5 ms·

Quite so. When it first took off, I took no end of flames and downvotes for suggesting that WebGPU is a terrible idea. HTML and the browser were originally co

Quite so. When it first took off, I took no end of flames and downvotes for suggesting that WebGPU is a terrible idea. HTML and the browser were originally conceived to render documents, not serve as a bastardized application distribution platform. The only arguments I've ever heard in favor of wasm/webgpu were that using native graphics/GUI toolkit APIs are a pain. That's definitely true, because I've written stuff with gtk and it sucks, but that doesn't mean we should just shovel an entire tech stack into the browser. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. I'm tired of these BigCos shitting everything up.

lmz 6d ago
The BigCos are the reason you have that browser in the first place. If you don't like it, you know where to download ... links or something.
- stackghost 6d ago
  Hey you’re right, we should gladly accept every decision the big corps make. They know best, after all. We should probably lick their boots too, in gratitude for their benevolence.
  - lmz 6d ago
    The application delivery thing was done as far back as Netscape threatening to relegate Windows to "a poorly debugged set of device drivers" so Web-whatever is simply another step in that direction. Like I said, if you purists want just document delivery, you can use links or w3m or maybe Gemini.
    - mitxela 6d ago
      Some kind of market forces kept Netscape in check back then. Now they aren't. Like, Tesco would prefer that my operating system was a roast chicken, Baowu Group would prefer it was made of steel, Berghain would prefer that it had to queue for hours to possibly get in, and Jagex would prefer it was an in-game GUI within RuneScape. None of those companies got their way, what makes Netscape special?
      - lmz 5d ago
        The point is that browsers have been made and funded by BigCo, and treated as app delivery platforms at least for the last 20 years. Netscape, Microsoft, Apple, Google (for Mozilla and then Chrome). The last non BigCo mainstream(?) browser was probably Opera. It's silly to complain now about BigCo, WebGPU, and ignore the past 20 years of history. The WWW has not been about document delivery only for the last 20 years. Instead of tiring themselves out complaining about the Web and modern browsers, they can use something else.
- deleted 6d ago
  [deleted]
Melonai 6d ago
Yeah in the end I probably agree on WebGPU, I haven't really seen a single use of it, except for running shader code examples in browser, which might as well be replaced by a looping video. For WASM though, I do not agree at all! It's genuinely a great system for high performance browser code. So much stuff I use now had WASM as the backbone, and I even started applying it outside of the browser in some of my architecture. I wish we had way more enthusiasm behind things like WASM, and way less for something like WebUSB.
coldpie 5d ago
So, I kind of agree, but I don't know what a better solution looks like. Is it really better for users to download and run straight up executables with no security model? We tried that in the 90s and 2000s and it was pretty bad. We can have OSes introduce a security model, like Android and iOS do. But then what about desktop Linux users like myself? Am I just to be excluded because I don't use a popular (and proprietary) operating system? Okay, we can invent a standard, cross platform app distribution mechanism with a security model. And that's... exactly what web browsers are. In the end it seems like the least-bad solution to me. I quite like that I can run GPU accelerated programs without the dev having to put in special effort to support my Linux distro. I dunno, maybe I'm missing an option?
- mrguyorama 5d ago
  >Is it really better for users to download and run straight up executables with no security model? Yes. Unambiguously, a system where the only code that runs is code that you explicitly run is more secure. Social engineering and basic tricks of telling someone an app does A while it really does B are not solved on the web, because social engineering cannot be solved. In the supposed safe gardens of app stores, apps do exactly that all the time and are not well moderated. Apple's supposed moderation approved a "Lastpass" password manager app that was not made by the actual Lastpass company. If that can get through, then anything can get through. Meanwhile, the webapp solution is for any site you visit to be able to download and execute whatever they want, rather than whatever you want, and most sites also set a third party to have the ability to download and run whatever they want, and Google wants that system to have as much control over your local hardware as the OS does, so how is this better at all? It's strictly worse. The web security model is worthless. It depends on random third parties you have no affiliation with to not get hacked themselves, and not make stupid choices. It's fine to just not have "Web bluetooth" actually. 800 "Partners" just don't need to be able to access that. What is the "Security Model" of the web, that every random person willing to pay a few cents for an advertisement should be able to run code on your machine without your authorization? That anyone should be able to target individuals for RCE through advertising infrastructure?
  - 5d ago
stmw 5d ago
It's interesting because we learned this lesson with JVM applets, Flash and X controls in the browser, yet somehow insist on revisiting it...
tancop 5d ago
People don't want documents. Almost everything useful you do on the web is some form of interactive app from a simple forum with no JS to Figma or 3D games. I think we need to go the other way, all in on apps. The browser only has to expose permission based I/O, WebGPU and a way to build a11y semantic trees. Globally cached libraries can handle everything else. That would reduce the attack surface and core complexity while making the platform more flexible. HTML can run as a legacy layer on top.

