- cross-posted to:
- firefox@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- firefox@lemmy.ml
I held off on Windows 10 for as long as I could until Adobe, and therefore my job, required it. Now this nonsense. I hope this isn’t the start of them joining on the web DRM bandwagon.
You must log in or register to comment.
This is honestly why I have more then two browsers installed. But it is sad this DRM stuff is spreading.
I feel like Adobe is one of the pioneers for DRM lol, They’ve always kept all their things under some kind of paywall.
HP: I am a joke to you?
HP - Not Even Once™
Their new logo is smashing, though.
Sauce?
It’s from “ace attorney” but I don’t know if that’s an original quote
it wasn’t in the game
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/you-are-not-a-clown-you-are-the-entire-circus
Yes. Yes, you are.
https://www.thurrott.com/cloud/web-browsers/mozilla-firefox/246039/tip-use-firefox-for-web-apps
I haven’t tried this yet, and the page is from 2021. Perhaps the feature is still experimental or lost. Otherwise I use chromium to avoid the Google bloat.
decided to check out of curiosity and couldn’t see the pref from the article listed in my config (im on 116.0), ~i’d imagine theres a chance it would work if manually adding that pref and setting to true but i have no idea where i could test it since i don’t use any sites that would need that pref to work.~
wonder if user agent spoofing would work, probably wouldn’t hurt to try that as well
They dropped it in the desktop browser after a while, but I think you can do it with an extension or something.
I got in on the Kickstarter for the Abode (not a misspelling) software suite by Stuart Semple and am hoping that when they release that it at least beats Darktable. Also, Darktable is pretty great as a free alternative to Lightroom.
Edit: I named him because he created the Freetone color palette when Pantone upped their license fee on Adobe. He also made a few paints and sells them at reasonable prices as an accessible alternative to more expensive paints.
Also DigiKam for the photo management side of things (I usually find that DarkTable is best suited for retouching). Between these two I don’t feel the need for anything Adobe. Granted, I’m just a hobbyist so I can’t speak from a professional point of view.
What in the actual fuck is this, thank you for bringing this up I will never use an Adobe product ever
So the inevitable future begins. This will be the standard web very soon.
Only if people continue to give money to Adobe.
Unfortunately the majority of users or don’t care about privacy or don’t want to spend time to learn how to use other tools and for extremely professional tasks Adobe suite is not easily replaceable.
Genuinely can’t see a future where people collectively ditch adobe. They make industry standard products that companies, educational institutions, professionals, etc… buy.
I used to be responsible for the app portfolio in a 1000+ user company, and every 3 years or so I would go back out to the market and try hard to replace Adobe, just for PDF operations. Couldn’t do it because so many products were integrated with them, often in ways we could not reproduce with other products. The best we could do would be to pay for a different product for 1/3 of the cost for Adobe, and then still end up having to carry a significant number of Adobe licenses for cases when integration failed with the other product. No-win situation, and just easier to stay with the evil we knew.
I hate them.
In the AEC field we have Bluebeam as a de facto industry standard for PDFs, and it’s vastly superior to Acrobat in every way for our typical use cases. I imagine it’s a bit harder in other industries, though.
Google is worrying me with their ever-encroaching strategy of limiting internet access through DRM
I2P and TOR network will be my home in near future.
I’d stop using the web if this happened everywhere. I do use a user agent switcher or Ungoogled Chromium in a pinch though.
Unless you’re a professional and want stuff like being able to set the white point of an image. 8 years and counting, stopped holding my breath.
Also, I think it’s noteworthy that they touted “Pay once, free updates forever!”, and then they release Version 2 which requires a new license. Oh, and has a new price.
I paid $100 for Designer, Photo and Publisher in 2021. The “full package” of V2 now costs $220 (although 25% off with existing license). Still cheaper than 4 months of Adobe sub, but I can’t use it for anything when they won’t implement simple features like white point selection, which I need multiple times daily.
I think this comment from the forum link above speaks volumes as to why serious graphic designers need to steer clear:
Another two years down the line - I bought Photo v2 and still there’s no picker to set white and black. Affinity’s ethos (with Photo Publisher and Designer) is clearly to de-monopolise Adobe and take a market share from Photoshop Illustrator and InDesign but when professionals have to Google just about every single new task, it’s very frustrating. I get the impression Affinity designers have spent too much time in the world of Linux where manipulating software is the challenge and bending it to your will is the achievement. We ex-Photoshop users want developers who help us to create images and documents. The endless puzzle of how to do things with Affinity Photo doesn’t interest us.
There are still so many bugs in the UI - annoying little things like having to click twice to activate a dialog, or typing in a value only to have the first digit ignored. Most of the tool icons are meaningless, jpg compression is so poor, native file sizes are so big, why can’t I simply open a jpg edit it and close with a save? Why can’t I batch save images as WEBP? I cannot move from the Develop Persona to Edit without committing the changes - and yet I can hit Undo when back to Edit - it’s just clunky geeky sloppy stuff that smells of Linux.
We all hate Adobe and their monopolistic dictatorial empire, I think we all want to love Affinity but jeez it’s really not working out for me. I could never recommend this to any of my clients.
Yeah, it’s a bit hard when you’re dealing with industry standards. I’m provided CC through work so it’s not really my choice, but it sounds like Affinity still isn’t a 1:1 option. I’ve been interested in it so I’m glad to hear the other side of things. It’s easy to go FOSS for most personal things, but not as much when it comes to doing business.
“We can’t track you using this browser. Please use one of the following that we have agreements with.”
I fear this kind of thing will become a trend.
Thankfully I am not required to use any Adobe products. Seeing this would seriously insult me.
If safari is supported, then there is no reason to not supporting Firefox. What key features supported by safari required by adobe that’s not supported by Firefox?
QA is probably just not testing on FF because of user share. And if it’s not going through QA, you just don’t support it as bog coorp…
Out of all the modern browsers, it’s always Safari that I end up needing to write compatibility code for. I’m sure the app works fine on Firefox, they just haven’t tested it.
Tbf, while daily-driving Firefox I do occasionally encounter websites (mostly web apps) that do not work on Firefox. But it’s often a pretty simple fix, like sometimes I can get around it myself just through Dev Tools shenanigans.
Which is really sad because Safari used to be one of the best browsers over a decade ago now.
What’s extra stupid about these, is most of the time just using a user agent switcher to make the site think you’re on chrome or opera makes it work just fine.
I would be surprised if eveything works correctly. Generally they don’t just decide that something isn’t supported for no reason
Sometimes it’s as simple as something like “firefox doesn’t support import maps”, but now they do (in 108+) but nobody has the time or inclination to go back and validate that the site now works in firefox.
I do understand it. These are browsers that they decided during development that are not supported. Not supported means not tested by a full QA team for months. And users are generally stupid, soba simple warning (use at your own risk) is something that does not work.
So they decide to just not support the other browsers.
To be clear, I am definitely not a fan of Adobe of this mechanism, just explaining.
deleted by creator
People don’t read warnings. They will still swamp your support department with tickets despite being told their setup is unsupported.
You can say browser X may cause issues on the website, but people will still complain that browser X doesn’t work properly and demand you to fix whatever issue they’re having.
I hate them more for pioneering Software as a Service rent seeking crap. Why own software when you can become a revenue stream for Adobe. Die in a fire.
This is crap too tho.
As a software developer I have sympathy for this business model, but of course pricing has to be reasonable. A piece of software is a continuing social responsibility for the developer to fix new security issues, incompatibilities and bugs. If you only get paid a one-off sum the maintenance can drain you. A continued time-based fee is more in tune with how the actual development cost pans out.
A continual stream of revenue is great, understandably. But I would much prefer it if I could instead purchase v.1.34 of a software and get updates until major changes come. At which point I’d still have my v.1.3x with all its functions but if I wanted the new stuff (and the security patches with it) I’d need to pay for v.1.4x. Corporations (that probably much more require the security updates than hobbyists) wouldn’t see much of a change and hobbyists could have a good alternative to subscriptions.
That’s not how developers see it. We have a responsibility to push security updates to you even if you stay on 1.3x, because if your machine is compromised it can be used to further attack others. It’s similar to how people have a social responsibility to vaccinate themselves to protect others, but in the software world that responsibility falls on the software producers rather than you personally.
