Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Shpool, a Lightweight Tmux Alternative

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 201 posts

Re: Show HN: Shpool, a Lightweight Tmux Alternative

#191

Post by cben »

thayne wrote: post #69
setopt wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The `tmux -CC` is pretty dope. I’m still surprised that not more terminals have picked it up yet. Most GUI features (new tab, new split, scroll, search, copy/paste, etc.) just work, and it all syncs with `tmux`. Be aware though that it can be a bit buggy if you have a fancy `tmux.conf`, and that if you rely on any `tmux` plugins then most of those simply won’t work.

I'm especially surprised that tmux itself can't be used as a client of a remote control mode session. It is pretty annoying that the only terminal that I know of that supports tmux control mode only works on mac.

What benefit would you get if tmux itself became a control mode client?

You'd get pretty much same experience, with textual splits, modeful keyboard shortcuts to access scrollback & copy/paste etc. — which I'm not saying is bad but tmux already does that. Well, I suppose over ssh it'd allow you to access remote tmux session(s) from a local tmux, so maybe allowing little more flexibility mixing panes from multiple remote hosts(?) But still pretty much similar.

The whole point of control protocol was to allow native [G]UI where each pane feels like a native standalone terminal, no?

Re: Show HN: Shpool, a Lightweight Tmux Alternative

#192

Post by ceving »

cookiengineer wrote: post #183
ceving wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsIxNYl0oyU > If you want to have 10 concurrent connections, you have to open 10 ports. That is a problem in most environments.

I don't understand your statement, to be honest. Either you waste lots of traffic bandwidth because you have to have a session identifier or nonce in every packet, or you have to map sessions to ports in order to guarantee persistance when the client drops its connection. Other ways of doing session handling will lead to an attack surface that can probably be used for DoS attacks. Maybe I am missing something: How wo…

I am just saying that opening an unpredictable amount of ports is a problem for every firewall admin.

Re: Show HN: Shpool, a Lightweight Tmux Alternative

#193

Post by thayne »

cben wrote: post #191
thayne wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm especially surprised that tmux itself can't be used as a client of a remote control mode session. It is pretty annoying that the only terminal that I know of that supports tmux control mode only works on mac.

What benefit would you get if tmux itself became a control mode client? You'd get pretty much same experience, with textual splits, modeful keyboard shortcuts to access scrollback & copy/paste etc. — which I'm not saying is bad but tmux already does that . Well, I suppose over ssh it'd allow you to access remote tmux session(s) from a local tmux, so maybe allowing little more flexibility mixing panes from multiple re…

For use over ssh. It would, ideally, give me:

1. Ability to use local tmux configuration for tmux sessions over ssh. So I don't have to worry about using the default bindings when connecting to a host that doesn't have my tmux config, mouse support is already enabled, etc.

2. Ability to combine and organize remote panes alongside local panes, or panes from other remotes

3. Avoid ending up with nested tmux, where I have a remote tmux session inside of a pane of a local tmux session, which is a pretty terrible experience.

I'd also love it if linux terminals supported it too, but that doesn't seem terribly likely to happen anytime soon.

Re: Show HN: Shpool, a Lightweight Tmux Alternative

#194

Post by Phrodo_00 »

chaps wrote: post #178
e12e wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Screen vertical split works fine.

Let me rephrase that -- is it good enough to use 100% of the time you're in a terminal? Cause that's what I do with tmux and it works phenomenally. Haven't had a similarly good experience with screen before, but I'm open to being wrong.

Never had any problem with screen. Have lost a couple of sessions in tmux

Re: Show HN: Shpool, a Lightweight Tmux Alternative

#195

Post by CoolCold »

bee_rider wrote: post #91
ethanpailes wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You definitely don't need the in-memory terminal emulator to handle resizes or allow attaching with multiple local terminal emulators, since dtach does both and does not have an in-memory terminal emulator. > I'm actually confused about why they'd go to the effort of implementing a VT100 emulator, write the code to redraw the screen from it Well, we kinda cheated here. shpool_vt100 is just the already existing vt100…

I’m not sure what the popular use case is for multiple connections to one multiplexer. But, two (niche seeming) ones could be: if you have a desktop, you want to be able to SSH to it and use it locally at the same time. Or, if you have two people ssh-ing to one system, and letting them share a terminal might be nice (although in that case it would really be nice to give them independent cursors, which starts to becom…

we do use multiconnections when doing interviews - candidate solving test case on VM, interviewers are observing. Idea was not to confuse candidates by requiring screensharing during the interview, just see the particular ssh session.

Re: Show HN: Shpool, a Lightweight Tmux Alternative

#196

Post by chaps »

Phrodo_00 wrote: post #194
chaps wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me rephrase that -- is it good enough to use 100% of the time you're in a terminal? Cause that's what I do with tmux and it works phenomenally. Haven't had a similarly good experience with screen before, but I'm open to being wrong.

Never had any problem with screen. Have lost a couple of sessions in tmux

With screen splitting?

Re: Show HN: Shpool, a Lightweight Tmux Alternative

#198

Post by jamal-kumar »

DEADMINCE wrote: post #114
jamal-kumar wrote: post #84

Years ago I had a boss who gave me a hard time for how much resources tmux was using on linux and said that it performed fine where it's developed natively (openbsd) but something in it was making it eat resources compared to screen on constrained linux systems. I wonder if this is still the case?

If he was an OpenBSD fan he might have been overly anti-Linux.

Nah we're both pretty knowledgable programmers who use both OSes and it was measurably clear

Re: Show HN: Shpool, a Lightweight Tmux Alternative

#199

Post by johnisgood »

So, I ran `shpool attach foo`, and I got this:

  shpool:foo foo@bar ~ $ shpool detach  foo
  printf: usage: printf [-v var] format [arguments]
  -bash: "\033]0;%s@%s:%s\007": command not found
  -bash: "${USER}": command not found
  -bash: "${HOSTNAME%%.*}": command not found
  -bash: "${PWD/#$HOME/\~}": No such file or directory
Anything I'm doing wrong?

Re: Show HN: Shpool, a Lightweight Tmux Alternative

#200

Post by rkangel »

Scarbutt wrote: post #50

Besides persistence, terminal multiplexing is one of the greats things of tmux. If I'm programming on a remote machine I don't want to open a new ssh connection from each of the five terminals that I need. Seems tedious when I can just create a new window inside tmux. Even locally, I don't want to have 10 terminals opened (or tabs), tmux lets you have multiple terminal windows/panes from a single physical terminal an…

The problem is that because I use tmux so heavily locally, using it remotely is a pain in the ass.

My normal workflow is either to be sitting in front of my Linux machine, or SSH'd to it (from a Windows laptop). Tmux makes the transition between those two seamless. But nesting tmux doesn't work.

Post reply on HN