> OS complexity isn't much of a moat, linux works fine.
I said browser complexity, not OS complexity.
I said browser complexity, not OS complexity.
If a project is too complex for a single organisation, then break it up into 2-3 projects. That is how OSS software handles complex tasks. Someone could do a real LLVM-style browser project then we don't have to use javascript which'd catapult us all into the 21st century.
This is where everything has gone screwy. A browser should only be rendering and displaying html files. Browsers should be minuscule in size, and /definitely/ not run any 3rd party software.
You can try to close the door on that stable, but the horse that escaped has died of old age it's happened so long ago.
They killed[1] cross platform apps and they made software updates hard, so everyone just flocked to the web.
[1] Not through a single blow, death by a million cuts.
No they didn't! Extremely lazy devs deciding that they should just be able to deploy javascript and html anywhere and using Electron "killed" native apps. Why would anyone ever invest even 1% more into a native app when you can just hire intern javascript kiddies, pay them terribly, oversee them with one or two expensive javascript bros, and all your users will blame the slowdown on the operating system and Microsoft as they always have?
I'd argue each native version costs about as much as an web app.
The real shame was Gtk and Qt not getting the support they deserve.
I, on the other hand, find that "browser as OS" is one of the best things that has happened in recent software history. I can run Photopea anywhere, on any platform that has a decent browser. Absolutely magic!