7 ms·

A web browser should not include X functionality, but should allow a web page to implement X functionality. In my view, this is true for most values of X, inclu

by cjensen 12y ago

A web browser should not include X functionality, but should allow a web page to implement X functionality. In my view, this is true for most values of X, including Skype, Mail, Word, Excel... To add insult to injury, there is no simple way of disabling the functionality[1]. Firefox Hello is ludicrous. [1] about:config is not a valid value of simple

baddox 12y ago
> A web browser should not include X functionality, but should allow a web page to implement X functionality. I'll agree if you amend "allow a web page to implement X" to "allow a web page or an extension to implement X."
mccr8 12y ago
The underlying technology used to implement this is WebRTC, which is available to web pages. Implementing peer-to-peer real time video communication entirely in Javascript would be difficult, so it has to be provided to some extent by the browser itself.
- nothrabannosir 12y ago
  But, if this is peer-to-peer, what's Telefonica's role?
  - mccr8 12y ago
    I don't know about Telefonica's role, but in general WebRTC needs external servers to deal with things like NATs and firewalls: http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webrtc/infrastructure/ http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webrtc/infrastructure...
    - soapdog 12y ago
      I think telefonica is running the looper service that helps the peers connect to each other... but I am not sure.
  - ozten 12y ago
    I'm a bit out of the loop, but to build on mccr8 and soapdog's answer: Anyone doing WebRTC seriously will need to run a fallback centralized pairing service to get around the wacky real world network topology and setup a successful p2p connection. In some cases, you need a dumb centralized pipe to connect the peers.
  - jamespitts 12y ago
    It is Telefonica's OpenTok division that provides the webrtc service and javascript API upon which Firefox Hello runs. http://www.tokbox.com/blog/firefox-hello-mozilla-enhances-opentok-powered-video-chat-service/ http://www.tokbox.com/blog/firefox-hello-mozilla-enhances-op... But taking it a bit deeper, this is all part of Telefonica's strategic partnership with Mozilla to market phones running Firefox OS. http://blog.digital.telefonica.com/tag/html5/ http://blog.digital.telefonica.com/tag/html5/
  - rdtsc 12y ago
    You can't have complete peer-to-peer with browsers unless you properly implement multicast groups or something of that sort. So peer-to-peer needs help bootstrapping by providing some registration service (a meet-in-the middle if you wish). That is what Telefonica might be doing -- providing a default registration service. Also because of funky routers and NAT rules, even after the initial session is set up data/audio might not be going through, so then you need STUN or TURN servers so Telefonica might be providing those as well.
criley2 12y ago
Just call it the "Chrome-ification" of Firefox. Chrome is automatically updated to be jam-packed full of browser-specific APIs and functionality. Like when Chrome automatically updated and registered itself as a background service without permission. Or when Chrome automatically installed a microphone listening service for always on "OK Google" hotword detection. Or the fact that Chrome Apps are less and less "webpages" and more and more "applications that only support the Chrome API". "To add insult to injury, there is no simple way of disabling the functionality" I wish I got paid my hourly rate for the sheer amount of time I spend combing through Google Product Forums reading about what arcane chrome://flags or commandline ---arg is required to disable their new functions. It's a shame what's happening to the web.
- nolok 12y ago
  This is a thread about firefox, when you make an answer entirely about chrome. This is neither the place nor the time for your rant.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - coldtea 12y ago
    There are no hard and fast rules about threads. A thread about Firefox is also a thread to discuss web browsers in general, the web, html, etc.
  - dmix 12y ago
    It is very relevant. Both Chrome and Firefox are getting extremely bloated and feature-creeped. Besides bloat/performance/quality, each new feature is a new security attack vector [0]. This is a very valid discussion. Software engineers would naturally have concerns when a browser built to render web pages gets turned into a pseudo operating system. The risk here is that without focus it won't be a good browser nor a good OS. [0] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2015-07/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2015-0...
diminish 12y ago
