First of all, congratulations on getting this to a point where you can show it off. A lot of hard work clearly went into this, and it's can't be an easy decisio

First of all, congratulations on getting this to a point where you can show it off. A lot of hard work clearly went into this, and it's can't be an easy decision to unleash the hordes of HN programmers knowing the inevitable "constructive criticism" that results. I think a lot of the people who ask "why not just use X" might seem like they miss the point of writing a project to do something you need done just for the fun of it, but I'm an optimist so I assume they're just interested. I'm an HPC sysadmin, so I use tools like this (specifically pdsh+pdcp) every day. Automation is great and we use it for just about everything, but the nature of the beast is that there's a lot of ad-hoc work and testing that needs to be done. Specifically with respect to pdsh, just because it appears to have been abandoned, that doesn't necessarily make it the wrong tool for the job. It's pretty-well feature-complete for everything I use it for (that said, it was designed precisely for my needs, which likely aren't yours). Some minor practical features that would make it a worthy replacement for the venerable pdsh: * range selection in the hostname selection going beyond bash expansion, like -o compute[0012-0034,1123,1156-1199] * taking hostnames from a file is a must * supporting libgenders would be amazing Nice work! I'll try it out and file github issues.