kkapelon
Or just jump straight into herdr which offers a superset of what tmux offers.
I haven't check the whole list of features, but I believe herdr can do all the things described in the article (including what tmux offers)
I bought them brand new from shops. No distributor, no enterprise sales.
I believe Aruba works in a similar way
Tailscale is super popular with people that have a homelab or nas/cameras/photos etc, and they have already solved the NAT problem (which iroh itself markets).
I would argue that Tailnet is a good match for this.
Maybe expand the readme to cover other use cases interesting to existing Tailscale users?
1. The co-ordination server for the initial handoff. You can self-host if you want
2. Derp relays (for actual traffic). you can also self-host (peer relays)
Actually if self-hosting is that important to you, there are also newer solutions like netbird and netmaker that might worth a look.
Tailscale connections are peer-to-peer. They only own the coordination server, which you can ignore and host your own.
Tailscale hosts relay servers as a fallback. Connections are peer-to-peer between devices.
Why is this exclusive to Ubiquiti? Can't you do it with any other company that has managed APs?
I personally prefer articles that link to other(better) sources for definining concepts instead of trying to explain everything.
So several times I read articles like a stack, starging with A, then in the middle going to B and after finishing B going back to A. It doesn't bother me at all. It actually says to me that the author understands they cannot be experts on everything and recognize other articles.
I also enjoy articles with reveal their twist late if they are not super long.
On my personal blog I am actually writing both styles (just explain right away, or build up to something that will become clear later in the article)
Some other ideas
1) Enforce architecture decisions (see archunit). But somebody needs to write them down first.
2) Check that tests actually break if the code that accompanies them is removed (several LLMs/agents today create tests that don't actually test the code they "guard against)
3) Automated performance testing. An LLM/agent might create a change that is "correct" but increases latency for 3x (best case) and 20x (worst case)
The hardest part that I see no solution for today is to understand when a change breaks backwards compatibility. LLMs/agents are trigger-happy and will happily refactor/remove stuff without any care about who is using that.I don't have a proposal for that, but the problem is there and is not covered by 12-factor config.
Yes a plugin system is great, but it only works if that plugin API/interface it designed correctly and gives plugins what they need while still enforcing good practices.
But somebody needs to design a plugin system that does this first. And designing a plugin system (for large projects) brings us back to square 1 :-) (that you need a large enough context to see what the code does in order to anticipate plugin needs).
You can split a small program into piece A, B, C All of them look correct on their own. But they duplicate something in 3 different ways and person/agent who can "see" all of them can see the duplication and refactor.
Current model context is simply not enough for large projects.
Same problem for letting AI review code. A PR might look correct on its own and be small enough to fit into context. But somebody who has access to the whole code of the project again sees the duplication.
I am an OSS developer and when reviewing PRs I actually look at how the same problem was solved in other popular OSS projects. No AI can check this today because there is simply not enough context.
Basically if we had unlimited context what you said might be true. But context size is limited today.
It was mostly 256k, then it went to 1M and now it has stalled there.
This is the classic "make no mistakes".
On a serious note, I might set as criteria "avoid code duplication". Does that mean that the model/agent will actually follow it?
> What does that accomplish, other than to slow your dev process down enormously?
I am an OSS developer and I often see PRs (i.e. from the general public) that look correct, pass all CI checks, are heavily documented and they are still wrong.
Most of the times either they duplicate code that already exists somewhere else, or they implement a "feature" by opening a can of worms for subsequent "features" in the same area.
This only works in small projects. For large projects, it is close to impossible. Everybody talks about how new models appear all the time and nobody comments on the fact that context size has almost stalled.
It is perfectly possible to vibe-code a badly designed app that still passes those 12, 15 or whatever points you define.
Also a confirmation to people who have the same inner thoughts and are ashamed to admit in public that they think the exact same thing.
I think we need such kind of posts to combat the influx of AI news.
Or use gamenative on your phone
Also you can run steam os on arm portables. https://armadaos.dev/
So all this was possible before the Steam frame was launched
1) are terminal based (not gui apps that you need to install)
2) Can be run by mosh/ssh
3) Track agent sessions automatically
4) Have built-in git worktree management
5) Show agents connections over different machines (the new feature mentioned in the blog post)?