A mobile OS should not include X functionality, but should allow a mobile app to implement X functionality. But somehow due to competition for the platform, every company is more or less in the same race.
jlebar 12y ago
> A web browser should not include X functionality, but should allow a web page to implement X functionality. Exactly. Firefox doesn't include "Firefox Hello" anymore than it includes "Gmail". Instead, Firefox (and other web browsers) include XMLHttpRequest and WebRTC, which can be used to implement whatever you want. I'm getting pretty tired of hearing this trope ("teh bloat!") anytime a browser announces new functionality. Browsers are among the most successful pieces of consumer software in existence, so let's maybe admit they've done something right? But moreover, you have the ability -- really, unprecedented for software so complex and in such wide use -- to fork not one but two excellent open-source browsers, plus an excellent rendering engine. If you think you know better than Mozilla and/or Google, go for it. It's not lost on anyone at Mozilla that this is how Firefox originated. </rant>
- mattmanser 12y ago
  My parents had an uncanny knack for always buying slightly the wrong thing when I was a kid. Betamax, Amigas, minidiscs. I used to have a cassette player that had a tape recorder on it. It made it bigger and heavier, and probably more expensive and I never used the record feature. Just because part of the product works well, doesn't mean the rest of it is good.
  - Tloewald 12y ago
    Most people probably used the record feature on their cassette players and the cost of simply including it in every device may well have been lower than the cost of two production lines. Incidentally, for five years or so the Amiga was a great choice and any PC bought instead of an Amiga would have been horribly obsolete by the time the Amiga ecosystem collapsed. Your parents sound cool ;-)
  - TheDong 12y ago
    That's a bad and misleading comparison here though. Your cassette player had to add the bulky recording feature to become a recorder, but did not need it to be a player. Firefox is a webbrowser, not a video conferencing software, but it had to add WebRTC to be a web-browser (the bulky bit), so adding in recording is trivial. A more honest analogy would be saying you had a cassette player that already had all the hardware to record -- necessitated by it being able to play cassettes for some reason -- but didn't have a record button vs one having the button.
coldtea 12y ago
>A web browser should not include X functionality, but should allow a web page to implement X functionality. In my view, this is true for most values of X, including Skype, Mail, Word, Excel... And in other people's view, it is nonsense, and they liked their Mozilla with built-in mailer, Opera, etc. And of course there's the huge ecosystem of browsers add-ons and plugins, that do exactly that: implement X functionalities outside of web pages. >Firefox Hello is ludicrous. Haven't seen any argument about it. Not being able to disable it and not wanting browsers to include X functionality doesn't translate to "ludicrous".
- pnathan 12y ago
  To be honest, I did like the Netscape system of Email, Calendar Browser, Webpage creator, etc. I don't really do lots of video, so... ::meh:: ... but I am fine with rebuilding the old Netscape system. :)
barbs 12y ago
According to the homepage: Because Hello is built right into Firefox, you can rest easy knowing that your conversations and information will remain private and secure. I'm not sure exactly why this is though. Also, out of curiosity more than anything else, what's a decent web-site that implements the same functionality (i.e. set up a VOIP session, let people join by sending a link, ideally anonymously)? I could've sworn AOL had a service like this, but Google results return nothing.
- ultrafez 12y ago
  I haven't tested it, but https://appear.in/ https://appear.in/ seems to do what you're describing.
TheDong 12y ago
Disabling it is damn simple. All I have to do is right-click on the icon and click "Remove from toolbar", or "Customize" and remove it. But wait, you say, it's not actually removed... well, for the sort of person that "about:config" is not a valid answer, it is removed. If your actual complaint is about the functionality / bloat, well, it turns out WebRTC is required for firefox to be a browser and the delta from that to this is essentially nothing.
Iv 12y ago
I agree in theory. In practice you have to be pragmatic enough to recognize that the situation is not that simple and that getting rid of closed solutions like skype can only be done if there is a massive initial population "forced" into the network.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
nodelessness 12y ago
What a browser should and should not do is the prerogative of the business or entity behind creating it. I don't understand where you get this idea of what 'should' and should not happen happen in a browser.

