4 ms·
> The main downside with Mosh is that it emulates the terminal remotely and only sends the visible state of the terminal back to the client. This means if you h
by eminence32 5y ago
> The main downside with Mosh is that it emulates the terminal remotely and only sends the visible state of the terminal back to the client. This means if you have a lot of output from a command, you will only be able to see the result that would have been visible in the terminal. This is known as the scrollback buffer. It’s a known limitation in Mosh because it focuses on efficiency and solving issues with poor connectivity, so it makes sense to only send the visible portion of the terminal.
This is indeed one of the biggest downsides to mosh, and is a very often requested feature. But I am pleased that this article framed the lack of scrollback as an explicit design decision, and didn't simply call it a "missing feature".
- gsich 5y agoThis can also be solved with programs like screen and tmux. Requires some work though if you want the seemless scroll function.
- Johnny555 5y agoIt's also a feature since if you accidentally send a lot of output to your screen, you don't need to wait for the buffer of incoming data to clear before your Ctrl-C will stop the data. You can Ctrl-C and stop it immediately.
- loxias 5y agoOne person's "bug" is another person's feature. In my usage, and opinion of mosh, the remote terminal emulation is at least half the point. It lets you be functional with minuscule amounts of bandwidth, and makes your sessions more responsive when you have plenty of it. It's efficient (enlightened even...) to solve an engineering problem using the appropriate distribution of resources (bandwidth, cpu, memory). A remote terminal that wasted resources sending things that would be invisible anyway strikes me as not just less useful, but really mediocre/lazy design. (IMHO, of course!)