I could never really understand the enthusiasm. Why are we still dealing with over half a century of cruft? I get that this is a core piece of technology lots of stuff is built upon, and I'm not arguing to get rid of the classic terminal emulation altogether. But I wish there was an effort of building a new, modern, textual interface to computers with modern assumptions and integration bindings. We shouldn't need to…
State of the Terminal
81–90 of 159 posts
Re: State of the Terminal
#82I could never really understand the enthusiasm. Why are we still dealing with over half a century of cruft? I get that this is a core piece of technology lots of stuff is built upon, and I'm not arguing to get rid of the classic terminal emulation altogether. But I wish there was an effort of building a new, modern, textual interface to computers with modern assumptions and integration bindings. We shouldn't need to…
Re: State of the Terminal
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Different person here, but I wish there was a terminal where mouse clicks moved the text cursor (without holding any hotkey), mouse drags selected text and typing replaced the selected text, ctrl-A selected the entire current command (all the text after $ ), holding left/right arrow went WAY faster… Basically, if you know how to competently edit an email, you shouldn't struggle in frustration at editing a big termina…
>Different person here, but I wish there was a terminal where mouse clicks moved the text cursor (without holding any hotkey) Umm, This is a `feature` in Konsole that I ___HATE___. I'd have a file open in vim that I'm editing. I'd also have a browser window open and I'm trying to copy text over to my terminal. Well, wherever you click in the terminal window to 'activate' it for pasting, causes the active line to jump…
Re: State of the Terminal
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
zsh starts in 0.1s for me. 1000ms is a very noticable latency to me...
Imagine how much work we would do with those additional ms per day.
Re: State of the Terminal
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would be surprised how much software is built exclusively for TERM=xterm or TERM=xterm-*.
I'm aware and i think its not okay. Its incorrect software. And yes, that difference is significant because the F-keys, Ins, End and companions won't work.
Re: State of the Terminal
#86I could never really understand the enthusiasm. Why are we still dealing with over half a century of cruft? I get that this is a core piece of technology lots of stuff is built upon, and I'm not arguing to get rid of the classic terminal emulation altogether. But I wish there was an effort of building a new, modern, textual interface to computers with modern assumptions and integration bindings. We shouldn't need to…
Would it be different from a web-browser? Isn't the webstack already the modern textual interface everyone is using? I mean that's also the direction they all are walking to, with adding images to terminals, having more complex layout with TUIs. I think I remember some TUI-toolkit which even used a limited CSS for describing their interface. And there are some terminals and alternatives which are build with NodeJS and webstack IIRC. So would it make more sense to find some proper standards for webstack-based cli-interfaces?
Re: State of the Terminal
#87Re: State of the Terminal
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm bewildered that the "user friendly" flavors of linux still use ancient terminals. If the fact that these distros still lean heavily on terminal use wasn't bad enough, you also need to have a computer intuition from 1985 to feel comfortable using it. At least capitulate to ctrl+v and ctrl+c.
> I'm bewildered that the "user friendly" flavors of linux still use ancient terminals. Do they? I was given to believe that you can use modern Ubuntu/Fedora/OpenSUSE without needing to open a terminal. > If the fact that these distros still lean heavily on terminal use wasn't bad enough, you also need to have a computer intuition from 1985 to feel comfortable using it. At least capitulate to ctrl+v and ctrl+c. Okay,…
--
This is the fundamental problem with the terminal, it is extremely powerful when you are intimately familiar with using it. And it's unsurprising that people building distros and maintaining linux fall into that camp.
What they are completely blind to is how incredibly user hostile the environment for people from a GUI complete background. What is the first thing every mainstream Unix based OS does? They take the terminal and hide it. They make menus and menus of GUI elements that cover 80-90% of the things you would typically use the terminal for aside from the 5% of ultra power users.
My gripe is primarily that Linux is _desparetly_ needed now more than ever as an escape from windows. But the people who are working on linux distros are so lost in their egos that they are arrogantly trapped in this idea that everyone needs to be driving stick shift in 2024 because look at how much more control you have compared to an automatic, if that analogy makes sense.
Re: State of the Terminal
#89I could never really understand the enthusiasm. Why are we still dealing with over half a century of cruft? I get that this is a core piece of technology lots of stuff is built upon, and I'm not arguing to get rid of the classic terminal emulation altogether. But I wish there was an effort of building a new, modern, textual interface to computers with modern assumptions and integration bindings. We shouldn't need to…
Of course.
With some minor changes, you could make the same argument many, many technologies we use every day, from IPv4 to SQL to C.
Then there is the old saw -- likely apocryphal -- about how railroads are the width they are because they evolved from standards around Roman roads. Even if it is a fairy tale, the moral of that story strikes true: existing tools are built on top of old ones, because it was better to have a standard then even if we may know better now.
Re: State of the Terminal
#90I could never really understand the enthusiasm. Why are we still dealing with over half a century of cruft? I get that this is a core piece of technology lots of stuff is built upon, and I'm not arguing to get rid of the classic terminal emulation altogether. But I wish there was an effort of building a new, modern, textual interface to computers with modern assumptions and integration bindings. We shouldn't need to…
The problem is to break away from ANSI escape sequences and the like means also rewriting 50 years of command line tools. Like with the modern web, there’s just too much momentum behind the current design to make it practical to reinvent it from scratch That doesn’t mean that things cannot improve though. It just makes it massively more difficult if you want to retain backwards compatibility. And if you don’t, then p…