by cjensen 12y ago

baddox 12y ago

> A web browser should not include X functionality, but should allow a web page to implement X functionality. I'll agree if you amend "allow a web page to implement X" to "allow a web page or an extension to implement X."

mccr8 12y ago

The underlying technology used to implement this is WebRTC, which is available to web pages. Implementing peer-to-peer real time video communication entirely in Javascript would be difficult, so it has to be provided to some extent by the browser itself.

nothrabannosir 12y ago
But, if this is peer-to-peer, what's Telefonica's role?
- mccr8 12y ago
  I don't know about Telefonica's role, but in general WebRTC needs external servers to deal with things like NATs and firewalls: http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webrtc/infrastructure/ http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webrtc/infrastructure...
  - soapdog 12y ago
    I think telefonica is running the looper service that helps the peers connect to each other... but I am not sure.
- ozten 12y ago
  I'm a bit out of the loop, but to build on mccr8 and soapdog's answer: Anyone doing WebRTC seriously will need to run a fallback centralized pairing service to get around the wacky real world network topology and setup a successful p2p connection. In some cases, you need a dumb centralized pipe to connect the peers.
- jamespitts 12y ago
  It is Telefonica's OpenTok division that provides the webrtc service and javascript API upon which Firefox Hello runs. http://www.tokbox.com/blog/firefox-hello-mozilla-enhances-opentok-powered-video-chat-service/ http://www.tokbox.com/blog/firefox-hello-mozilla-enhances-op... But taking it a bit deeper, this is all part of Telefonica's strategic partnership with Mozilla to market phones running Firefox OS. http://blog.digital.telefonica.com/tag/html5/ http://blog.digital.telefonica.com/tag/html5/
- rdtsc 12y ago
  You can't have complete peer-to-peer with browsers unless you properly implement multicast groups or something of that sort. So peer-to-peer needs help bootstrapping by providing some registration service (a meet-in-the middle if you wish). That is what Telefonica might be doing -- providing a default registration service. Also because of funky routers and NAT rules, even after the initial session is set up data/audio might not be going through, so then you need STUN or TURN servers so Telefonica might be providing those as well.

criley2 12y ago

Just call it the "Chrome-ification" of Firefox. Chrome is automatically updated to be jam-packed full of browser-specific APIs and functionality. Like when Chrome automatically updated and registered itself as a background service without permission. Or when Chrome automatically installed a microphone listening service for always on "OK Google" hotword detection. Or the fact that Chrome Apps are less and less "webpages" and more and more "applications that only support the Chrome API". "To add insult to injury, there is no simple way of disabling the functionality" I wish I got paid my hourly rate for the sheer amount of time I spend combing through Google Product Forums reading about what arcane chrome://flags or commandline ---arg is required to disable their new functions. It's a shame what's happening to the web.

nolok 12y ago
This is a thread about firefox, when you make an answer entirely about chrome. This is neither the place nor the time for your rant.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- coldtea 12y ago
  There are no hard and fast rules about threads. A thread about Firefox is also a thread to discuss web browsers in general, the web, html, etc.
- dmix 12y ago
  It is very relevant. Both Chrome and Firefox are getting extremely bloated and feature-creeped. Besides bloat/performance/quality, each new feature is a new security attack vector [0]. This is a very valid discussion. Software engineers would naturally have concerns when a browser built to render web pages gets turned into a pseudo operating system. The risk here is that without focus it won't be a good browser nor a good OS. [0] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2015-07/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2015-0...

diminish 12y ago

A mobile OS should not include X functionality, but should allow a mobile app to implement X functionality. But somehow due to competition for the platform, every company is more or less in the same race.

