Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Firefox Mozilla Music

You Can Hook Your MIDI Keyboard Up To a Website With Firefox 108 (theregister.com) 79

Posted by BeauHD from the music-to-my-ears dept.
A new feature in Firefox version 108 that may please musicians is the improved support for the Web MIDI API. "The MIDI standard is very close to a remarkable 40 years old, and Web MIDI does just what the name implies: it allows web apps to send and receive MIDI signals to and from musical instruments," reports The Register. "In principle this will allow sequencer apps to be implemented in Javascript." From the report: Amusingly, the last time The Reg mentioned Web MIDI, it was because Apple was taking it off Safari users, allegedly because of security concerns. Firefox 108 addresses that with a new security mechanism for preventing, and optionally permitting, apps inside browser tabs to access hardware resources -- in this instance, your MIDI ports. No, this does not mean that you can listen to CANYON.MID directly within Firefox. .MID files are not the same as General MIDI. But if you are nostalgic for that for some reason, help is at hand. A full list of features and changes can be found here.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

You Can Hook Your MIDI Keyboard Up To a Website With Firefox 108 More

You Can Hook Your MIDI Keyboard Up To a Website With Firefox 108

Comments Filter:

  • DTP (Score:3)

    by michaelmalak ( 91262 ) <michael@michaelmalak.com> on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @05:44PM (#63131554) Homepage
    Great. So now we're up to 1986 in terms of what a browser can do relative to a home computer. Maybe next we can enter the era of Desktop Publishing and actually get some decent printouts of websites.

  • "In principle this will allow sequencer apps.. (Score:3)

    by AmazingRuss ( 555076 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @05:49PM (#63131564)
    ... to be implemented in Javascript." Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

    • Why not? There are already several good sequencers written in JavaScript. This type of app is right up JavaScript's alley.

      • There is a reason that all the serious music apps run on iOS and not Android. Java cannot run same latency as straight C. I cannot imagine JS is better.

        This is stupid though, Chrome has been able do this for years now.

        It is actually useful too. MIDI controllers can also send out continuous data with knobs or sliders. And it is easy to build a small wired or Bluetooth Midi controller that reads some sensor or Pot that trivially send data to a web app. I have actually used this, tomwrite a color. Ixer for my

    • ... to be implemented in Javascript." Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

      That's a great comment relevant to something which has compatible and widely used alternative. You may not like it but since Javascript is the defacto standard for web applications you very much *should* make any new API compatible with it.

    • some things chrome does are worth following and others are debatable.

  • Ask Slasdot and you shall receive (Score:3)

    by Frank Burly ( 4247955 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @05:52PM (#63131572)
    Ask Slashdot: What Should Mozilla Do To Boost Firefox's Market Share? [slashdot.org]

    If Mozilla duplicates their success with these several-dozen users, they may take over the world!

  • Still idiotic (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Attack surface is attack surface. Web pages should have NO access or knowledge about the hardware.

    • Neither should any application....

    • A lot of apps were developed for the early iPhone when there was only one screen defined.

    • Re: Still idiotic (Score:3, Informative)

      by pitch2cv ( 1473939 )

      As an electronic music producer, I used to have to install Chrome or Edge for this. Or rather, Chromium, on my laptops. Which still phones home to uberlord Google.

      That Firefox now does MIDI is a really nice feat. This isn't just for hooking up a MIDI keyboard to "play sounds from a website": For example Novation Components uses a web applet to edit synths and sequencers. There is fewer and fewer standalone editors for midi hardware, much of that is done via the browser these days. It's replaced much of the

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by mccalli ( 323026 )
        I'm debating between moderating and replying to you - went with reply. It's clear the majority of respondents have no idea what MIDI actually does, how it's used, or how this might be useful to people.

