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

Secure Shell chrome (killer) app

chrome.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 178 posts

Re: Secure Shell chrome (killer) app

#151

Post by Produce »

jrabone wrote: post #149
ajross wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that I disagree: the terminal implementation in modern unix is a terrible mess. But the terminal metaphor (a command line being fed by a keyboard and displaying to a scrolling window of text) is nearly perfect, and won't by dying any time soon. And ssh is fundamentally just a data pipe for that metaphor anyway.

The terminal metaphor isn't so great either; in fact I think it's miserable, compared to the workbook-type approach provided by something like Mathematica from 15 years ago (last time I worked somewhere that could afford it) I find it depressing that all command line interfaces aren't like that. Also, in-band signalling, escape characters, magic select() timing loops to distinguish from "real" input, hackarounds for…

I've never used Mathematica and can't find any good comprehensive explanations of the workbook paradigm. From the little I have found, it's basically a text editor interface where you can execute previously typed commands by hitting a shortcut and the output is appended below the command, while still retaining the ability to move all over the page, right?

Re: Secure Shell chrome (killer) app

#152

Post by Produce »

Dunkirk wrote: post #120
Karunamon wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rude? I wasn't aware that pointing out something has no basis in reality is rude. Obnoxious? Don't post misinformation and you won't be challenged. Conclusion jumping? What conclusion did I jump to? And as far as making "Fixed" posts go.. doctor, heal thyself ;)

It got Slashdot-y real quick up in here.

Have you noticed that this keeps happening on different forums? It seems to be an effect of a population threshold being reached and (possibly) the time the forum has existed (separate from the population size - how comfortable the members are and, therefore, how loose they are with their words).

Re: Secure Shell chrome (killer) app

#153

Post by jrabone »

Produce wrote: post #151
jrabone wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The terminal metaphor isn't so great either; in fact I think it's miserable, compared to the workbook-type approach provided by something like Mathematica from 15 years ago (last time I worked somewhere that could afford it) I find it depressing that all command line interfaces aren't like that. Also, in-band signalling, escape characters, magic select() timing loops to distinguish from "real" input, hackarounds for…

I've never used Mathematica and can't find any good comprehensive explanations of the workbook paradigm. From the little I have found, it's basically a text editor interface where you can execute previously typed commands by hitting a shortcut and the output is appended below the command, while still retaining the ability to move all over the page, right?

Pretty much - with folding and other niceties. Have a look at http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/tutorial/UsingANote... for a brief overview, and http://www.wolfram.com/technology/guide/SymbolicInterfaceCon... for more information about the interface possibilities.

Also check out http://www.wolfram.com/cdf/ for the more general attempt to make a dynamic document standard. I don't know how successful that's been.

Re: Secure Shell chrome (killer) app

#154

Post by bryogenic »

tantalor wrote: post #125

Public/private key authentication seems a bit spotty. From the FAQ, > Can I connect using a public key pair or certificate? Sorry, not yet. I successfully authenticated with a private key, debug1: read PEM private key done: type DSA debug1: Authentication succeeded (publickey). However, authentication agent forwarding (ssh -A) did not work, Permission denied (publickey). Also notable is that this app does not have ac…

Can you post the syntax of how you included the identity file. The parsing keeps grabbing my user@host in with the -i id.pem

   Connecting to -i id.pem user@host, port 22...
   Loading NaCl plugin... done.
   Warning: Identity file  id.pem user@host not accessible: No such file or directory.

Re: Secure Shell chrome (killer) app

#155

Post by el_presidente »

chrisrhoden wrote: post #88
el_presidente wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like many people, I'm trying to step back from google/facebook snooping, and this would be a solid step toward such big brothering. Google seems to be working on this. If you've ever seen someone without a Google account try to use Android for the first time you can see how much effort they are putting into stopping people from using their products.

Yeah. It's super easy to activate your iPhone without an iTunes account with a credit card on file. ...wait.

I've never used an iPhone. At the time, I was comparing the experience with setting up my DSi. It lets you download things without making an account or having a credit card.* In fact, before downloading Angry Birds for Chrome I had never needed to sign up to download anything. (You also need to be online and signed in to play the game.)

*The DSi Shop is a big pile of fail, but that is unrelated.

Re: Secure Shell chrome (killer) app

#156

Post by Produce »

jrabone wrote: post #153
Produce wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never used Mathematica and can't find any good comprehensive explanations of the workbook paradigm. From the little I have found, it's basically a text editor interface where you can execute previously typed commands by hitting a shortcut and the output is appended below the command, while still retaining the ability to move all over the page, right?

Pretty much - with folding and other niceties. Have a look at http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/tutorial/UsingANote... for a brief overview, and http://www.wolfram.com/technology/guide/SymbolicInterfaceCon... for more information about the interface possibilities. Also check out http://www.wolfram.com/cdf/ for the more general attempt to make a dynamic document standard. I don't know how successful that's been…

So those controls in the last link can be displayed in the workbook as views on command output? I've been toying with a similar idea for a while now - wasn't aware that there were already implementations of it. I think we're going to witness/participate in a paradigm change in the near future.

