4 ms·

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 th

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.

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.