You can tunnel a port over SSH and get a web UI locally, though it's not commonly done. I feel like more people would actually do this if tunneling a port was just ever so slightly easier (like, you're already SSH'd into a box, then you run a command, then you somehow automatically get a tunnel for that command's UI port plus a local browser window open to the page)
While in an SSH session, press enter, then type tilde and capital C (enter ~C) and you can add command line options to the current session. To add a port forward from your local 8080 to the remote port 80 without closing the connection, do:
SSH expects the escape sequence (tilde) to be the first character on a new line; since backspace is sent as a character, you can't just backspace over something you've started typing and then press tilde to have it recognized.
Technically, you don't have to press enter if you've not typed anything (try it in a new SSH session - as soon as you are logged in, type ~? to get the SSH help output), but since the comment was about doing this during an active session without ending it, I figured noting that pressing enter first to be sure you're on a new line wouldn't hurt
share some good (easy on remembering keyboard & mouse) tmux configs. I usually struggle with copy pasting many scrollback lines from/to tmux. would love for my claude to be natively tmux aware.
I do this a lot but I'd still prefer TUI where possible. With too much visual content it isn't of course, but for many cases a TUI is much more responsive and much lower resource.
I largely agree with you, but there are limits to what a tui can do well. If analyzing a flame graph or performance trace, web UI is a better fit. However, most things are not that.
Even easier is just using an X server, if you have it set up properly you just need to run the remote app and the window pops up on your machine.
(I think terminal-based GUIs are neat just for fluidity of use- you can pop one open during a terminal session and close it without switching to mouse or shifting your attention away from the terminal. They can also be a nice addon to a primarily CLI utility without introducing big dependencies)
Yeah I love that about X. I remember in the 90s when I first figured that out. I was logged in from a university workstation into my home computer with SSH and I launched my mail client or something and I thought doh, stupid that will only popup locally.
Then colour my suprise when it popped up on my screen right there. Slow as molasses but still. Wow. Magic.
It's a shame Wayland dropped this. Yes I know there's waypipe but it's not the same.
It... really isn't. Like you said, remote X was barely usable even over an entirely local network. Most applications these days are also not designed for it, using loads of bitmap graphics instead of efficient, low-level primitives. So you end up being just one tiny step away from simply streaming a video of your windows. We have better tools for doing things remotely these days, there's a reason approximately no one has used remote X after the mid-90s. It's a neat party trick, but I don't blame the Wayland authors for not wanting to support it.
> one tiny step away from simply streaming a video of your windows
In the 80s/90s this wasn't feasible due to network latency and bandwidth, but it's pretty common now to do exactly this, with VNC and other remote desktop protocols.
The big obvious one is web-based tooling. Your information & settings are stored on a server and you use a web browser to view it via whatever device you're on. For more locally based workflows, we have networked filesystem protocols, automatic syncing between systems, that kind of thing. It's not a 1-1 equivalent of running a remote program and viewing it locally obviously, but it gets the same job done, in a much more useful & flexible manner than X forwarding did.
For example, the remote mail client usecase I was replying to is simply done with a webmail client today.
I don't really feel like web interfaces or syncing are really a substitute tbh, and I'm not sure how they're more flexible. ssh -> run -> gui opens, and the program itself doesn't need to be designed differently to work
> and I'm not sure how they're more flexible. ssh -> run -> gui opens
But this doesn't work on your phone, or on a Windows or macOS device, right? That's what I meant by flexible, X forwarding fits a pretty narrow set of usecases, while on the other hand keeping programs on the clients and data centrally located on a server allows for a whole lot more options for how to interface with that data.
(To be clear, nothing wrong with X forwarding! It's a cool tech and I'm glad you have a use for it! I'm just arguing that it's fine for Wayland to not try to support that kind of thing, because we've got other ways of working remotely now.)
Phone I didn't know, but the sibling comment interests me. Windows, it works fine on local WSL but for remote yes you do have to have something like mobaxterm running. Not a big deal to me. Mac, I thought it just worked? It used to at least for me, but the last mac I owned was on snow leopard, so I wouldn't be surprised if they decided it wasn't the Mac Way to do things.
Most recently I used X forwarding to manage some LVM disks. I usually like using cli, but for me it's just easier to deal with disks with a GUI. Shy of setting up a full remote desktop, which I've had a lot of trouble with getting to work reliably, what's a better option here for an arbitrary disk program?
X servers are available for phones, Windows, and macOS. X interfaces not designed for phones can be difficult to use on phones. But web interfaces not designed for phones can be difficult to use on phones.
There is not a web tool for every use. And web tools are not better for every use.
The main advantage of x forwarding for me was when I'd randomly need it and had nothing set up ahead of time. Hopefully it starts getting installed in distros by default eventually.
How much he worked has nothing to do with what he is earning - there are people working three jobs out there who barely make ends meet. The page illustrates the absurd level of inequality our society has reached, a level that pure numbers are useless at illutrating.
