5 ms·

From my perspective, the biggest flaw in FireFox is that it does not support the File System Access API. Because with it, we can offer users to hold their data

by mg 2y ago

From my perspective, the biggest flaw in FireFox is that it does not support the File System Access API. Because with it, we can offer users to hold their data natively on their devices. Instead of storing everything in the cloud. Chrome on the desktop supports it. Here is a demo: https://googlechromelabs.github.io/text-editor/ https://googlechromelabs.github.io/text-editor/ A text editor that works just like a native application. And mobile support is also in the making: https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40101963 https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40101963 I can't wait to use this in my web applications. Finally a way to build proper tools in the browser. The "Origin private file system" that this story links to is just like the infamous IndexDB. Something that the user cannot backup, cannot use in other software and that is only kept around for as long as FireFox feels like.

AshleysBrain 2y ago
Agreed - the picker APIs are essential. Chrome Developers did a blog about how we use it in Construct, our browser-based game development software: https://developer.chrome.com/blog/how-construct3-uses-the-file-system-access-api?hl=en https://developer.chrome.com/blog/how-construct3-uses-the-fi... As it says - 65% of users save to local files. It's what people want.
zb3 2y ago
Seems that Mozilla is detached from reality, not only because of this, but they also refuse to implement other APIs like WebUSB providing bizarre claims about security at the same time neglecting valid arguments about web apis being safer than native apps..
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  Why even bother to sandbox the browser if it can scribble all over my USB devices?
  - exe34 2y ago
    it can't, you have to pick which device it can use.
    - M95D 2y ago
      I don't remember Windows or Linux providing this kind of security granularity. Or a security prompt such as the one you describe. USB is all-or-nothing.
      - exe34 2y ago
        chrome does. https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:720/format:webp/0*7Oo4jlofEB_kevHQ.png https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:720/format:webp/0*7Oo4...
      - rcxdude 2y ago
        No, it's the browser that mediates the access from the websites.
        DrillShopper 2y ago
        Okay, and what makes sure the browser isn't stepping outside the granted access?
        zb3 2y ago
        The bounty you'd get if you found a way to bypass this.
        exe34 2y ago
        the same thing that makes sure the browser doesn't give them full access to your files. nothing.
        M95D 2y ago
        Exactly. I don't trust the browser to not report home the list of what I have connected on USB. That information is very valuable for ad companies. I don't want to see popups with "Your external HDD is too old. You may loose data. Buy a new one before it's too late!!!"
- meiraleal 2y ago
  PWAs
lioeters 2y ago
> kept around for as long as FireFox feels like I've heard Firefox keeps OPFS data in browser as long as there's enough space (which can be checked from JS). It's been reliable from my experience, but backup is still necessary by saving to remote server or export as local file. Safari has a stricter strategy and removes OPFS data and local storage more aggressively, for example, if a site domain hasn't been visited in 7 days. On the File System Access API, it seems doubtful that Mozilla will ever implement it in a useful way. > Mozilla's Position > There's a subset of this API we're quite enthusiastic about (in particular providing a read/write API for files and directories as alternative storage endpoint), but it is wrapped together with aspects for which we do not think meaningful end user consent is possible to obtain (in particular cross-site access to the end user's local file system). Overall we consider this harmful therefore, but Mozilla could be supportive of parts, provided this were segmented better. https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#native-file-system https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#native-file-s...
- hedora 2y ago
  As I understand it, Safari won’t auto delete data stored by web apps that are launched from the home screen. But, yeah, handling of this stuff should be better. I’d personally prefer it if the API’s required user opt in, and did not include auto deleting durably stored data.
- jauntywundrkind 2y ago
  The restrictions as Mozilla has created them value security so highly that they won't allow webapps to access users files (for fear that maybe the user allows multiple sites access to data that sites side-channel through). Just one idiots opinion here, but that seems like an incredibly bone headed way to take the whole project of the web platform & make sure it remains utterly unusable at replacing far less secure regular apps. And consigning the web to forever be dependant on cloud data systems, since there's no local access. I really wish there were more than three parties, wish there was more than Google and Google alone that actually wanted the web platform to succeed. I'd kept some reservation that maybe Mozilla was being cautious, but after seizing the opportunity to grand-stand with Apple against a lot of pretty boring nice APIs that are fine behind permissions prompts in 2020, it feels like the have kept such a strong will to limit and restrain the web. https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-declined-to-implement-16-web-apis-in-safari-due-to-privacy-concerns/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-declined-to-implement-16...
jeroenhd 2y ago
Call me old-fashioned, but I don't want browsers to alter the files I've downloaded after I downloaded them. Chrome gives absolutely no indication that it can still access the files I've "saved".
- hoten 2y ago
  > Chrome gives absolutely no indication ... https://imgur.com/a/XOLvosa https://imgur.com/a/XOLvosa And this is after a prompt to give access, of course.
cxr 2y ago
Browsers have existing file APIs that programmers could use but don't. To reiterate a comment from the last time this came up: > You could literally run the Golang compiler in your browser if you wanted to[...] A lot of the stuff that people think they need Chrome's proposed filesystem APIs for are not actually things they need. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41176674 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41176674>
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  Ok but that outlines a miserable user experience.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- porridgeraisin 2y ago
  Can't imagine a worse alternative. The filesystem api is really good. For example, I use the google office suite entirely offline through the official extension that uses the filesystem api. You can edit a local file just like that. Same goes for photopea. You can't seriously suggest manual save as an alternative. Ctrl+S, choose file, do you want to overwrite, yes. That's way too much friction, come on.
- jitl 2y ago
  Literally no one wants to work like this. A save dialog every time I press cmd-s? If we shipped local file editing for Notion that worked like this our users would egg our office. For any app outside maybe like an image macro meme generator this sucks. For anything else like for example a notes app, photo library, more serious image editor, PowerPoint, video editor, animation software, anything people spend >1 hour a day in - you want to auto save, and often you want to manage a tree of files in a root folder as a “library” of the users’ data. Electron only exists because browsers are too limited. That’s all electron is anyways, a browser with much better APIs for writing apps then the ones included in Chrome and especially Firefox.
  - 2y ago

by mg 2y ago

AshleysBrain 2y ago

Agreed - the picker APIs are essential. Chrome Developers did a blog about how we use it in Construct, our browser-based game development software: https://developer.chrome.com/blog/how-construct3-uses-the-file-system-access-api?hl=en https://developer.chrome.com/blog/how-construct3-uses-the-fi... As it says - 65% of users save to local files. It's what people want.

