The tool is opensource - looks like it’s published under an MIT license.
If Linux support matters to you, maybe you can get involved or fork the project. It supports a remote debugging protocol - so as a first pass you might be able to add Linux support without needing to port the UI.
I agree with you - I wish more tools like this supported Linux. But I also really respect the original author’s effort here. Making a project like this is a lot of work already. They’re under no obligation to support Linux if they don’t use Linux themselves. Letting the community step in to add Linux support is, in my opinion, opensource done right.
Someone says, "It sucks that X doesn't do Y" and invariably someone pops up to say, "Dedicate your life to solving this problem for yourself. I don't know and could not be forced to care if making X do Y is something you are qualified to do or have the skillset for. Here's were you can go to start finding out what world of misery you have created for yourself under my careful guidance."
Making a statement about X not doing Y is not a complaint, it's not a request for others to do work. It's not an order from a disgruntled customer.
It's the people stating a want, that is all. If enough people agree, then the right people might make that a reality, that is all.
> Making a statement about X not doing Y is not a complaint, it's not a request for others to do work. It's not an order from a disgruntled customer.
I’m sorry to say but the comment above came across that way to me. Someone has gone to tremendous effort to build a great tool and opensource it. The reaction?
> Instrumentation for everyone but only if you are on Windows. It so sad to see the level of support for Linux in this domain.
This isn’t “cool project, it’d be even better with Linux support”. I read that as “I’m actively sad you released your project without Linux support. Despite all your free work, my life is worse because you haven’t gone the extra mile to also cater to my needs in particular”. There’s no balance there. No acknowledgement of how much work it might be to add Linux support. Or that the commenter has no interest in lifting a finger to help out themself. I can only speak to my own reaction, but I found it a bit of a lazy, entitled comment.
And by all means criticise away. This is hacker news after all. But it’s also hacker news. A place for the people who build. Sitting on the sidelines and complaining doesn’t impress me much. To use your metaphor: not every critic makes a good filmmaker. But this isn’t a forum for movie critics. It’s a forum for filmmakers and budding filmmakers. You don’t have to be great. But you do need to pick up a camera to earn my respect.
The tool is targeted towards game developers, and those mostly work on Windows. I would expect that the guts of this tool are not easy to port to other operating systems. And besides, if it would be cross-platform and they would have picked Electron for the app scaffolding, people would complain thst it is an Electron tool instead.
Shader debugging is a "potentially" planned addition. API and vendor agnostic shader debugging sounds amazing. Seems a lot more complex than what they have already but it would be super cool!
Not API agnostic, but pix can debug dx12 shaders, and renderdoc can debug Vulkan shaders (I've used renderdoc debugger's jump to NaN to fix a few broken shader edge cases), and both are vendor agnostic.
