Hrm, yes-we-scan and printervention are built on SANE and CUPS respectively, which makes sense. But running them in a whole wasm-emulated Linux kernel and userland seems... like a lot.

▲

jdub 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Oh, and:

> I must apologise that I haven’t so far open-sourced any part of this that I don’t have to.

With some blather about commercial opportunities. Which is a weird thing to say without linking to the bits that must be shared (under the terms of the various licenses).

	▲	gmac 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		There’s separately a /credits page where I’ve done that, linked from the footer. Perhaps I should link it from the apology too. Tell me if you think I’ve not shared what I have to.

▲

jdub 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ah, it seems like the architecture was designed by a slop machine. OK.

▲

userbinator 3 hours ago | parent [-]

RE'ing drivers and porting them is one of those things that AI turns out to be really useful for, and there have been a few of such projects posted here already. But of course the author has to drive it in that direction rather than let it just glue stuff together.

▲

ironhaven an hour ago | parent [-]

If they reverse engineered the drivers then why do they need a virtual cpu and a Linux kernel to run them. Is this reverse engineering or just installing software in a weird environment?

Speaking of not just gluing stuff together with usb/ip could one make a virtual WebUSB host kernel module that could be used by the Linux kernel USB stack? They most likely would not want to do that because then all of the code would be GPL and would have to be shared with the public.

	▲	toast0 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think a usb host driver is necessarily tainted into being GPL? But if it is, plenty of non-gpl oses that can run SANE.