68
all 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Vent@lemm.ee 25 points 1 year ago

Firefox supports PWAs, at least on mobile.

[-] gamey@feddit.rocks 9 points 1 year ago

Are they PWAs tho, or just shortcuts?

[-] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 1 year ago

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 1 year ago

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 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 1 year ago

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

[-] gamey@feddit.rocks 2 points 1 year ago

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 1 year ago

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 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You can use them on Mint through their webapp application.

[-] procrastinator@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago
[-] mihnt@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] procrastinator@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Doesnt seem like it. But thanks

[-] Limitless_screaming@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

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 1 year ago

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

Poor wording on my part.

[-] Limitless_screaming@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

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

[-] mihnt@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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 1 year ago

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

[-] zhvsrl@kbin.social 1 points 1 year 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.

[-] Carighan@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

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 1 year ago

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.

[-] mihnt@kbin.social 4 points 1 year 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.

[-] I_Miss_Daniel@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.

[-] dan@upvote.au 3 points 1 year 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 1 year 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... :/

[-] CombatWombatEsq@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year 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 1 year ago

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

[-] DarkThoughts@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

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 7 points 1 year 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 1 year ago
  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 1 year ago
  1. better security as you have an up to date browser engine unlike the desktop app
[-] potajito@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year 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.

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

Firefox

17303 readers
68 users here now

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

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS