erichdongubler

What browser and hardware are you using?

Hey, Firefox Web GPU engineer here. We would love to hear about crashers on any platform! If you need help filing a Bugzilla bug, or want to email me so I can do it, please LMK.

It seems the project is actually aware of this:

> Quit Logi Options+ before launching: the two fight over HID++ access, and only one app can own a receiver at a time. On Linux, the same applies to Solaar.

> Author here, a bit cringe to see your WIP project posted here.

I'm confused; are you referring to GP's link to `gimli`, or your own repo in the OP?

Thanks! Can't forget your help in the process.

A well-earned accolade! Thanks for helping Firefox make a WebGPU.

Member of Firefox's WebGPU team here. This is expected. Stable support for macOS is something we hope to ship soon! From the post:

> Although Firefox 141 enables WebGPU only on Windows, we plan to ship WebGPU on Mac and Linux in the coming months, and finally on Android.

Member of Firefox's WebGPU team here. I'm curious what extensions you're referring to!

We're hoping to ship on Windows stable in the next couple of Firefox releases. Other platforms should follow in the following year. If you want, I'd encourage you to try out WebGPU on Nightly on Linux and see if you run into any issues!

> The big advantage of Make is that it is probably already installed.

...unless you're on Windows, like me!

Went to comments here exactly for this. I was delighted to see one of my favorite authors front-and-center as an incidental detail of an otherwise unrelated tech. demo.

I think it's addressed in the article:

> As you may know, we built a prototype for desktop PWAs a few years ago, and unfortunately user testing on our solution showed confusion and lack of perceived value. We didn’t release it because we didn’t have an approach that could meet the needs of power users without causing confusion among the broader user base.

You're informing people (i.e., me and my team) that are working on implementing a spec. from a single piece of the web platform that their piece of the platform (graphics programming) is useless for a specific use case (gaming) without a very different piece of functionality being implemented on the web platform. That's valid feedback, but also difficult to act on with it's current form and audience.

I think what lukan is trying to tell you is that if you're serious about your advice being taken, you will need to find a venue in which the right people in the web ecosystem can engage with it. Neither me nor my team are the right audience for that, unfortunately. I suggest you file an issue on Bugzilla, if you want to start there! I'm happy to assist in making that happen, if you want.

If you do actually follow up with the above, I think you need to answer first: What APIs already exist on the web platform, and why are they not sufficient? For example, the Gamepad API exists; were you aware of it before, and do you think it fulfills the stated use case? Why or why not?

I will also push back on these statements:

> If people want it to be relevant to its primary use case, than low-latency HID interface callbacks are certainly required...

> Leave the noted key features out, and the GPU API will remain vestigial. =3

...because it appears to ignore valid use cases that exist outside of gaming. My team doesn't just serve the gaming use case (though we sure hope it will), and calling the API we're working on "vestigial [without supporting gaming]" is disrespectful to both people who need those other use cases filled _and_ people like me who are trying to make them possible. It also implies a responsibility for the platform as a whole that we can't possibly shoulder ourselves; the amount of expertise required to make a platform across all major OSes for just _one_ of these web platform APIs can be huge, and WebGPU is, indeed, very large.