Yes a done well Java from portability point of view and a done well Electron in terms of reusing Web tech for UI.
Making convenient to install applications reusing Web tech could let us check that an app that is supposed to use e2e encryption does so and we don't need to trust the server.
Like "do you want to be sure e2eE is effective? Download the same Web UI as versioned audited open source app and run it locally."
My FP protocol is designed to make it indifferent to run an application on local hardware or to distribute its execution among remote machines.
That's why the licensing issue is so important: the user has the right to know what is running on the remote end.
But frankly, I don't think this "Java done right with Electron" is going to work in practice as a portability layer.
It will be portable to... Chrome.
And won't be better for security because it will be overcomplicated.
Sorry, I don't know to what are you referring with "my FP protocol" :)
Not only Chrome supports WebAssembly, Firefox is a major proponent and the speaker in the video is from Mozilla. If I understand that explaination correctly WebAssembly is not intended to be run only by Web browsers
FP is the file protocol that will take place of 9P2000 in Jehanne, my distributed operating system (a Plan9 fork).
It was relevant in this discussion just to explain that I understand what you mean but I think that WASM and Electron are the wrong solution to the problem you see, which is the lack of a simple scalable architecture for distributed computing.
WASM is not only for #browser, but being for browsers too will make it fragile.
@Shamar seems reasonable, maybe a bit too radical than what I imagined :-)
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!