←back to thread

Magic Wormhole: get things from one computer to another, safely

(github.com)
816 points tosh | 4 comments | 17 Aug 24 16:59 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
hoppyhoppy2 ◴[17 Aug 24 17:47 UTC] No.41276373[source]▶
A similar project with some nice features that I use is croc: https://github.com/schollz/croc
replies(3): >>41277318 #>>41277529 #>>41277619 #
Klathmon ◴[17 Aug 24 20:18 UTC] No.41277619[source]▶
I've used https://file.pizza a bunch before, only because of the memorable name
replies(2): >>41278325 #>>41283083 #
foresto ◴[17 Aug 24 21:57 UTC] No.41278325[source]▶
It was useless for large files when I tried it, at least on Firefox. It seemed to be trying to pull the entire file into RAM.
replies(1): >>41278684 #
bootlegbilly ◴[17 Aug 24 22:52 UTC] No.41278684{3}[source]▶
As someone who's been working on a file upload service for a while, this is the only real way to download very large files on Firefox.

The file system access API is a great way to write chunks of a file at a gime, but for now Firefox doesn't support it

https://wicg.github.io/file-system-access/ https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#native-file-s...

replies(2): >>41278728 #>>41341003 #
foresto ◴[17 Aug 24 22:58 UTC] No.41278728{4}[source]▶
That makes sense, and their reasoning looks sound. Here's hoping the file read/write parts get broken apart from the rest.

Thanks for the link.

replies(1): >>41280224 #
1. jauntywundrkind ◴[18 Aug 24 05:04 UTC] No.41280224{5}[source]▶
It makes me uninterested in Firefox. I want webapps to be able to talk to files, but Mozilla thinks it's too dangerous. Even though we already have APIs to talk to the local filesystem, & the main difference is this one isnt hideously slow.

This issue is one of those that when people are screaming, why are folks using chrome, why haven't we all switched to Firefox I point to and say, because I want a good web, I want a fast web, I want a featureful web, and Mozilla definitely does not share my priorities.

replies(1): >>41280465 #
2. foresto ◴[18 Aug 24 06:11 UTC] No.41280465[source]▶
If it doesn't do what you want, it's fair not to like it.

Just to offer a different perspective, though: I don't consider a lot of the things that Chrome does (bittorrent functionality in this case) to be part of "a good web", or really part of the web at all. I don't need my browser to be an operating system. I can use other apps to do other things.

It's much more important to me to avoid another Internet Explorer-like monoculture, and to have a browser that's relatively respectful of privacy.

replies(1): >>41283771 #
3. andai ◴[18 Aug 24 17:30 UTC] No.41283771[source]▶
Probably the main benefit of another browser engine (Ladybug?) entering the scene is that it would force Mozilla to come up with a more compelling sell than "not Chrome."
replies(1): >>41284207 #
4. foresto ◴[18 Aug 24 18:26 UTC] No.41284207{3}[source]▶
Do you mean Ladybird? It would be nice to see it become competitive with the others, at least. Diversity would be welcome.

I was a little surprised to learn that they'll use Swift for future development. It's not among the languages I usually think of for cross-platform work. On the other hand, maybe Ladybird using it will help drive improvement in that area.

https://nitter.privacydev.net/awesomekling/status/1822236888...