        It's a good move for me. Must admit I'm midly nervous that someone will use it to take cloud subscription junk a bit too far (I have two subscriptions right now, EastWest and recently Roland Cloud) and lock things behind a browser instead of local, but I think right now at least it's a small risk because th

    • You could say the same about the keyboard or mouse. It's just another input device. Being able to receive MIDI messages is like being able to receive mouse clicks. It doesn't mean the web page has any special hardware access.

      • Since when did the browser talk to the keyboard or mouse?
        It gets OS input events but doesn't talk back to those input devices.

        MIDI is not the same; although, it's more like an input device but I don't know what kind of extensions they've done to it over the decades.

        Sockets and USB or even web fonts are a way bigger threat. As I understand it, only Firefox renders it's own fonts while the rest rely upon the OS libraries. Anyone?

  • You can't do that! (Score:5, Funny)

    by The New Guy 2.0 ( 3497907 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @06:32PM (#63131674)

    Watch MIDI Keyboards become hard to find if they do this...

    MIDI is a great standard for audio quality... but it sucks with standard processors. In 2000, when the Intel and AMD Gigachips (single-core 1.0 GHz processors) we had Britney Spears remaster her album in MIDI for the notes, MP3 for her voice. It sounded great... but wait a second.

    EVERY COMPUTER ON CAMPUS WE TRIED IT ON BURNED AT THE PROCESSOR BEFORE THE END OF TRACK 1.

    See, MIDI was at the center of the microprocessors. The part the fan can't save, it's under the spindle instead of the blades spinning. So, forget this being for average users...

  • It won't be just midi keyboards, midi drums and other instruments. Sure there will be issues, so what, there are a lot of creative people out there, myself included that will build on this. It will be interesting if this is also combined with the new MIDI spec.

    With Opera excluded, it looks to me like Firefox is one of the few browsers out there that actually concerns themselves with users wants and needs rather than fucking their privacy and squeezing them for advertising revenue like other browsers are.

    • It won't be just midi keyboards, midi drums and other instruments. Sure there will be issues, so what, there are a lot of creative people out there, myself included that will build on this. It will be interesting if this is also combined with the new MIDI spec.

      With Opera excluded, it looks to me like Firefox is one of the few browsers out there that actually concerns themselves with users wants and needs rather than fucking their privacy and squeezing them for advertising revenue like other browsers are.

      Posits facts absolutely not in evidence.

      How many times have people complained about wasting time with the UI instead of fixing broken stuff, like memory leaks?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MrKaos ( 858439 )

        With Opera excluded, it looks to me like Firefox is one of the few browsers out there that actually concerns themselves with users wants and needs rather than fucking their privacy and squeezing them for advertising revenue like other browsers are.

        Posits facts absolutely not in evidence.

        Makes an assertion without reading the terms and conditions of the browser.

        I said " it looks to me like" [forbes.com]. Go read the terms and conditions of the software you are using and the allowances made under them.

        And yeah - I still think the MIDI thing is cool.

        • Totally misses my point - a browser that is buggy as crap, that no longer has the resources (after laying of 70 + 250 devs) to do anything much more than fart around with the UI, is pretty much useless in the short term, and irrelevant in the long term.

          You always have the option to buy a decent business-class internet switch and create your own white-list/black-list of allowed resources on the internet and block out everything before it even hits the browser. Or buy a decent wifi router that can do that

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by MrKaos ( 858439 )

            Totally misses my point - a browser that is buggy as crap, that no longer has the resources (after laying of 70 + 250 devs) to do anything much more than fart around with the UI, is pretty much useless in the short term, and irrelevant in the long term.

            No, you're trying to change the subject. You said "Posits facts absolutely not in evidence" where such evidence is available in the user agreements for the browser.

            You always have the option

            Irrelevant.

            But if you think that you can have complete privacy on the internet, you're incredibly naive. The NSA buys 1/3 of all hard drives made, archiving everything going on, and has taps in your ISP's facilities.

