> If an app really needs the feature it will have to distribute a native binary (like you have/had with some web video/screenshare) so do you prefer to have some applications that each one has to offer a Windows and Mac binary (no Linux or mobile) ?
Yes. 100%. And I say that as a Linux-user.
If someone needs access to low level system and platform specific stuff, I would like to have that confined and isolated in an app 100% separate from my browser, which is already having a hard time staying secure.
That will also make such apps harder to make, so people will not make the decision to require such APIs lightly, or “just” to profile a user.
This is the same position I have on WebDRM, and the way WebDRM has gone only solidifies my stance.
> I would like to have that confined and isolated in an app 100% separate from my browser, which is already having a hard time staying secure.
So instead of having all of the security features that browsers have you would prefer to run the application in an environment where code has all of the permissions as the user running it. I'm sure malicious actors are onboard with this proposal!
But this means you have to install 10 different extra plugins, 1 for your webconfrerence progrtam , 1 for screenrecording, other one for the other screen sharing that you need for the other project, other binary for some hobby you have that needs that feature.
The solution is to use a browser you trust and ask for browsers to have this modules off by default, maybe have the option to compile without pdf, webcam support, I am sure there will be people that would compile this browsers with the things they do not like out.
In Linux you could probably sandbox your borwser so it will not even see your real webcam or other hardware. So I prefer installing a full featured open source browser then 10 closed binary executables.
The growing complexity of browsers make security harder. But at the same time - mainstream platforms are also getting more limited in the name of security. It's almost impossible for a power user to fix something themselves. They have to install an app, or root their device. The alternative is not really downloading a random binary, you can no longer do that. The only alternative to get shit done is to go buy a Linux compatible PC and learn some programming. 20 years ago the security was terrible, but you could fix things yourself without being a developer. No matter how much systems are limited, security issues persist. If you are worried that your browser is insecure, switch to a more secure browser that doesn't have those features, or disable the features in the browser you already use.
As a developer I could write detailed instructions on my website how to install Linux, what OS and packages to use, instructions for git clone etc. Or I could just have a button that the user can click on.
Yes. 100%. And I say that as a Linux-user.
If someone needs access to low level system and platform specific stuff, I would like to have that confined and isolated in an app 100% separate from my browser, which is already having a hard time staying secure.
That will also make such apps harder to make, so people will not make the decision to require such APIs lightly, or “just” to profile a user.
This is the same position I have on WebDRM, and the way WebDRM has gone only solidifies my stance.