4 ms·
I'm not sure why you got so many negative replies. As some other commenter pointed out, it can be a good use case for reusable, copyable desktops. Another use c
by yu3zhou4 2y ago
I'm not sure why you got so many negative replies. As some other commenter pointed out, it can be a good use case for reusable, copyable desktops. Another use case I though about for some time - if we build an OS (a "traditional one") that consists of just a browser and only necessary stuff for running a browser, your product would be a great fit as well
- byearthithatius 2y agoSo a less functional ChromeBook? I'm struggling to find the use case for your use case. Maybe for kids education if you want them to have limited capabilities? But otherwise it is just another OS with way less software support.
- owenfar 2y agoAs it stands, that's true. However, with the continuous advancements in WebAssembly, and if we open a store where people can install open-source software, a lot of great things could come from that.
- VyseofArcadia 2y agoBut... why not just let people install open source software as is? Stripping down the OS to "just" the browser leaves most of the OS. At that point we're arbitrarily restricting users to apps that run in the browser for no real reason or benefit.
- auggierose 2y agoI have not checked out any of this, but I guess the main advantage is that you can log in from anywhere, on any device that has a web browser, and have your full OS?
- VyseofArcadia 2y agoI've seen this "we need a stripped-down OS just for browsers" idea floating around a lot recently, and I just don't think it holds water. The browser is too big. Stripping down the OS just to accommodate the browser still leaves most of the OS. Browsers do a lot. You're going to need the same kernel, almost all the same userspace libraries, and many of the same background processes as a fatter OS.