Could it be that we are doing the web browser wrong?
I think large parts of chrome actually belong into the OS. The network parts, the drawing library (skia), the crypto implementation, the window and tab management, and so on.
The javascript engine could be factored out, too, so more apps could benefit from it (without bundling a whole frickin Chromium).
Video and audio would be deferred to DirectShow, Quartz, VLC, Mplayer, ...
Ideally, what remains is just a layout engine and some glue code for the UI. It's the monolithic kernel vs microkernel debate all over again.
Plugins have a bad rep in the context of browsers, but I think this "microkernel browser" where everything is a plugin or OS library can be potentially more secure than the current state, since we can wall off the components between interfaces much better.
I also think it would be much "freer". Browsers like Firefox and Chrome are open-source, but they are free in license only. I can't realistically go ahead and make my own browser. The whole thing is so complex that you have to be Google or Apple or Microsoft to do that. The best I could achive is a reskin of WebKit. I think that would be different with a more modular browser.
> I think large parts of chrome actually belong into the OS. The network parts, the drawing library (skia), the crypto implementation, the window and tab management, and so on.
The problem is cross-platform support. Depending on the OS is obvious if every OS supported the required features.
When I say e.g. skia should be part of the OS, I don't neccessarily mean MS should ship it and update it yearly. I mean Google should still ship and auto update it, but also go though the effort of documenting it, maintaining strict backwards compatible APIs, and letting other programs consume it. I don't care who the actual vendor is. I know that's a lot to ask for, but OTOH it is insane to statically link that kind of code. Especially if you have multiple electron apps, that would work fine with a shared runtime.
So create more work for themselves that they don't actually have to do. I'm sure some developers might be willing to do some of that in their spare time, but I think "a lot to ask for" is a serous understatement.
I'd be wary of moving the crypto into the OS, because OS upgrades are few and far between. Browsers are easier to upgrade, as we know from the rather aggressive auto-upgrade cycles of Chrome and Firefox, whereas if you have bad and/or now-known-to-be-insecure crypto in the OS, well, you're stuck with it for the foreseeable future. People are still running Windows XP.
Why can't a library be part of the OS and updated frequently? If it is critical to update, why shouldn't all apps benefit from it? Why can MS update code in Edge frequently, but shouldn't be able to update a .dll as frequently?
Ideally, I'd want critical code (encryption, code signing, bootloaders, kernels, runtimes) to be from a trusted vendor, and preferably simple and open source. I trust the MS, Apple, Google of 2017 not to completely fuck it up. (We already trust them as browser vendors.)
I don't care if the keep calc.exe stable for 10 years, but I expect them to patch crypto.dll immediately. You could do that stealthily, outside of major updates, as it has no user facing changes.
The benefit of this model is that it allows third party apps from small vendors to profit from the up to date security that only the tech Giants can provide.
The downside is of course that it is quite hard to maintain perfect backwards compatibility while pushing updates, but if the components and APIs are small enough I think it is possible.
You are going backward with the 'Internet Explorer' like buy-in. That approach would only be faster in one segment; everything else will be slower.
There is no point in speeding up the raw compile time by a couple of minutes if you are increasing the development and testing time by a couple of weeks.
What does IE have to do with this? And I don't think this will increase development time. If anything, it will allow people to innovate faster, since it is easier to contribute.
I think large parts of chrome actually belong into the OS. The network parts, the drawing library (skia), the crypto implementation, the window and tab management, and so on.
The javascript engine could be factored out, too, so more apps could benefit from it (without bundling a whole frickin Chromium).
Video and audio would be deferred to DirectShow, Quartz, VLC, Mplayer, ...
Ideally, what remains is just a layout engine and some glue code for the UI. It's the monolithic kernel vs microkernel debate all over again.
Plugins have a bad rep in the context of browsers, but I think this "microkernel browser" where everything is a plugin or OS library can be potentially more secure than the current state, since we can wall off the components between interfaces much better.
I also think it would be much "freer". Browsers like Firefox and Chrome are open-source, but they are free in license only. I can't realistically go ahead and make my own browser. The whole thing is so complex that you have to be Google or Apple or Microsoft to do that. The best I could achive is a reskin of WebKit. I think that would be different with a more modular browser.