Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox Send Lets You Share 1GB Files With No Strings Attached (cnet.com)

Posted by msmash on from the interesting-services dept.

In 2017, Mozilla experimented with a service that let you transfer 1GB files by sharing a web address with the recipient. Firefox Send is now out of testing and boasts a magnified 2.5GB file-size limit if you log into your Firefox account. From a report: Firefox Send is handy for those moments when you need to share video, audio or photo files that can be too big to squeeze into an email attachment. [...] Firefox Send, which will also be available as an Android app, illustrates one of Mozilla's efforts to diversify beyond the Firefox browser. Mozilla touts Firefox Send as focusing on privacy and uses encryption to protect files. Firefox Send files are available for up to seven days and can be password-protected. You can also limit the number of times they're downloaded.

24 of 50 comments (clear)

  1. I see a string by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Requires and account to use. That is a string.

    --
    http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
    1. Re:I see a string by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Below 1GB it does not. So the title would be correct, no?

    2. Re:I see a string by EvilSS · · Score: 2

      So you can share an unlimited amount of data if you do not register an account but only 2.5Gb if you do? That sounds strange.

      It's a single file limit, not an account limit.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    3. Re:I see a string by infolation · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's also a single download and single day limit.

      The send.firefox.com site defaults to one download for one day. Attempting to change to more than one download, or more than one day, triggers an account login page. Also you have to be careful not to visit the link in any way, as this wipes the download and your recipient will receive a 'link expired' page.

      So, long story short, wetransfer is more useful at moment.

    4. Re:I see a string by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Either these are typos, or it's just too damn insightful the masses to understand.

    5. Re:I see a string by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Open source does not fail. I can share unlimited amounts of gigabytes. You see, open source provides me with a web server that I run myself. So anyone I share with, just get an URL pointing to my IP address.

      Who needs a bloody third party to share stuff? What is this sickness that makes people think they need "a service" to share files? Just share them! Running your own webserver isn't hard, if all you 'serve' is a handful of files being shared. No fancy dynamic stuff, no db, no scripting, no high-availability failover remedies.

    6. Re:I see a string by supremebob · · Score: 1

      I'm amazed that it doesn't require a login to share anything at all.

      You know that people are going to abuse this service to share illegal porn and copyrighted materials until they plug this hole.

      Hell... they'll probably still do it even after it requires a login, but at least Mozilla can say that they tried to collect names and e-mail addresses along with IP address info to help the authorities track down the lawbreakers.

  2. Thunderbird integration? by macraig · · Score: 2

    Does it integrate with Thunderbird to rejuvenate its now useless Link feature? Remember that other development project of yours, Mozilla? You know, the one you very nearly dumped in the garbage but then merely stuffed in the back of the closet instead?

  3. ObXKCD: by cjellibebi · · Score: 5, Funny

    https://xkcd.com/949/

  4. Firefox integrates Pastebin by Virtucon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nothing to see here, I still love Firefox but this is more of an add-on than a feature. I also can't see most enterprises being happy with it either.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  5. Re:Fuckin millenials by jellomizer · · Score: 2

    We have been transferring files from computer to computer over the Internet for over a generations, However there always seems to a problem of people not having the tools to do this.
    I will first blame Microsoft. For not implementing and embedding the SSH protocol (including SFTP) This created a lot of people unfamiliar to the Unix world to recreate their own Secure File Transfer system.

    Secondly Firewalls and TCP/IP protocol means there needs to be a Client Server relationship. We really need a client to client file transfer method,

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  6. Re:Privacy privacy privacy by CommanderRyalis · · Score: 1

    Yeah, why does everyone suddenly need my phone number to sign up for things? Fuck those guys

  7. Re:Fuckin millenials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So you wanted a link to the SFTP protocol? Kind of strange on this site, but oh, well. Here you go.

  8. self-host by SumDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is the whole thing open source and can you self host it?

    1. Re:self-host by slack_justyb · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, this is the server end code. You can find the clients here.

    2. Re:self-host by tepples · · Score: 1

      How can a third party verify that the server is in fact running that code?

    3. Re:self-host by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Blockchain! And AI!

    4. Re:self-host by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Is the whole thing open source and can you self host it?

      The problem with self hosting something like this has never been the availability of source code. There's many open source projects that let you do simple things right up to becoming your full one man cloud provider.

      Now do you have a static IP / dns system in place along with a fast always on, always connected server to make that useful? If so, why not go all out and run something like Owncloud or Seafile?

  9. Why would it not??? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Binary files?

    Pretty sure, since it is running on a computer, it will handle binary files since even text files are binary files...

    Unless you were wondering about your custom Trinary files that used 0, 1, and the Prince symbol to represent data.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Why would it not??? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

      Now return to studying for your next "cert".

      And how would one write a text file to a disc that only stores ones and zeros?

      HMMMMMM

      Pretty telling you weren't even smart enough to link to a single source, all you could manage was a Duck Duck Go search. But then you AC's were always a few monkeys short of a barrel.

      I'll let you have the last word so you can gibber on about how files composed of ones and zeros are not binary.

      P.S. I don't have any "certs" because I actually know how to do things, instead of needing a paper that claims I can.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  10. Re:Fuckin millenials by tepples · · Score: 1

    How well does SFTP work if both the machine sending the file and the machine receiving the file are behind NAT?

  11. All your files are belong to us by steamraven · · Score: 1

    According to their Terms of Service:

    By uploading content, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use your content in connection with the provision of the Services

    1. Re:All your files are belong to us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In other words, you give them permission to serve the file to the person you're sending it to. No-brainer, really.

  12. Re:Fuckin millenials by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    client to client?
    netcat called

    --
    Cheap storage VM.