this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
68 points (95.9% liked)

Firefox

18626 readers
84 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 25 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I don't think it was "do not want to support" it was more of a "cannot support".

Only so much developer time to go around, have to pick your battles.

[–] MrOtherGuy@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Also, mobile Firefox has supported PWAs for a long time. I wouldn't say PWAs on desktop would be useless, but they make much more sense on mobile than on desktop.

[–] I_Miss_Daniel@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I like them as task bar icons...

Have to use an extension for that.

It's a native feature of Edge, and a buggy version exists in Chrome.

[–] mihnt@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago

Only use I've found for them on desktop personally is the web interfaces for local hardware. I did use it when I was playing with stable diffusion for a bit but never fine tuned it because stable diffusion kept crashing.

[–] dan@upvote.au 3 points 2 years ago

PWAs are useful on desktop if there's web apps you use a lot every day. For example, some people at my Workplace are in Google Docs a lot, so a Google Docs PWA would be useful. Separate taskbar/launcher icon, separate window in Alt-Tab, and at least in Chrome, Google Docs has some basic support working while offline.

[–] gamey@feddit.rocks 2 points 2 years ago

Not really, they dropped them wuth the massive layoffs during which they dropped various projects (or more like the entire teams behind them) and increased executive pay... :/

[–] Vent@lemm.ee 25 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Firefox supports PWAs, at least on mobile.

[–] gamey@feddit.rocks 9 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Are they PWAs tho, or just shortcuts?

[–] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They open in a window separate from the browser and don't display the browser toolbar, so not just shortcuts.

[–] gamey@feddit.rocks 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The main purpose of PWAs is not to remove the browser toolbar but rather cache most of the website to improve speed and reduce data usage if I am not wrong, there are external tools to get rid of the toolbar but Firefox dropped the PWA spec which includes a lot more than just that.

[–] AnarchoYeasty@beehaw.org 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The caching is the result of service workers which Firefox definitely supports.

edit: oh just scrolled down and saw you already commented that later.

[–] Vent@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Real PWAs, though PWAs aren't that different from shortcuts tbh

[–] gamey@feddit.rocks 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

As far as I know their main purpose is to cache various parts of the website properly which is a lot more than just a shortcut.

[–] lemann@lemmy.one 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Regular websites can do that too using service workers - Lemmy's webapp uses this to show an error when an instance is unreachable

What we call a PWA is usually just a webpage with a webmanifest, and a service worker script to manage loading those cached resources you mentioned

[–] gamey@feddit.rocks 2 points 2 years ago

Seems like you are right, the caching for proper offline usage and use with very limited internet connections is all done trough service workers. Their main job seems to be system integration and while Firefox Android kind of sucks at that too it doesn't seem like they ever cut that down so they just dropped it for desktop users.

[–] lw6352@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

On Android at least, Firefox PWA's don't seem to support registering system-level things (like 'Share To' handlers) - you need to use a Chrome PWA for that....

[–] mihnt@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

You can use them on Mint through their webapp application.

[–] procrastinator@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] mihnt@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Did my image not load?

Anyway, there's a webapp application that came with Mint and I can use it to setup PWAs through Firefox. I use it for my two router's setup pages.

Here's a link to the git for the that application: https://github.com/linuxmint/webapp-manager

[–] zhvsrl@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

Nice, I was trying to figure out how to get that working with Firefox. But, to be fair, it's not Firefox that's supporting PWA, it's the mint webapp-manager which is only included with Mint and requires extra steps to install on other OSes. Not as straight forward as PWA being directly supported by Firefox.

[–] procrastinator@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Doesnt seem like it. But thanks

[–] Limitless_screaming@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's not firefox that supports it, it's an app called webapp manager. you can make webapps using any browser you have installed.

You can use it on any distro.

[–] mihnt@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Well, yes. I guess I was saying more that it can be done.

Poor wording on my part.

[–] Limitless_screaming@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

It's not a problem. I just wanted to clarify that it's distro and browser agnostic.

[–] mihnt@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Oh, my bad. I see you're on world. I don't think the uploaded images in kbin's comments show up on there very well.

See if you can see it from this link.

[–] procrastinator@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Ah i see thanks. I used to use this one which is an extension + a backend app iirc

[–] CombatWombatEsq@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago

Erm... Writing a manifest is like, an hour of work for a dev? Supporting PWAs is like... years? So um, not really comparable.

[–] potajito@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

For what is worth, the pwaforfirefox project works beautifully, I use it with discord, teams and tidal everyday.

[–] DarkThoughts@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I don't like or use Discord but what's the benefit of using it as a web app vs the downloadable client?

[–] deadcade@lemmy.deadca.de 8 points 2 years ago

The native client has application level access to the rest of your machine. They use this to run process loggers "for the activity display", or the button that allows you to quickly stream a game if it's running. They could theoretically use this access for keylogging or accessing the mic without explicit user permission. Running the Discord web client keeps the source of collected telemetry within the webbrowser, which doesn't offer keylogging or process logger features, and requires explicit user permission to give websites access to a microphone, camera, or the screen for streaming.

Yes, they do process log on the native client, and from my own GDPR data request it appears they keep this data in detail for a couple of years: https://github.com/snapcrafters/discord/issues/43

[–] nin0dev@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)
  1. better privacy as no process scanning or direct access to cam/mic
  2. better performance as discord desktop app for windows still uses 32bit electron, which makes it slower than the web app
[–] decodehug647@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago
  1. better security as you have an up to date browser engine unlike the desktop app
[–] potajito@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

In Linux the native client is quite bad,especially streaming, as its not hardware accelerated and doesn't stream sound. The browser version doesn't have any of those issues.