Anyone can argue the benefits. If if there were few benefits the novelty alone might be enough.
But does anyone ever consider the costs?
The analysis I have in mind is: costs versus benefits of using a web browser to do x, where x is anything and everything, no matter how important.
The "costs" are not costs to the programmer to implement but costs to users, e.g., risk of having their personal data stolen.
To give an example, weigh the benefit to Equifax customers in having their data accessible through a web browser versus the cost of having their data exfiltrated without their consent.
Or, weigh the "cost" of having to dial a toll-free number to order a credit report and not have one's data stolen online versus the "benefit" of being able to order a credit report with a web browser and having that data stolen online.
Websites can be used to effectively disseminate public information, with relatively little security risk. For example, djb's tcpserver and httpd to serve static web pages. In continuous use since the 1990's, these have never had any security issues to my knowledge. IMO, this level of software is qualitatively different than software which is released with security flaws, which may or may not be later fixed (sometimes decades later).
IMO, using the web to distribute public information is a benefit that outweighs the costs. I am not worried about static websites, assuming the right software choices are made.
The blog post acknowledges this: "The web has issues as a way of distributing documents too, but not severe enough to worry about."
If Equifax had a static page served by djb's httpd showing number to call to order a credit report, I would be far more impressed than if they were running a "web app" to take orders online that connected to some backend database of user data. Because for that specific use case, a very limited use of the web is the smart thing to do.
I would like to see more people opining that, for "serious uses" i.e., where the risks to the user are potentially serious, the web has limited utility.
The current thinking seems to be that the web has unlimited utility. For everything. We all know that with enough effort the "web browser" can be used to accomplish almost anything.
I remember an RFC many years ago from Marshall Rose that said something like "the web is the new waist". I also remember in the early 1990's, people were afraid to send credit card information via web forms.
"Unlimited utility". Today, many young people, including many programmers, see no difference between internet and web. They are synonymous.
"Unlimited utility". Maybe utility should be weighed against costs such as security risks.
IMO, the web has limited utility.
Would you sacrafice a little convenience, e.g. option to order a credit report online, if it meant your data was not part of the data stolen from Equifax? I would.