Thanks for all the links.

Re: Secure Shell chrome (killer) app

#157

Post by sequoia »

jsnell wrote: post #89
sequoia wrote: post #50

I opened chrome to check this out, but it wants me to "sign in" to install the extension. For me this is a bridge too far: I don't care to tell google about every single extension/application (extensplication?) I'm using. Like many people, I'm trying to step back from google/facebook snooping, and this would be a solid step toward such big brothering. I suppose next they'll see what email providers I use and whom I c…

You need to be signed in so that the extensions/apps/games can be properly synced to your other Chrome installations. The philosophy of ChromeOS seems to be for absolutely everything to get synced from the cloud. The login can't be optional since it'd be an incredibly shitty UX to have apps installed from the store sometimes sync to your new machine and sometimes not.

Thank you, this makes sense, tho I'd still prefer to have a different download option that doesn't require logging in.

Re: Secure Shell chrome (killer) app

#158

Post by sequoia »

Karunamon wrote: post #58
sequoia wrote: post #50

I opened chrome to check this out, but it wants me to "sign in" to install the extension. For me this is a bridge too far: I don't care to tell google about every single extension/application (extensplication?) I'm using. Like many people, I'm trying to step back from google/facebook snooping, and this would be a solid step toward such big brothering. I suppose next they'll see what email providers I use and whom I c…

>For me this is a bridge too far: I don't care to tell google about every single extension/application (extensplication?) I'm using. Oh for pete's sake... Is there anything to this " I suppose next they'll see what email providers I use and whom I correspond with with mutt or whom I chat with on other services with finch etc.. Why expand google's data-gathering "attack surface"? Or is it further chicken-little, slipp…

Well frankly I think my "they might read my chat in finch" is a stretch, but no, I don't think that assuming google's goal is to stretch their tentacular roots as deeply as possible into the fertile, loamy soil of my private information is "slippery slope conjecture with no basis in reality." To the contrary, as you probably know, gathering personal information on users is the primary purpose of all of google's unpaid products and the heart of their business model. Would you dispute this fact?

So they are a targeted-ad company whose value is to a great extent commensurate with the amount of information they have on users (another uncontroversial statement, I hope). More info = more value, and you think it's "conjecture" to speculate that they might push further and further into your experience on their platform?

This is the crux of it for me: I've been installing desktop applications and browser extensions for years, and I've never needed to tell an advertiser and the biggest tracker / data snooper on the 'net what my email address. Now all the sudden I do, and there's no (clear) method to opt out, and I'm OK with this because why? I'm willing to trade my data for services when the services are valuable (I use gmail & facebook), but this looks like "give us more info, just cuz" with no value prop. Sure you can sync but I don't want to and there's no reason you should be forced to sign in; that is 100% about data gathering (otherwise there'd be a "forgo sync" option).

IP address and browser fingerprint is not the same as "link everything explicitly to my google account," by the way.

Re: Secure Shell chrome (killer) app

#159

Post by tantalor »

bryogenic wrote: post #154
tantalor wrote: post #125

Public/private key authentication seems a bit spotty. From the FAQ, > Can I connect using a public key pair or certificate? Sorry, not yet. I successfully authenticated with a private key, debug1: read PEM private key done: type DSA debug1: Authentication succeeded (publickey). However, authentication agent forwarding (ssh -A) did not work, Permission denied (publickey). Also notable is that this app does not have ac…

Can you post the syntax of how you included the identity file. The parsing keeps grabbing my user@host in with the -i id.pem Connecting to -i id.pem user@host, port 22... Loading NaCl plugin... done. Warning: Identity file id.pem user@host not accessible: No such file or directory.

I first ssh'd into me@localhost. From that point, ssh automatically discovers key files in ~/.ssh.

This explains why my Keychain did not work, since I was logged into a "remote" host.

Re: Secure Shell chrome (killer) app

#160

Post by ajross »

jrabone wrote: post #149
ajross wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that I disagree: the terminal implementation in modern unix is a terrible mess. But the terminal metaphor (a command line being fed by a keyboard and displaying to a scrolling window of text) is nearly perfect, and won't by dying any time soon. And ssh is fundamentally just a data pipe for that metaphor anyway.

The terminal metaphor isn't so great either; in fact I think it's miserable, compared to the workbook-type approach provided by something like Mathematica from 15 years ago (last time I worked somewhere that could afford it) I find it depressing that all command line interfaces aren't like that. Also, in-band signalling, escape characters, magic select() timing loops to distinguish from "real" input, hackarounds for…

Your second paragraph is confusing what I was trying to distinguish as "implementation" from "metaphor". Yes, I agree all that is a mess (though good luck trying to fix it -- won't ever happen). But it's a tolerable mess, because it enables the command line.

And your first point is just verifiably wrong. If there were truly better workflow metaphors for software development, you'd think at least some of the best hackers would have discovered it and moved to it at some point in the last four (!) decades. Instead, all of the most productive developers in our subculture (almost quite literally every single one of them) work at a command line. They haven't moved elsewhere, because it won't happen, because your thesis is simply incorrect: no better metaphors have been discovered.

Post reply on HN