11 ms·

Platform Tilt

404 points by SethMLarson 3y ago

lxe 3y ago
[flagged]
- Borealid 3y ago
  WebUSB has... some issues. For example, there's a huge song and dance around a web site only being able to create and use a FIDO2 credential for its own domain (in other words, badactor.example can't get an assertion for goodactor.example). But with WebUSB, you can just have your web site directly communicate with a USB authenticator and send it whatever domain you want, not even using the browser's webauthn APIs! So... google blocked USB devices that respond with FIDO2 HID Report Descriptors from being usable over WebUSB. There are just so many of those types of issue, and the standard response seems to be playing whack-a-mole instead of requiring that a USB device be "opt in" or user-selected, which would make more sense to me. It's a huge attack surface. I don't like that this means you can Do More (TM) with Chrome(ium), but I'm also pretty happy not to have my web browser be allowed to reprogram my motherboard's fan controller hub.
  - modeless 3y ago
    > It's a huge attack surface. People say this about so many useful Web APIs. Bluetooth, WebGL, WebGPU. The truth is these APIs have largely been exposed to the web for many years now and the promised deluge of vulnerabilities never materialized. Sure, there have been a couple here and there but overall the security mitigations built in have proven very good and the security impact has been very minor compared to the dire warnings people gave. Other areas of the browser continue to be worse.
- lol768 3y ago
  Mozilla's position on these specs is nicely outlined publicly and transparently as part of their standards-positions project: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/100 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/100 I'm kinda glad it's not implemented in my browser, to be honest, because the whole thing seems like a security nightmare. It's a shame it impacts some hobby usecases, but I don't think this outweighs the reasoning set out on the GitHub issue.
  - o11c 3y ago
    > I'm kinda glad it's not implemented in my browser, to be honest, because the whole thing seems like a security nightmare. You shouldn't look at the spec and think it's a security nightmare. Look at the history, so you can know it's a security nightmare.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
sneak 3y ago
Right-clicking a selection in macOS and selecting web search (perhaps only in Mail.app, I don’t recall) always opens Safari even if you have a different browser selected as default. They missed that one.
jwells89 3y ago
Most of these are understandable, but the one talking about Messages integration on iOS gives me bad vibes. Specifically a “recently sent links” API for Messages that the user must opt into wouldn’t be a problem but full access to message data is not something that I (and I suspect many others) would ever consent to a third party app having (even if Mozilla is the dev). As for extensions on iOS, Orion has the capability to install extensions from both the Chrome and Firefox extension galleries which would suggest this either isn’t actually a problem or slipped past App Review and has somehow remained available for years.
- captn3m0 3y ago
  Yeah, Orion's support for Firefox extensions is a big red flag. These 2 issues on the Firefox-iOS tracker[0,1] around extensions and content blockers have long mentioned Orion, but there's no response from Mozilla. [0]: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/firefox-ios/issues/7374 https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/firefox-ios/issues/7374 [1]: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/firefox-ios/issues/9155 https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/firefox-ios/issues/9155
dang 3y ago
Related: https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2024/01/19/platform-tilt/ https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2024/01/19/platform-tilt/ (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39059255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39059255, but no comments there)
shadowgovt 3y ago
> Browsing information like history, bookmarked sites, and cookies isn’t accessible to third-party browsers on Android. As a user, why the hell do I want third party applications to be able to access my browser's history, bookmarked sites, and cookies? That's an obvious privacy leak! Firefox can have that data when it's generated by Firefox while I'm using Firefox and not in other contexts.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  I agree. The justification "but desktop operating systems let us do it" means nothing to me because desktop operating systems are known for having bad security. It only works on those systems because there is no security for programs reading each other's data.
- crummy 3y ago
  As a user who wants to easily migrate to a new browser, I would like the new browser to have access to the old browsers bookmarks etc to make the process easier.
  - zimpenfish 3y ago
    You'd implement that as an export from the old browser though - that way it's an explicit "yes, please" from the user allowing the new browser access rather than allowing holes that nefarious people will exploit.
