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

  • Evkob (they/them)
    link
    fedilink
    English
    181 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
      51 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.

  • Hellfire103
    link
    fedilink
    English
    581 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!

    • @redcalcium@lemmy.institute
      link
      fedilink
      English
      101 year 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.

      • @dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year 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
        51 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
          211 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.

        • @dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          5
          edit-2
          1 year 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)

  • Kallioapina
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1921 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.

  • Eager Eagle
    link
    fedilink
    English
    17
    edit-2
    1 year ago

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

        • Possibly linux
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Why again? It seems pretty obscure and can easily be replaced my customized Firefox or librewolf.

          • @seedd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            Yeah thats what i thought too, ive been a librewolf user for a long time. Then i tried this, its underrated af. It just has a shitload of features.

  • @Mio@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Reason?

    1. Firefox does not support Microsoft Teams
    2. Microsoft disabled support for Firefox
    3. Problem for a specific computer/account
  • @Magister@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    6
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m in Linux, I had so much problem with FF and Teams that I installed Edge and Teams as a PWA, no more problem with calls and video

  • @PoolloverNathan@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    10
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Teams also doesn’t support multiple “work” accounts

    Firefox lets you have completely separate profiles with separate accounts (URL: about:profiles, it can’t be linked to for security reasons) and also an official extension to have another layer of profiles on a per-tab basis (containers).

    • @Thorry84@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Also no idea what he is talking about, I have 4 work accounts in Teams. Ever since they rebuilt their frontend to the “New Teams” multiple accounts have been working just fine.

      In the past I had multiple Team instances as PWA for different work accounts, nowadays it’s all in one app and works pretty good.

      Not to defend Teams, it’s total shit, a lot of shit straight up doesn’t work half of the time, including important shit like notifications for new messages and content. But it has come a long way from the days including any image in chat would crash Teams for all participants. It isn’t perfect and the amount of resources it used to do what it does is awful, but compared to most modern apps it’s pretty good.

      Just don’t tell a Teams dev Microsoft Messenger did 99% of the same stuff and ran super fast on a Pentium 3 333mhz with 64MB of ram, they’ll cry and you’ll be called out for being a bully.

  • @dan@upvote.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    47
    edit-2
    1 year 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 instead 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.

    • @hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

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

    • @drathvedro@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      101 year 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
        21 year 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
          11 year 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.

        • @dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year 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.

          • @drathvedro@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year 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

          • @Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            71 year 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.

  • danielbln
    link
    fedilink
    English
    81 year ago

    Remember when Internet Explorer/Edge was only used to download Chrome. Well, ironically these days I only use Chrome to make video calls.