lmz 6d ago

The BigCos are the reason you have that browser in the first place. If you don't like it, you know where to download ... links or something.

stackghost 6d ago
Hey you’re right, we should gladly accept every decision the big corps make. They know best, after all. We should probably lick their boots too, in gratitude for their benevolence.
- lmz 6d ago
  The application delivery thing was done as far back as Netscape threatening to relegate Windows to "a poorly debugged set of device drivers" so Web-whatever is simply another step in that direction. Like I said, if you purists want just document delivery, you can use links or w3m or maybe Gemini.
  - mitxela 6d ago
    Some kind of market forces kept Netscape in check back then. Now they aren't. Like, Tesco would prefer that my operating system was a roast chicken, Baowu Group would prefer it was made of steel, Berghain would prefer that it had to queue for hours to possibly get in, and Jagex would prefer it was an in-game GUI within RuneScape. None of those companies got their way, what makes Netscape special?
    - lmz 5d ago
      The point is that browsers have been made and funded by BigCo, and treated as app delivery platforms at least for the last 20 years. Netscape, Microsoft, Apple, Google (for Mozilla and then Chrome). The last non BigCo mainstream(?) browser was probably Opera. It's silly to complain now about BigCo, WebGPU, and ignore the past 20 years of history. The WWW has not been about document delivery only for the last 20 years. Instead of tiring themselves out complaining about the Web and modern browsers, they can use something else.
deleted 6d ago
[deleted]

Melonai 6d ago

Yeah in the end I probably agree on WebGPU, I haven't really seen a single use of it, except for running shader code examples in browser, which might as well be replaced by a looping video. For WASM though, I do not agree at all! It's genuinely a great system for high performance browser code. So much stuff I use now had WASM as the backbone, and I even started applying it outside of the browser in some of my architecture. I wish we had way more enthusiasm behind things like WASM, and way less for something like WebUSB.

coldpie 5d ago

So, I kind of agree, but I don't know what a better solution looks like. Is it really better for users to download and run straight up executables with no security model? We tried that in the 90s and 2000s and it was pretty bad. We can have OSes introduce a security model, like Android and iOS do. But then what about desktop Linux users like myself? Am I just to be excluded because I don't use a popular (and proprietary) operating system? Okay, we can invent a standard, cross platform app distribution mechanism with a security model. And that's... exactly what web browsers are. In the end it seems like the least-bad solution to me. I quite like that I can run GPU accelerated programs without the dev having to put in special effort to support my Linux distro. I dunno, maybe I'm missing an option?

mrguyorama 5d ago
>Is it really better for users to download and run straight up executables with no security model? Yes. Unambiguously, a system where the only code that runs is code that you explicitly run is more secure. Social engineering and basic tricks of telling someone an app does A while it really does B are not solved on the web, because social engineering cannot be solved. In the supposed safe gardens of app stores, apps do exactly that all the time and are not well moderated. Apple's supposed moderation approved a "Lastpass" password manager app that was not made by the actual Lastpass company. If that can get through, then anything can get through. Meanwhile, the webapp solution is for any site you visit to be able to download and execute whatever they want, rather than whatever you want, and most sites also set a third party to have the ability to download and run whatever they want, and Google wants that system to have as much control over your local hardware as the OS does, so how is this better at all? It's strictly worse. The web security model is worthless. It depends on random third parties you have no affiliation with to not get hacked themselves, and not make stupid choices. It's fine to just not have "Web bluetooth" actually. 800 "Partners" just don't need to be able to access that. What is the "Security Model" of the web, that every random person willing to pay a few cents for an advertisement should be able to run code on your machine without your authorization? That anyone should be able to target individuals for RCE through advertising infrastructure?
- 5d ago

stmw 5d ago

It's interesting because we learned this lesson with JVM applets, Flash and X controls in the browser, yet somehow insist on revisiting it...

tancop 5d ago

People don't want documents. Almost everything useful you do on the web is some form of interactive app from a simple forum with no JS to Figma or 3D games. I think we need to go the other way, all in on apps. The browser only has to expose permission based I/O, WebGPU and a way to build a11y semantic trees. Globally cached libraries can handle everything else. That would reduce the attack surface and core complexity while making the platform more flexible. HTML can run as a legacy layer on top.