    - Vinnl 3y ago
      Yes, and an export from the old browser would count as "making it accessible to other browsers". But that's not possible, hence it being listed among the issues.
- no-dr-onboard 3y ago
  This is mostly for importing to/from other browsers. It’s a very common operation for onboarding.
runlevel1 3y ago
> App Store forbids third-party browser engines Mozilla is justified in challenging it, but I don't know if they want to go pulling that thread. Safari's monopoly on iOS devices is the only reason a sizable number of developers care about non-Chrome support. Currently, they have to. If the message to users becomes "broken feature is not broken on Chrome" we're on the road to monopolyville. And then Google really doesn't need consensus when it creates new web standards. The status quo is all sorts of messed up, but it could be worse. Hopefully I'm wrong about this.
- bitpush 3y ago
  > Safari's monopoly on iOS devices is the only reason a sizable number of developers care about non-Chrome support. Sounds like you like monopoly.
  - gleenn 3y ago
    I don't think that's charitable. They are stating that iOS enforcing the second browser to exist makes at least some space for the third to exist and preventing Chrome from completely taking over.
    - sangnoir 3y ago
      At the expense of Firefox. I'm not surprised that Mozilla would not cheer Safari on because Apple doesn't care for Mozilla's mission.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    If a small monopoly prevents a large monopoly, it might be the lesser evil.
  - girvo 3y ago
    Two is greater than one.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lamontcg 3y ago
Copy and paste in google colab works correctly with chrome and not firefox.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
nox101 3y ago
They mention both Android and Microsoft have some apps that don't launch the user's browser choice. I have a related problem which is apps that launch their own web view as a builtin web browser when you click a link in the app. This lets them spy on any web activity that you do while in that embedded web view. I think I wish that both the Android Play Store and the iOS App Store required apps to launch the user's browser for all 3rd party websites. To do this, they'd have apps categorize themselves as "web browser" or "not web browser". For a "not web browser", the app would have to make a short list of domains (5? 10?) that it's allowed to talk to. Any others would be blocked by the OS. For a "web browser" the app could contact any domain. I don't know what legalize like language they'd use to define "Web browser" but apps like Facebook, FB Messenger, Google Maps, and others who's primary use is not "Browsing the web" could be clearly in the "not web browser" category. There's multiple reasons I want this. 1. Apps with embedded web views can spy on all network activity and web view activity. By preventing apps from having embedded browsers that problem is solved. 2. Passwords, addresses, other things are synced in my browser profile. Every time some app launches an embedded browser I get none of that 3. Bookmarks are synced in my browser profile. Any sites I view in an embedded browser I can't bookmark 4. History is synced in my browser profile. Any sites I view in an embedded browser don't show up in my history One other feature I might require if I was ruler of the world is that these apps that launch links be required to support a context menu for "open in private browser window"
- akoboldfrying 3y ago
  I was sceptical at first, but the "small whitelist" concept really does provide a clear, fair and easily enforced delineation.
- naitgacem 3y ago
  this is already the case, you can click open in browser. but I'm not sure it's in Google's best interest here. remember that it's been 9 generations of android major versions since they added runtime permissions for camera and such. internet access is still not requiring a permission...
  - 3y ago
weare138 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
KTibow 3y ago
As an Android user the main reason I don't use Firefox is that it feels slower, not because of any anticompetitive behavior. In Firefox, there's often layout shifts when I load the home page, keyboard animations sometimes jump around, I can't use the "release to select" menu option, etc.
- recursive 3y ago
  I've been using it for years and never been able to notice this.
- yorwba 3y ago
  What is "release to select"?
  - OJFord 3y ago
    You right click and hold, context menu opens, you navigate to the option you want, and release your click to select that option. It's definitely configurable, I don't know what the default is, but I had it on accidentally once and it took me a while even to figure out what was happening (I kept accidentally opening new tabs, or whatever the top item is).
    - yorwba 3y ago
      I probably should've asked "What is 'release to select' in the context of Android?"
- cma 3y ago
  Also basic keyboard nav shortcuts (external keyboard) don't work at all on Firefox.
