4 ms·

If the goal was seamlessness; I would think you’d want to pipe the output into terminal directly via STDIN/STDOUT. Impressive work, regardless

rbanffy 5y ago
A lot of the CP/M computers I used had serial terminals connected to them and no way to directly attach a monitor and keyboard. It feels like it's easier to emulate that way. Also, Apple's Terminal.app does an outstanding job of pretending to be a VT-200 terminal. OTOH, this one is self contained. Still pretends the terminal is attached through a serial port, but it's emulated in the app. It's a shame Apple doesn't make the Terminal.app engine available to developers.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  >It's a shame Apple doesn't make the Terminal.app engine available to developers. Sigh. Add it to the pile of "things Apple really ought to open source just to give back to the community that they used to build the worlds most successful business from"
  - swiley 5y ago
    Remember that next time someone argues the GPL restricts their freedom.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      The GPL can restrict your freedom. All licenses which contain restrictions "restrict freedom" by definition. The actual question is whether the GPL license restrictions come into conflict with any freedoms YOU wish to exercise, such as the freedom to distribute modified binaries without releasing source code. Alternatively you could argue that the mere existence of any software—regardless of its license—can only be additive to freedom and can never be subtractive of it. Under this view it is impossible to have "less freedom" because Terminal.app exists; you've merely identified a scenario where you could have more freedom than you do right now.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    You are right that making Terminal.app open source would be a net win for everyone, but it's not going to happen. Not because Apple doesn't want to, but because there's no spare bandwidth for anyone to push for it internally. I think one of the biggest misunderstandings about Apple is the assumption that they have massive resources available to them, therefore they must have a wide bandwidth for competent development—be that in terms of vision, design, or code. The way I see it, Apple seems rarely able to focus on more than a few things at once. They have never been able to maintain high standards across the full breadth of their product stack. MacOS tends to get jankier and cruftier with every release. At this point it's akin to a very pretty rug that has had so much mess swept under it that it's impossible for it to lie flat. If you've ever dealt with the back end of Apple Music (née iTunes Music Store) you'd know that it's held together with a lot of crummy, barely-maintained software that falls apart under the most trivial of circumstances. For example, their iTunes Music Producer software can't even rip two-CD sets without causing file name conflicts in the XML. This bug has not been fixed for over a decade.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      Apple does have massive resources. They're one of the highest revenue companies in the world, and have way better margins than most of the higher companies in the list. At least in the Steve Job days, they'd spin up three teams to make a 1.0 product, unbeknownst to the teams, and only ship from and keep the team that did the best. These examples like the iTunes thing you list are them not caring, rather them not having the resources to get to it.
      - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
        > Apple does have massive resources. I don't think the GP disagrees with you. The GP is saying Apple doesn't use those resources.
        simondotau 5y ago
        More precisely, I'm saying that Apple appears to suck at massively parallel use of their resources. For a company as big as they are, their cumulative output of high quality product isn't all that much. It seems they can barely keep macOS cobbled together now, let alone spin up groups tasked with shepherding individual components towards open source.
  - skissane 5y ago
    Yeah. I can understand Apple not wanting to open source everything, but open sourcing Terminal.app is scarcely going to give any advantage to competitors (or jailbreakers, or Hackintoshers, or malware authors, or whoever else the folks at Apple who make these kinds of decisions worry about). I wish Microsoft would open source some more stuff too – although they are much more open source friendly than Apple, especially in recent times. How about open sourcing cmd.exe? Likewise can't see how that could cause any harm. If they did that I'd be eager to send them some PRs (e.g. add a configuration option to suppress the "Terminate batch job (Y/N)?" prompt.)
    - djxfade 5y ago
      Isn't the new Windows Terminal app open source? https://github.com/microsoft/terminal https://github.com/microsoft/terminal
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - skissane 5y ago
        Yes it is. So Windows Terminal is open source, Apple Terminal.app isn't. Although I also mentioned my desire Microsoft would open source cmd.exe. cmd.exe is not part of Windows Terminal, and remains closed source
- derefr 5y ago
  Use the engine of iTerm instead? It's GPL2. https://github.com/gnachman/iTerm2 https://github.com/gnachman/iTerm2
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    Can’t do double width or height.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      It's open source, so that limitation isn't a permanent state of affairs. I dare say the active maintainers might be interested in any features which are currently supported by Terminal.app.
    - macintux 5y ago
      One alternative if you're interested in doubling your available width is to use Iosevka[1]. I've installed it in iTerm & Emacs and enjoy it greatly. [1] https://typeof.net/Iosevka/ https://typeof.net/Iosevka/ (If that's not what you mean by "double width" then I'd be curious what you're interested in.)
m463 5y ago
PIP README.TXT=CON:

rbanffy 5y ago

A lot of the CP/M computers I used had serial terminals connected to them and no way to directly attach a monitor and keyboard. It feels like it's easier to emulate that way. Also, Apple's Terminal.app does an outstanding job of pretending to be a VT-200 terminal. OTOH, this one is self contained. Still pretends the terminal is attached through a serial port, but it's emulated in the app. It's a shame Apple doesn't make the Terminal.app engine available to developers.

