101–110 of 117 posts
Really appreciate of the feature!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As much as I despise the feature (security), I absolutely respect the motivation to do it. I think this is why its so refreshing - one of those itches being scratched which, sure - why not? - but then again, omfg, just no.
What is the additional security hazard you see?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, the developer chose to use Apples limiting browser, that was a choice not a requirement.
Did he have a choice? Is there an non Apple API that could be used here?
It should ignore unexpected inputs and formats. It should not know what a web page or an image file is.
It should have no idea what it is displaying nor what is happening on the remote end ... I don't want it to know I am more'ing or less'ing or paging, etc. Just show the output.
I feel so strongly about this that I am sometimes tempted to collapse output to ascii-256. I resist this temptation because I sometimes cut and paste foreign URLs ... which my terminal has no idea is a URL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the additional security hazard you see?
Yet Another Browser Attack Surface. iTerm has already had a few mishaps in the security department .. adding another layer of stack to it just increases the risk.
I want my terminal to be as simple, and dumb, as possible. It should ignore unexpected inputs and formats. It should not know what a web page or an image file is. It should have no idea what it is displaying nor what is happening on the remote end ... I don't want it to know I am more'ing or less'ing or paging, etc. Just show the output. I feel so strongly about this that I am sometimes tempted to collapse output to…
> This feature exists because: - Many iTerm2 features translate well to web browsing - It provides a unified terminal and browser experience - A former colleague suggested this idea in 2014 and I haven't been able to stop thinking about it. - I am maybe having a midlife crisis and this is cheaper than a sports car. I can't put my finger on why, but this might be the most refreshing thing I've seen in a README in year…
As much as I despise the feature (security), I absolutely respect the motivation to do it. I think this is why its so refreshing - one of those itches being scratched which, sure - why not? - but then again, omfg, just no.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having 2 separate windows requires an extra mouseclick for any interaction on most OSes. For example, try to highlight text on a non-focused window. Obviously a tiny extra effort, and not sure it justifies this feature, but it can add up for some things.
Fwiw macOS does not require an extra mouse click for this, outside of limited circumstances (likely very limited these days) such as X11 apps.