> ... document browser ... document reader ...

I'm going to assume you're being sincere. But even the crustiest among us can recognize that the modern purpose for web browsers is not (merely) documents. Chances are, many folks on HN in the last month have booked tickets for a flight or bought a home or a car or watched a cat video using the "document browser".

> If we think we need a more thoroughly virtualized machine than traditional operating system processes give us (which I think is obvious)...

Like ... the WASM virtual machine? What if the WASM virtual machine were the culmination of learning from previous not-quite-good-enough VMs?

WASM -- despite its name -- is not truly bound to the "document" browser.

The problem is: even us old timers can't deny nor change the fact that operating systems have been putting up barriers to disallow running untrusted code downloaded from the internet.

Try to distribute an installer on Windows that isn't signed with an extensive EV-certificate for instance. It's scare popup galore.

Not to mention the closed gardens of the Apple and Google Stores which even when you get in, you can be kicked out again for absolutely no objective reason (they don't even need to tell you why).

> then we should be honest and build a virtualization abstraction that is actually what we want,

This is not in the interest of Microsoft, Google or Apple. They can't put the open web back into the box (yet, anyway), but they will not support any new attempts to create an open software ecosystem on "their" platforms.

Personally not a fan of Windows 95 in the browser, however the browser stoped being a “document reader” a decade ago it’s the only universel, sandbox runtime, and everything is moving in that direction ... safe code. WASM isnt a worst VM; it’s a diffrent trade off: portable, fast start, capability scoped compute without shiping a OS. Raw device still have their place (servers). If you need safe distribution + performance thats “good enough” WASM in the browser is going to be the future of client.

The browser removes the friction of needing to install specialized software locally, which is HUGE when you want people to actually use your software. Figma would have been dead in the water if it wasn't stupidly simple to share a design via a URL to anyone with a computer and an internet connection.

I would argue that as soon as it was decided to include JavaScript runtime in the browser, it stopped being a plain document browser. From then on, we were just on the evolutionary path of converting it from a low capability app sandbox to a highly capable one.

Think of it like emacs. Browsers are perfectly good operating systems just needing a better way to view the web.

There are projects to run WASM on bare metal.

I do agree that we tend to run a lot in a web-browser or browser environment though. It seems like a pattern that started as a hack but grew into its own thing through convenience.

It would be interesting to sit down with a small group and figure out exactly what is good/bad about it and design a new thing around the desired pattern that doesn't involve a browser-in-the-loop.

But that's what they're doing. The hard part isn't the VM. The hard part is the long fought functional yet secure sandbox that a browser provides.

Plenty of people still want local-first apps that function offline.

Security model of web is needed to be brought to the OS.

I a 64yo fart. Started programming with machine codes. Native is my bread and butter. Still have no problems and am using browser as a deployment platform for some type of applications. Almost each thing has it's own use.