smoldesu 5y ago
>It's a shame Apple doesn't make the Terminal.app engine available to developers. Sigh. Add it to the pile of "things Apple really ought to open source just to give back to the community that they used to build the worlds most successful business from"
- swiley 5y ago
  Remember that next time someone argues the GPL restricts their freedom.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    The GPL can restrict your freedom. All licenses which contain restrictions "restrict freedom" by definition. The actual question is whether the GPL license restrictions come into conflict with any freedoms YOU wish to exercise, such as the freedom to distribute modified binaries without releasing source code. Alternatively you could argue that the mere existence of any software—regardless of its license—can only be additive to freedom and can never be subtractive of it. Under this view it is impossible to have "less freedom" because Terminal.app exists; you've merely identified a scenario where you could have more freedom than you do right now.
- simondotau 5y ago
  You are right that making Terminal.app open source would be a net win for everyone, but it's not going to happen. Not because Apple doesn't want to, but because there's no spare bandwidth for anyone to push for it internally. I think one of the biggest misunderstandings about Apple is the assumption that they have massive resources available to them, therefore they must have a wide bandwidth for competent development—be that in terms of vision, design, or code. The way I see it, Apple seems rarely able to focus on more than a few things at once. They have never been able to maintain high standards across the full breadth of their product stack. MacOS tends to get jankier and cruftier with every release. At this point it's akin to a very pretty rug that has had so much mess swept under it that it's impossible for it to lie flat. If you've ever dealt with the back end of Apple Music (née iTunes Music Store) you'd know that it's held together with a lot of crummy, barely-maintained software that falls apart under the most trivial of circumstances. For example, their iTunes Music Producer software can't even rip two-CD sets without causing file name conflicts in the XML. This bug has not been fixed for over a decade.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    Apple does have massive resources. They're one of the highest revenue companies in the world, and have way better margins than most of the higher companies in the list. At least in the Steve Job days, they'd spin up three teams to make a 1.0 product, unbeknownst to the teams, and only ship from and keep the team that did the best. These examples like the iTunes thing you list are them not caring, rather them not having the resources to get to it.
    - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
      > Apple does have massive resources. I don't think the GP disagrees with you. The GP is saying Apple doesn't use those resources.
      - simondotau 5y ago
        More precisely, I'm saying that Apple appears to suck at massively parallel use of their resources. For a company as big as they are, their cumulative output of high quality product isn't all that much. It seems they can barely keep macOS cobbled together now, let alone spin up groups tasked with shepherding individual components towards open source.
- skissane 5y ago
  Yeah. I can understand Apple not wanting to open source everything, but open sourcing Terminal.app is scarcely going to give any advantage to competitors (or jailbreakers, or Hackintoshers, or malware authors, or whoever else the folks at Apple who make these kinds of decisions worry about). I wish Microsoft would open source some more stuff too – although they are much more open source friendly than Apple, especially in recent times. How about open sourcing cmd.exe? Likewise can't see how that could cause any harm. If they did that I'd be eager to send them some PRs (e.g. add a configuration option to suppress the "Terminate batch job (Y/N)?" prompt.)
  - djxfade 5y ago
    Isn't the new Windows Terminal app open source? https://github.com/microsoft/terminal https://github.com/microsoft/terminal
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - skissane 5y ago
      Yes it is. So Windows Terminal is open source, Apple Terminal.app isn't. Although I also mentioned my desire Microsoft would open source cmd.exe. cmd.exe is not part of Windows Terminal, and remains closed source
derefr 5y ago
Use the engine of iTerm instead? It's GPL2. https://github.com/gnachman/iTerm2 https://github.com/gnachman/iTerm2
- rbanffy 5y ago
  Can’t do double width or height.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    It's open source, so that limitation isn't a permanent state of affairs. I dare say the active maintainers might be interested in any features which are currently supported by Terminal.app.
  - macintux 5y ago
    One alternative if you're interested in doubling your available width is to use Iosevka[1]. I've installed it in iTerm & Emacs and enjoy it greatly. [1] https://typeof.net/Iosevka/ https://typeof.net/Iosevka/ (If that's not what you mean by "double width" then I'd be curious what you're interested in.)

m463 5y ago

PIP README.TXT=CON: