4 ms·
But that's what they're doing. The hard part isn't the VM. The hard part is the long fought functional yet secure sandbox that a browser provides.
by jayd16 1y ago
But that's what they're doing. The hard part isn't the VM. The hard part is the long fought functional yet secure sandbox that a browser provides.
- bsder 1y ago> functional yet secure Secure? Debatable. Functional? Not really. For example, try accessing a security key and watch the fun. Sure, if you access it exactly the way Google wants you to, things kinda-sorta work, sometimes. If you don't want to obey your Google masters, good luck getting your Bluetooth or USB packet to your security key. And because you are "secure", you can't store anything on the local hard drive. Oh, and you can't send a real network packet either. All you can do is send a supplication request to a network database owned by somebody else that holds your data--"Please, sir, can I have some more?". The fact that this prevents you from exporting your data away from cloud-centered SaaS providers is purely coincidental, I'm sure. </sarcasm> So in the name of security we just kneecap the end users--if the users can't do anything, they're secure, right? Diana Moon Glampers would be proud.
- jayd16 1y agoI'm not sure what any of that means but people like wasm because the web sandbox does work for many cases. No one is saying it solves every single use case and it doesn't need to.