What? Whether or not a browser matters depends on the amount of people using it, not on whether you can install it on several operating systems.

If someone is trying to turn this into a moral discussion about the positive value of the so-called "open web" to humanity, then the question of whether the actual codebase is open-source, and runs on every platform is of primary importance.

My original reply was to a part of the article that talked about the "evil" non-open nature of web-technologies that are not humanly readable, textual HTML/CSS/JS. Then someone replied that PNaCl is only supported by a single vendor. Then I said that was a factually incorrect assertion, with the response being that I was engaged in hair splitting.

So then, I suggested that we should examine the rest of the vendors. In the morals based context of this entire subthread, I think it is plainly obvious that Safari and IE/Edge don't have any place here, when it comes to the question of whether PNaCl is a "good" technology, based simply on the question of the proportion of vendors that happen to support it.

If you are instead talking in a purely pragmatic, capitalist sense... then of course all that matters is brute numbers. But then there is no real discussion to be had, because in the cold, hard business world, whoever wins is just whoever wins. A equals A. It's a mere tautology.

If the measure is moral rectitude, how is Firefox a "fuzzy memory", while Chrome isn't despite Google being "basically Skynet"?

Your whole line of argument is confusing.