Re:A Terminal Protocol for Program Status (OSC 7501)
by cpuguy83 on Thursday October 08, 2026 @04:40PM
(#50011897)
A cli asking for a password is a pretty normal thing, I think?
Re:A Terminal Protocol for Program Status (OSC 7501)
by hinkley on Thursday October 08, 2026 @05:17PM
(#50012425)
As a frequent internal tool writer, I’d say it’s a fact of life but an undesirable one. I’m always trying to avoid pausing for credentials in the middle of a run, either by doing them right at the beginning or by using some sort of durable credentials system like ssh keys.
There’s always two people at every company who refuse to set up auth automation though, so you end up handling it. They are very stubborn. Even when it trips them up in front of observers while executing an urgent task, I’ve only occasionally convinced them to agree to set up trust instead of typing a password every single time.
Which is to say, I have to support password prompts even though they drive me up the wall.
Re:A Terminal Protocol for Program Status (OSC 7501)
by paaloeye on Thursday October 08, 2026 @05:17PM
(#50012430)
Yes, but a CLI can ask for literally anything. We'll end up adding things there and with a zoo of hard-to-support implementation of that _protocol_.
CLI can also _blank_, do we want to support it as well?
Re:A Terminal Protocol for Program Status (OSC 7501)
by vvvvtt340 on Thursday October 08, 2026 @06:26PM
(#50013272)
Let's say I'm upgrading a large software enterprise application.
I start the upgrade process.
After 5 minutes, the process determines that the upgrade will require an extra 1.5GB of storage and asks me if I would like to continue with the upgrade.
After 15 minutes, I'm presented with a username / password prompt to enter credentials to retrieve a package from an external resource needed for the upgrade.
After another 5 minutes, the upgrade process has detected that there are a number of derelict files detected and asks for permission to remove these files.
That's what I thought in the beginning. Once I read the spec to the end, it's clear to me that it's overly specific to one use-case — TUI AI agents.
E.g. `kind := permission | question | auth` doesn't make much sense anywhere outside of that use case. The list goes on...
I also found comms around it super muddy, AI agent use case is mentioned but deceivingly watered down with other use-cases.
Overall, that spec is no where close to Kitty/Kovid's level. It's super sad, since mitchellh's work is usually super high quality.
I hope the community will push back and the spec will get better.