5 ms·

Build Adafruit projects right from Firefox

186 points by mch82 5mo ago

singiamtel 4mo ago
Amazing feature for beginners. Is it possible to do this using Arduino?
- mathgeek 4mo ago
  I don’t see why not. https://docs.arduino.cc/libraries/webserial/ https://docs.arduino.cc/libraries/webserial/
- gregstoll 4mo ago
  Yup! Arduino is one of the things I tested with. (I worked on this for Mozilla)
trainyperson 4mo ago
I used WebSerial + WebSockets during hardware to prototype some connected hardware (on boards that didn’t have WiFi). Plug in to USB, fire up the web app, and then press a button in NY to light up LEDs in SF – it was exciting stuff! I never tried actually programming the boards over WebSerial; that obviously opens up many more use cases. I’m thinking about the success that p5.js has had in the creative coding community, largely driven (I think) by a low barrier to entry since it just requires a web browser to get started.
geekuillaume 4mo ago
WebSerial was just introduced in Firefox 151. It was already available for 5 years in Chromium based browser. It's so new in Firefox that even caniuse is not up-to-date: https://caniuse.com/web-serial https://caniuse.com/web-serial.
- peesem 4mo ago
  interestingly, MDN web docs claims at the top of the Web Serial page (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Serial_API https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Serial_...) that Chrome does not support it, even though the support table at the bottom shows that it supports all of the features (Firefox doesn't) and has for longer than Firefox
  - atopal 4mo ago
    That's because Chrome on Android has a partial implementation of Web Serial. The banner on top is to get information at a glance vs the detailed breakdown of the compatibility table.
- firesteelrain 4mo ago
  Edge has had it for a while too.
  - wasting_time 4mo ago
    In case you don't know, Edge is a "Chromium-based browser" like GP mentioned.
    - pjmlp 4mo ago
      Which is why for a while Microsoft had Edge and EdgeChrome in parallel, until finally replacing one with the other.
    - firesteelrain 4mo ago
      I did not know - thanks!
- gregstoll 4mo ago
  (I submitted a PR for caniuse a few days ago :-) https://github.com/Fyrd/caniuse/pull/7523 https://github.com/Fyrd/caniuse/pull/7523 )
  - aetherspawn 4mo ago
    Is Web USB also supported?
    - gregstoll 4mo ago
      Nope, our standards position on that is still negative, for one thing.
      - dazhbog 4mo ago
        Im sure its also negative for WebBLE but we are hoping that one day we can have it on Firefox too.. We use WebBLE for talking and programming NRF52 chips and it works great compared to plugging a wire every time.
      - aetherspawn 4mo ago
        Ah okay, thanks. My company makes web based diagnostic tools for automotive. At the moment we are Chrome-only because the CAN bus dongle doesn’t support serial. If the standards committee backpedaled on WebUSB it would literally destroy my company.
- tzs 4mo ago
  That makes me curious. It would not be quite as seamless as having serial support included out of the box in the browser, but couldn't you get most of the way there by writing a native application that provides provides a network interface to the serial ports and then a JavaScript library for use in the browser than talks to that application over the network (maybe even making the JavaScript library API match the Web Serial API so code written for Chromium's actual Web Serial requires little of no porting)? The native apps for Linux, Windows, and MacOS would be pretty simple, and would be independent of browser vendor or version. This might even allow some flexibility that serial implemented in the browser doesn't have, such as allowing control of serial ports on a different host. I'd have expected that when people saw that Web Serial in Chromium opened up some great possibilities for things like browser based Arduino development but other browser makers were not on board someone would had thoughts similar to what I've described. Does this exist and I just missed it? Is there some major difficulty I've overlooked?
  - sowbug 4mo ago
    You could do that, but then either you're asking users to install a native app, which isn't very "webby," or you're shipping something with Firefox that isn't based on web standards*, which absolutely isn't webby. *Unless you're thinking of something I'm not, the API couldn't exactly match the Web Serial API because of same-origin policy, and if you made an exception to that policy to make the polyfill work, you'd punch a giant security hole in the browser.
  - NeutralWanted 4mo ago
    Workflow for what you described: 1. I go to your site 2. I download your service for my platform (that now has to be developed and shipped for N platforms your site wants to support 3. I install said service and make sure it's running 4. I go back to site and it's connected (or it's not and now you have to support a whole host of troubleshooting docs based on platform. Web serial version that's now in Firefox and has been in chromium: 1. I go to your site. It works What you described is something that has been done for awhile. Most recent thing I've used I can think of is Lenovos Driver install utility (you install their connector app, go to their support page, it connects to your app and then shows what drivers you need)
cxr 4mo ago
That's a start at improving something. But it won't rid itself of the Playskool/Fisher-Price gimmick factor or have any lasting effect until we can convince JS developers to write their own tools in a standards-compliant dialect and use standardized APIs so that contributors can use the runtime they already have installed instead of being cajoled and browbeaten into installing NodeJS or Bun or Deno or whatever to do what the browser runtime is perfectly capable of: opening a project directory, executing the code comprising the build script, and outputting the build artifacts when it's done.
