3 ms·
Websites are at least supposedly are sandboxed so they are not as much of a risk as running native binaries. But this is getting worse and worse though as brows
by superkuh 3y ago
Websites are at least supposedly are sandboxed so they are not as much of a risk as running native binaries. But this is getting worse and worse though as browsers expose more and more of their host operating system's functionality. The benefits of using a website instead of a native app are quickly disappearing, while the drawbacks have only been somewhat mitigated. We're getting to the point where browsers are worthy of the decades old criticism Emacs has received. They have eventually become an OS with many fine features - simply lacking a good web browser.
- nulld3v 3y agoBut this isn't for the browser though. The idea here is to use WASM kinda like Java. You can run the same binary on different systems.
- titzer 3y agoRight, we weren't envisioning that browsers would be required to implement WALI or expose it. That would probably be a bad idea. :)
- ElijahLynn 3y agoAhh, thanks for explaining this. At first I was like "what, WASM is already portable, why have a Linux specific thing" and then you answered my question.
- esrauch 3y agoEssentially no new sandbox capabilities are being added for wasm in the browser compared to JavaScript and that's not changing anytime soon. This shiny new stuff is about wasm for security reasons on desktop, embedded/IOT, Cloud server stuff instead of native binaries.