A native graphical shell for SSH

Post by kjkjadksj » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 2:03 AM UTC

tway235 wrote: post #117

hatradiowigwam wrote: post #51

This appears to me like a solution in search of a problem, like many others before it...the quote below seems relevant to this effort. "Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." ~Henry Spencer

this kind of dismissive comments is why many apps have an awful usability. If someone thinks a web interface would be easier than a text terminal, there's at least one customer in need for a product (which either doesn't exist or they could not "googlify") - it's also why I welcome AI generating apps on the fly, "replacing" engineers who "know better" ;)

Post by 1bpp » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 2:11 AM UTC

whatever1 wrote: post #71

hatradiowigwam wrote: post #51

This appears to me like a solution in search of a problem, like many others before it...the quote below seems relevant to this effort. "Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." ~Henry Spencer

No. It’s just that now more people are using Linux the more the ux decisions that were made 40 years ago will be questioned. Almost all dev facing machines have ssh server installed and accessible. Why ssh terminal has to look like character-only trash from 1960s? Why a TUI is the best thing we pipe through ssh? Why I cannot watch a 4k movie in the terminal or browse the web using pinch to zoom ?

Post by advael » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 2:34 AM UTC

forgot_old_user wrote: post #65

hatradiowigwam wrote: post #51

This appears to me like a solution in search of a problem, like many others before it...the quote below seems relevant to this effort. "Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." ~Henry Spencer

that seems a little harsh. I think there is a real usability gap which this takes a crack at. Some ideas like using viewing a linux dir over _ssh_ using native UI components.. seem cool. I do agree, some of these do seem like they have already been solved in other ways (like an sshfs mount).

Post by jcelerier » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 2:48 AM UTC

tway235 wrote: post #117

hatradiowigwam wrote: post #51

This appears to me like a solution in search of a problem, like many others before it...the quote below seems relevant to this effort. "Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." ~Henry Spencer

this kind of dismissive comments is why many apps have an awful usability. If someone thinks a web interface would be easier than a text terminal, there's at least one customer in need for a product (which either doesn't exist or they could not "googlify") - it's also why I welcome AI generating apps on the fly, "replacing" engineers who "know better" ;)

Post by wang_li » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 3:12 AM UTC

mrcslws wrote: post #33

trashb wrote: post #24

I like the idea of separating the frontend and backend of a graphical app. But I feel like this is hardly a novel idea, maybe I'm missing something. I take it you don't know about "X11Forwarding yes" or "html5 web app" For browsers, capabilities like connecting to Unix sockets have been dismissed as extremely niche That is a security concern, that's why it isn't implemented. At least raw unix socks. You can have WebS…

Quick response regarding security: On various Mozilla forums that I saw, the discussion was basically: 1. We can't just allow the browser to connect to any socket, since many either explicitly don't want browsers connecting to them, or are oblivious to browsers. 2. ...so we need to also add some sort of allow list 3. ...this is getting too complicated for such a niche feature. So I think the nicheness was the high-or…