4 ms·

My number one use case is tethered mobile phone on a train. For everthing else I just use vanilla ssh and screen. You are right that if you just need mobility b

by zaphar 14y ago

My number one use case is tethered mobile phone on a train. For everthing else I just use vanilla ssh and screen. You are right that if you just need mobility between office1, office2, coffeeshop, and home ssh with screen is probably all you really need. I don't think mosh's developers really promote it as anything more than an experiment on improving shell connections on a high packet loss high latency mobile data plan.

saurik 14y ago
I absolutely 100% agree with your final sentence: it isn't like I'm saying "the mosh people are perpetrating a plot to confuse people into doing this thing that is bad for them, a use case that no one in the world would ever have... (and trains are a communist plot: I doubt they exist)" ;P. In fact, I found the actual research paper that this was all for quite fascinating, and was glad to get a chance to talk directly to the author/developer about what he discovered. I simply have been part of a ton of conversations about mosh, and I know that a lot of people who see mosh don't know what the design tradeoffs are towards the "high-latency w/ packet loss" use case were, and often are just looking for a tool that lets them move their shell around "between office1, office2, coffeeshop, and home". ssh+screen by themselves simply is not a sufficient solution, as it doesn't automatically reconnect, so you either need to know how to setup autossh (which isn't marketed or optimized for this use case) or realize that the shell script isn't that difficult to build: I'm just trying to provide this information to people. At numerous points here I have been very clear: if you have interest in the features that you can only get from this integrated protocol setup, you should definitely try and possibly choose to use mosh.

4 ms·

My number one use case is tethered mobile phone on a train. For everthing else I just use vanilla ssh and screen. You are right that if you just need mobility b

by zaphar 14y ago

saurik 14y ago
I absolutely 100% agree with your final sentence: it isn't like I'm saying "the mosh people are perpetrating a plot to confuse people into doing this thing that is bad for them, a use case that no one in the world would ever have... (and trains are a communist plot: I doubt they exist)" ;P. In fact, I found the actual research paper that this was all for quite fascinating, and was glad to get a chance to talk directly to the author/developer about what he discovered. I simply have been part of a ton of conversations about mosh, and I know that a lot of people who see mosh don't know what the design tradeoffs are towards the "high-latency w/ packet loss" use case were, and often are just looking for a tool that lets them move their shell around "between office1, office2, coffeeshop, and home". ssh+screen by themselves simply is not a sufficient solution, as it doesn't automatically reconnect, so you either need to know how to setup autossh (which isn't marketed or optimized for this use case) or realize that the shell script isn't that difficult to build: I'm just trying to provide this information to people. At numerous points here I have been very clear: if you have interest in the features that you can only get from this integrated protocol setup, you should definitely try and possibly choose to use mosh.