OK, point taken.
That "somebody" is W3C. And if Microsoft doesn't implement it in their internet explorer, the fact that it is a "standard interface" is not the fault of "browser vendors", but of microsoft. and browser vendors (even microsoft) have aligned their js implementations.
So yes, there is no "generally accepted" standard interface, when you define "generally accepted" as being runnable on IE8. But when you can afford to say to your users "get a modern browser" (still don't understand why google discontinued their chrome frame), you can use that standard interface. In the meantime, you can write in HTML5 and provide a flash fallback, there are lots of good libraries that provide you with such a solution without much effort from you.
You are right in principle. All it takes is to make the browser a real VM environment with security guarantees, a standardized interface, etc. But that is not going to happen anytime soon,
... because the standardized interface has already happened, or is happening: https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAP...
When I run my browser, I choose which file to upload. A program running on my computer can read every file I can read. When an application wants to access my webcam, it asks me. On the desktop the application simply accesses my webcam. On X.org you can even write a keylogger without having extra privileges.
First JVM is not language-specific: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
asm.js can be set as target for emscripten. The browsers supporting asm.js simply JIT it to bytecode, and those which don't still can run asm.js, but way slower.
Unfortunately, as long as it isn't also unconstitutional to hand out candy like candy, nobody cares.
Vorbis might be a dead horse (it isn't), but opus really is king. Its MTI codec for WebRTC not without reason.
You can still say you're OK.
from the archive.org headers (X-archive-orig-server), I can tell its cloudflare-nginx they use. What wonders me, as cloudflare prevents slashdotting??
is for me that it isn't interoperable. Please correct me when I'm wrong, but AFAIK systemd never did anything to create standards their new functionality is compatible with. Instead they only support linux APIs. I recognize that their needs exceed POSIX, but their current approach "lets make everything a hard dependency" is -to be polite- hacky. It doesn't have to be an official ISO standard, a simple document that ensures exchangeability of components inside systemd, and perhaps even makes systemd cross-platform.
+1 Informative. That Systemd is default isn't criticised by the mail. They only want to "preserve the freedom of our users now to select an init system of their choice, and the project's freedom to select a different init system in the future.".
Except the fact that browser programs are always-online of course.
Browsers are the most secure and privacy preserving way today to execute programs on your computer. They maintain a clear separation between the data on your HDD and theirs, if they need access to your camera they ask you, and it has become really hard to develop an exploit to break out of this sandbox. Because of xkcd 1200, I usually avoid using closed source apps on my desktop, but inside a browser I know it doesn't steal my data, or break something else in my system. Do you remember all those "splash screens" that appeared when you have logged in, advertising some bloaty software? In the browser there are no splash screens. I know, app stores also ensure standards and such, but browsers are still better, as they ensure basic features (copy text, ctrl f etc) I need in everyday computer use.
Thanks for all of your feedback on this bug. We’ve heard you loud and clear.
We plan to re-enable ext2/3/4 support in Files.app immediately. It will come back, just like it was before, and we’re working to get it into the next stable channel release.""