Maybe if we didn't virtualize everything at machine level we'd have portable software that runs on the original virtualization method: processes.

Stares at Go as about the only step in that direction...

I did not claim it was most important, but he clearly called out issues that haunt us still, because we did not fix the basic initial issues ( and we are actively making it worse now with AI slop -- we because, while I use llms, I am not arrogant enough to offer my contributions to emulation, virtualization and other foundational stuff ). The point is that he called it and all of us should do some soul searching as to why his words were ignored. Because if he was ignored because 'he was mean about it', the we are kinda screwed long, because anyone with a brain that can comprehend the issue, will likely have little patience for anyone, who can't see it or won't want see to see it for some contrived semi-social reason.

LLM slop account. Admittedly this one was harder to spot.

<< You are absolutely deluded, if not stupid, if you think that a worldwide collection of software engineers who can't write operating systems or applications without security holes, can then turn around and suddenly write virtualization layers without security holes.

Allow me to start by saying that you are wrong about 'mainly about'. The argument starts with an insult, but insult is minimal and it moves directly into the technical details. But, note that how much you are wrong about the paragraph, because what you want to focus is the insult. You are so wrong about it you effectively invert the proportions of presence of technical data to insult..

But is the world a better place with that particular understanding being the norm. Would we, as a whole, be better served if function was what actually mattered? Wouldn't that be nice?

Can I insult you and then complain that you focus too much on form?