I'm really not the expert to ask here, my personal style is a bit too tainted for the hardcore V7/P9 fans. But it's interesting to think about, so I'll give it a try.
Let's cut to the chase: Why would you have a textbox and a specific site for what amounts to a simple discussion? There's really no big conceptual reason why we couldn't do this via email, nntp or some similar protocol.
Leaving that aside, the more difficult question is how you'd get the textbox on your screen, i.e. what's the "True Unix" way of "web browsing"? There aren't that many examples of a rather graphical, highly interactive programs that believers would classify as really Unix-like. Maybe something roff-like, where you have a pretty universal display language and different (server-side?) tools are used to create something that would be too hard to express in the language as is (cf. tbl, pic), but then how would you make that interactive without doing the same stuff as HTML/CSS/JS? I was quite fond of the concept of NeWs, where you'd distribute your application over the net as PostScript, and I think Pike's Newsqueak went in a similar direction.
And how would you handle things on the server side? I don't think it would be that much different from what we're doing now. HTTP is quite resource-oriented and thus maps closely to a file system (the path-like nature of URLs is no accident). A CGI/PHP model for simple "files" would suffice, and you could have an almost arbitrarily complex application that appears as a file system, just like you can have that now appearing as a bunch of HTTP resources. People wrote "big" C applications, even though they could've theoretically done it all with a bunch of shell scripts, awk and ed. The "one thing and one thing only" mantra never was that religiously adhered to.
So, in conclusion, I don't think we're that far off right now, especially on the server side. If you look at what Pike's complaining about, it's mostly how you do it. Quite often the wheel is needlessly reinvented or has too many spokes, it's not that driving somewhere is wrong.
I'd argue that our current system is closer to "Unix" than it would be too Lisp Machines, Smalltalk and other more homogenous systems.
Let's cut to the chase: Why would you have a textbox and a specific site for what amounts to a simple discussion? There's really no big conceptual reason why we couldn't do this via email, nntp or some similar protocol.
Leaving that aside, the more difficult question is how you'd get the textbox on your screen, i.e. what's the "True Unix" way of "web browsing"? There aren't that many examples of a rather graphical, highly interactive programs that believers would classify as really Unix-like. Maybe something roff-like, where you have a pretty universal display language and different (server-side?) tools are used to create something that would be too hard to express in the language as is (cf. tbl, pic), but then how would you make that interactive without doing the same stuff as HTML/CSS/JS? I was quite fond of the concept of NeWs, where you'd distribute your application over the net as PostScript, and I think Pike's Newsqueak went in a similar direction.
And how would you handle things on the server side? I don't think it would be that much different from what we're doing now. HTTP is quite resource-oriented and thus maps closely to a file system (the path-like nature of URLs is no accident). A CGI/PHP model for simple "files" would suffice, and you could have an almost arbitrarily complex application that appears as a file system, just like you can have that now appearing as a bunch of HTTP resources. People wrote "big" C applications, even though they could've theoretically done it all with a bunch of shell scripts, awk and ed. The "one thing and one thing only" mantra never was that religiously adhered to.
So, in conclusion, I don't think we're that far off right now, especially on the server side. If you look at what Pike's complaining about, it's mostly how you do it. Quite often the wheel is needlessly reinvented or has too many spokes, it's not that driving somewhere is wrong.
I'd argue that our current system is closer to "Unix" than it would be too Lisp Machines, Smalltalk and other more homogenous systems.