aumerle
aumerle on Hacker News
So lots more verbiage and still no answer. Again:
Do you actually think the development velocity of ghostty is faster than that of its peers?
And since you tried to wiggle out of this by by claiming it's irrelevant -- the relevance, quite obviously, is that you cannot be impressed by something that's not true. So either you werent actually impressed and hence were shilling or you think it's true and were actually impressed. So which is it?
"It's impossible for me to be wrong" that right there tells us all we
need to know about you. I love how in the same breath you say
something is not kosher and then go and do it anyway :)
Your desperation, by the way, comes from being called out on your BS.
Let me put it in simple terms:
Do you actually believe ghostty has a development velocity faster than
its peers, specifically, kitty and WezTerm? Yes or no.
Don't need paragraphs and paragraphs of verbiage just a simple answer to
a simple question :)
More personal attacks. Roll eyes. By the same token someone refuting your so
called "positive comment" politely and with a reference, is not a reason to
attack them. Positive comment indeed, what a joke. Still waiting for you to
admit you were wrong in the first place. I have provided evidence for my claim,
in the form of two changelogs from two different projects. You have provided
increasingly desperate personal attacks. Says it all.
See if you can manage some actual reasoned argument this time.
Wow! Talk about not getting it. I don't give a rat's ass about your opinion on ghostty's release notes, which we have anyway established was pure BS. I am upset because you chose to attack me personally in response to a comment that contained only a link to a changelog to refute yours. But now that I have had a chance to peruse your posting history a bit more closely, I see that's a pattern for you. Color me not at all surprised.
And yes, I agree this thread is utterly un-interesting. I have made my point loud and clear. Good luck.
Sigh. Neither did mine. I simply pointed out that ghostty does not have development velocity any different from its peers. And I didn't feel the need to resort to personally attacking you to try to make my point. Something you should learn from.
I used the peer I am familiar with to backup up my statement with evidence. That is a fact. That this fact is impossible for you to even admit, just makes it all the more obvious what your actual agenda in posting that falsehood was, despite your ongoing efforts to spin it as empathy of all things!
So again, am waiting for you to grow the basic honesty to at least admit that ghostty does not in fact have a development velocity that is unusual compared to its peers. Once you get past that hurdle we can move on to your motivations, or you can just move on. Your attempt here failed. Take your lumps and learn from it.
I note you once again failed to address the actual point in favor of more
personal attacks. To wit, ghostty does not actually have a fast release
velocity compared to its peers.
As for having played well, thanks, better luck next time :)
Yeah, of course it is
possible for it to be sincere. Your reaction, in making
a personal attack on me when I disagreed with your so called positive comment
is what makes it so clear that you are being insincere. If you were actually
just impressed by ghostty's release velocity and someone pointed out to you
that other projects in that space have similar release velocities, you would
just have said oh cool, nice to know. Instead you decided to research my
posting history in order to make a personal attack on me so as to try and
distract attention from your shilling in the first place.
By the way, most projects that get traction on a significant release tend to
make a very fast subsequent release to correct issues in that release. I chose
kitty as an obvious point of comparison, that I am personally familiar with,
but here you go for wezterm: https://wezfurlong.org/wezterm/changelog.html
So much for being impressed.
And cool it with the strawmen. Your previous post had firefox, this one has
systemd. Try addressing what is being said to you instead of indulging in cheap
rhetorical tricks.
So let me get this straight. You think you have the privilege to post your
opinion about ghostty and present it as an honest one, and I do not. Let me
remind you, you responded to my comment which was a link to a changelog,
with a personal attack on me.
And no, it's not a silly cheap shot, it's the giant blinking neon sign in the
room that points to the insincerity of your comment. Yup you don't comment about
Firefox, et al. but then neither do you comment on stories about say Edge or
Safari shilling them, so what relevance your not commenting about firefox has,
is, to put it politely, unclear.
Of course, I didn't mean to put you in a spot. We can always continue this later once your thoughts have matured. Sadly I have an extremely full schedule so I dont think I have the badwidth to noodle on this at this stage but if and when you have something more concrete please do post it somewhere public and I will try to contribute to the discussion.
So if I am to understand your proposal more concretely it is something like implement an escape code that the shell can use to turn off all other escape codes (presumably with some kind of listing mechanism) and then have the shell do that before launching any third party script/program/function? How would the shell know which escape codes the program it is running needs?
