undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjmillikin2y ago0 comments

If the standard for Linux scanner drivers was WASM, then companies who publish Linux drivers (such as Epson) would receive perfect forward compatibility for free.

If WASM driver support were to be included in Windows and/or macOS, similar to how macOS and Linux share CUPS, then Linux support would be more widespread because the vendor's driver could be reused as-is.

I think the thought process behind "supporting one unified platform-independent bytecode would be easier than compiling a .so that works with all GNU libc versions" is straightforward and self-evident. Do you disagree?

0 comments

PaulDavisThe1st2y ago

> I think the thought process behind "supporting one unified platform-independent bytecode would be easier than compiling a .so that works with all GNU libc versions" is straightforward and self-evident. Do you disagree?

1. it doesn't really matter what I think

2. Compiling a .so that works with all glibc versions is almost certainly an order of magnitude easier than providing a unified wasm implementation that works on (at least) 3 platforms.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsjmillikin2y ago0 comments

If the standard for Linux scanner drivers was WASM, then companies who publish Linux drivers (such as Epson) would receive perfect forward compatibility for free.

0 comments

PaulDavisThe1st2y ago

1. it doesn't really matter what I think

2. Compiling a .so that works with all glibc versions is almost certainly an order of magnitude easier than providing a unified wasm implementation that works on (at least) 3 platforms.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse