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

  • Kallioapina
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1801 year 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
    1111 year ago

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

    • @EvokerKing@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -701 year 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
          -71 year 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
        271 year 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
          -61 year 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
            3
            edit-2
            1 year 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?

              • @MaximumOverflow@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                3
                edit-2
                1 year 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
                  01 year 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
        221 year 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
          21 year 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
          01 year 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year 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
              -31 year 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.

  • Hellfire103
    link
    fedilink
    English
    551 year 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!

      • @eek2121@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -141 year 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
          191 year 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.

    • @raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year 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! :)

  • Evkob (they/them)
    link
    fedilink
    English
    171 year 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.

    • qazOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 year 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
    link
    fedilink
    English
    161 year 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.

  • Eager Eagle
    link
    fedilink
    English
    15
    edit-2
    1 year ago

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

  • @frankenswine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    141 year ago

    You can make it work by changing your UserAgent string (there’s plugins for that) to some older chrome version to make things work.

    • @bob_lemon@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year 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.

  • edric
    link
    fedilink
    English
    101 year ago

    The other issue I have with conferencing apps on browsers is that they request access to your microphone even if it’s a one-way audio session (i.e. webinar). It should be set in a way where you can separately join a meeting with audio without allowing access to your microphone.