  - david_allison 3y ago
    Have you found/added a bugtracker issue for this?
pmontra 3y ago
> "Google Search within the Google app" Correct but I don't notice that because I search by opening Firefox and typing the search query there. It's an icon tap anyway. I don't use the search widget on the home screen, I removed it.
- Departed7405 3y ago
  [dead]
Havoc 3y ago
Great website...now we just need tech new reporters to be aware of it.
- Aachen 3y ago
  But reporters don't care about things that already are. People click on things that are new. This Tilt site would need a "sort by newest" with some description sounding like "safari now does xyz" before anyone would bother reporting on it This is also a large part of why we're so horribly misinformed about how well the world is doing. Ask anyone who "stays current" how it's going in the world, then look at virtually any statistic for any country spanning medium-range timespans (say, 15+ years) such as poverty, access to healthcare, longevity, basic vaccinations rate, education, equal gender opportunities... We have trouble with the intangible (such as climate change: 2 degrees across a generation are can't be noticed and attributed in an obvious before-your-eyes manner), but everything else is constantly improving everywhere and nobody reports that. Trusting reporters to tell you what's up is a fool's errand, unfortunately, and I'm not even sure it's their fault
BitPirate 3y ago
My biggest gripe with Firefox on Android is that sometimes I enter a domain in the address bar, press enter and nothing happens. This behaviour seems to be erratic and only affects a few websites, such as https://forum.syncthing.net https://forum.syncthing.net. Closing the tab or using a different one doesn't solve the problem. I need to force close the app to fix this.
- Aachen 3y ago
  I have this issue on desktop. They made some changes to the address bar that were essentially a no-op, boasted about it in a blog post I think, introduced some async race issues while making those changes, and left it broken for years after. Still better than a google browser, even if I have my gripes...
- nullderef 3y ago
  Me too... Very annoying. It also randomly crashes sometimes, but that's only started recently (last month).
madeofpalk 3y ago
https://github.com/mozilla/platform-tilt/issues/3 https://github.com/mozilla/platform-tilt/issues/3 > JIT Support on iOS This has been such an under-commented on factor of the whole "EU is going to force third-party rendering engines on iOS!" bit. Would Apple allow apps to support JIT? A new entitlement browser developers must apply for? It'll be interesting :) I doubt it.
- irq-1 3y ago
  LuaJit lists ios as supported: https://luajit.org/status.html#ios https://luajit.org/status.html#ios Does anyone know if this is accurate? Was it true for old versions and no longer supported?
- intherdfield 3y ago
  Apple already takes this approach to limit some entitlements to web browsers on macOS. See the Passkey entitlement as an example: com.apple.developer.web-browser.public-key-credential https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/entitlements/com_apple_developer_web-browser_public-key-credential https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/en...
ijhuygft776 3y ago
The government need to force Google to advertise Firefox on Google.com...
- jwells89 3y ago
  I would settle for forcing Google to stop leveraging their other products (search, YouTube, mobile apps, etc) to further entrench Chrome.
  - ijhuygft776 3y ago
    sounds like a fair compromise, if google hadnt been doing that for many years (the damage is already done)
- acdha 3y ago
  I think federal regulations should be created to require two things: 1. Anyone who makes a browser is prohibited from advertising it on other sites owned within the same corporate hierarchy: no lying to YouTube users that they will have a better visit if use Chrome, etc. 2. Any organization which has a majority stake in a browser has to test every web app in every browser with more than 0.5% share, and has a time limit to fix any compatibility or performance issues except those caused by a browser not having good support for W3C standards. The idea there is preventing stuff like the long period where YouTube used a Chrome-only web components draft rather than the standard version Firefox and Safari implemented and served them a dog-slow polyfill instead but still allowing them to tell Apple that feature X doesn’t work well because the implementation in Safari needs to be improved.
silon42 3y ago
The main thing that I have to switch to non-Firefox is various video/audio conferencing software.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deanCommie 3y ago
The fact that if you mistype a command in a Windows Search bar and instead of opening explorer/the program you were looking for, it opens a Bing Search in Edge (with neither configurable in the OS settings) should be illegal. In fact, I thought there was a whole-ass lawsuit where Microsoft was legally mandated to make browser settings configurable. The fact that somehow this doesn't apply to "searches from the start menu" is a joke.