I can, kind of, see the utility of a pledge() type system within a single program, but in a shell, whose whole job is basically running programs it knows nothing about beyond their name? How would that work?
:) Interesting then that despite claiming to have used kitty for years and not even tried using ghostty you have exactly zero comments about kitty in the last few months (I didn't bother reviewing your commenting history further than that) and yet here you are trying to say something positive about a project you claim to not even use, and that too in a handful of minutes after it was posted. Color me shocked :))
And on the off chance that you are actually sincere and not a shill, my apologies, but your original comment comes as very shilling and for a project that has generated a lot of shilling in the recent past.
Yup kitty revolutionized my terminal experience, hence the passion. I am sorry but since you seem to be passionate enough about ghostty to try to shill it in a article about a security vulnerability in it, I don't think you have a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about my posts.
If you want to claim that ghostty is developed very rapidly it behoves you to do a little research and compare it against its peers before making that claim.
You proposal does not address this issue since shells would still need full privileges.
This entire class of exploits (query responses with user controlled data leading to shells executing commands) would be removed if shells just moved to using the kitty keyboard protocol with all key events represented as escape codes and implemented a full escape code parser for data received form the terminal. You cannot embed an escape code inside another, or while technically you can, it is trivial to implement a security policy of disallowing these in both terminals and shells. Then barring implementation bugs in the escape code parser (which can easily be shipped as a standalone native code library) you dont have this entire class of issues and the associated one that the bracketed paste hack was created to address.
Yes, but this is two well known and understood functions we are talking about, wrapping them is really not that hard.
It's not even slightly tricky, just use self pipe. I have no idea why the maintainer of make rejected it. He says select has different signatures, but select is in POSIX, so unless he is porting to a non POSIX platform, it's irrelevant and even if he is, I doubt it is that hard to write a wrapper to abstract the non POSIX compatible implementation of select. Then he complains about needing to do CLOEXEC on the self pipe. This is trivial (one line) on Linux using pipe2 and about 5 lines of code on other platforms. Given that he says make does not use threads its also perfectly robust without pipe2.
Opting for a harder algorithm just to avoid a few lines of compatibility shims seems like very much the wrong tradeoff.
Or run
kitty --dump-commands program-whose-output-you-want-to-inspect
You can even save the --dump-commands output as edit it and then replay it with
kitty --dump-commands program > commands.txt
kitty --replay-commands commands.txt
Ah yes, in that case there no terminals that implement it indeed. Though there are a few that implement changing window size via escape code, though in units of cells not pixels. Generally speaking I dont see how applications can use tcsetwinsize() robustly, given that the size in pixels of a cell is determined by font properties and applications runing in the terminal have no knowledge of these, therefore cannot set both the pixel and cell sizes at the same time.
And we are all delighted to be spared from your personality in the kitty community. Enjoy your day as well.
Then stick to commenting on posts about such software instead of trying to mislead people about software you know nothing about.
Nope, native applications are not ever going to get the ridiculous level of sandboxing demonstrated by the restrictions on accessing the clipboard in the article. Nor are they ever going to be prevented from accessing the file system as web applications are.
Again, no non mobile OS prevents native applications from using the clipboard as it should be used. And none of them show any signs of changing that.
And that's just what he did until someone showed up to do the grunt work of porting to Python 3, at which point he co-operated with that person and helped make the port happen, just as he said he would. I suggest a more facts based narrative in the future.
List of all python3 PRs merged by the developer in minutes to hours:
https://github.com/kovidgoyal/calibre/pulls?q=is%3Apr+py3
Ah, you are back with your "the kitty protocol doesn't support my pet feature that nothing else supports, aka left and right distinct modifier states" so it must be bad. I was wondering when you would show up again.
If you mean mobile OSes sure, I can agree with you they are becoming worse with time. OSes for real computers, not so much.
I dont run a single native application across five operating systems that requires a popup nag to access the clipboard or that is unable to put any data other than text, html and PNG on the clipboard.
This article is a perfect illustration of why Webapps will never be as good as native ones. Webapps are always "untrusted" code so they are arbitrarily and artificially restricted from accessing resources on your local machine.
Now, the OP has to remember, df -h -x tmpfs instead of df -h. The proper solution for this is to not have commands that are both meant for interactive and script usage. Then the defaults for their output can be changed over time to suit the evolving landscape. Or if you do want a single command for both have a --script flag that makes its output suitable for usage in scripts.