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

41–50 of 239 posts

Re: Firefox Hello

#41

Post by mccr8 »

nothrabannosir wrote: post #33
mccr8 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The underlying technology used to implement this is WebRTC, which is available to web pages. Implementing peer-to-peer real time video communication entirely in Javascript would be difficult, so it has to be provided to some extent by the browser itself.

But, if this is peer-to-peer, what's Telefonica's role?

I don't know about Telefonica's role, but in general WebRTC needs external servers to deal with things like NATs and firewalls: http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webrtc/infrastructure...

Re: Firefox Hello

#43

Post by nevergetenglish »

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.

It appears that my karma level don't allow me to downvote you (at 240 I only see the uparrow). I live in Spain and Telefonica is a very good company with an excellent service but a little expensive (you have to pay to have good quality). The appropriate word your post is FUD. I hope and wish that such a great company continues its expansion and growth. By the way, I am not affiliated with this company in any way but I recognize the value of great companies like telefonica.

Re: Firefox Hello

#44

Post by dmix »

nolok wrote: post #32
criley2 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just call it the "Chrome-ification" of Firefox. Chrome is automatically updated to be jam-packed full of browser-specific APIs and functionality. Like when Chrome automatically updated and registered itself as a background service without permission. Or when Chrome automatically installed a microphone listening service for always on "OK Google" hotword detection. Or the fact that Chrome Apps are less and less "webpag…

This is a thread about firefox, when you make an answer entirely about chrome. This is neither the place nor the time for your rant.

It is very relevant. Both Chrome and Firefox are getting extremely bloated and feature-creeped. Besides bloat/performance/quality, each new feature is a new security attack vector [0].

This is a very valid discussion. Software engineers would naturally have concerns when a browser built to render web pages gets turned into a pseudo operating system. The risk here is that without focus it won't be a good browser nor a good OS.

[0] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2015-0...

Re: Firefox Hello

#45

Post by pnathan »

coldtea wrote: post #37
cjensen wrote: post #10

A web browser should not include X functionality, but should allow a web page to implement X functionality. In my view, this is true for most values of X, including Skype, Mail, Word, Excel... To add insult to injury, there is no simple way of disabling the functionality[1]. Firefox Hello is ludicrous. [1] about:config is not a valid value of simple

> A web browser should not include X functionality, but should allow a web page to implement X functionality. In my view, this is true for most values of X, including Skype, Mail, Word, Excel... And in other people's view, it is nonsense, and they liked their Mozilla with built-in mailer, Opera, etc. And of course there's the huge ecosystem of browsers add-ons and plugins, that do exactly that: implement X functional…

To be honest, I did like the Netscape system of Email, Calendar Browser, Webpage creator, etc.

I don't really do lots of video, so... ::meh:: ... but I am fine with rebuilding the old Netscape system. :)

Re: Firefox Hello

#48

Post by pnathan »

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?

Re: Firefox Hello

#49

Post by azakai »

fiatpandas wrote: post #8

It's interesting, although struck me as weird to bundle/market it as part of the core Firefox experience, especially considering its closely tied to a third party. Seems more extension territory.

You can see it as a pre-bundled extension, I suppose.

I think the point of pre-bundling it is to get more attention and in that way to promote WebRTC, which is a good goal.

Size-wise, I didn't look at the code but this is likely a tiny extension, it's just a little UI over WebRTC.

Re: Firefox Hello

#50

Post by martin1975 »

criley2 wrote: post #25
cjensen wrote: post #10

A web browser should not include X functionality, but should allow a web page to implement X functionality. In my view, this is true for most values of X, including Skype, Mail, Word, Excel... To add insult to injury, there is no simple way of disabling the functionality[1]. Firefox Hello is ludicrous. [1] about:config is not a valid value of simple

Just call it the "Chrome-ification" of Firefox. Chrome is automatically updated to be jam-packed full of browser-specific APIs and functionality. Like when Chrome automatically updated and registered itself as a background service without permission. Or when Chrome automatically installed a microphone listening service for always on "OK Google" hotword detection. Or the fact that Chrome Apps are less and less "webpag…

To think that at some point the web browser was considered a "thin" client :)....
Post reply on HN