But that's the wrong direction. Instead it should map to a file tree that you can explore with your native file explorer and text editor. The browser becomes a silo for your data, inaccessible by every other application.
37 karma · joined July 26, 2018
What if the protagonist is an object? I find the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs is quite a mover of things! And that evolution guy has many fantastic, quirky stories to tell.
And I often read science-fiction for the interesting world-building. The people-shenanigans are just a vehicle to show the world to me.
Brevity would save time and be easier on everyone's scarce attention.
Your are neglecting the option of exposing a limited subview of the filesystem like containers do.
> But people are working on a solution.[1]
The big red box on top says it's not on standards-track.
> WebRTC while not the same and far more overhead (due to TCP sockets vs OS level sockets) can function very much like IPC.
Can I send open file descriptors like I can with unix domain sockets? Can I share memory for low-latency atomics? Futexes?
> So is X Window.
Maybe if you're remoting X, few people do that these days. In practice X applications have access to the same machine that they are drawing on.
I roll my eyes every time I see such stories and look for a more technical coverage of the topic somewhere else.
I suspect that's a difference between thing- vs. people-oriented readers. I assume the former are in the minority.
By replacing it with a poor simulacrum of an operating system. Browser APIs are an inefficient subset of libc and bsd sockets offer.
And they provide near-zero interoperability with native applications. No filesystem access (beyond the clunky save-one-file dialog), no CLI, no IPC, nothing. That means browsers are building on top of operating systems while not interoperating with them.