- cross-posted to:
- firefox@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- firefox@lemmy.ml
Teams also doesn’t support multiple “work” accounts, so I had to boot up a laptop to accept the call. 🤷
You must log in or register to comment.
Well they are just lying, it works fine with Firefox and has worked fine for years. I live in the EU though. Sucks to be american these days, I guess?
These days? It’s sucked to be an American for decades.
Better than being in a third world country ig. But it’s frustrating, because our issues are generally fueled by greed and were entirely preventable
As I saw somebody once say, “The US is a 3rd world country in a Prada belt.” If we didn’t have that big chunk of post-WW2 money keeping our economy chugging along all these years, we probably wouldn’t look all that different from them.
I have the same issue, but I am also in the EU. however, I just used an extension to spoof my user agent and now it works fine. there is some weird behavior sometimes, like when I call someone it doesn’t actually ring the other person etc.
Same for me, tried it today and it worked perfectly
EU resident here, doesn’t work for me as well
What the hell does it have to do with being American?
Certain restrictions related to Microsoft Edge are applied less in the EU
Death to America.
This isnt Hexbear man, wrong instance.
But we’re good with Eat the Rich, right?
Yes, that’s still fine.
Just one more upside to Firefox, less interruptions during work~
This is not mildly infuriating this is the free internet being eroded through Google’s control of Chrome
I think this is more a push towards tightly couplings with Edge.
No it seriously means the feature isn’t available yet in the browser. Like there is a part of Firefox missing that they need to use the website. Basically all websites are coded in HTML, css, and js or a form of that. The browser controls them and the code operates out of it. If a feature is on chrome and chromium but not Firefox, the site won’t work on Firefox. Not sure exactly what is missing but it is mozillas fault not Microsoft.
Google meets and zoom work perfectly well in firefox, this is just ms stuff
You clearly don’t fully understand what I’m talking about but that is unrelated since they don’t have to use the features they implement.
Firefox implements everything the various web standards require. There are a few non standard features that Chromium implements that certain websites take advantage of, but the fact that their code isn’t portable is not Firefox’s fault. As for Teams… Microsoft’s just being a dick: if you change the user agent it works just fine.
And maybe Microsoft requires it. Also the could be more under the surface we don’t know about with the user agent, where it might have some kind of security exploit or something.
If there was a known security exploit, it would have been patched. Everything works, so nothing essential is missing. The way I see it, it’s yet another attempt to manipulate users into switching away from open standards.
Also, it’s a multi billion dollar company, can they really not afford to put a couple of devs to work on changing a few lines of code to fix whatever small incompatibility there may be?
But we don’t know if Microsoft can fix it, as it’s most likely on Firefox’s end.
You really don’t want to lose this argument do you? As a software engineer myself, I can assure you that that’s complete bullshit.
Teams is nothing special, it doesn’t intrinsically require any functionality only available in Chromium. It isn’t some weird magical piece of software that can’t be made work strictly using standard web protocols and features, something that, apparently, it already does because it does work if you trick it. It’s not even cutting edge, chat and video conferencing web apps have been around for ages at this point, many were implemented years back with only a fraction of what’s available today. They worked everywhere and still do. Microsoft is perfectly capable of making it work, because it can.
And If there was a known security exploit, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PATCHED. It doesn’t matter if it’s on Microsoft’s end or Firefox’s end.
The only reason they don’t make it work on Firefox by default is because they don’t want you to use it on Firefox, that’s it.
You seem to not want to lose either. I’m a software developer myself who specializes in websites. If Microsoft knows a severe exploit, they probably wouldn’t go around telling everybody exactly how to exploit it, would they? And we don’t know that it works perfectly, just that it works enough to use it.
MS purposefully not respecting the standards for its softwares to only work on their own browsers is a feature since they made Internet Explorer. It’s an industrial strategy to trap the users into their own tools. It’s to the point they don’t respect even their own standards in the case of docx for example so that there is no easy interoperability with libreoffice.
I agree with you that the real reason for it is EEE but their justification for it is that for enterprise and corporate customers, the only ones they care about, they can’t control Firefox in the same was as they can Edge or Chrome with the Microsoft Account add in which allows the MDM agents like InTune to apply DRM. Their primary concern (so they claim) is the enterprise administrators ability to control the computer, provide settings, configure defender xdr security and all the other bs products they sell.
