to work: https://github.com/asivery/webminidisc
Well, this seems like a terrible idea. I really don't want websites to be able to access hardware. I am already uncomfortable with the webcam access.
I see this slightly differently. Before, if I wanted to be able to do something like flash firmware onto some device I would have to download some random C++ application and install and run it on my local machine. As well as having access to all of my USB devices, it also had access to everything else on my system's user context. I didn't have a way of running that code and only giving it access to a single USB devic…
To be honest I think that's the most compelling case for webUSB today. If desktop OSes had sandboxing tools (or more granular permissions in general) that are easily usable be everyday users, there would be no need to put webUSB in a browser sandbox. The cross-pltaform nature of it is nice, but that alone is not enough IMO. I think it would be interesting to see a Linux distribution where software that is not explicitly trusted (i.e. not installed by the system package manager) has no permissions by default. Interpreters make this more complicated but for binaries it could work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then don't install the extension
It is enabled without extension in Chrome browsers. This is a common complain about Firefox is that they don't implement the Google draft spec. It will probably come natively one day in Firefox, and we should push back against such attack vectors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Web USB and Web Bluetooth are amazing. Comments like this scare me. Things look amazing when people with benevolent intentions are making interesting things, but as soon as someone with malevolent intentions does something that becomes the reason we can't have nice things people will start asking if this is something we should have actually done. I just have no faith in humanity, and do not understand why we think…
“ I just have no faith in humanity, and do not understand why we think this is a good idea to give a browser this much access to local system resources” As opposed to dodgy windows-only installable software from some weird site to flash devices instead? I’ll take my chances with webusb, thanks.
Yeah I could have used some other decoder, but they all have limited functionality compared to Lol sound
There's no real reason a future iteration of the LokProgrammer couldn't run a simple webserver, or connect to Web USB.
This also all applies to most PLC programmers. Proprietary crap you have to run on Windows, just to build ladder logic
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole point of WebUSB is to create a tool that works with USB device, without all the risks and issues of installing external programs. If I need to install a program, browser extension, just to work with a given tool, I probably would just prefer an ordinary program without browser at all. Chrome approach is correct. It allows user to work with USB devices without exposing computer to the risks of installing a h…
...in your opinion. the firefox team disagrees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The spec is still in draft because Apple refuses to let it move forward This is untrue. Web standards need two independent implementations. Google can’t convince any other rendering engine besides their own to implement it. It doesn't take a single no from Apple to veto it; it takes a single yes from anybody outside of Blink to move it forward. Nobody is doing that. Here is what Mozilla have to say about WebUSB: >…
Apple has provided no alternative, and no suggestions for how to improve the draft. They are not helping advance the draft only for selfish reasons. They also won't allow any other browser on iOS for the same selfish reasons. Apple continues to use abusive business tactics, and it's why they are being sued by the DOJ in an antitrust lawsuit. Them not implementing and not even suggesting changes to WebUSB and WebBluet…
> The spec is still in draft because Apple refuses to let it move forward
…is simply untrue. Apple cannot stop it from being a standard by refusing to implement it. As long as anybody else is willing to produce a second implementation it can be a standard.
The thing that is preventing it from being a standard is that nobody is willing to do this.
If Apple did not even exist then WebUSB would be no closer at all to being a standard.