A big challenge here is that the cost and time required to develop and test a security fix is proportional to the number of software versions in circulation. So it’s better for everyone if we can keep everybody on the latest version.
Why should that fall on the developer if you choose not to upgrade?
That’s a question of political ideology. I can just say that right now that’s what the general expectation is. Or at least, corporations get enough flak if they don’t fix the issues that they feel compelled to take the responsibility and avoid badwill. But one could certainly imagine a law where individual users are liable for the malware running on their PC:s instead.
Personally I think it’s good that developers take the responsibility, because there are too many users that will not upgrade and that causes a societal problem. For example, it becomes hard for banks to protect accounts when people log in using PCs that have tons of software with security holes.
Adobe reactivated my subscription without my permission and now won’t refund me. They have records of my subscription being cancelled in May but can’t explain why I was suddenly billed again in August.
Chargeback time.
Hello Bank? Yes I’d like to issue a stop payment
I’m going to try Adobe customer service one more time, but this may be the route I go. I always try to avoid chargebacks because it can lead to stuff just getting sent to collections which is more harmful than eating the payment.
deleted by creator
Could you just get an extension that changes your user agent? They exist. I wonder if it would work.
I bet it would because Firefox supports pretty much everything Chrome supports. Sometimes a little better.
Reminds me to how Google Meet does not support background blur in Firefox, but magically support it when you fake the user agent to chrome. Like, wtf?!
The Adobe message has nothing to do with the technical limitations of your browser and everything to do with their monopolistic nature as a company.
Well, in this case it might even be a technological limitation, which can be solved with a workaround but leads to a poor user experience.
Firefox, for security reasons, doesn’t allow opening local files for writing. That means, it’s not possible to make a web application that can autosave to your machine after you open a file, meaning you have to download a new version of the file every time you save. You can get around this issue by importing the files in question to the browser’s local storage, or by using cloud storage via an API, but local saving is a feature that people have come to expect and missing it will lead to complaints from the users.
The missing API is called File System Access API and has been available on Chrome for years. I’ve personally had to write my web apps around this limitation multiple times, since I want to support Firefox. By no means is this a valid reason to exclude Firefox in my opinion, but I can also easily see why a company would want to not bother with user feedback on ctrl+s not working in their web application.
But they support Safari though, what’s the excuse for that? According to this page, safari supports level for file system access api is similar with Firefox.
My best guess is the dates on which the feature was added, which can also be seen on CanIUse. Firefox added OPFS support in March this year, and much of the userbase (AFAIK e.g. Firefox ESR) is still lacking the feature – in any case it’s a very recent change on Firefox. However, webkit/Safari has had OPFS for over two years by now. I was personally unaware of the support having been added to Firefox as well, last time I checked the discussion they told they weren’t going to implement the API.
By no means is this an acceptable excuse in my opinion, this kind of check should always be done by checking the existence of the feature, not the UA string. Though it might be that the check is still performed in the correct way as Safari users stuck on older version are also encountering the issue. But if they’re fine with using OPFS, where you need to export the files separately to access them outside the browser context (as the storage is private), there’s no reason to complain about recent Firefox versions that support this feature.
But, the same point still stands, kind of. The main underlying problem is Google forcing new standards through Chromium, without waiting for industry consensus and a proper standard. Then, as 80% of the userbase already has the feature everyone else is forced to get on board. I still don’t really see Adobe as the main culprit here, despite the apparent incompetence in writing compatibility checks, but Google with their monopolistic practices with the Chromium project. Adobe isn’t innocent and has done the industry a lot of harm in the form of being one of the original pushers of subscription software, but I don’t think this instance should be attributed to malice rather than incompetence.
Edit: So, a bit of additional advice for someone trying to get this to work: in case the UA spoofing doesn’t help, check the Firefox version in use – it has to be 111 or newer, as 111 was the release where File System API support was added. Firefox ESR probably doesn’t have it available. Also check that FS API / OPFS doesn’t need to be enabled through some flag or configuration parameter, and that it’s not blocked by some plugin.
I can’t believe I never thought about that - gotta try this later today