Platform Tilt

404 points by SethMLarson 3y ago

lxe 3y ago

[flagged]

Borealid 3y ago
WebUSB has... some issues. For example, there's a huge song and dance around a web site only being able to create and use a FIDO2 credential for its own domain (in other words, badactor.example can't get an assertion for goodactor.example). But with WebUSB, you can just have your web site directly communicate with a USB authenticator and send it whatever domain you want, not even using the browser's webauthn APIs! So... google blocked USB devices that respond with FIDO2 HID Report Descriptors from being usable over WebUSB. There are just so many of those types of issue, and the standard response seems to be playing whack-a-mole instead of requiring that a USB device be "opt in" or user-selected, which would make more sense to me. It's a huge attack surface. I don't like that this means you can Do More (TM) with Chrome(ium), but I'm also pretty happy not to have my web browser be allowed to reprogram my motherboard's fan controller hub.
- modeless 3y ago
  > It's a huge attack surface. People say this about so many useful Web APIs. Bluetooth, WebGL, WebGPU. The truth is these APIs have largely been exposed to the web for many years now and the promised deluge of vulnerabilities never materialized. Sure, there have been a couple here and there but overall the security mitigations built in have proven very good and the security impact has been very minor compared to the dire warnings people gave. Other areas of the browser continue to be worse.
lol768 3y ago
Mozilla's position on these specs is nicely outlined publicly and transparently as part of their standards-positions project: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/100 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/100 I'm kinda glad it's not implemented in my browser, to be honest, because the whole thing seems like a security nightmare. It's a shame it impacts some hobby usecases, but I don't think this outweighs the reasoning set out on the GitHub issue.
- o11c 3y ago
  > I'm kinda glad it's not implemented in my browser, to be honest, because the whole thing seems like a security nightmare. You shouldn't look at the spec and think it's a security nightmare. Look at the history, so you can know it's a security nightmare.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

sneak 3y ago

Right-clicking a selection in macOS and selecting web search (perhaps only in Mail.app, I don’t recall) always opens Safari even if you have a different browser selected as default. They missed that one.

jwells89 3y ago

Most of these are understandable, but the one talking about Messages integration on iOS gives me bad vibes. Specifically a “recently sent links” API for Messages that the user must opt into wouldn’t be a problem but full access to message data is not something that I (and I suspect many others) would ever consent to a third party app having (even if Mozilla is the dev). As for extensions on iOS, Orion has the capability to install extensions from both the Chrome and Firefox extension galleries which would suggest this either isn’t actually a problem or slipped past App Review and has somehow remained available for years.

captn3m0 3y ago
Yeah, Orion's support for Firefox extensions is a big red flag. These 2 issues on the Firefox-iOS tracker[0,1] around extensions and content blockers have long mentioned Orion, but there's no response from Mozilla. [0]: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/firefox-ios/issues/7374 https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/firefox-ios/issues/7374 [1]: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/firefox-ios/issues/9155 https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/firefox-ios/issues/9155

dang 3y ago

Related: https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2024/01/19/platform-tilt/ https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2024/01/19/platform-tilt/ (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39059255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39059255, but no comments there)

shadowgovt 3y ago

> Browsing information like history, bookmarked sites, and cookies isn’t accessible to third-party browsers on Android. As a user, why the hell do I want third party applications to be able to access my browser's history, bookmarked sites, and cookies? That's an obvious privacy leak! Firefox can have that data when it's generated by Firefox while I'm using Firefox and not in other contexts.

charcircuit 3y ago
I agree. The justification "but desktop operating systems let us do it" means nothing to me because desktop operating systems are known for having bad security. It only works on those systems because there is no security for programs reading each other's data.
crummy 3y ago
As a user who wants to easily migrate to a new browser, I would like the new browser to have access to the old browsers bookmarks etc to make the process easier.
- zimpenfish 3y ago
  You'd implement that as an export from the old browser though - that way it's an explicit "yes, please" from the user allowing the new browser access rather than allowing holes that nefarious people will exploit.
  - Vinnl 3y ago
    Yes, and an export from the old browser would count as "making it accessible to other browsers". But that's not possible, hence it being listed among the issues.
no-dr-onboard 3y ago
This is mostly for importing to/from other browsers. It’s a very common operation for onboarding.