- arikrahman 4mo ago
  This is why I use Clojure/ClojureScript to sidestep the issue entirely, while still being able to use the ecosystem if I have to.
- nl 4mo ago
  > do what the browser runtime is perfectly capable of: opening a project directory, executing the code comprising the build script, and outputting the build artifacts when it's done Unfortunately Firefox doesn't support the FileSystem API so to do this you need to resort to uploading the entire source code directory each time you change a source file. I understand Firefox's privacy and security first thinking on this, but I think it is misguided. It's led to the webplatform being eclipsed by other, propriety options, or people forced to ship "Chrome-based only" features.
  - cxr 4mo ago
    > Unfortunately Firefox doesn't support the FileSystem API so to do this you need to resort to uploading the entire source code directory each time you change a source file. Right, it's so much less onerous to have people download and set up an entirely separate fickle toolchain—and needing to trust that the install triggers in the package.json of some transitive dependency won't exfiltrate your personal data or install some nefarious ineradicable background service onto your system, versus the two extra clicks you'd have to subject yourself to if you wanted to re-run the build.* Wait, no. > people [are] forced to ship "Chrome-based only" features No they're not. By your own admission they could make their build scripts work with the standardized HTML5 APIs that are well-supported in all major browsers. They choose not to. And you're not really responding to the substance, anyway—which is that JS programmers (frequently writing for browser runtimes, even) require that you install NodeJS, Bun, or Deno (because they hardcode the build scripts internals against one of those runtime's APIs). If programmers really were writing build scripts that you could run in Chrome but unfortunately not Firefox, then even that would be an improvement over the status quo. But that's not what we're talking about, because that's not happening. * most of which are destined to be one-shot executions, anyway
tech234a 4mo ago
On iOS the page promotes the App Store version of Firefox, which is based on WebKit and doesn’t support Web Serial.
- darkwater 4mo ago
  Blame Apple for that.
  - 2Gkashmiri 4mo ago
    Not a full time apple user but how does third party orion browser supports Firefox addons on apple but Firefox itself doesn't support their own addons?
    - tech234a 4mo ago
      Orion had re-implemented support for the browser extensions APIs in WebKit. Though WebKit more recently opened up its built-in addons support to third-party browsers that use it.
      - 2Gkashmiri 4mo ago
        My question is, why doesnt firefox support them
        dotproto 4mo ago
        Do you mean Firefox on iOS? If so, that would require the firefox-ios project to adopt BrowserEngineKit, which is relatively new. Firefox for iOS WebExtension support is being tracked in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1497374 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1497374
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
skybrian 4mo ago
Great to see Firefox getting on board. I wrote an alternative to Arduino's serial plotter that works in Chrome. Hopefully it's not too hard to get Firefox working too? Patches welcome: https://github.com/skybrian/serialviz https://github.com/skybrian/serialviz
- gregstoll 4mo ago
  Hopefully it will just work, if not please file a bug! I tested with a variety of hardware and sites but of course I couldn't try everything...
le-mark 4mo ago
Using serial comms from the browser is really important in educational robotics programs. Both First and Vex platforms support it. Kids can access the web based coding environment on their chromebooks, and send code to the robots with a usb cable. We recently restarted our middle school robotics club. The school had a lot of old Vex EDR equipment for which the coding software is windows only so that really limited what we could do related to coding. Glad to see Firefox getting up to speed on this.
jononor 4mo ago
WebSerial in Firefox?! Finally! One of the very few things I use chrome for.
lxe 4mo ago
Woah this is a MASSIVE deviation from FF's previous philosophy on allowing WebSerial. This is a GOOD thing!
- codys 4mo ago
  I hope this signals a departure from us being stuck without web usb in firefox too. It's a shame that I've been stuck using chrome for it. And maybe we'll get web bluetooth too.
  - lxe 4mo ago
    They were crazy overzealous about not allowing these technologies for a long time. I'm pretty sure I had many posts about this complaining over the years.
    - alibarber 4mo ago
      I'm delighted about this and also really hated the debate that had surrounded it. Bring up WebSerial and WebUSB and oh no, all of a sudden, my 'document browser should not be accessing hardware' - yes we get it, you think the web is a collection of documents and are technically - in the most strictest sense possible correct. Hyper TEXT Transfer Protocol and all that. Of course I've been watching Netflix and YouTube on my Firefox 'document browser' for years, because if I couldn't then there would literally no hope of anyone using Firefox in the real world, but WebUSB and WebSerial people are nerds who we can argue the toss about document browsers with and prove wrong.
  - hulitu 4mo ago
