I think you meant “concerning”?
Sorry but I don’t see anything particularly egregious in there. It’s all fairly common stuff, any sufficiently big company is going to face some lawsuits of that sort at some point. Also, remember that anyone can file a lawsuit, it doesn’t mean that the recipient is guilty of what it describes or that the filer isn’t just exploiting technicalities.
Nothing there blatantly screams “bad company” from what I can see.
Look, this is going nowhere, I give up. If you aren’t going to be reasonable, I’m not gonna waste my time discussing this. If you don’t want to listen, fine. Stick to your uninformed and unreasonable opinions and be happy.
They’d disclose it to Mozilla and the Firefox team if they knew. It would make no sense for them not to. Why are you so obstinate when it comes to this exploit theory, it’s the least likely reason you could pick for them not to support it.
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.
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?
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.
I “let people be” when their religion doesn’t harm them or other people.
And I don’t care if “not all Muslims think of women that way”. Their decisions/opinions make them better people, they don’t make Islam a better religion.
This is, of course, not limited to Islam.
Fixing the login doesn’t fix the rest of Teams’ problems. Maybe you’re the chosen one and everything works for you, but it’s not a common experience.
Oh I have it installed on both Windows 10 and Windows 11. It doesn’t work. It takes ages to load, it never updates people’s status correctly, half the time it doesn’t even log in. Why they didn’t just patch Skype instead of making that pile of garbage is beyond me.
Teams doesn’t work on anything
We are not censorious. We are just tired of hearing the same predatory bullshit over and over again.
You don’t master Javascript, ever. You just become accustomed to the madness and stop caring, while sometimes doing things right.
You’re being downvoted because you’re trying to be clever, yet your comment makes absolutely no sense, nor contributes to the conversation. It’s literally described in the first amendment and many more state and federal laws. But let’s pretend it wasn’t, since the definition is vague. It is indeed mostly a social construct. There are still going to be consequences, just not legally. That shouldn’t change and people shouldn’t expect it to change, otherwise the world will become even more of a shithole than it already is.
Nobody knows what woke actually means in cases like these because it basically signifies “anything I don’t like or agree with”.
It usually means you aren’t racist, you don’t hate gay people or any other member of the lgbt community, and treat women fairly. So like… a decent human being.
Then you fundamentally don’t understand what “freedom of speech” means. It means that you’re allowed to say what you want without the government stopping you or punishing you. It doesn’t mean there won’t be consequences for what you say or do, as there should.
It’s always been like this. Even in the 80s you could say what you wanted, but you were expected to know and accept that, socially, there would be consequences. It’s only recently that this stupid idea of giving everyone a free pass to say and do whatever they like, no matter how hateful or asinine it is, came around, and it’s not helping anyone.
If you’re a Nazi and people and employers decide they don’t want anything to do with you, then it’s not their fault, it’s yours. “But who are you to decide who’s right and who’s wrong?” moralists will say, as if a history of oppression and genocide wasn’t enough to determine such an ideology is wrong.
The same was said about gay people years ago and guess what? It wasn’t true, because of course it wasn’t. Informing kids and teens of the existence of other sexualities won’t convince them to adopt them.
The increase in transgender youth can be mainly attributed to the increased acceptance and knowledge of the issue among the younger generations. Simple as that.
VERY few people would ever do it for attention, since the attention you get is extremely often negative. Most transgender people are terrified of telling others they’re trans because of the reaction they’d get. The popularity argument is simply unrealistic.
I’ve had so many issues with Ubuntu in the last few years compared to other distros that honestly I wouldn’t feel comfortable recommending it as a beginner distro anymore.