> I don't like how web people tend to not know anything not web

This is the reason why your responses have been so arrogant. This is why you assumed I lacked knowledge about sandboxing before we'd even had a chance to discuss the topic in any sort of depth. You have this preconceived notion that all web developers are myopic and can't see anything outside of the web, and you've projected this stereotype onto me as if you're omniscient. If you truly do enjoy engaging in good faith arguments, and learning from other commenters, then you wouldn't start with the pompous assumption that the person you're talking to is ignorant.

> I don't like unmanaged language package managers like npm and how they allow devs to have no clue about their dependencies. I don't like Javascript.

Finally, you just came out and said it. You have a deep seated visceral hatred of JavaScript and anything even tangentially related to it. This is why you've been trying to bait me into talking about Electron, to the point of literally fabricating statements (at one point you claimed I was talking about VSCode). This is your pet issue, and your clamoring for a chance to talk about it.
I get it, you don't like JS. It's a popular opinion amongst snobbish developers who like to promote this culture of contempt that pervades the software development world [1].

The problem is...we're not talking about the pros and cons of JavaScript as a language, or npm as a package manger. I have feelings about that as well (which I may or may not share), but my primary conjecture has always been that software is safer when run in the browser (especially on desktop operating systems). That's why I originally responded to your comment about Figma and Photoshop, and provided my own anecdote about my experiences using Adobe Photoshop on my desktop computer.

> Those things I like, TO ME, represent diversity, and allow me to choose the tools that are more ergonomic for me, and even to contribute to them.

The preceding paragraphs read like a CV with every technology you've ever interacted with, and many of them are very interesting, but all of that is completely besides the point. I'm going to quote you again here, you said: "My point is that webapps move everything into the browser, going towards a world where something like ChromeOS is the only valid way to use a computer. I want to choose my OS".

We're not talking about the diversity of tools used to build applications, we're talking about the diversity of operating systems used to run graphical user interface apps. You absolutely refuse to stay on topic. Submitting apps to proprietary app stores that only run on their respective operating systems is not the best way to promote operating system diversity. If I build an app for the browser it'll run on every operating system (since they all ship with a web browser), that's just an objective fact.

> is there a price for the winner

You should be a comedian. I'm here to talk about technology.

> I would genuinely be very happy if you taught me something (just a small thing) about why browsers are fundamentally better in terms of security than any other kind of sandbox I can imagine.

We're not talking about what you can fundamentally imagine, we're talking about how software is used in reality.

> why it is that whatever is used to sandbox processes in a browser cannot be used to sandbox processes outside the browser. Or why granular access control works in the browser and fundamentally cannot be used outside of it.

I hate to keep repeating myself but, we're not discussing theoretical means with which you could sandbox an application, we're talking about how apps are actually used in practice. You seem to want to discuss how desktop apps could theoretically be just as safe as web apps, but I'm more interested in reality than theory. I've given you several examples of security features which are present in the browser, and have no proper analog built in to desktop operating systems.

Here's a non-exhaustive list of things that make webapps more secure than desktop apps (many of these points haven already been mentioned, but you keep ignoring them):

- Webapps can't read from the clipboard without user confirmation.

- Webapps can't make themselves truly persistent the way a desktop app can.

- Webapps can't record your keystrokes when their tab isn't active, whereas keyloggers are one of the most pervasive forms of desktop malware. On a Mac for instance, I normally have to use Reikey to mitigate this threat.

- Webapps can't forge the origin and user-agent HTTP headers to impersonate legitimate clients.

- Webapps can't read the response of an HTTP request to a third party origin unless the site allows it via a CORS header.

- Webapps can't read a single file from your filesystem unless you explicitly allow it.

- Webapps can't see which SSIDs your computer is connected to in order to pinpoint your location by matching them against known wifi networks.

Could some of these protections be implemented on the desktop in the future? Sure, and if they do I'd be happy to revisit this discussion in a few years. But my arguments are firmly rooted in reality, not speculation about future enhancements. And please don't bring up onerous security measures like virtual machines. First because that only proves that desktop apps are insecure by default, second because most users are likely unaware that such measures even exist, and third because those measures can be applied to a browser as well, so they only augment the security of webapps if anything.

[1] https://blog.aurynn.com/2015/12/16-contempt-culture