eshell is a terminal emulator inside Emacs that is written in Elisp. It also have support for ssh/ftp/sftp and more via tramp, highly recommend. You can multiplex it and have powerline without much effort
Yes but can you run Emacs inside it?
Terminals Are Sexy
31–40 of 84 posts
Re: Terminals Are Sexy
#32"lexis" is the same as # unix wc -w # powershell Measure-Object -Word
Yea but it's written in JavaScript.
Re: Terminals Are Sexy
#33I love this. Just reading the list make me happy. I would contribute: xmlstarlet Manipulate xml documents http://xmlstar.sourceforge.net/ jq Manipulate json documents https://stedolan.github.io/jq/ screen Terminal multiplexer (like tmux) https://www.gnu.org/software/screen/ imagemagick Manipulate images https://www.imagemagick.org/ ffmpeg Manipulate video https://www.ffmpeg.org/ gifski Create high-quality gifs https:…
[deleted]
Re: Terminals Are Sexy
#34This is a lot to take in. Not sure if you're the author, OP, but in case the author is reading: Where would you suggest someone starts? (Note: Don't answer here! Use your answer to shape the organization of information on the site!) For example, I use ZSH. Should I switch to fish? The list suggests I'd be sacrificing power and the ability to write scripts but gaining, uh, intelligence and user-friendliness? Is that t…
I've been developing an opinion lately that what we need is fewer roundups and "objective" reporting and more opinionated here's the end-to-end stack I use and I think is good and here are the tradeoffs. With a diversity of stacks and opinions, this represents most of the roads you can go down and lets you pick the person whose approach or philosophy most closely aligns with yours.
Re: Terminals Are Sexy
#35http://linuxbrew.sh/ but… why? We have distributions that are providing perfectly packaged things like Debian/Arch/RedHat. I find already Homebrew hacky on macOS so why porting it on Linux distributions :D Is there anyone on HN using it, I'd be curious to know what are the advantages.
Linuxbrew, like Homebrew, is useful for non-invasive non-system/infrastructure packages. Compared to system package managers, it is (arguably) simpler to use and contribute to, and often has more up-to-date packages (especially compared to e.g. RHEL) because it tries to solve a much simpler problem. I think there is room for a package manager that focuses more on managing your user-specific CLI tools than your system libraries.
I don't like macOS all that much, but Homebrew is really good.
Re: Terminals Are Sexy
#36came for some actual, physical (preferably sexy) terminals.
was disappoint.
Re: Terminals Are Sexy
#37I hate non-discoverable UI's. The first thing I do with any software, is click through all possible menu's, windows, ribbons, whatever. After some time, I usually get quite a grasp on what the software is capable of. The two notable exceptions are textbased UI's (terminals, dsls, ...) and softwar requiring domain specific knowledge (e.g. geomodeling software, specific 3D modeling software, ...).
I never understood the appeal for terminals. Often (Microsoft's Powershell is a notable exception) the syntax is full of incomprehensible abbreviations, the syntax is wildly inconsistent, the syntax contains hard to remember acronyms...
No, for me, terminals and most textbased interfaces will never be as usable as GUIs.
Re: Terminals Are Sexy
#38Every time I encounter a tmux recommendation it has me pondering whether it's worth learning minicom. When I first read the author's rationale for tmux it rubbed me the wrong way, because the main feature they dismiss as cruft- the ability to use it as a terminal emulator for a serial port - is something I still find myself using from time to time. Is tmux really so much nicer than screen it's worth learning minicom?
You could also learn screen instead of minicom. screen supports communication over serial.
Re: Terminals Are Sexy
#39I hate non-discoverable UI's. The first thing I do with any software, is click through all possible menu's, windows, ribbons, whatever. After some time, I usually get quite a grasp on what the software is capable of. The two notable exceptions are textbased UI's (terminals, dsls, ...) and softwar requiring domain specific knowledge (e.g. geomodeling software, specific 3D modeling software, ...). I never understood th…
As a generality, GUIs can do only the tasks they were designed to do, and little more. Text-based terminals allow simple composition of tasks into arbitrarily-powerful pipelines.
Terminals might not have discoverability, but in terms of sheer power they wildly outmatch GUIs for many tasks.
Re: Terminals Are Sexy
#40I hate non-discoverable UI's. The first thing I do with any software, is click through all possible menu's, windows, ribbons, whatever. After some time, I usually get quite a grasp on what the software is capable of. The two notable exceptions are textbased UI's (terminals, dsls, ...) and softwar requiring domain specific knowledge (e.g. geomodeling software, specific 3D modeling software, ...). I never understood th…
With zsh and a good completion script (e.g. one provided by oh-my-zsh), tab completion will discover every option for a command. And the man page will list all the options as well.