Things engineers believe about Web development

I am not AT ALL saying that we should push for Android everywhere. I am just saying that Android (and iOS, but I don't know the details of how iOS works) are sandboxing apps. I don't think security is an argument for PWA. The argument for PWAs is "I know webtech and it would be cheaper if everything ran in Chromium".

Be assured that if the discussion was about using Android everywhere (web, mobile, desktop), I would be against it as well. I don't want a one-size-fits-all solution, because it usually doesn't fit that well, and it kills diversity.

Oh right, I guess you don't really know about iOS sandboxing then. So it won't be a super constructive debate given that your position is apparently fundamentally based on your intuition about iOS sandboxing. Remember that line [0]?

> I don't think security is an argument for PWA. The argument for PWAs is "I know webtech and it would be cheaper if everything ran in Chromium".

Security is MY argument for distributing software in the browser vs as a desktop or mobile application. If you refuse to engage me about the point I'm making, then you're arguing against a straw man, which ultimately indicates that you just don't have a strong rebuttal, which is what I've been saying since the very beginning [1].

> Be assured that if the discussion was about using Android everywhere (web, mobile, desktop), I would be against it as well. I don't want a one-size-fits-all solution, because it usually doesn't fit that well, and it kills diversity.

So you're an Android developer who's mortally afraid of Google hegemony? That's some next level cognitive dissonance. If you're afraid of Google dominance, I'm sorry to tell you this, but Android is their best tool for accomplishing that goal. The EU fined them 5 billion in 2018 over this, and told them to stop "forcing manufacturers to preinstall Chrome and Google search in order to offer the Google Play Store on handsets. Google will also need to stop preventing phone makers from using forked versions of Android" [2]. You're afraid of the influence of Chrome, and want people to develop directly for Android, but Google is using their Play Store and all of its Android apps as leverage to force manufacturers to preinstall Chrome (and Google search). Android apps give Google the leverage to force Chrome down everyone's throats.

You're afraid of a Google browser monoculture, and don't think Firefox and Safari present enough competition, and your solution is for people to develop apps directly for Android and iOS, where there's even less competition? And by the way, the only competition Android has is a closed source operating system (iOS) that doesn't even allowing sideloading apps or competing app stores. If web apps were more popular we wouldn't have a mobile duopoly (iOS and Android), or a desktop duopoly (Windows and macOS), because the web is an open platform and there are web browsers on every operating system (including desktop Linux, the various BSD variants, Ubuntu Touch, et cetera). This is why I told you a long time ago that you've got it all backwards [3].

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38913989

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[2] https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17580694/google-android-e...

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38917623#:~:text=You%27....

I think you're whichever kind of developer your current position requires. You've been talking about Android non-stop throughout this conversation, and conversations you've had with others on this website [1]. When you were lambasting me about my perceived knowledge of mobile development you were touting your Android knowledge, and taunting me about whether or not I've done anything outside the web. Now that I've proven Android is actually one of the primary tools Google uses to promote Chrome (and you admitted you don't know much about iOS) you want to distance yourself from mobile development altogether.

> Other examples include whatever iOS does (which I don't know), containers (docker and the likes), VMs, and everything in-between (like what snap or flatpak use).

We're not discussing theoretical means with which you could sandbox an application, we're talking about how apps are actually used in reality. If you need to fire up a virtual machine every time you use your favorite desktop apps, then you're only proving my point that they're not inherently very secure. Not to mention, the average user probably has no idea what Docker or a virtual machine even is. Like I said in my original response, lots of things are possible in theory, but in practice web browsers are much better at sandboxing apps than desktop operating systems (and even better than mobile operating systems). And by the way, you can run a browser inside of a vm too, so if anything the technologies you're advocating for bolster the security of web apps rather than compete with them.

> If anything, modern browsers are so complex (and getting worse with time) that the attack surface is big

Ironically, a lot of that complexity arises from the web's insistence on security. V8 is complex because it has so many safeguards in place to sandbox JavaScript, and that sandboxing is taken very seriously. There's a reward anywhere from 10,000 to 150,000 USD if you can escape the sandbox [2][3]. Browsers are inherently more secure than desktop apps because they limit access to the underlying platform. Someone developing malware as a web app has to first escape the browser sandbox, just to gain the privileges that a desktop app has natively. If it helps, you can think of every desktop app as a webapp which has already escaped the browser.

> Moreover, Web UIs bring their own class of issues that don't really apply to native apps.

No, web developers have just spent so much time thinking about security, that native app developers haven't even realized these security issues are relevant yet. It took years for Apple and Google to come to the brilliant conclusion that they should notify users when an app is reading from the clipboard, something which at the time was considered just a browser "class of issue". Maybe in 2034 they'll figure this out for desktop apps.

> But CORS is really a browser thing, I don't think it really makes sense to compare it to anything outside the "webview world".

It makes sense to compare it to things outside of the browser because it protects users and servers. You seem to want to disqualify any point I make that you can't disprove. If you don't think web technology is comparable to anything outside the browser, then what are we even arguing about? This whole discussion has been about comparing the security of web apps to non-web apps.

> If security is your concern (and you seem to insist that it is), then webapps are really not better than the alternatives. Actually, the Apple Store and the Play Store (to give an example in the mobile world) allow Apple and Google to somehow monitor the apps that users install, which is most certainly more secure than a model where anyone can load any webapp from any website.

Security is not some new thing I'm insisting on, it's been my whole point from the very beginning. You're just finally deciding to engage with me about it, instead of derailing the conversation constantly. Apple and Google have to monitor which apps make it to their app stores, BECAUSE apps are so much more prone to security problems. You once again have it completely backwards. No one has to gatekeep websites because browsers are so much better at sandboxing applications. And allow me to remind you that you admitted you have no idea how iOS sandboxing works, so you can't really be confident about this stance even if it did make sense.

And now you're arguing in favor of the app store duopoly which contradicts your point about software diversity. You can't have it both ways. You're trying to hold on to two contradictory points at the same time: you don't like the supposed lack of browser diversity (which is why you seem to detest Chromium), but you like the supposed security guarantees of the mobile app store duopoly, which is even less diverse.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38919389

[2] https://github.com/google/security-research/blob/master/v8ct...

[3] https://bughunters.google.com/about/rules/5745167867576320/c...

> It is true that I don't like the lack of diversity (that would come from everything being webtech on top of Chromium), and it is also true that I like the security that comes from a managed app store.

You've said previously: "My point is that webapps move everything into the browser, going towards a world where something like ChromeOS is the only valid way to use a computer. I want to choose my OS". [1]

So you think the best way to increase OS diversity is to get developers to submit their apps to proprietary app stores that only run on their own respective operating systems, instead of using open web standards that work on every operating system? How does that make sense?

> I do! I can have it both ways! Isn't that marvelous?

No! You can't! Not if you value logical consistency.

> If you can't understand how this is possible, I think we can stop here. We won't get anywhere if you can't understand what I write.

I don't think you comprehend what you're writing, or rather, you're not willing to admit that what you're writing is incomprehensible. Saying "my argument makes sense, you just can't understand it" is just you being petulant. You want to "stop here" because you've argued yourself into an illogical corner.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38913989