28 ms·
> program running on the remote system. Simple is better than complex. Sure the shell might have looked amazing like a browser but why
by Aperocky 5y ago
> program running on the remote system.
Simple is better than complex.
Sure the shell might have looked amazing like a browser but why
- convolvatron 5y agohardly more complex. imagine if the operating state was expressed in some common data format - just imagine tables. and the shell then is my local preference that interacts with that data model. is that less or more complicated than the mishmash of oddly designed kernel interfaces we have today (fork. mmap. ptrace....so much of it is a mess) not only would that clean up the lot, and allow for a very straightforward remote indirection, but would open up all kinds of lovely usages like being able to trivially capture and replay command streams. interposition. general purpose rewrites. a well-defined domain in which to upgrade and downgrade the interface schema. and more things I'm sure I've never thought of.
- hulitu 5y agoAnd imagine that you have a bug. And that you trash the filesystem remotely but by you it looks ok. Nobody asks you to use a shell with ssh. You can use X or (when or if will ever suport such an outdated feature) wayland.
- danielheath 5y agoplan9 achieved exactly this, and with a far simpler design. Backwards compatible is better than simple.
- strager 5y ago> Sure the shell might have looked amazing like a browser but why So you don't need to copy your config to the remote server, like XXH does. So you can still edit your command when your wifi gets spotty.