            If you think you can put words into my mouth you're incredibly stupid. I said "concerns themselves with users wants and needs rather than fucking their privacy and squeezing them for advertising revenue like other browsers are.". No where do I say the straw man arguments you make and the NSA doesn't try to sell me shit, their act

            • Totally misses my point - a browser that is buggy as crap, that no longer has the resources (after laying of 70 + 250 devs) to do anything much more than fart around with the UI, is pretty much useless in the short term, and irrelevant in the long term.

              No, you're trying to change the subject. You said "Posits facts absolutely not in evidence" where such evidence is available in the user agreements for the browser.

              The user agreements for the browser are of no use if the damn thing doesn't work properly, are they? Other browsers don't have the problems on my machine that firefox does, so it's obviously a firefox-specific problem. And after firing most of their devs, they simply don't have the resources to do much more than play with the UI at this point.

              And people have been saying for more than a decade that firefox should concentrate on fixing their browser instead of farting around with the UI.

              None of this is n

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by MrKaos ( 858439 )

                Totally misses my point - a browser that is buggy as crap, that no longer has the resources (after laying of 70 + 250 devs) to do anything much more than fart around with the UI, is pretty much useless in the short term, and irrelevant in the long term.

                No, you're trying to change the subject. You said "Posits facts absolutely not in evidence" where such evidence is available in the user agreements for the browser.

                The user agreements for the browser are of no use if the damn thing doesn't work properly, are they?

                Contracts are legally binding documents, bugs are a consequence of software implementations.

                I get that you don;t like Firefox - that's ok with me, I still like the MIDI feature and think it is cool. I don't like Chrome yet I'm forced to use it and I still don't care as much about it as you seem to. Maybe that's because of your low vision computing project or whatever, but to me bugs are just not as big a deal to me as the contractual implications of the software I'm using.

                • Totally misses my point - a browser that is buggy as crap, that no longer has the resources (after laying of 70 + 250 devs) to do anything much more than fart around with the UI, is pretty much useless in the short term, and irrelevant in the long term.

                  No, you're trying to change the subject. You said "Posits facts absolutely not in evidence" where such evidence is available in the user agreements for the browser.

                  The user agreements for the browser are of no use if the damn thing doesn't work properly, are they?

                  Contracts are legally binding documents, bugs are a consequence of software implementations.

                  Are you trying to be funny? Firefox comes with no warranty [mozilla.org]:

                  6. Disclaimer of Warranty
                  Covered Software is provided under this License on an “as is” basis, without warranty of any kind, either expressed, implied, or statutory, including, without limitation, warranties that the Covered Software is free of defects, merchantable, fit for a particular purpose or non-infringing. The entire risk as to the quality and performance of the Covered Software is with You. Should any Covered Software prove defective in any respect, You (not any Contributor) assume the cost of any necessary servicing, repair, or correction. This disclaimer of warranty constitutes an essential part of this License. No use of any Covered Software is authorized under this License except under this disclaimer.

                  7. Limitation of Liability
                  Under no circumstances and under no legal theory, whether tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise, shall any Contributor, or anyone who distributes Covered Software as permitted above, be liable to You for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages of any character including, without limitation, damages for lost profits, loss of goodwill, work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all other commercial damages or losses, even if such party shall have been informed of the possibility of such damages. This limitation of liability shall not apply to liability for death or personal injury resulting from such party’s negligence to the extent applicable law prohibits such limitation. Some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, so this exclusion and limitation may not apply to You.

                  That is your contract as an end user. End of story. They can leak your data, they can render your computer totally inoperable, and you have no recourse except to stop using the software.

                  Same as any other open source license. It's use-at-your-own-risk.

                  If they were so concerned with the end user, why don't the warrant their software?

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by MrKaos ( 858439 )

                    That is your contract as an end user. End of story.

                    No, that's a few clauses from the contract. Clauses that exist in most software contracts, as is, no warranty.

                    They can leak your data, they can render your computer totally inoperable, and you have no recourse except to stop using the software.

