7 ms·

I interact with physical devices frequently. Mozilla's adamant refusal to implement WebSerial and WebUsb in Firefox forces me to install Chrome on every platfo

I interact with physical devices frequently. Mozilla's adamant refusal to implement WebSerial and WebUsb in Firefox forces me to install Chrome on every platform i use. That is just an asinine hill to die on.

Neywiny 1y ago
At least edge supports it so I have something users can use without needing to install even chrome. So disappointing Firefox is too high and mighty
accelbred 1y ago
If firefox implemented WebSerial and WebUsb, I'd lose a lot of trust in it. I say this as an embedded developer.
- deepspace 1y ago
  Care to elaborate?
  - ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 1y ago
    Plenty of takes on this https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#webusb https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#webusb https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34564119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34564119 https://nullrequest.com/posts/thecaseagainstwebusb https://nullrequest.com/posts/thecaseagainstwebusb and on and on...
    - xxpor 1y ago
      What arrogance. Why it is their job to gatekeep this?
      - ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 1y ago
        Well, the reason is in the links I provided, and the reasoning doesn't scream arrogance to me. Personally, I think choice is great. Why be upset when you can download chromium (it is supported by pretty much any platform FF is) and use it to do all sorts of stuff with WebUSB, if you are into that? Still, I would like to see FF disable these features by default and allow opt-in. I don't see a great reason to avoid implementing them behind some "wall" (other than to avoid an increase in a concealed attack surface).
        citizenpaul 1y ago
        You are completely missing the point just like Mozilla. This is the same a surgeon saying they refused to perform life-saving surgery on you because they don't believe you understand the consequences of the possibility of dying in surgery. The average person cannot be an expert on surgery or on browser security it's up to the people that have the education and work experience in there to make those decisions and handle them. Mozilla as another poster said has taken their toys home because they didn't get what they want.
      - Spivak 1y ago
        It literally is their job. One of Mozilla's roles is to give their opinion on proposed web standards. It's one of the factors that determines what actually becomes a standard. WebUSB is Chrome (and derivatives) only at the moment. You can not like where they landed, perfectly valid, but they were asked.
        deepspace 1y ago
        Yes, but instead of saying "this spec is shit and full of vulnerabilities. Let's work on improving it", they just refused to participate in the discussion. What a childish POV.
        nic547 1y ago
        I don't think that's a fair summary of Mozillas Position on the WebBluetooth/WebSerial/WebUSB specs. Interacting with arbitary devices has arbitrary consequences, mozilla seems to assume users are not able to understand these consequences and therefore cannot consent to it. No improvment to the spec can fix users.
    - deepspace 1y ago
      So, basically, they noticed some potential insecurities in the implementation proposed by Google. Instead of negotiating modifications to the spec like adults, they threw their toys out of the stroller and refused to participate. What a bunch of idiots. They seem to have a completely misguided concept of what a browser is. They still have a 1990s mindset of the browser being a window into the Internet, instead of the universal UI that it has become today.
- oneshtein 1y ago
  WebSerial and WebUsb can be implemented as separate plugins in the same way as support for H264 and DRM was added.
citizenpaul 1y ago
>asinine hill to die on Agreed. Also pointless hill to die on. It just forces users to another browser. This supposed average user only sees one side of this argument. Firefox doesn't work so I don't use it. If only there was some nonprofit with the funds to hire full time devs to work on this issue.....

Neywiny 1y ago

At least edge supports it so I have something users can use without needing to install even chrome. So disappointing Firefox is too high and mighty

accelbred 1y ago

If firefox implemented WebSerial and WebUsb, I'd lose a lot of trust in it. I say this as an embedded developer.

deepspace 1y ago
Care to elaborate?
- ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 1y ago
  Plenty of takes on this https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#webusb https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#webusb https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34564119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34564119 https://nullrequest.com/posts/thecaseagainstwebusb https://nullrequest.com/posts/thecaseagainstwebusb and on and on...
  - xxpor 1y ago
    What arrogance. Why it is their job to gatekeep this?
    - ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 1y ago
      Well, the reason is in the links I provided, and the reasoning doesn't scream arrogance to me. Personally, I think choice is great. Why be upset when you can download chromium (it is supported by pretty much any platform FF is) and use it to do all sorts of stuff with WebUSB, if you are into that? Still, I would like to see FF disable these features by default and allow opt-in. I don't see a great reason to avoid implementing them behind some "wall" (other than to avoid an increase in a concealed attack surface).
      - citizenpaul 1y ago
        You are completely missing the point just like Mozilla. This is the same a surgeon saying they refused to perform life-saving surgery on you because they don't believe you understand the consequences of the possibility of dying in surgery. The average person cannot be an expert on surgery or on browser security it's up to the people that have the education and work experience in there to make those decisions and handle them. Mozilla as another poster said has taken their toys home because they didn't get what they want.
    - Spivak 1y ago
      It literally is their job. One of Mozilla's roles is to give their opinion on proposed web standards. It's one of the factors that determines what actually becomes a standard. WebUSB is Chrome (and derivatives) only at the moment. You can not like where they landed, perfectly valid, but they were asked.
      - deepspace 1y ago
        Yes, but instead of saying "this spec is shit and full of vulnerabilities. Let's work on improving it", they just refused to participate in the discussion. What a childish POV.
        nic547 1y ago
        I don't think that's a fair summary of Mozillas Position on the WebBluetooth/WebSerial/WebUSB specs. Interacting with arbitary devices has arbitrary consequences, mozilla seems to assume users are not able to understand these consequences and therefore cannot consent to it. No improvment to the spec can fix users.
  - deepspace 1y ago
    So, basically, they noticed some potential insecurities in the implementation proposed by Google. Instead of negotiating modifications to the spec like adults, they threw their toys out of the stroller and refused to participate. What a bunch of idiots. They seem to have a completely misguided concept of what a browser is. They still have a 1990s mindset of the browser being a window into the Internet, instead of the universal UI that it has become today.
oneshtein 1y ago
WebSerial and WebUsb can be implemented as separate plugins in the same way as support for H264 and DRM was added.

citizenpaul 1y ago

>asinine hill to die on Agreed. Also pointless hill to die on. It just forces users to another browser. This supposed average user only sees one side of this argument. Firefox doesn't work so I don't use it. If only there was some nonprofit with the funds to hire full time devs to work on this issue.....