Looks like someone made a boo-boo it’s simply based on the user agent, w/e string matching they do is too strict they aren’t checking for actual JS/WebASM compatibility or anything like that.<p>Chrome stable with a non standard user agent doesn’t work on via the windows live url but works through the O365 corporate one, same with Safari Mobile without any user agent modification.<p>This to me looks like stupidity more than malice, their link doesn’t even recommend Edge but rather Chrome and Safari…
It's 2023. Why are we still doing user agent detection? We're supposed to do feature detection.<p>userAgent is deprecated.<p><a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Navigator/userAgent" rel="nofollow">https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Navigator/u...</a>
We are a smaller company, only 10 users. We are in the process of fully ditching Microsoft for a full linux stack using Samba for AD (for the leprosy known as Quickbooks alone). I've blocked MS at the pihole and was expecting people to bring torches and pitchforks. The general consensus was we should have done this years ago and how did you make my computer so much faster. To hell with Microsoft and their tripe.
My organization (which uses Teams) forcibly migrated all Firefox users to Edge a couple of weeks ago and uninstalled FF. They were citing incompatibility with some software and I assumed that meant the new ERP system being adopted by one of the larger departments.
We need a third option in the malice/incompetence spectrum: <i>active neglect.</i> It's the safest way for big organisations to push users off of platforms they don't like. A combination of one or more of the following is going to ensure that the platform support is always wonky:<p>- Under-fund the testing. This can backfire if whistle-blowers point out the change.<p>- Assign bad apples to the platform. This can't really backfire, because of the woke "everyone's equally good at everything" thing.<p>- Keep moving the target, similar to the "extend" part of embrace-extend-extinguish. "Of course we can't support legacy platforms like Firefox, because they don't support this incredibly niche 3D tile caching optimisation flag, which only Teams and two other products on the globe use."
I don't buy that this is accidental.<p>When you write software, you test it on every platform you choose to support. If it doesn't work on a supported platform, then you take the time to fix it before release.<p>It's not an "accident" when the software doesn't work on a platform you didn't bother to test on. That platform is being neglected by policy, not because of some "accident" in the code.
This is not just nightly, even Firefox-esr on Debian didn't support screen-sharing at least a few months ago. Had issues during client meetings last year and since then I always propose google meet instead if I see a teams link in the invitation, explaining why.<p>It's not technical it's lazy devs. The button is disabled claiming my browser doesn't support it. Bullshit.
Nobody here commenting on the fact that Slack blocks Firefox as well for voice/video calls?<p>I'm not a regular Slack user, but when I tried the voice call option earlier this week first I got a notification that they were switching to some new style of video conferencing called "Huddles", and it gave me an option to choose between "huddles" and "classic" video calls, which was confusing to begin with. I choose the latter, but I got a compatibility error with my browser, advising me to use huddles instead (really, they couldn't detect that earlier?). Anyway, when I tried to 'huddle' my customer, it simple said my browser (Firefox on Linux) wasn't compatible, and that I must install Chrome to use the feature.<p>This is where I closed Slack and used my phone to make the call.
Modern web development has made it so that browsers are essentially just a VM for running javascript applications. Each megacorp (and mozilla, the odd institution out) browser is now it's own OS. It's no surprise that each OS is diverging from the others. Especially now that the W3C has been sidelined and the megacorp controlled WHATWG is making the calls (in the best case, in the worst, or more common case, each browser OS just does it's own proprietary thing).<p>You wouldn't be surprised that Windows or Mac OS can't run a linux elf, or vice versas. Same here. This phenomenon is web devs getting what they deserve and dragging everyone down with them.
Microsoft has some of the worst developers in big tech. I worked with two principal engineers from Microsoft and I swore I would never work with anyone from Microsoft again.
<a href="https://teams.microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">https://teams.microsoft.com</a> Firefox 110.0.1 on Linux, works perfectly<p>What am I missing?<p>The link in the submission points to<p><a href="https://teams.live.com/_#/unsupportedBrowser" rel="nofollow">https://teams.live.com/_#/unsupportedBrowser</a><p>but <a href="https://teams.live.com/" rel="nofollow">https://teams.live.com/</a> works without issues
I have a regular teams call with somebody, and never use it outside of this. A few months ago it was blocking both Firefox and Chromium user agents on Linux. Rather than mucking about with it I just switched to a Windows laptop for this meeting. But last week I tried it on Linux Firefox and it works (well, to the limited extent that teams works at all)
I'm one of those people who choose to use FF Nightly. It works with Teams unless you want to make a call or share screen - you need to change the User Agent then. I'm too lazy to do it so I'm using a phone app for calls and complaining to everyone that Teams is crap.<p>And I mean, it is crap by itself. It is badly thought out, it has its bad moments even on its native platform, its system of teams etc. is confusing and far inferior to the ones used by its competitors. Frankly, if it wasn't MS and their dominant market position/integration with AD, very few people would make the decision to use it for daily work. /rant
I wonder if this has something to do that Microsoft is going to launch a big update for Teams soon [1].<p>I thought that the update was most about the desktop version who is switching from Electron to Edge Webview2 technology, but maybe it affects also the web version.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/20/23607037/microsoft-teams-performance-improvements-less-cpu-memory" rel="nofollow">https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/20/23607037/microsoft-teams-...</a>
How many companies test their websites in pre-release versions of Chrome or Firefox? Some brave volunteers on the team (even non-developers) could dogfood test Chrome or Firefox Beta (or even Chrome Dev or Firefox Nightly) as their regular browser for day-to-day work. It’s not full test coverage of your website, but they would identify major breaking issues before your end users do. They might find be new browser bugs that Google or Mozilla should fix or breaking web API changes that your website needs to adapt to.
I was using MSTeams this week in Linux, and it was showing everything OK, webcam and audio, but the person on the other side was not receiving webcam image, in Windows.<p>We tried several things, update browsers, Firefox, Chromium, Flatpak...<p>In the end we just made a Jitsi meeting<p><a href="https://meet.jit.si" rel="nofollow">https://meet.jit.si</a><p><a href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-teams/join-a-meeting" rel="nofollow">https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-teams/join-a-meeti...</a>
When clicking the link in Chrome on macOS, it goes into an infinite URL redirect loop w/ one of the URLs being "unsupported browser."<p>This didn't happen the first time I clicked the link, by the way. It occurred on the second.<p>The first click, I was redirected through a bunch of pages until I landed on the sign-in form.<p>It took a few seconds to arrive there after navigating the redirects.<p>I thought the experience was so janky that I decided to try it again, then discovered the redirect loop.
I have seen this error before :) A lot here.<p>live.com is the "personal" Teams, the one pinned in Windows 11.<p>teams.microsoft.com is the enterprise "real" Teams, the first one they released.<p>They are different, why there is 2 downloads here. But HN loves to hate on Teams so... carry on :)<p><a href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-teams/download-app" rel="nofollow">https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-teams/download-app</a>
Piggybacking here: Does anyone understand the identity management of Microsoft? Is there any way for me to see all my "accounts" associated with various email addresses and the organizations they belong to?<p>I haven't been able to access most of the Microsoft ecosystem due to various errors on MS side and I'd really like to get it fixed.<p>Some customers are inviting me to their teams and I always have to say "sorry, doesn't work"
I'm not using a FF nightly build, but I initially get a screen along the lines that my browser isn't supported and a split second later it goes away and a login form pops up. There's more text but it flashes so quickly I can't really make out the rest.
Visiting this link in Chrome ends up in a redirect loop.<p>One the URLs that passes by during the loop indicates: "unsupported browser" at the end of the string./
If any MS Teams developer here,<p>here is my bug report.<p>I can't use same sso account on android and on macos at the same time. The token gets invalidated for some reason.
Controversial opinion:<p>I used to like Firefox but at some point you have to accept the reality: No developer likes to have 2 backlogs, one for Chrome and one for FF. IMO It's better to adopt Chromium-based browsers and put pressure on Google to avoid letting it become the sole decision-maker about the web.