zb3 2y ago

Seems that Mozilla is detached from reality, not only because of this, but they also refuse to implement other APIs like WebUSB providing bizarre claims about security at the same time neglecting valid arguments about web apis being safer than native apps..

DrillShopper 2y ago
Why even bother to sandbox the browser if it can scribble all over my USB devices?
- exe34 2y ago
  it can't, you have to pick which device it can use.
  - M95D 2y ago
    I don't remember Windows or Linux providing this kind of security granularity. Or a security prompt such as the one you describe. USB is all-or-nothing.
    - exe34 2y ago
      chrome does. https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:720/format:webp/0*7Oo4jlofEB_kevHQ.png https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:720/format:webp/0*7Oo4...
    - rcxdude 2y ago
      No, it's the browser that mediates the access from the websites.
      - DrillShopper 2y ago
        Okay, and what makes sure the browser isn't stepping outside the granted access?
        zb3 2y ago
        The bounty you'd get if you found a way to bypass this.
        exe34 2y ago
        the same thing that makes sure the browser doesn't give them full access to your files. nothing.
      - M95D 2y ago
        Exactly. I don't trust the browser to not report home the list of what I have connected on USB. That information is very valuable for ad companies. I don't want to see popups with "Your external HDD is too old. You may loose data. Buy a new one before it's too late!!!"
meiraleal 2y ago
PWAs

lioeters 2y ago

> kept around for as long as FireFox feels like I've heard Firefox keeps OPFS data in browser as long as there's enough space (which can be checked from JS). It's been reliable from my experience, but backup is still necessary by saving to remote server or export as local file. Safari has a stricter strategy and removes OPFS data and local storage more aggressively, for example, if a site domain hasn't been visited in 7 days. On the File System Access API, it seems doubtful that Mozilla will ever implement it in a useful way. > Mozilla's Position > There's a subset of this API we're quite enthusiastic about (in particular providing a read/write API for files and directories as alternative storage endpoint), but it is wrapped together with aspects for which we do not think meaningful end user consent is possible to obtain (in particular cross-site access to the end user's local file system). Overall we consider this harmful therefore, but Mozilla could be supportive of parts, provided this were segmented better. https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#native-file-system https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#native-file-s...

hedora 2y ago
As I understand it, Safari won’t auto delete data stored by web apps that are launched from the home screen. But, yeah, handling of this stuff should be better. I’d personally prefer it if the API’s required user opt in, and did not include auto deleting durably stored data.
jauntywundrkind 2y ago
The restrictions as Mozilla has created them value security so highly that they won't allow webapps to access users files (for fear that maybe the user allows multiple sites access to data that sites side-channel through). Just one idiots opinion here, but that seems like an incredibly bone headed way to take the whole project of the web platform & make sure it remains utterly unusable at replacing far less secure regular apps. And consigning the web to forever be dependant on cloud data systems, since there's no local access. I really wish there were more than three parties, wish there was more than Google and Google alone that actually wanted the web platform to succeed. I'd kept some reservation that maybe Mozilla was being cautious, but after seizing the opportunity to grand-stand with Apple against a lot of pretty boring nice APIs that are fine behind permissions prompts in 2020, it feels like the have kept such a strong will to limit and restrain the web. https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-declined-to-implement-16-web-apis-in-safari-due-to-privacy-concerns/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-declined-to-implement-16...

jeroenhd 2y ago

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't want browsers to alter the files I've downloaded after I downloaded them. Chrome gives absolutely no indication that it can still access the files I've "saved".

hoten 2y ago
> Chrome gives absolutely no indication ... https://imgur.com/a/XOLvosa https://imgur.com/a/XOLvosa And this is after a prompt to give access, of course.

cxr 2y ago

Browsers have existing file APIs that programmers could use but don't. To reiterate a comment from the last time this came up: > You could literally run the Golang compiler in your browser if you wanted to[...] A lot of the stuff that people think they need Chrome's proposed filesystem APIs for are not actually things they need. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41176674 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41176674>

PittleyDunkin 2y ago
Ok but that outlines a miserable user experience.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
porridgeraisin 2y ago
Can't imagine a worse alternative. The filesystem api is really good. For example, I use the google office suite entirely offline through the official extension that uses the filesystem api. You can edit a local file just like that. Same goes for photopea. You can't seriously suggest manual save as an alternative. Ctrl+S, choose file, do you want to overwrite, yes. That's way too much friction, come on.
jitl 2y ago
Literally no one wants to work like this. A save dialog every time I press cmd-s? If we shipped local file editing for Notion that worked like this our users would egg our office. For any app outside maybe like an image macro meme generator this sucks. For anything else like for example a notes app, photo library, more serious image editor, PowerPoint, video editor, animation software, anything people spend >1 hour a day in - you want to auto save, and often you want to manage a tree of files in a root folder as a “library” of the users’ data. Electron only exists because browsers are too limited. That’s all electron is anyways, a browser with much better APIs for writing apps then the ones included in Chrome and especially Firefox.
- 2y ago