Comment on Adobe tells you to use Chrome, not Firefox
soulfirethewolf@lemdro.id 1 year agoMeanwhile, Mozilla refuses to implement feature parity with chromium in certain places they seem to be too invasive.
Also, chromium browsers can block ads.
Presi300@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Tell me 1 area where firefox isn’t at feature parity with chrome, unless you’re referring to mozilla choosing to not drop manifest V2 (which is a feature that chrome doesn’t have… fully functional adblockers and all) and by chrome, i mean chrome. 90% of people don’t use chromium-based browsers, they use chrome, so I think it’s more fair to compare firefox to chrome, instead of any of the chromium-based browsers.
egerlach@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
There’s the topic of this conversation, WebUSB. I happen to believe that a missing feature here for Firefox is a good thing, mind you…
Presi300@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I had never even heard of it before and upon looking it up… I struggle to grasp why any web app, website or anything on the internet would ever need access to my USB devices, isn’t USB device management the OS’s job? Like, call me stupid here, but I see no genuine use case for this.
DeviatedForm@lemmy.cafe 1 year ago
Some oscilloscopes use the browser, e.g. OpenScopeMZ from digilent. Then there’s Via for configuring custom keyboards, other than that nothing comes to my mind.
egerlach@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
I don’t fully agree with these, but these are the cases I’ve heard of:
I think these are better served with extensions or specific browser protocols that communicate with native apps in order to keep the crazy web world more isolated from the high-value computer world, but what do I know? My guess is that someone at Google went “You know, we’re creating a lot of these specific protocols to communicate with webcams, printers, and now we want to do authentication dongles. You know what? They all use USB? Why don’t we just create a general way to access USB?”
In the immortal words of Dr. Ian Malcolm:
Image