Man, I only understood half of what you were describing, but it sounds fascinating. I you happen to find the time to do a write-up or share your workflow, I would love to read more about it.
The irony of advertising a privacy-enabled de-googled system, and then telling me that my Firefox browser is not support, and that I should use Edge, Opera or Chrome instead....
This is related to Firefox unwilling to add support for WebUSB because, I suppose, they believe that a browser is not a general purpose application launcher and the scope of what it can do should be limited. As such, it should not be allowed to e.g. control peripherals like the USB devices.
Which is in my opinion a fairly reasonable take.
But given the current situation, I would assume that the companies providing WebUSB tools like installers would also spend a few moments to create e.g. a Python script that would do the same thing but locally. So that anyone unwilling to use WebUSB within their browser can have a vetted and transparent way to get the same thing done.
I am opposed to it for similar reasons as in GP, but it does let you do cool things like installing Android ROMs without touching adb by having a (presumably) WASM-based impl of adb.
And, to counter the arguments that "the site tells you that you need WebUSB support": you get to the https://e.foundation/installer/ when you click "Check device compatibility" on the main page. Personally, I'd expect either a check that works in any browser or a simple compatible device list. Why would I need a special browser just to check if I can use this OS?
main page -> download and try! -> check device compatibility
lands on https://e.foundation/installer/ the chromium-only webusb page. It could be a better page; instead of showing a scary "navigator not suppored" modal demanding you install a particular browser, it could say the automated compatibility tester requires one of these browsers and your phone plugged in with USB, otherwise here's the device finder page
It's the specific functionality needed here that Firefox lacks that makes the /e/ page show the warning, unlike the lineage page that does not have the problem in the first place.
e/OS is not degoogled, only some of the functionality has been rewritten in microG (eg not implementing security checks but instead spoofing them), but still uses Google play sdk and libraries.
Additionally it runs in the privileged mode, so any exploit on that, well, means back luck.
As I explained elsewhere in this post, I got to this installer page by clicking on "Check device compatibility" on the https://e.foundation/e-os/ page.
So I was actually expecting a device listing page, not a WebUSB program.
That's a bizarre one. 'You need Chrome' is bad enough, which even the bloody NHS are guilty of, but I always assume that's 'just' an assumption that not Chrome means IE or something, and they haven't woken up even to the proliferation of mobile Safari users.
I didn't know it did, the commenter didn't mention it, and Imgur gave me an overloaded error message. (When it doesn't do that, it usually tells me it's not available in my region or that the image has been deleted anyway.)
Anyway, assuming it's for WebUSB flashing, I agree with other commenters it should just explain that's not available and still give the instructions - bonus points for hiding the unusable WebUSB option.
Just out of curiosity (not knowing anything about the complexity of adding new devices) what makes the support of a Xiaomi pad 5 and pad 6 possible, while there is not support for the pad 7 and 8?
Are these devices so different that none of the testing and development work is transferable to the newer devices?
And, reversing the question, if one was to be the owner of a such a Xiaomi device, what can be done to help them being supported?
It can rub a reader the wrong way because it is written in a sarcastic tone to self-reflect on things the author did wrong or didn't do.
Every piece of "advice" and patronizing questioning, such as "You did that, right? Right?", is a self-reflection by the author on things she should have done but didn't do, and learned that the hard way. It is not meant to be a patronizing statement to the the reader, but it is rather self-depreciation.
> The proper safe answer to driving in snow is top quality snow tires, not chains. Chains is the worst possible idea. The chain laws are laws created by politicians who live in sunny Sacramento and have never seen snow and have no clue.
Although I understand the sentiment, and agree with the general idea, I must say that living in the mountains, I have encountered snow conditions on uncleared roads where I did not manage to get home due to the icy/slushy/snow depth mixtures encountered on relatively steep sections. I would probably have made it home with chains if I had them, and had bothered to put the on.
1) The Michelin is 120 euro tire, vs the 60 euro Barum
2) The test page says nothing about the test conditions in which the tires were tested.
3) The Michelin tire test explicitly states:
The testers explicitly recommended against standardizing cars with all-season tyres in Sweden, suggesting that drivers would be better served by dedicated summer tyres paired with proper winter tyres when the season changes, rather than this compromise solution that fell well short of true summer tyre performance.
reply