Suppose your JS Chrome App is getting the plug yanked on it, what are your alternatives?

1.) Port it to Electron and keep nearly the same code base

2.) Rewrite the whole thing as a native app in such a language as C++ without the use of Electron

You can't possibly tell me that most developers won't choose #1 instead of #2 in a heartbeat (the switching costs are orders of magnitude more for #2, for one thing). Which is not a Good Thing.

And it's also very obvious that #2 isn't nearly as secure as #1, which runs in a sandbox and so does not have direct unchecked access to users' files like #2 does.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, an Electron app also has direct unchecked access to users' files by using the Node.js 'fs' core module.

Which option works on a chromebook?

You can as a user to just use another application.

Yes, but the existence of ssh on chrome makes it much much easier to teach a windows user how to try out the linux command line. PuTTY is annoying as hell to help a new person get working and they might not have enough space for vagrant+virtualbox.

PuTTY is annoying as hell to help a new person get working

Seriously? There are like 12389127381789 how to guides about how to do it, and it is literally like 3 steps.

Do you really think the person who has problems starting putty is going to thrive in a CLI environment?

PuTTY's UI is an ass-backward mess (and that's mildly put) and the fact that you're used to put up with it or that there exists five Knuth's arrows worth of guides doesn't change that. In fact the latter is probably a testimony of it all. I've used it for years, know it by heart, still hate it, and am pretty well served by and versed in the unix terminal universe, TY. PuTTY has been useful for sure but that was by scarcity as there was basically no alternative on Windows for a decade or more.

On windows, you no longer need either with bash for windows you can have a near complete linux experience while running inside windows natively.

If you can assure me that is the case, fantastic! Do you know of a way to test the UX of ssh from bash for windows for less than $5 ?

"Ubuntu on Windows" as they're calling it now is free, enabled via the control panel, and provides a near perfect bash experience. I use it on the desktop I built for VR to SSH into my digital ocean droplets all the time. Super easy to use, just open powershell, run `bash`, then you can run `ssh` like normal. You have access to your windows files with /mnt/c and etc. for additional drives. The only issue is that Powershell doesn't support the full gamut of colors that Bash does, but that support is coming in the fall creators update and frankly it works fine with every Vim and zsh color scheme I've tested.

10/10 developing for the web on windows is finally tolerable

I don't know enough about ssh for Chrome and bash for Windows to get your point. Isn't bash for Windows (as part of WSL?) free? What is it that costs more than $5 using bash for windows but is free with ssh for Chrome? Genuinely interested, I'm on OSX mostly but I'm WSL curious.

I interpreted that as them not having access to a Windows machine and wanting to try out the experience for themselves before attempting to teach someone else.

I suppose you could run a modern.ie image and use WSL in that.

Git bash comes with ssh.

Cygwin has ssh as an optional install.

Msys2 too.

Of course, you need to have windows first. MS give away 30-day win 10 trial VM images with git bash installed, or at least they did.

I..should have clarified that I don't have easy access to a windows machine and don't have access at all to one that I can install stuff on.

Just curious - why do you think PuTTY is annoying?

I love PuTTY, but my best PuTTY is actually KiTTY, since it saves profiles in a local config file instead of the ominous Windows Registry. Much easier to move around :-)

http://www.9bis.net/kitty/

I wish I'd done a UI critique of it back when I was doing the relevant teaching.

If you run them as a different user from yourself, maybe, but who does that?

The idea that software is secure if it only runs on your own user account is stupid IMO. I'd rather that software had access to everything on my computer EXCEPT my personal files.

It's about restricting access: One is protecting others; The second is protection within your own realm. Both are needed (Unix was just like: At least don't touch the data / system that other users have)