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

WebUSB Extension for Firefox

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 264 posts

Re: WebUSB Extension for Firefox

#251

Post by leptons »

JimDabell wrote: post #249
leptons wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You’re avoiding my point. What you said: > 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 th…

I didn't avoid anything. My first sentence spelled it out:

"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 prefer to let the spec die, instead of proposing anything that would help it move forward because they are using abusive business tactics to stifle innovation for their own greedy purposes.

They simply do not want the web to compete with their app store. It is that simple.

Re: WebUSB Extension for Firefox

#252

Post by elxr »

vbezhenar wrote: post #216
Brian_K_White wrote: post #52

People are starting to ship even local apps only in the form of some html & js that only works on Chrome because only Chrome has webusb. Whether we like the idea of the browser having access to usb or not, I at least like even less the idea of being forced to install and use Chrome for the same reasons as the bad old days of being forced to use IE.

Do you like the idea of installing Windows and installing some chinese drivers and some weird tool instead? Because that's the alternative to WebUSB.

Exactly, how is an open, browser-based standard any worse than having to download an executable (often limited to mac/windows only) with opaque permissions?

The fact they have to be installed/uninstalled too is another inefficiency.

Re: WebUSB Extension for Firefox

#253

Post by leptons »

bcjdjsndon wrote: post #230
leptons wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Sadly, someone else will and weaponize it in an uncontrollable manner. Except it isn't "uncontrollable". You have to explicitly allow every single website to use WebUSB . Without that explicit allowance, the website can't access anything. Plenty of things can be weaponized, even household utensils. Should we ban all forks? The sky is not falling, and WebUSB is not going to cause it to fall.

> The sky is not falling, and WebUSB is not going to cause it to fall. You could always write a native app. It's always been possible that way.

Sorry, no, I am not supporting Windows, MacOS, iOS, Android or multiple other platforms when I could just target one single platform - the web browser.

Re: WebUSB Extension for Firefox

#254

Post by sagarm »

michaelt wrote: post #143
sagarm wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Programming your keyboard is actually a common case! See usevia.app

It is indeed common! But a keyboard flashed with malicious firmware becomes an undetectable keylogger, a USB rubber ducky, and a virus-laden USB stick all in one. The concept that someone would want to reflash their keyboard firmware, but wants a sandbox because they don't trust the firmware programmer makes no sense.

Hmm, that's probably somewhat fair. While you're using a protocol that's only intended to update the key map, it's probably not hardened against attacks.

Regardless, the real reason people use this is because it's incredibly convenient compared with using QMK and ZMK directly.

Re: WebUSB Extension for Firefox

#255

Post by bjord »

paradox460 wrote: post #248
bjord wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...in your opinion. the firefox team disagrees.

They'd much rather show me full screen ads for Disney movies, install extensions advertising TV shows, or try and get me to use pocket

sorry, what are you talking about?

Re: WebUSB Extension for Firefox

#256

Post by paradox460 »

bjord wrote: post #255
paradox460 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'd much rather show me full screen ads for Disney movies, install extensions advertising TV shows, or try and get me to use pocket

sorry, what are you talking about?

Disney ad: on update it showed a full new tab page about turning red Installed extension: Mr robot extension Pocket: constantly tried to promote it

Re: WebUSB Extension for Firefox

#257

Post by allthetime »

MisterTea wrote: post #130
charcircuit wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 5, 10, and 15 years LLMs will make maintaining the massive amount of code trivial.

Please, lord, let this be sarcasm.

Look at the current state of YC. It’s not. This is the mindset now. Move fast, explicitly pile up mountains of technical debt with mindless code generation. The code generators of the future will fix it later.

Re: WebUSB Extension for Firefox

#258

Post by albuic »

lxgr wrote: post #165
dylan604 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

again, net negative is being glossed over. whatever good and nice things there might be, if it is being used more for negative purposes, you need to consider is it worth it at all or was it rushed and needing more thought before the PoC was pushed to prod

How can you tell that the negatives were glossed over? Just by WebUSB's eventual launch? Have you considered that different people might have different value preferences than you?

It bas been and that's why Firefox refused to implement it. It's good that this is done with a plugin as it is not on by default as mist people do not understand the risks. Making it more difficult offers a bit more protection for most people. Google is known for launching stuff in the webbrowser without thought from a security and privacy standpoint. They are business oriented, not privacy oriented.

Re: WebUSB Extension for Firefox

#259

Post by albuic »

concinds wrote: post #92
dylan604 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I thought this was a safe space for hackers to express enthusiasm about pushing their own hardware and software further (and in this case even in a comparatively safe way). Nothing is preventing said experimentation nor discussion of it. I am merely offering my more conservative views of the situation as a contrast to the echo chamber gungho nature of the experimentation. Just because we can doesn't mean we should…

I wouldn't describe it as "conservative" but as "pro-native-apps and anti-web-apps", which seems irrational in this day and age where "native apps" means platform lock-in by monopolies, less sandboxing and user-control than on the web, much more gatekeeping and control over published binaries, and these days the web app is usually a more private/secure alternative to the native app (which also bundles a marketing SDK…

No, native app is not platform lock-in... You just need to choose the OS correctly and also the app. The SDK for advertising can be present in both. The sandboxing does exist in OS. And you clearly loose control over the App when the website is taken down while you can still use the native app. If native platform remove support for USB or BLE, your web browser cannot use it either so no USB/BLE at all. Users can choose but native is a lot better for privacy and security if the OS and the app are chosen correctly.

Re: WebUSB Extension for Firefox

#260

Post by albuic »

DANmode wrote: post #190
dylan604 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I thought this was a safe space for hackers to express enthusiasm about pushing their own hardware and software further (and in this case even in a comparatively safe way). Nothing is preventing said experimentation nor discussion of it. I am merely offering my more conservative views of the situation as a contrast to the echo chamber gungho nature of the experimentation. Just because we can doesn't mean we should…

Honest question, dude: have you used the thing in the wild? Much like the Location API, it’s explicitly opt-in, and isolated. How is it going to be weaponized? That’s what to talk about here. I’d love to take part.

Most people accept without reading and thinking about the consequences. Firefox refused WebUSB to protect those people.
Post reply on HN