4 ms·
> Mozilla and WebKit find security and privacy problems This is a little disingenuous because Apple often falsely claims security when it’s to hold back tech t
by whywhywhywhy 1y ago
> Mozilla and WebKit find security and privacy problems
This is a little disingenuous because Apple often falsely claims security when it’s to hold back tech that could loosen the App Store grasp.
- JimDabell 1y agoCan you give an example? Generally speaking, when Apple rejects a proposal, Mozilla do too. What’s Mozilla’s motivation for doing this and lying about it?
- TsiCClawOfLight 1y agoApple actively removed PWA features to prevent feature parity with native apps.
- JimDabell 1y agoWhich PWA features did Apple and Mozilla remove on security grounds? What was Mozilla’s justification? What’s your justification for claiming they lied about it and it wasn’t for security reasons?
- GoblinSlayer 1y agoOne touted security feature is that app store gatekeeps malware. It's praised as a killer feature of apple echosystem.
- JimDabell 1y agoThat wasn’t a response to anything I said.
- GoblinSlayer 1y agoWhen you remove a killer security feature, it kinda destroys everything, so it's blocked (on security grounds).
- JimDabell 1y agoWhy are you avoiding my point? > What was Mozilla’s justification? What’s your justification for claiming they lied about it and it wasn’t for security reasons?
- GoblinSlayer 1y agoI mean Apple, not Mozilla.
- JimDabell 1y agoI know you do, and that’s how you are avoiding my point. Or did you lose the context of the discussion?
- whywhywhywhy 1y agoWeb Bluetooth, which would allow hardware to be setup through a website instead you're forced to ship an app to iOS if you're a hardware maker.
- JimDabell 1y agoWhy are you avoiding my point? This is what Mozilla has to say about Web Bluetooth: > This API provides access to the Generic Attribute Profile (GATT) of Bluetooth, which is not the lowest level of access that the specifications allow, but its generic nature makes it impossible to clearly evaluate. Like WebUSB there is significant uncertainty regarding how well prepared devices are to receive requests from arbitrary sites. The generic nature of the API means that this risk is difficult to manage. The Web Bluetooth CG has opted to only rely on user consent, which we believe is not sufficient protection. This proposal also uses a blocklist, which will require constant and active maintenance so that vulnerable devices aren't exploited. This model is unsustainable and presents a significant risk to users and their devices. — https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#web-bluetooth https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#web-bluetooth Again: Generally speaking, when Apple rejects a proposal, Mozilla do too. What’s Mozilla’s motivation for doing this and lying about it?
- immibis 1y agoPWA is an antifeature anyway; it's an operating system inside a browser. This benefits companies that have market-dominant browsers and do not have operating systems; on a technical level it's just stupid.
- lillecarl 1y agoI love PWAs when the alternative is Electron, I'd rather let one browser instance run my crapps since it improves memory sharing and other resource utilization. I really like being able to install websites as apps too so my WM can manage them independently.