                    You will have to compare the contracts from other browsers to ascertain which data or metadata is being transmitted. Go read Chromes agreement and see what it is explicitly permitted to do.

                    Implied use cases are not permission.

                    Same as any other open source license. It's use-at-your-own-risk.

                    same as most software

                    If they were so concerned with the end user, why don't the warrant their software?

                    By all means, have a conversation with me or even an argument - just don;t be a troll, or troll like because it's such a noob move that most people he

                    • You really don't get it. The NO WARRANTY and NO LIABILITY clauses mean they can do pretty much anything they want and your only recourse is to stop using the software.

                      Same as any other open source license. It's use-at-your-own-risk.

                      same as most software

                      Nope - commercial software manufacturers can and have been sued for screwing up.

                      Microsoft paid one business owner $10,000 [youtube.com] for screwing up their computer by doing an unauthorized "upgrade" to Windows 10. They weren't the only ones, btw.

                      And then there are the multiple class action awards against Microsoft.

                      So no, not "same as most software

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by MrKaos ( 858439 )

                      You really don't get it. The NO WARRANTY and NO LIABILITY clauses mean they can do pretty much anything they want and your only recourse is to stop using the software.

                      Alternatively, you haven't spent very much time reading software terms. I have had the misfortune of reading thousands of pages of law and analysing legal interactions between companies as an adjunct to my software development career and to date I haven't found a software contract that does not have theses clauses.

                      same as most software

                      Nope - commercial software manufacturers can and have been sued for screwing up.

                      Which has nothing to do with user privacy and advertisers harvesting browser metadata. Your point here argues against the point you were previously trying to make.

                      Microsoft paid one business owner $10,000 [youtube.com] for screwing up their computer by doing an unauthorized "upgrade" to Windows 10. They weren't the only ones, btw.

                      And then there are the multiple class action awards against Microsoft.

                      So no, not "same as most software."

                      And in the case you cite not

                    • Free browsers are not "commercial products." Strictly use at your own risk. Don't like it, don't use it.

                      Same as other free software.

                      Same as free websites.

                      Same as free email.

                      You ALWAYS have the option of paying to own your own domains, run your own email, and even write your own browser - or commission someone else to do so for you.

                      The simple fact is that firefox comes with no warranty. You get what you pay for.

                      And of course firefox defaults to google search ... and defaults to firefox's home pa

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by MrKaos ( 858439 )

                      Everything you offered is irrelevant.

                      To disprove my point you must find evidence in the Firefox terms and conditions where user metadata is harvested for advertising and is more onerous than the metadata harvesting conditions outlined in the term of use by browsers like Chrome.

                      You're only offering functional issues and not contractual legal issues of privacy that comes from comparing the browser terms of Firefox vs Chrome vs Safari excluding Opera. I get that you hate Firefox however how you feel is n

                    • Your contractual issue is the GPL - Firefox comes with no warranty. End of story.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by MrKaos ( 858439 )

                      Your contractual issue is the GPL - Firefox comes with no warranty. End of story.

                      Firefox is licensed under the MPL [mozilla.org] and the Firefox EULA [mozilla.org] is easy to find.

                      Safari's license [apple.com] is propriety. I'd understand if you can't find the text of the chrome eula to do the comparison necessary disprove the point.

                      Your contractual issue is the GPL - Firefox comes with no warranty.

                      You mean your contractual issue. I have no issue with Firefox licensing.

                      End of story.

                      With Opera excluded, it looks to me like Firefox is one of the few browsers out there that actually concerns themselves with users wants and needs rather than fucking their privacy and squeezing them for advertising reve

                    • Did you even read the MPL?