That remark, while truthful a long time ago, didn’t really apply during the later periods of IE, or the early periods of Edge before it became a webkit clone. When it needed to win back users, there was a lot of focus on standardization, meaning that when I worked on sites, I tested them through MDN Docs, and in Firefox and IE first, made sure my solutions were not using any -webkit- nonsense, and then they would be fine on other browsers. Anytime I did find IE bugs late in its life, it was usually because some other browser coder was not correctly following standards.
It used to work months ago. I’d try switching the user agent to spoof Chrome.
This may open a security exploit or something, I don’t recommend it.
As long as you use Ctrl+Shift+M and not a proprietary third-party add-on, and your chosen user agent is not too unique, there is no risk.
Not what I mean. I mean Microsoft may know about an exploit with Firefox users joining calls like that and they blocked the user agent because that was the simplest way to keep most people safe.
This is not just dumb, it would be illegal under EU law.
They support meetings in Firefox so it’s a bit weird why they would block calls… They’re effectively the same thing
Additionally, if you change your userAgent to be Chrome things are working pretty good in Firefox as far as I’ve tried it (not too extensively)
But that could open a security exploit, for example letting other users take your IP and use it within the call to perform a ddos or other kind of attack on your system. They could have been trying to fix that.
Last time this came up, just spoofing the Firefox user agent to Chrome made it work perfectly. Maybe they block it because they haven’t tested it on Firefox yet, but it works as well as it does in Chrome.
And if they haven’t had the time to validate it in Firefox yet, that is a conscious choice by MS to not dedicate time specifically to validating in Firefox and treating it as a second-class web browser.
Its cool how all these companies are allowed to just lie to you about their products functionality.
If you use Firefox, you are a communist; and if you are a communist why would you need the glorious tools of corporate communication? Just make do with rotten turnips as Lenin intended
This whooshed a lot o’ folks.
Conversely, I should maybe try to use the /s thingy and stop thinking people can read my mind. Will I learn this lesson today? Hmmm
“glorious” + “rotten turnips” = /s
Don’t give in to the dark side.
You went from -12 to +16!
Fuck /s ✊
deleted by creator
Sorry if this was not clear, but it was only a joke. I assure you, I only subscribe to first-quality ideologies.
deleted by creator
Yeah I’m more referring to sites that do this ans then work perfectly fine once the user agent reads some brand of chromium. The only serious offender I deal with on a weekly basis is Apple Business Manager.
Try changing your user agent to a Chrome one (e.g.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36). Works a treat!Sidenote:
HTTP user agents have become absolutely bonkers over the years.
There’s an API called “client hits” that’s replacing user-agent. Some of the hints will require the user to provide permission for the site to use them, since they could be used for fingerprinting.
Major browsers (Chrome and I thibk Firefox) are freezing the user-agent. The only thing that’ll be changing in user agents is the major browser version. Other parts including platform will be static. Chrome on Windows will always report itself as Windows 10 for example. https://www.chromium.org/updates/ua-reduction/
deleted by creator
Useragent parsing is still a thing?
It is similiar in nature to greping html.
Not really. The example listed above is perfectly readable.
Knowing the versions of webkit, browser version, etc. is important due to inconsistencies, new features, mossing features, and deprecated features. Sure it can be faked, but that is on the end user.
There is more information in there that isn’t actually true and only supposed to trick some old web servers into treating it a certain way than there is actually correct information,
It mentions three different browsers, only one of which is actually true, and three different rendering engines, none of which is actually what’s used.
Chrome doesn’t use Webkit, and the referenced Webkit version is probably 10 years old at this point. The user agent is full of stuff for backwards compatibility. That’s why it’s being deprecated in favour of a better API (client hints)
Feels like we’re back to 2007 again when spoofing firefox user agent to IE would fix websites not working properly, only now we spoof it to chrome instead.
This is likely legacy code. Firefox used to have a lot of issues with WebRTC, so practically all video conferencing systems blocked it. Teams probably has some “block Firefox because it doesn’t work properly” check that was written 5+ years ago and none of the current developers are even aware of its existence.