runlevel1 3y ago

> App Store forbids third-party browser engines Mozilla is justified in challenging it, but I don't know if they want to go pulling that thread. Safari's monopoly on iOS devices is the only reason a sizable number of developers care about non-Chrome support. Currently, they have to. If the message to users becomes "broken feature is not broken on Chrome" we're on the road to monopolyville. And then Google really doesn't need consensus when it creates new web standards. The status quo is all sorts of messed up, but it could be worse. Hopefully I'm wrong about this.

bitpush 3y ago
> Safari's monopoly on iOS devices is the only reason a sizable number of developers care about non-Chrome support. Sounds like you like monopoly.
- gleenn 3y ago
  I don't think that's charitable. They are stating that iOS enforcing the second browser to exist makes at least some space for the third to exist and preventing Chrome from completely taking over.
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    At the expense of Firefox. I'm not surprised that Mozilla would not cheer Safari on because Apple doesn't care for Mozilla's mission.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  If a small monopoly prevents a large monopoly, it might be the lesser evil.
- girvo 3y ago
  Two is greater than one.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

lamontcg 3y ago

Copy and paste in google colab works correctly with chrome and not firefox.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

nox101 3y ago

They mention both Android and Microsoft have some apps that don't launch the user's browser choice. I have a related problem which is apps that launch their own web view as a builtin web browser when you click a link in the app. This lets them spy on any web activity that you do while in that embedded web view. I think I wish that both the Android Play Store and the iOS App Store required apps to launch the user's browser for all 3rd party websites. To do this, they'd have apps categorize themselves as "web browser" or "not web browser". For a "not web browser", the app would have to make a short list of domains (5? 10?) that it's allowed to talk to. Any others would be blocked by the OS. For a "web browser" the app could contact any domain. I don't know what legalize like language they'd use to define "Web browser" but apps like Facebook, FB Messenger, Google Maps, and others who's primary use is not "Browsing the web" could be clearly in the "not web browser" category. There's multiple reasons I want this. 1. Apps with embedded web views can spy on all network activity and web view activity. By preventing apps from having embedded browsers that problem is solved. 2. Passwords, addresses, other things are synced in my browser profile. Every time some app launches an embedded browser I get none of that 3. Bookmarks are synced in my browser profile. Any sites I view in an embedded browser I can't bookmark 4. History is synced in my browser profile. Any sites I view in an embedded browser don't show up in my history One other feature I might require if I was ruler of the world is that these apps that launch links be required to support a context menu for "open in private browser window"

akoboldfrying 3y ago
I was sceptical at first, but the "small whitelist" concept really does provide a clear, fair and easily enforced delineation.
naitgacem 3y ago
this is already the case, you can click open in browser. but I'm not sure it's in Google's best interest here. remember that it's been 9 generations of android major versions since they added runtime permissions for camera and such. internet access is still not requiring a permission...
- 3y ago

weare138 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

KTibow 3y ago

As an Android user the main reason I don't use Firefox is that it feels slower, not because of any anticompetitive behavior. In Firefox, there's often layout shifts when I load the home page, keyboard animations sometimes jump around, I can't use the "release to select" menu option, etc.

recursive 3y ago
I've been using it for years and never been able to notice this.
yorwba 3y ago
What is "release to select"?
- OJFord 3y ago
  You right click and hold, context menu opens, you navigate to the option you want, and release your click to select that option. It's definitely configurable, I don't know what the default is, but I had it on accidentally once and it took me a while even to figure out what was happening (I kept accidentally opening new tabs, or whatever the top item is).
  - yorwba 3y ago
    I probably should've asked "What is 'release to select' in the context of Android?"
cma 3y ago
Also basic keyboard nav shortcuts (external keyboard) don't work at all on Firefox.
- david_allison 3y ago
  Have you found/added a bugtracker issue for this?

pmontra 3y ago

> "Google Search within the Google app" Correct but I don't notice that because I search by opening Firefox and typing the search query there. It's an icon tap anyway. I don't use the search widget on the home screen, I removed it.