                      I'm guessing not. The original is all in caps, but I've changed it to mixed case to avoid the ALL-CAPS filter:

                      DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY. THE PRODUCT IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITH ALL FAULTS. To the extent permitted by law, Mozilla and Mozilla's distributors, and licensors hereby disclaim all warranties, whether express or implied, including without limitations warranties that the product is free of defects, merchantable, fit for a particular purpose and non-infringing. YOU BEAR THE ENTIRE RISK as to selecting the product for your purposes and as to the quality and performance of the product. This limitation will apply notwithstanding the failure of essential purpose of any remedy. Some jurisdictions do not all the exclusion or limitation of implied warranties, so this disclaimer may not apply to you.

                      LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. EXCEPT AS REQUIRED BY LAW, Mozilla and its distributors, directors, licensors, contributors and agents (collectively, the Mozilla Group") will not be liable for any indirect, special, incidental, consequential or exemplary damages arising out of or in any way relating to this agreement or the use of or inability to use the product, including without limitation damages for loss of goodwill, work stoppage, lost profits, loss of data, and computer failure or malfunction, even if advised of the possibility of such damages and regardless of the theory (contract, tort or otherwise) upon which such a claim is based. The Mozilla Group's collective liability under this agreement will not exceed the greater of $500 (five hundred dollars) and the fees paid by you under the license (if any). Some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental, consequential or special damages, so this exclusion and limitation may not apply to you

                      You have no legal rights even if they cause you to lose all your data, they sell your data (another form of data loss), install ransomware (yet another form of data loss), hose your computer, set fire to your house, or cause you or your business to go bankrupt.

                      That's the license.

                      Good luck suing them - you already agreed to an absolute maximum of $500, and it's going

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by MrKaos ( 858439 )

                      Ok, now go look at the other licenses and see if they're any *less* draconian.

                    • Never said they weren't. You're the one that claimed that Firefox was somehow "different."

                      So thanks for admitting you were wrong.

  • If you can play the fiddle over the computer, you can play MY fiddle.. if you know what i mean...

  • Now I have valid a reason to abandon Internet Explorer 5.

  • Try https://github.com/zz85/wild-w... [github.com]
    It's a software synth converted to asm.js with emscripten.
    But I think it needs a fix to work on Firefox 102.6esr. It did work on older versions.

  • Human perception of key strikes to audio feedback is AFAIK on the order of &10ms. The very idea of a performance instrument or DAW, based in the browser, with the many layers of bloated libraries between it and the UART that ultimately must drive a MIDI interface, is laughable.

    Musical performance depends on realtime response to input and realtime output of that input.

    Not. Gonna. Happen. With. A. Browser. In. The. Mix.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by djgl ( 6202552 )

      That's why you use the timestamps provided in input events and optionally passed to the "send" method of the Web MIDI API.

      Btw., I question your 10ms. The Jamulus FAQ says "An overall delay much bigger than 50 ms usually makes it too hard to play in time unless you train yourself to do so." For movies I notice audio/video asynchronicity only when it exceeds about 100ms.

    • Brian Eno will be all over this like a rash as most of his stuff is so slow you'd not notice the latency with such gentle attack times
    • I've seen it done, over a distance of 200 miles, but using a special low latency network.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Megane ( 129182 )

      UART

      This is how can you tell when someone hasn't used MIDI since years started with "19". MIDI with a DAW connects over USB now. The down-side is you can't chain a bunch of random shit together without a computer, the up-side is you don't have to set up ten MIDI adaptors for your DAW. Remember when Ethernet was over coax? I don't want to either.

      And the latency isn't so much of an issue if you push those bloated libraries to run on the web browser, not that I would want even that.

  • .MID files are not the same as General MIDI.

    Both .mid files and General MIDI have absolutely nothing to do with MIDI hardware interfaces that are exposed in browsers.

  • There seems to be a lot of confusion here about what MIDI is, probably because it's several different things: a data model, a stream encoding, and a hardware interface. The hardware interface is obsolete. Modern electronic instruments use USB or bluetooth like any other input device. But the software parts of the spec are alive and well. A modern keyboard sends the same "note on" and "note off" events as one from the 80s.

    This is not some retro feature. It means you can write music software that's embed

Slashdot Top Deals

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Close