@Krekc yes, browser plugins need a separate app (e.g launcher) in order to access SAFEnetwork
@DavidMtl you raise things we should consider but I don’t accept that they are serious issues. Principally I don’t know if merging them makes the code significantly less reliable or introduces security vulnerabilities. I see your logic, and accept complexity is a source of problems, but having a separation is also creating complexity so I think it’s a moot point without further insight.
Also, the last point can be mitigated: alternative “launcher” can still be provided to cater for a “no browser wanted” low resource option. Building a browser that doubles as app access point doesn’t prevent having other access point apps. Even if this wasn’t the case I think as with the clear web, the browser will be the killer app on SAFEnetwork so long as people are still booting locally rather than directly from the network, making the SAFE browser ubiquitous for almost everyone for some time.
Separate point: writing the above makes me question again why we call it “Launcher” - it was once going to manage SAFE Apps (maintain a list from which users would choose what to run - hence launch) but now it is just an access point, so maybe we should reconsider that. I think “Launcher” is confusing to users and developers. Let’s kill the Launcher! 