Teams also doesn’t support multiple “work” accounts, so I had to boot up a laptop to accept the call. 🤷

  • Kallioapina@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    223
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    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?

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    134
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Its cool how all these companies are allowed to just lie to you about their products functionality.

  • jflorez
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is not mildly infuriating this is the free internet being eroded through Google’s control of Chrome

    • EvokerKing@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      92
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

        • EvokerKing@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

      • MaximumOverflow@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • EvokerKing@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • MaximumOverflow@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            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?

            • EvokerKing@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              10 months ago

              But we don’t know if Microsoft can fix it, as it’s most likely on Firefox’s end.

              • MaximumOverflow@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                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.

                • EvokerKing@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  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.

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • hamid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

        • Katana314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

            • EvokerKing@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

      • SavvyBeardedFish@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        10 months ago

        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)

        • EvokerKing@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

      • pokemaster787@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

  • mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    86
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

  • dan@upvote.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    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.

    • drathvedro@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

          • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            However, Chrome is a browser collecting user data for a company whose business model it is to sell user data. Edge is a shitty bloatware collecting user data for a company that has (for now) a business model selling software licenses.

            I wouldn’t say it’s “better” to use Edge, but I wouldn’t install Chrome either(!) on any device whose data I care about.

            • dan@upvote.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              whose business model it is to sell user data

              So I know what you mean, but Google doesn’t sell user data. That’s a common misconception. The data is what makes the company valuable - they’re not going to just give that to anyone with money. Instead, they sell your attention. Advertisers can target their ads based on data collected about you. Advertisers never actually see the data nor do they know exactly which users are seeing their ad - they just get aggregate statistics.

              Having said that… Edge is basically Chrome but better (e.g. it uses less RAM). I use Firefox but if I didn’t, I’d give Edge a try. It’s unfortunate that Microsoft are trying to push it so hard, since it’s actually a decent browser that’s being ruined by Microsoft trying to force everyone to use it.

          • drathvedro@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            I couldn’t say that it is. Chrome team’s usual approach is to make and release stuff first, write specifications later. By the time the other browsers come along, there’s already both market adoption and bunch of dumb decisions set in stone as a standard. Most notable examples of this would be QUIC and WebUSB

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        This is tough to implement when the feature is present, but implemented wrong

        Sometimes it’s doable if you can call the API and check that the result is what you’d expect. For example, a long time ago some browsers incorrectly handled particular Unicode characters in JSON.parse. Sites could check for the incorrect behaviour and shim JSON.parse with a version that fixes the output.

        I’ve never worked with WebRTC but I imagine it might be difficult to do that with some of its APIs given they require camera or microphone access (meaning you can’t check for the bug until the user actually tries to use it).

        • drathvedro@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Sometimes it’s doable if you can call the API and check that the result is what you’d expect

          Yeah, you can even test visual and network stuff at a cost of latency, but it’s hard and lots of developers are too lazy to do this, I’ve often seen sites that don’t even check if function exists before calling it, crashing the entire site because adblock cut out google tags or they call API that isn’t even implemented in firefox.

          I’ve never worked with WebRTC but I imagine it might be difficult to do that with some of its APIs given they require camera or microphone access

          I did. It’s a complete mess. First and foremost exactly because it’s a soup of completely unrelated tech - P2P, webcams, audio in&out, stream processing and compression, SIP(!?). There’s no good debug tooling available and lots of stuff is buried inside browser’s implementation. And, on top of that, any useful info on the topic is usually buried under lots of “make a skype killer in 5 minutes” kind of libraries with hardcoded TURN servers - the developer’s overpriced TURN servers, that is.

    • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      This is indeed the case. I use firefox daily, including for teams. I have to fake my user agent to do it, but it works. Its purely teams just saying fuck you to firefox…

      • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Could you share your user agent string please? I am still on the Teams desktop app for Linux, but that’s been discontinued in 2022 already, so I am anticipating the day it will stop working altogether. And I haven’t even managed to log in to teams web with Chromium yet (and no, I don’t want to install f*cking Chrome itself) - I get a permanent login loop on successful username / password :/

        Edit: never mind, I found it here: https://sopuli.xyz/comment/6224391

        User Agent String that works for me:

        Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

        • Natanael@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          You should update the spoofed agent occasionally or else you may get an update warning from some sites and get blocked. Just check what a current version of an allowed browser reports and copy it.

      • Iceman9665@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Do you get all teams functionality? I tried user agent sppof but couldn’t join conference calls properly on work teams so back to Chrome or was

    • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Teams used to have more features on Firefox. Microsoft has intentionally started stripping off shit to move people to edgium

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Oh… I didn’t know this. Maybe it is intentionally malicious then. Hmm.

    • kibiz0r@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      They might be doing feature detection on one of the more obscure APIs, too. I know there’s some audio manipulation APIs that aren’t available.

      Someone complained about Discord deliberately blocking Firefox users because of that, but it turned out that spoofing the user agent would actually break the feature.

  • Hellfire103@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    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!

    • waigl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Sidenote:

      HTTP user agents have become absolutely bonkers over the years.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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/

      • eek2121@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • waigl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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)

    • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

    • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

      thank you, this worked for me! :)

  • Zuberi 👀@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    10 months ago

    Just change your Useragent, Microsoft is a bunch of dummies and didn’t even bother to code it in a way that makes sense as a DRM lmfao.

      • vermyndax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s really not as bad as people portray. Most sites do work in Safari. There are some problems, but they’ve been pretty good about licking them over time. It’s passable enough that I only have to punt to an alternate browser once in a while.

        I’ve tried to use Firefox, I really have. But Firefox absolutely murders my battery and I’m sorry, but they need to do some serious usability improvements… especially around the container implementation and tab management. It’s confusing as fuck (to me).

  • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    given the love Teams receives, it not working in [ insert browser ] is definitely a feature

  • Evkob@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • qaz@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

  • adONis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • wigit@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      Apparently the dumpster fire known as MS Teams supports multiple accounts now.

      • jacksilver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • TheFonz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          The new teams doesn’t seem to reload the app (or ita really fast). Still garbage program.

        • wigit@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

  • email
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Im sure if you swap user agent to chrome they wouldn’t give a fuck

    • bob_lemon@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.