Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chrome 61 Progresses With WebUSB API & More

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Chrome 61 Progresses With WebUSB API & More

    Phoronix: Chrome 61 Progresses With WebUSB API & More

    With Chrome 59's stable release this week, Google's attention is shifting to Chrome 60 that is currently in beta and then Chrome 61 that is in development...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    why should browser need a usb connection?
    Last edited by samdraz; 10 June 2017, 08:30 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Two factor auth for example. Sounds like a very useful thing to have, however i am not sure if it wont turn into security nightmare.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by debianxfce View Post

        For usb web cameras, keyboard and mouse
        i meant why should a web developer need a webusb api, since cam, keyboard and mouse already have api's for those, this seems to be overkill and serves no purpose except for proprietary devices

        two factor system is already solved, thanks to u2f,

        is chrome a browser or separate operating system?
        Last edited by samdraz; 10 June 2017, 08:36 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by samdraz View Post
          i meant why should a web developer need a webusb api, since cam, keyboard and mouse already have api's for those, this seems to be overkill and serves no purpose except for proprietary devices

          two factor system is already solved, thanks to u2f,

          is chrome a browser or separate operating system?
          I've been trying to port SANE (scanner drivers) to WebUSB with WebAssembly. I think it would be nice to be able to gather profiles of unsupported scanners from the browser, or even just make a quick scan from the browser without having to install the drivers for a given platform. ChromeOS lags behind in sane-backends versions a bit (currently one release behind, though understandable given that it's only been out for a few weeks), which means that there's some added utility in it.

          Other interesting potential applications:
          • Webcam latency calibration with a usb-controlled light stimulus, microphone latency calibration with a beeper, to get good synchronization.
          • Web-based configuration tools for exotic USB devices, like my (chinese) USB foot pedals, for which the existing tools only run on Windows.
          • Vendor-supported hardware diagnosis. If the user can get to your website, then their browser is probably functioning and up to date, usually more than can be said about the official software for a given device. The vendor could help naïve users diagnose if the hardware has failed, or if they just didn't install the software correctly.
          • Programming microcontroller development kits without installing rather bloaty IDEs; Arduino and Arduino-compatible boards come to mind.
          • MTP access to Android devices from the browser for operating systems like OS X and Windows which lack file browser integration, and in turn rely on bizarre and capricious custom tools.
          • Firmware updates for devices directly from the browser (maybe difficult).
          I think that in the end a proper port of libusb to WebAssembly/Asm.js with WebUSB would be nice. Not sure that 100% of the API can be supported, but I'm sure a good chunk can. One big problem with how WebUSB currently works, is that it does not function in a Worker. Architecturally, the right place to put a USB driver in your web application is definitely a Worker or SharedWorker, the main thread of a tab is a terrible place to put it. Otherwise, if the tab crashes, it can leave your USB device in an undefined state, which for some devices can cause damage.
          Last edited by microcode; 10 June 2017, 10:08 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by samdraz View Post


            is chrome a browser or separate operating system?
            I strongly believe Google is working towards being an OS

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by samdraz View Post
              i meant why should a web developer need a webusb api, since cam, keyboard and mouse already have api's for those, this seems to be overkill and serves no purpose except for proprietary devices

              two factor system is already solved, thanks to u2f,

              is chrome a browser or separate operating system?
              It's for the Make The Web an OS clowns, and we're going to continue to see this shit expand further and further and idiots continuing to push the expansion of this hydra, in spite of it being an utterly terrible idea that makes the era of Java Applications look sane.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by samdraz View Post
                why should browser need a usb connection?
                Web only USB drivers. Imagine that you need to visit a webpage to be able to use a device I am sure this will come at some point or that at least somebody will try to do something like this.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'm not 100% convince on most of your points but there are two that strike me as really odd.

                  Originally posted by microcode View Post
                  • MTP access to Android devices from the browser for operating systems like OS X and Windows which lack file browser integration, and in turn rely on bizarre and capricious custom tools.
                  • Firmware updates for devices directly from the browser (maybe difficult).

                  In all my days using MTP devices, and this goes back to the XP days, I have never once HAD to use bizzare customs tools on Windows to manage files on an MTP device. Other things such as contacts, calendars, and such like sure, but never files. File browser integration has been there for an extremely long time, which should be obvious since I'm pretty sure MS designed it. If you mean that they need integration in their open/save dialogs then I can say that they work in Win10 fine, but I don't have anything older to test with. If we're honest Linux was more the place that has weird custom tools, but even then we have integration in Gnome and KDE-based desktops which cover at least 95% of users.

                  As to firmware, I both can see great risk in allowing sites to update a devices firmware automatically and, slightly because of that, can't really see how this would change a great deal about how firmware gets distributed. If we take the path of allowing a device to get it's firmware automatically updated from a webAPI run on the manufactorers website we run the risk of someone being able to hijack that process to do something malicious to a great deal of users of that device. If you don't run it automatcally then it really stops being useful for distributiuon because i'll make you a good bet that it won't change the percentage of people that download and install firmware over those that don't. Universal distibution as a argument here doesn't really hold water due to most of these companies choice not to support anything but Windows, or maybe macOS at a stretch.
                  Last edited by SpyroRyder; 10 June 2017, 09:57 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by SpyroRyder View Post
                    If you don't run it automatcally then it really stops being useful for distributiuon because i'll make you a good bet that it won't change the percentage of people that download and install firmware over those that don't. Universal distibution as a argument here doesn't really hold water due to most of these companies choice not to support anything but Windows, or maybe macOS at a stretch.
                    It's not about universal distribution, it's the tradeoff between directly exposing the USB device (risky) or downloading and installing a software package from the website. I'd argue that downloading the software is even more risky, because in addition to access to that USB device, it probably has access to everything else on your computer (because it probably took admin to install).

                    In an ideal world, every vendor would make sure their devices are supported by fwupd, and we could just get integrated into macOS and Windows. But for now, the way people update device firmware is usually through a device-specific control panel, or not at all. If your device doesn't have a control panel which runs correctly on your operating system, then tough break.
                    Last edited by microcode; 10 June 2017, 10:10 AM.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X