jlebar 12y ago

> A web browser should not include X functionality, but should allow a web page to implement X functionality. Exactly. Firefox doesn't include "Firefox Hello" anymore than it includes "Gmail". Instead, Firefox (and other web browsers) include XMLHttpRequest and WebRTC, which can be used to implement whatever you want. I'm getting pretty tired of hearing this trope ("teh bloat!") anytime a browser announces new functionality. Browsers are among the most successful pieces of consumer software in existence, so let's maybe admit they've done something right? But moreover, you have the ability -- really, unprecedented for software so complex and in such wide use -- to fork not one but two excellent open-source browsers, plus an excellent rendering engine. If you think you know better than Mozilla and/or Google, go for it. It's not lost on anyone at Mozilla that this is how Firefox originated. </rant>

mattmanser 12y ago
My parents had an uncanny knack for always buying slightly the wrong thing when I was a kid. Betamax, Amigas, minidiscs. I used to have a cassette player that had a tape recorder on it. It made it bigger and heavier, and probably more expensive and I never used the record feature. Just because part of the product works well, doesn't mean the rest of it is good.
- Tloewald 12y ago
  Most people probably used the record feature on their cassette players and the cost of simply including it in every device may well have been lower than the cost of two production lines. Incidentally, for five years or so the Amiga was a great choice and any PC bought instead of an Amiga would have been horribly obsolete by the time the Amiga ecosystem collapsed. Your parents sound cool ;-)
- TheDong 12y ago
  That's a bad and misleading comparison here though. Your cassette player had to add the bulky recording feature to become a recorder, but did not need it to be a player. Firefox is a webbrowser, not a video conferencing software, but it had to add WebRTC to be a web-browser (the bulky bit), so adding in recording is trivial. A more honest analogy would be saying you had a cassette player that already had all the hardware to record -- necessitated by it being able to play cassettes for some reason -- but didn't have a record button vs one having the button.

coldtea 12y ago

>A web browser should not include X functionality, but should allow a web page to implement X functionality. In my view, this is true for most values of X, including Skype, Mail, Word, Excel... And in other people's view, it is nonsense, and they liked their Mozilla with built-in mailer, Opera, etc. And of course there's the huge ecosystem of browsers add-ons and plugins, that do exactly that: implement X functionalities outside of web pages. >Firefox Hello is ludicrous. Haven't seen any argument about it. Not being able to disable it and not wanting browsers to include X functionality doesn't translate to "ludicrous".

pnathan 12y ago
To be honest, I did like the Netscape system of Email, Calendar Browser, Webpage creator, etc. I don't really do lots of video, so... ::meh:: ... but I am fine with rebuilding the old Netscape system. :)

barbs 12y ago

According to the homepage: Because Hello is built right into Firefox, you can rest easy knowing that your conversations and information will remain private and secure. I'm not sure exactly why this is though. Also, out of curiosity more than anything else, what's a decent web-site that implements the same functionality (i.e. set up a VOIP session, let people join by sending a link, ideally anonymously)? I could've sworn AOL had a service like this, but Google results return nothing.

ultrafez 12y ago
I haven't tested it, but https://appear.in/ https://appear.in/ seems to do what you're describing.

TheDong 12y ago

Disabling it is damn simple. All I have to do is right-click on the icon and click "Remove from toolbar", or "Customize" and remove it. But wait, you say, it's not actually removed... well, for the sort of person that "about:config" is not a valid answer, it is removed. If your actual complaint is about the functionality / bloat, well, it turns out WebRTC is required for firefox to be a browser and the delta from that to this is essentially nothing.

Iv 12y ago

I agree in theory. In practice you have to be pragmatic enough to recognize that the situation is not that simple and that getting rid of closed solutions like skype can only be done if there is a massive initial population "forced" into the network.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

nodelessness 12y ago

What a browser should and should not do is the prerogative of the business or entity behind creating it. I don't understand where you get this idea of what 'should' and should not happen happen in a browser.