Well-coded ones did feature detection instead of checking the user-agent, meaning they automatically started allowing Firefox as soon as it implemented all the required features.
Feature detection is usually the way to go. If your website / webapp depends on a particular feature, check if that specific feature exists, rather than checking for particular browsers. Browser checks are still needed in some cases, for example Safari sometimes reports that it supports particular features but it really doesn’t (or they’re so buggy to the point where they’re unusable), but that’s relatively rare.
Feature detection is usually the way to go. If your website / webapp depends on a particular feature, check if that specific feature exists, rather than checking for particular browsers. Browser checks are still needed in some cases, for example Safari sometimes reports that it supports particular features but it really doesn’t (or they’re so buggy to the point where they’re unusable), but that’s relatively rare.
This is tough to implement when the feature is present, but implemented wrong. Or, even worse, when it’s implemented right, but the most popular browser implements it wrong and almost everyone else follow suit for compatibility reasons, except for one that takes the stance of following standards. I know safari is notorious for this, think pale moon had those issues, too, and there are still echoes from the past from pre-chrome internet explorer, thank god it’s finally dead.
Chrome is the new Internet Explorer.
At least Chrome is mostly standards-compliant and doesn’t do anything too weirdly. I’d say Safari is the new IE - lots of weird bugs that no other browser has, and sometimes you need hacks specific to Safari.
That’s fair. I meant that more in terms of using market dominance to shape the browser market, and not in entirely good ways.
I’ll rue the day that every website insists it only works with Chrome because of some user-privacy degrading feature that Google insists is a core web technology.
Ms teams sucks in a big way
Removed by mod
Sure, but the point is that you shouldn’t have to. There should be cross-compatibility.
This team block is so agressive to firefox users that it’s literaly hardcoded as if web browser firefox then deny.
You cam override that by changing a parameter in firefox to advertise itself as another we browser. I don’t remeber how i did it but, once i had to use firefox and i just changed that stting in order to advertise me to the host as a edge browser. With that changed i could use teams as normal.
Epic drm.
When I’d search “(location) weather” on Google (e: in Chrome) and I’d get a really nice at a glance forecast right on top. Do the same thing in Firefox and I’d get a whole bunch of weather websites I could go to. The former obviously being a better, more direct experience. I found an extension that fools Google into thinking it’s Chrome and all works fine with that.
I’m amazed if this doesn’t violate some antitrust regulation
I used to freelance for a big corp who used MS teams and provided me with separate credentials, while also having my private MS account, that I occasionally use for other corps I worked for.
It was a hell using it that way. I had to run each one in a private Brave window to be able to work on two different accounts.
I know they only use MS teams, bc their infra is all based on MS, and it probably works fine for them internally. But man, this shit needs to be fixed in some way to account for external people, especially the ones who chose their own stack and work simultaneously with others.
Apparently the dumpster fire known as MS Teams supports multiple accounts now.
It does, but it basically reloads the app when switching. Which, if I recall correctly, means no notifications from the other account and really slow swapping between accounts. When I had to use multiple accounts I would use the app for one and a browser for the other.
The new teams doesn’t seem to reload the app (or ita really fast). Still garbage program.
Luckily, I’ve been able to get away with only using Teams for meetings, so my exposure is limited, but last time I messed around in the top right corner there was an area that indicated it would show notifications from other accounts.
I have had no need or desire to test this, though.
Teams rarely works well internally.
given the love Teams receives, it not working in [ insert browser ] is definitely a feature
Have you tried changing your user agent string to Chrome? I know it can sometimes sidestep these types of “errors”. It can be changed manually through about:config under general.useragent.override, or there exists plenty of addons to switch it more easily.
I’ve avoided changing my user agent because Firefox’s apperant market share is already so low. I’ve installed the extension and will it try it with my work container though.
Im sure if you swap user agent to chrome they wouldn’t give a fuck
It crashes right after a call starts.
Everything else works fine though.
It’ll complain later that the browser is blocking its spyware and adware.
deleted by creator
The new presentation blurb is really annoying bad at hiding itself.
That said, new teams finally supports multiple accounts, so I don’t have to keep using a web app for the second one on my work laptop.
I works for me without a user agent change if I enter through the Microsoft 365 teams workspace and not a teams share link.