Departed7405 3y ago
[dead]

Havoc 3y ago

Great website...now we just need tech new reporters to be aware of it.

Aachen 3y ago
But reporters don't care about things that already are. People click on things that are new. This Tilt site would need a "sort by newest" with some description sounding like "safari now does xyz" before anyone would bother reporting on it This is also a large part of why we're so horribly misinformed about how well the world is doing. Ask anyone who "stays current" how it's going in the world, then look at virtually any statistic for any country spanning medium-range timespans (say, 15+ years) such as poverty, access to healthcare, longevity, basic vaccinations rate, education, equal gender opportunities... We have trouble with the intangible (such as climate change: 2 degrees across a generation are can't be noticed and attributed in an obvious before-your-eyes manner), but everything else is constantly improving everywhere and nobody reports that. Trusting reporters to tell you what's up is a fool's errand, unfortunately, and I'm not even sure it's their fault

BitPirate 3y ago

My biggest gripe with Firefox on Android is that sometimes I enter a domain in the address bar, press enter and nothing happens. This behaviour seems to be erratic and only affects a few websites, such as https://forum.syncthing.net https://forum.syncthing.net. Closing the tab or using a different one doesn't solve the problem. I need to force close the app to fix this.

Aachen 3y ago
I have this issue on desktop. They made some changes to the address bar that were essentially a no-op, boasted about it in a blog post I think, introduced some async race issues while making those changes, and left it broken for years after. Still better than a google browser, even if I have my gripes...
nullderef 3y ago
Me too... Very annoying. It also randomly crashes sometimes, but that's only started recently (last month).

madeofpalk 3y ago

https://github.com/mozilla/platform-tilt/issues/3 https://github.com/mozilla/platform-tilt/issues/3 > JIT Support on iOS This has been such an under-commented on factor of the whole "EU is going to force third-party rendering engines on iOS!" bit. Would Apple allow apps to support JIT? A new entitlement browser developers must apply for? It'll be interesting :) I doubt it.

irq-1 3y ago
LuaJit lists ios as supported: https://luajit.org/status.html#ios https://luajit.org/status.html#ios Does anyone know if this is accurate? Was it true for old versions and no longer supported?
intherdfield 3y ago
Apple already takes this approach to limit some entitlements to web browsers on macOS. See the Passkey entitlement as an example: com.apple.developer.web-browser.public-key-credential https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/entitlements/com_apple_developer_web-browser_public-key-credential https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/en...

ijhuygft776 3y ago

The government need to force Google to advertise Firefox on Google.com...

jwells89 3y ago
I would settle for forcing Google to stop leveraging their other products (search, YouTube, mobile apps, etc) to further entrench Chrome.
- ijhuygft776 3y ago
  sounds like a fair compromise, if google hadnt been doing that for many years (the damage is already done)
acdha 3y ago
I think federal regulations should be created to require two things: 1. Anyone who makes a browser is prohibited from advertising it on other sites owned within the same corporate hierarchy: no lying to YouTube users that they will have a better visit if use Chrome, etc. 2. Any organization which has a majority stake in a browser has to test every web app in every browser with more than 0.5% share, and has a time limit to fix any compatibility or performance issues except those caused by a browser not having good support for W3C standards. The idea there is preventing stuff like the long period where YouTube used a Chrome-only web components draft rather than the standard version Firefox and Safari implemented and served them a dog-slow polyfill instead but still allowing them to tell Apple that feature X doesn’t work well because the implementation in Safari needs to be improved.

silon42 3y ago

The main thing that I have to switch to non-Firefox is various video/audio conferencing software.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deanCommie 3y ago

The fact that if you mistype a command in a Windows Search bar and instead of opening explorer/the program you were looking for, it opens a Bing Search in Edge (with neither configurable in the OS settings) should be illegal. In fact, I thought there was a whole-ass lawsuit where Microsoft was legally mandated to make browser settings configurable. The fact that somehow this doesn't apply to "searches from the start menu" is a joke.