    We need also web pcie and web sata. And maybe a web uefi extension for rootkit planting.
Insimwytim 4mo ago
The design of this webpage is horrendous.
monegator 4mo ago
what the fuck since when they are allowing webserial / webusb? I've always agreed with the reservations about browsers being able to control peripherals. I'd rather download a python script i can inspect.
- Rohansi 4mo ago
  You could always just not allow any websites to use these features. They require your permission first.
  - hulitu 4mo ago
    For the time being.
    - Rohansi 4mo ago
      I don't mean enabling them in `about:config`. The actual pages you visit must request access these features from the user, including selecting which device(s) it is allowed to access. So even if Firefox enabled all of these APIs by default nothing will be able to access your devices without your permission.
- rebelwebmaster 4mo ago
  It uses add-on gating similar to what they do for Web MIDI, so it's not exposed to users unless they specifically opt into it. https://hacks.mozilla.org/2026/05/web-serial-support-in-firefox/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2026/05/web-serial-support-in-fire...
  - fabrice_d 4mo ago
    I don't believe this is a good solution: users will obviously click on that add-on install dialog box without being better informed and protected against malicious / buggy / attacker controlled web sites. Hopefully they will move to a better solution that offers some integrity guarantees instead, like https://rwc26.waict.dev/ https://rwc26.waict.dev/ that they have an early implementation of in nightly builds.
gblargg 4mo ago
As long as you can download the environment for offline use.
greyface- 4mo ago
Mozilla's response to "Request for Mozilla Position on an Emerging Web Specification", June 2020: > For raw device access as envisioned in a number of APIs (Web USB, Web Bluetooth, Web NFC, and Web MIDI), the risks of exposing those APIs to users cannot be reasonably conveyed. This is pretty much an intractable flaw of allowing raw, non-semantic access to devices regardless of the protocol used to do so. > The specific issue is: it's not intuitive that allowing malicious-site.com to access your Bluetooth keyboard might give that site access to your stored passwords, give them the ability to hijack your DNS settings, or allow them to encrypt your hard drive and hold it ransom. And if it's not immediately obvious how those things are possible, that only serves to demonstrate how completely non-intuitive the risks are and how intractable trying to explain them in a permission prompt would be. https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/95#issuecomment-644962468 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/95#iss...
- nl 4mo ago
  I understand and previously agreed with Mozilla's hard line privacy and security stance. Recently I've changed my mind. I've been building a thing using everything in the web platform, even if it is Chrome only and it is great. You can build apps the blend local and remote systems together in ways that make new things possible - and it is on an open-standard runtime. But as a long time Firefox user I hate that I have to warn people at some critical features won't work. I think from a platform point of view having features in the web platform that let it compete with other platforms is worth the trade off.
  - usrnm 4mo ago
    So, what you're saying is that you agree with the security concerns regarding these API, but your convenience as a developer outweighs them?
    - rfrey 4mo ago
      I think it is uncharitable to say "your convenience". It's more like "your vision as a creator". We're talking about developer intent that isn't possible otherwise. You can say "good, it shouldn't be", but don't characterize it as convenience.
maxlin 4mo ago
Feels a bit out of place that the website tries to aggressively make me download Firefox, with multiple links on the site for it. Like it's the 2000's again and I'd need ActiveX or something. But it's to use a standard. Sure, the standard is cool, have used it to flash Meshtastic to some LoRa boards, before advancing to use VS Code + ESP-IDF to flash in my own LoRa code.
- nathanmills 4mo ago
  What makes it aggressive?
  - nathanmills 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - eipi10_hn 4mo ago
      I dislike everything you said.
    - csande17 4mo ago
      > [...] the website tries to aggressively make me download Firefox, with multiple links on the site for it. > What makes it aggressive? The parent comment already contained the answer to your question (the multiple links are what makes it aggressive, in GP's opinion). Your comment might have been seen as more constructive if it engaged with that directly.
      - nathanmills 4mo ago
        I don't remember that being there, maybe it was edited. But 2 buttons are not "aggressive". C'mon. Really dude? You believe that shit?
        maxlin 4mo ago
        Wasn't edited. 2 large download buttons on a page that barely scrolls is as aggressive as it gets. What, you'd only consider 5 buttons aggressive?
nathanmills 4mo ago
WebUSB next? I would like to be able to configure my keyboard but it can only be done via their website which requires WebUSB.
froyooh 4mo ago
Old shit is shit
ConanRus 4mo ago
[dead]
psychoslave 4mo ago
So, what's adafruit? Related to Adam programming language?
- TopHatHipster 4mo ago
  Open source hardware company from NY, focused on making Arduino-based boards, displays etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adafruit_Industries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adafruit_Industries
hulitu 4mo ago
Why not from a firefox running in a virtual machine inside firefox ? RAM is cheap now. /s

