> What would this look like in multiplayer mode?

Uh… no thank you.

> How about chat

What are you on about? (also we already have `wall`)

This list of ideas is terrible and none of them make sense. It almost feels like one of these start-up name generators that mash up a bunch of buzzwords together.

Better auth support and all can be done completely independently of the terminal app, much like ssh-agent manages my keys and I don't need to re-enter my password every time I connect somewhere. But that's all done in the shell, not in the terminal app.

It looks like some money is available here for terminal developers? Instead of making something useless that no one wants or need, it would be a lot better to support people who actually build a useful app: https://www.iterm2.com/donate.html

I genuinely don't understand this project.

Use the right tool for the job. I chat using a chat program, and write code using a terminal. Pair programming involves taking turns, not multiple people typing into the same document at the same time.

Beating Terminal for speed might be harder than they realize.

Beating iTerm 2 for functionality might be harder than they realize.

Features neither of them include might be unwanted, but I guess good luck, and I'll wait to see if any actual good ideas comes out of the hackathon?

I'd be curious to see how this plays out.

> We expect real-time collaboration to dominate future markets as the pandemic runs its course and forces people and businesses online en masse

I'd think that the area for the easiest investment in this problem space wouldn't be on the creation of a new terminal emulator (like iTerm2 or the Windows Terminal), but instead as a piece of software running on the remote server, something like tmux. Imagine instead a tmux that could allow multiple users to connect to it simultaneously, and drive different panes at the same time, or view the commands that another user is using in a given pane.

Then, regardless of what terminal emulator you choose, you'd be able to collaborate with your teammates, once you connect to the same server session.

When I think about a "Terminal 2.0", I imagine something more like [this](https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/issues/3121). Ideally though, whatever protocol for rich feedback and content embedding wouldn't be tightly coupled between the shell and the Terminal, which I don't believe is something that [UpTerm](https://github.com/railsware/upterm) did well (though correct me if I'm wrong.)

>Imagine instead a tmux that could allow multiple users to connect to it simultaneously, and drive different panes at the same time, or view the commands that another user is using in a given pane.

I think this is what tmate does? I haven't used it, but I saw it mentioned on HN a couple days ago.

https://tmate.io/

I disagree on the point that the terminal needs innovation. Clis are what need the innovation. They're rather inaccessible to anyone who's never used vim or emacs, and modern workflows just give no incentives to switch to them.

Obviously if you're already proficient in clis you'd never trade them for a gui, but if you're proficient in a gui then why use a cli (for a reason other than bloat)?

I'd like a terminal that can finally actually show graphics. Not exactly sure what's missing to do that since I have no idea about terminal internal. Maybe i3 is what I'm looking for. But, it would be great to have lynx that allows showing images or videos or simply streaming a video over SSH to a video player in my terminal.

I would absolutely love to have a Free terminal that had a feature set similar to SecureCRT. https://www.vandyke.com/products/securecrt/

Modern collaborative terminal...so, tmux running in hyper (for electron goodness)? :)

Work for free for us for 48 hours to explore this problem space.

5 best teams will win the chance to work for free for 1 month for us.

Best team we will crown the winner and let you keep 95% of your company.

Thought this was a hardware project until I clicked the link. Hardware would provide serious scope for innovation. Software has been done.

what do you mean "has been done"? is software a one-shot game?

I mean exhaustively modified with every bell and whistle imaginable. It is likely that any novelty here will be so minor as to be insignificant to UX versus established implementations. Interested to be proven wrong!