3 ms·

Really this just points to a lack of vision on the part of operating systems people. There is no reason downloading, possibly "installing" (mostly caching?) and

Really this just points to a lack of vision on the part of operating systems people. There is no reason downloading, possibly "installing" (mostly caching?) and running "traditional software" couldn't be as frictionless as clicking on a link, but that's just not how the software and security model of Windows, OSX or Ubuntu (to name just the household names) are set up. Browsers probably will win, but mostly by accident and as a result of network effects rather than any inherent qualities. As a platform it's positively awful, though it is getting better in fits and starts. Ideally we'd have proper sandboxing, proper compilation, proper libraries, proper access to hardware. Alas, all of that good stuff is basically a historical footnote at this point.

bobajeff 9y ago
I've been thinking lately there should be a file format that's just WebAssembly along with WebAssembly-versions of WebGL, Web Audio and WebRTC. With the goal of making the runtime simpler to implement for non-browser venders. While browser vendors could add a profile to run the format.
- solarkraft 9y ago
  ... or to just load it up in the browser and skip the HTML part. Non-browser vendors will probably have to integrate browsers.
  - bobajeff 9y ago
    That completely misses the point which is a simpler format to implement and support.
colordrops 9y ago
It's not either/or. The browsers will probably eventually be integrated into the OS until they are almost invisible. All apps will be web apps.
- solarkraft 9y ago
  I hope the browser will be invisible soon, because I hate having it between me and my application.
- arbie 9y ago
  Chrome must clearly see this as the end of the road on Windows and MacOS. What incentive do the OS vendors have to champion full-access APIs having feature parity for OS-level JS engines?
- baq 9y ago
  There's a lisp machine story hiding somewhere over here.
solarkraft 9y ago
It could've been done. Flatpak & consorts are trying to solve the portability problem, but packages are in the tens of megabytes. It probably won't happen now. Android has tried out this app-streaming model, but seemingly about 0.04-heartedly.

bobajeff 9y ago

I've been thinking lately there should be a file format that's just WebAssembly along with WebAssembly-versions of WebGL, Web Audio and WebRTC. With the goal of making the runtime simpler to implement for non-browser venders. While browser vendors could add a profile to run the format.

solarkraft 9y ago
... or to just load it up in the browser and skip the HTML part. Non-browser vendors will probably have to integrate browsers.
- bobajeff 9y ago
  That completely misses the point which is a simpler format to implement and support.

colordrops 9y ago

It's not either/or. The browsers will probably eventually be integrated into the OS until they are almost invisible. All apps will be web apps.

solarkraft 9y ago
I hope the browser will be invisible soon, because I hate having it between me and my application.
arbie 9y ago
Chrome must clearly see this as the end of the road on Windows and MacOS. What incentive do the OS vendors have to champion full-access APIs having feature parity for OS-level JS engines?
baq 9y ago
There's a lisp machine story hiding somewhere over here.

solarkraft 9y ago

It could've been done. Flatpak & consorts are trying to solve the portability problem, but packages are in the tens of megabytes. It probably won't happen now. Android has tried out this app-streaming model, but seemingly about 0.04-heartedly.