There's also McFly which does the same thing. https://github.com/cantino/mcfly I've only used McFly and found it to be pretty great. My only complaint is the default search mode is SQL strings, so you have to use `%` for wildcards. I wish it was a more forgiving, less exact search. Has anyone used both and could compare them?
Atuin replaces your existing shell history with a SQLite database
171–180 of 198 posts
Re: Atuin replaces your existing shell history with a SQLite database
#172Re: Atuin replaces your existing shell history with a SQLite database
#173Re: Atuin replaces your existing shell history with a SQLite database
#174I like it, if for no other reason than the Terry Pratchett reference.
Re: Atuin replaces your existing shell history with a SQLite database
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you have an unusual take on this. Why do you disable history?
People's history files are a great place to look for passwords and other secrets, mainly. I suppose that risk could be reduced by having the history file encrypted on disk, but I don't know of any shell that does that (can't honestly say I've really looked though).
I guess you could set up an entropy scanner and flag history lines that have high entropy, but that might not be enough (low-entropy secrets) and might be bothersome (lots of false positives / things that are technically secrets but that you don't care if they're in your shell history).
Re: Atuin replaces your existing shell history with a SQLite database
#176Re: Atuin replaces your existing shell history with a SQLite database
#177But at what cost?
there's this little gotcha you might want to be aware of: https://github.com/ellie/atuin/issues/752#issuecomment-14518...
Let's say I run a command where I've pasted in a credential from my password manager: ` some-cli login username my-secret-password` (note space at beginning)
Normally this would prevent the command from getting saved in any meaningful way in my bash history, so that if I later run a malicious script, it can't collect secrets from my bash history.
With the bug here, it sounds like atuin would prevent that entry from being stored in the sqlite store, but it would still be in my shell history?
If so, this is really significant, and would stop me from using Atuin. Not letting users know about this behaviour is incredibly negligent, and honestly erodes my trust in Atuin to consider user security in general.
Re: Atuin replaces your existing shell history with a SQLite database
#178Re: Atuin replaces your existing shell history with a SQLite database
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
> feel free to describe it Didn't they already? eg stemming
Most stemming use cases are trivially solved with a regex. That's the point he was making. The difference between a beginner and expert with regexes is quite a lot.
"We could learn advanced regexes... or we could just use FTS5".
Hard call. :)
Re: Atuin replaces your existing shell history with a SQLite database
#180Why would you want syncing? Different machines have different file layouts and different installed executables. Any common commands are either coincidental or part of some fleet operation better managed through an actual remote management system.