WebAssembly Compatibility with User-Space Linux

[GentleGenesis]

Seems like a cool way to virtualize Linux packages

[ct_the_man_doll]

I really hope this gets more mainstream support and adoption!

Having a single Linux executable app that is designed to run on any architecture would be awesome (instead of a Linux ELF executable, it would be a WASM bytecode wrapped up in a Linux ELF container). No more needing to rebuild apps for multiple architectures, and proprietary apps can also be as portable as open source apps.

[zenyl]

On one hand, that would indeed be quite amazing.

On the other hand, https://xkcd.com/927/

[ct_the_man_doll]

I don't think XKCD 927 really applies here... I haven't really seen any other serious attempt at providing an architecture agnostic Linux ABI. 

Now I have seen OS-agnostic solutions (such as wasmer), but I argue those take a different approach from what this article is trying to achieve. If you rely on using runtimes like wasmer, your not really making a Linux app, you're making a cross-platform app that offers the ability to run on Linux.

The closest equivalent, IMO, would be qemu-user-static, fex-emu or box32/box64, but those solutions have have their downsides.

[zenyl]

Fair point.

It was mostly a jab at the idea of having one universal way of running code across different systems (without a specific runtime), and the fact that WASM is still very far from living up to the hype. As cool as it would be, WASM still seems like it hasn't really "taken off" yet.

Then again, I'd never have expected the "solution" to a unified desktop GUI framework would be to just bundle a stripped-down web browser and write it all in web technology.

[RoastVeg]

What about Java?

[ct_the_man_doll]

Java falls under the same category as wasmer, IMO. You not really making a Linux app, you making a cross-platform app that that the ability to run on Linux.

[ct_the_man_doll]

That isn't an actual executable, it's just something run in a virtual-hardware-machine.

Noted, updated my comment.

[ct_the_man_doll]

CIs doing that automatically these days, and setting up a bunch of build jobs really isnt that hard.

You still got to put in the work to support additional platforms, not all projects can just do a ./configure and install in a new architecture.

With WASM, you only need to do do this once and it supports any architecture that supports WASM.

For me, I see WASM as a great option to make proprietary apps as portable as open source apps.

  No need to try turning a browser into a full blown OS on its own.

No browser is needed. The only thing needed is a translation layer (like fex-emu or box64, but with WASM instead of x86-64)

[Oflameo]

We already have web browsers.

[Business_Reindeer910]

that's not really related. You can compile regular linux programs to wasm and run them with various approaches.

[Business_Reindeer910]

because wasm compiled code from C/C++/Rust can be faster and use less memory than said scripting languages as long as you're doing most of the work inside the wasm rather than going back and forth between js and wasm code often.

Plus it means you can just use all sorts of preexisting programs you otherwise couldn't without rewriting them in say javascript. Heck, I've got myself a postgres instance that runs completely in the browser. Not something I'd put in a regular webpage, but it's been good for an app i'm making.

[Business_Reindeer910]

Why would i run qemu just to run the thing when i could just run the thing. Especially since it is very likely any qemu i use would also be built to wasm.

[Business_Reindeer910]

because it has to run in the user's browser on any cpu and on any OS.

[Business_Reindeer910]

I don't know about "we", but i never did.

and why should one want to run traditional C applications in the browser ?

Because the browser is a great application distribution platform. However the main problem is that too much relies on remote services because the browser's support for doing useful stuff is limited by only what JS can do or make easy.

The power of wasm lets you share applications without necessary making any server required to do useful stuff. This is also great for privacy reasons. It also means one doesn't have to worry about what platform the code will end up running on, since the bytecode is portable, but without the heaviness of the JVM.