186 points by mch82 5mo ago

singiamtel 4mo ago

Amazing feature for beginners. Is it possible to do this using Arduino?

mathgeek 4mo ago
I don’t see why not. https://docs.arduino.cc/libraries/webserial/ https://docs.arduino.cc/libraries/webserial/
gregstoll 4mo ago
Yup! Arduino is one of the things I tested with. (I worked on this for Mozilla)

trainyperson 4mo ago

I used WebSerial + WebSockets during hardware to prototype some connected hardware (on boards that didn’t have WiFi). Plug in to USB, fire up the web app, and then press a button in NY to light up LEDs in SF – it was exciting stuff! I never tried actually programming the boards over WebSerial; that obviously opens up many more use cases. I’m thinking about the success that p5.js has had in the creative coding community, largely driven (I think) by a low barrier to entry since it just requires a web browser to get started.

geekuillaume 4mo ago

WebSerial was just introduced in Firefox 151. It was already available for 5 years in Chromium based browser. It's so new in Firefox that even caniuse is not up-to-date: https://caniuse.com/web-serial https://caniuse.com/web-serial.

peesem 4mo ago
interestingly, MDN web docs claims at the top of the Web Serial page (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Serial_API https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Serial_...) that Chrome does not support it, even though the support table at the bottom shows that it supports all of the features (Firefox doesn't) and has for longer than Firefox
- atopal 4mo ago
  That's because Chrome on Android has a partial implementation of Web Serial. The banner on top is to get information at a glance vs the detailed breakdown of the compatibility table.
firesteelrain 4mo ago
Edge has had it for a while too.
- wasting_time 4mo ago
  In case you don't know, Edge is a "Chromium-based browser" like GP mentioned.
  - pjmlp 4mo ago
    Which is why for a while Microsoft had Edge and EdgeChrome in parallel, until finally replacing one with the other.
  - firesteelrain 4mo ago
    I did not know - thanks!
gregstoll 4mo ago
(I submitted a PR for caniuse a few days ago :-) https://github.com/Fyrd/caniuse/pull/7523 https://github.com/Fyrd/caniuse/pull/7523 )
- aetherspawn 4mo ago
  Is Web USB also supported?
  - gregstoll 4mo ago
    Nope, our standards position on that is still negative, for one thing.
    - dazhbog 4mo ago
      Im sure its also negative for WebBLE but we are hoping that one day we can have it on Firefox too.. We use WebBLE for talking and programming NRF52 chips and it works great compared to plugging a wire every time.
    - aetherspawn 4mo ago
      Ah okay, thanks. My company makes web based diagnostic tools for automotive. At the moment we are Chrome-only because the CAN bus dongle doesn’t support serial. If the standards committee backpedaled on WebUSB it would literally destroy my company.
tzs 4mo ago
That makes me curious. It would not be quite as seamless as having serial support included out of the box in the browser, but couldn't you get most of the way there by writing a native application that provides provides a network interface to the serial ports and then a JavaScript library for use in the browser than talks to that application over the network (maybe even making the JavaScript library API match the Web Serial API so code written for Chromium's actual Web Serial requires little of no porting)? The native apps for Linux, Windows, and MacOS would be pretty simple, and would be independent of browser vendor or version. This might even allow some flexibility that serial implemented in the browser doesn't have, such as allowing control of serial ports on a different host. I'd have expected that when people saw that Web Serial in Chromium opened up some great possibilities for things like browser based Arduino development but other browser makers were not on board someone would had thoughts similar to what I've described. Does this exist and I just missed it? Is there some major difficulty I've overlooked?
