3 ms·

This isn't a bad solution, and something like this is sorely needed. I completely agree with the idea that the limitations of technology from 40 years ago shoul

This isn't a bad solution, and something like this is sorely needed. I completely agree with the idea that the limitations of technology from 40 years ago shouldn't be holding us back nowadays. It's no coincidence that all the major development in unix-like operating systems happened in the days when there was only 1 unix-like operating system, and it was controlled by 1 organization. The greatest failure of Linux is that it's not an operating system, but a kernel upon which dozens of operating systems are built. It seems to me like the number one reason why people don't use Linux is that there is no central authority over user experience, and thus no way to get everyone to standardize to something. This is not even remotely a problem with Windows and Mac OS! And you can see the problems with this architecture when you realize how ancient and arcane the terminal UX is. But until we ditch it, we'll be stuck in the land of POSIX forever.

michaelsbradley 5y ago
when you realize how ancient and arcane the terminal UX is. But until we ditch it, we'll be stuck in the land of POSIX forever (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). Developers of terminal emulators have been trying to move things forward, though I imagine there's little chance of the ancient/formal standards evolving. Kitty seems to be leading the pack of late: https://sw.kovidgoyal.net/kitty/protocol-extensions/ https://sw.kovidgoyal.net/kitty/protocol-extensions/ It seems the way it will work these days is that the maintainer/s of a popular terminal emulator put some careful thought and effort into an extension; maintainers of others then recognize the benefit and follow-up with feedback and complementary implementations that over time might drive toward a de facto standard.
- hnlmorg 5y ago
  I'm on the fence about some of Kitty's extensions. The file transfer of TTY extension, for example, strikes me as adding little benefit over SSH but while also creating a new risk vector as it means we can no longer trust even printing to the screen. I'm also not fond of the hyperlink extension that some terminals are adopting. We already know of the risk with emails and hyperlink URLs pointing to different locations (eg <a href="not.google.com">google.com</a>) the last thing we need is the terminal to also be exploitable. I think some CLI users are looking at websites lustfully and wanting to emulate some of those features and while I'm all for improvements (better image support is always the obvious example but I'm all for inlining other forms of documents too) we definitely shouldn't be taking all the webs features wholesale without having a serious pause for consideration about the risks they might introduce. Particularly when a lot of organizations are still reliant on SSHing into remote servers.

michaelsbradley 5y ago

when you realize how ancient and arcane the terminal UX is. But until we ditch it, we'll be stuck in the land of POSIX forever (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). Developers of terminal emulators have been trying to move things forward, though I imagine there's little chance of the ancient/formal standards evolving. Kitty seems to be leading the pack of late: https://sw.kovidgoyal.net/kitty/protocol-extensions/ https://sw.kovidgoyal.net/kitty/protocol-extensions/ It seems the way it will work these days is that the maintainer/s of a popular terminal emulator put some careful thought and effort into an extension; maintainers of others then recognize the benefit and follow-up with feedback and complementary implementations that over time might drive toward a de facto standard.

hnlmorg 5y ago
I'm on the fence about some of Kitty's extensions. The file transfer of TTY extension, for example, strikes me as adding little benefit over SSH but while also creating a new risk vector as it means we can no longer trust even printing to the screen. I'm also not fond of the hyperlink extension that some terminals are adopting. We already know of the risk with emails and hyperlink URLs pointing to different locations (eg <a href="not.google.com">google.com</a>) the last thing we need is the terminal to also be exploitable. I think some CLI users are looking at websites lustfully and wanting to emulate some of those features and while I'm all for improvements (better image support is always the obvious example but I'm all for inlining other forms of documents too) we definitely shouldn't be taking all the webs features wholesale without having a serious pause for consideration about the risks they might introduce. Particularly when a lot of organizations are still reliant on SSHing into remote servers.