- sowbug 4mo ago
  You could do that, but then either you're asking users to install a native app, which isn't very "webby," or you're shipping something with Firefox that isn't based on web standards*, which absolutely isn't webby. *Unless you're thinking of something I'm not, the API couldn't exactly match the Web Serial API because of same-origin policy, and if you made an exception to that policy to make the polyfill work, you'd punch a giant security hole in the browser.
- NeutralWanted 4mo ago
  Workflow for what you described: 1. I go to your site 2. I download your service for my platform (that now has to be developed and shipped for N platforms your site wants to support 3. I install said service and make sure it's running 4. I go back to site and it's connected (or it's not and now you have to support a whole host of troubleshooting docs based on platform. Web serial version that's now in Firefox and has been in chromium: 1. I go to your site. It works What you described is something that has been done for awhile. Most recent thing I've used I can think of is Lenovos Driver install utility (you install their connector app, go to their support page, it connects to your app and then shows what drivers you need)

cxr 4mo ago

That's a start at improving something. But it won't rid itself of the Playskool/Fisher-Price gimmick factor or have any lasting effect until we can convince JS developers to write their own tools in a standards-compliant dialect and use standardized APIs so that contributors can use the runtime they already have installed instead of being cajoled and browbeaten into installing NodeJS or Bun or Deno or whatever to do what the browser runtime is perfectly capable of: opening a project directory, executing the code comprising the build script, and outputting the build artifacts when it's done.

arikrahman 4mo ago
This is why I use Clojure/ClojureScript to sidestep the issue entirely, while still being able to use the ecosystem if I have to.
nl 4mo ago
> do what the browser runtime is perfectly capable of: opening a project directory, executing the code comprising the build script, and outputting the build artifacts when it's done Unfortunately Firefox doesn't support the FileSystem API so to do this you need to resort to uploading the entire source code directory each time you change a source file. I understand Firefox's privacy and security first thinking on this, but I think it is misguided. It's led to the webplatform being eclipsed by other, propriety options, or people forced to ship "Chrome-based only" features.
- cxr 4mo ago
  > Unfortunately Firefox doesn't support the FileSystem API so to do this you need to resort to uploading the entire source code directory each time you change a source file. Right, it's so much less onerous to have people download and set up an entirely separate fickle toolchain—and needing to trust that the install triggers in the package.json of some transitive dependency won't exfiltrate your personal data or install some nefarious ineradicable background service onto your system, versus the two extra clicks you'd have to subject yourself to if you wanted to re-run the build.* Wait, no. > people [are] forced to ship "Chrome-based only" features No they're not. By your own admission they could make their build scripts work with the standardized HTML5 APIs that are well-supported in all major browsers. They choose not to. And you're not really responding to the substance, anyway—which is that JS programmers (frequently writing for browser runtimes, even) require that you install NodeJS, Bun, or Deno (because they hardcode the build scripts internals against one of those runtime's APIs). If programmers really were writing build scripts that you could run in Chrome but unfortunately not Firefox, then even that would be an improvement over the status quo. But that's not what we're talking about, because that's not happening. * most of which are destined to be one-shot executions, anyway

tech234a 4mo ago

On iOS the page promotes the App Store version of Firefox, which is based on WebKit and doesn’t support Web Serial.

darkwater 4mo ago
Blame Apple for that.
- 2Gkashmiri 4mo ago
  Not a full time apple user but how does third party orion browser supports Firefox addons on apple but Firefox itself doesn't support their own addons?
  - tech234a 4mo ago
    Orion had re-implemented support for the browser extensions APIs in WebKit. Though WebKit more recently opened up its built-in addons support to third-party browsers that use it.
    - 2Gkashmiri 4mo ago
      My question is, why doesnt firefox support them
      - dotproto 4mo ago
        Do you mean Firefox on iOS? If so, that would require the firefox-ios project to adopt BrowserEngineKit, which is relatively new. Firefox for iOS WebExtension support is being tracked in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1497374 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1497374
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]

skybrian 4mo ago

Great to see Firefox getting on board. I wrote an alternative to Arduino's serial plotter that works in Chrome. Hopefully it's not too hard to get Firefox working too? Patches welcome: https://github.com/skybrian/serialviz https://github.com/skybrian/serialviz

gregstoll 4mo ago
Hopefully it will just work, if not please file a bug! I tested with a variety of hardware and sites but of course I couldn't try everything...

le-mark 4mo ago

Using serial comms from the browser is really important in educational robotics programs. Both First and Vex platforms support it. Kids can access the web based coding environment on their chromebooks, and send code to the robots with a usb cable. We recently restarted our middle school robotics club. The school had a lot of old Vex EDR equipment for which the coding software is windows only so that really limited what we could do related to coding. Glad to see Firefox getting up to speed on this.

jononor 4mo ago

WebSerial in Firefox?! Finally! One of the very few things I use chrome for.

lxe 4mo ago

Woah this is a MASSIVE deviation from FF's previous philosophy on allowing WebSerial. This is a GOOD thing!

codys 4mo ago
I hope this signals a departure from us being stuck without web usb in firefox too. It's a shame that I've been stuck using chrome for it. And maybe we'll get web bluetooth too.
- lxe 4mo ago
  They were crazy overzealous about not allowing these technologies for a long time. I'm pretty sure I had many posts about this complaining over the years.
  - alibarber 4mo ago
    I'm delighted about this and also really hated the debate that had surrounded it. Bring up WebSerial and WebUSB and oh no, all of a sudden, my 'document browser should not be accessing hardware' - yes we get it, you think the web is a collection of documents and are technically - in the most strictest sense possible correct. Hyper TEXT Transfer Protocol and all that. Of course I've been watching Netflix and YouTube on my Firefox 'document browser' for years, because if I couldn't then there would literally no hope of anyone using Firefox in the real world, but WebUSB and WebSerial people are nerds who we can argue the toss about document browsers with and prove wrong.
- hulitu 4mo ago
  We need also web pcie and web sata. And maybe a web uefi extension for rootkit planting.

Insimwytim 4mo ago

The design of this webpage is horrendous.

monegator 4mo ago

what the fuck since when they are allowing webserial / webusb? I've always agreed with the reservations about browsers being able to control peripherals. I'd rather download a python script i can inspect.

Rohansi 4mo ago
You could always just not allow any websites to use these features. They require your permission first.
- hulitu 4mo ago
  For the time being.
  - Rohansi 4mo ago
    I don't mean enabling them in `about:config`. The actual pages you visit must request access these features from the user, including selecting which device(s) it is allowed to access. So even if Firefox enabled all of these APIs by default nothing will be able to access your devices without your permission.
rebelwebmaster 4mo ago
It uses add-on gating similar to what they do for Web MIDI, so it's not exposed to users unless they specifically opt into it. https://hacks.mozilla.org/2026/05/web-serial-support-in-firefox/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2026/05/web-serial-support-in-fire...
- fabrice_d 4mo ago
  I don't believe this is a good solution: users will obviously click on that add-on install dialog box without being better informed and protected against malicious / buggy / attacker controlled web sites. Hopefully they will move to a better solution that offers some integrity guarantees instead, like https://rwc26.waict.dev/ https://rwc26.waict.dev/ that they have an early implementation of in nightly builds.

gblargg 4mo ago

As long as you can download the environment for offline use.

greyface- 4mo ago

Mozilla's response to "Request for Mozilla Position on an Emerging Web Specification", June 2020: > For raw device access as envisioned in a number of APIs (Web USB, Web Bluetooth, Web NFC, and Web MIDI), the risks of exposing those APIs to users cannot be reasonably conveyed. This is pretty much an intractable flaw of allowing raw, non-semantic access to devices regardless of the protocol used to do so. > The specific issue is: it's not intuitive that allowing malicious-site.com to access your Bluetooth keyboard might give that site access to your stored passwords, give them the ability to hijack your DNS settings, or allow them to encrypt your hard drive and hold it ransom. And if it's not immediately obvious how those things are possible, that only serves to demonstrate how completely non-intuitive the risks are and how intractable trying to explain them in a permission prompt would be. https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/95#issuecomment-644962468 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/95#iss...

nl 4mo ago
I understand and previously agreed with Mozilla's hard line privacy and security stance. Recently I've changed my mind. I've been building a thing using everything in the web platform, even if it is Chrome only and it is great. You can build apps the blend local and remote systems together in ways that make new things possible - and it is on an open-standard runtime. But as a long time Firefox user I hate that I have to warn people at some critical features won't work. I think from a platform point of view having features in the web platform that let it compete with other platforms is worth the trade off.
- usrnm 4mo ago
  So, what you're saying is that you agree with the security concerns regarding these API, but your convenience as a developer outweighs them?
  - rfrey 4mo ago
    I think it is uncharitable to say "your convenience". It's more like "your vision as a creator". We're talking about developer intent that isn't possible otherwise. You can say "good, it shouldn't be", but don't characterize it as convenience.

maxlin 4mo ago

Feels a bit out of place that the website tries to aggressively make me download Firefox, with multiple links on the site for it. Like it's the 2000's again and I'd need ActiveX or something. But it's to use a standard. Sure, the standard is cool, have used it to flash Meshtastic to some LoRa boards, before advancing to use VS Code + ESP-IDF to flash in my own LoRa code.

nathanmills 4mo ago
What makes it aggressive?
- nathanmills 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - eipi10_hn 4mo ago
    I dislike everything you said.
  - csande17 4mo ago
    > [...] the website tries to aggressively make me download Firefox, with multiple links on the site for it. > What makes it aggressive? The parent comment already contained the answer to your question (the multiple links are what makes it aggressive, in GP's opinion). Your comment might have been seen as more constructive if it engaged with that directly.
    - nathanmills 4mo ago
      I don't remember that being there, maybe it was edited. But 2 buttons are not "aggressive". C'mon. Really dude? You believe that shit?
      - maxlin 4mo ago
        Wasn't edited. 2 large download buttons on a page that barely scrolls is as aggressive as it gets. What, you'd only consider 5 buttons aggressive?

nathanmills 4mo ago

WebUSB next? I would like to be able to configure my keyboard but it can only be done via their website which requires WebUSB.

froyooh 4mo ago

Old shit is shit

ConanRus 4mo ago

[dead]

psychoslave 4mo ago

So, what's adafruit? Related to Adam programming language?

TopHatHipster 4mo ago
Open source hardware company from NY, focused on making Arduino-based boards, displays etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adafruit_Industries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adafruit_Industries

hulitu 4mo ago

Why not from a firefox running in a virtual machine inside firefox ? RAM is cheap now. /s