Sure, but let me ask you this - do you think there should be any limit to how much wealth can one person own? Like, to take it to the extreme - say Bezos owned every single media corporation, evey factory and every farm in the US, buying it with his "hard earned" money - would that be fine? Like, he started one of the world's largest companies, why shouldn't be allowed to own everything, right? What if he(completely legally) starts giving hundreds of millions of dollars to politicans so they just start doing what he wants instead of what their constituents want? Is that ok too?
I think we can both agree that hard work and one of a kind achievement like this should be rewarded. But I suspect we will disagree on whether the reward should have a limit or not. I don't want Bezos to give up his wealth and live on 50k/year. But I don't want him to be so wealthy he can influence politics both home and abroad.
No, there shouldn't be a limit. If there's a limit it means that somebody needs to decide what limit that is, and steal whatever is over the limit by force. I'm for freedom.
Should he be able to won every single media corporation? He shouldn't and he can't, because there are laws to protect against monopolies. Same thing for factories and farms.
Should he control politicians? No, but in theory people still control politicians since they can vote them out. If there's a problem where politicians are willing to get bribed, perhaps the solution would be to impose more transparency and harsher penalties for that.
>> If there's a problem where politicians are willing to get bribed
The problem is that bribery is completely legal in the United States, donating money to a PAC is completely legal and without a limit. I'm not talking about money under the table in a suitcase kind of thing - I'm talking about the situations like recent OpenAI donation of $25M to Trump's PAC - do you think after such donation he is more likely to do what OpenAI wants, or what his voters want? It's not even about Trump specifically - the entire American system is structured in such a way that this is allowed, billionaries from both sides donate to politicians to help them win and achieve their goals, this is the real power of the money they make and this is the problem I have with it.
>> I'm for freedom.
Someone already decides that you pay taxes on the money you make, and presumably will come and take it from you by force if you don't pay - the only difference is the percentage value. Or are you commenting from somewhere that doesn't have a functional tax system?
The answer is simple: By definition only about 100-300 people.
There's only 100 of the "worlds biggest companies" (assuming this refers to the top 100). And companies are usually started by 1-3 people.
Similarly: There's usually only 4 participants in the top 4 of a tournament bracket.
(The question is a bit: what does "can" even mean in this context and the answer im hinting at here: It's not individual skill that creates companies ex-nihilo. It's our economic system that produces companies.)
I can see this working reasonably for text that you can understand without referring to figures, and for texts for which there is external content available that such a conversation could be based on. For a new, say, math paper, without prose interspersed, I’d be surprised if the generated conversation will be worth much. On the other hand, that is a corner case and, personally, I suspect I will be using this for the many texts where all I need is a presentation of the material that is easy to listen to.
They have been independent since 1956. Other (majority non-European) British colonies/protectorates as diverse as Singapore (ind. 1965), Belize (ind. 1981), India (ind. 1947) and UAE (ind. 1971) managed to build peaceful societies.
We need to recognize that the people of countries like Sudan are not children who don't know any better, contrary to European leftists' views. They are fully functioning adults who made a series of choices that led to the present situation.
On gaining independence in 1956 Sudan endured two civil wars with up to a million deaths in the first civil war and between one and two million deaths in the second civil war.
Colonial governments like the British often (almost always) left a mess behind them.
Comparing Sudan to Singapore, India and the UAE is comical. This level of analysis on HackerNews, that ignores the realities of how different countries evolve / are influenced is why we cannot have an honest conversation.
Please enlighten us why it's comical. Economically, Sudan was richer per capita than India in 1960 and even as recently as 2017 [1][2]. It had, and still has, a more homogeneous population ethnically and linguistically. Yet India manages to keep things mostly calm while Sudan can't.
Not relevant as the partition was outlined in the Indian Independence Act 1947 which created the constitutions. The Act was agreed upon by the legislature representatives of the Indian National Congress, the Muslim League, and the Sikh community with Lord Mountbatten.
The point stands that decolonisation was a mess and the colonisers played a large part in it.
I think the point is in spite of decolonization being orders of magnitude more messy countries like India have established fully functioning peaceful societies.
Every single piece of land on Earth has been attacked and colonized at least once. Why have some peoples managed to do well and others so bad? I think there's something more to learn.
It's the British Isles. Scotland joined England in the United Kingdom.
This is just one where you're clearly incorrect.
Colonialism developed as a concept describing European colonial empires of the modern era, which spread globally from the 15th century to the mid-20th century.
That kills off almost all of your examples.
That people in the comments aren't even taking the time to check the definition of terms is sad. The statements pro colonialism reek of racism and white supremacy.
> Colonialism developed as a concept describing European colonial empires of the modern era, which spread globally from the 15th century to the mid-20th century.
The concept was developed from European colonial empires, but it describes more than just them.
The way Muslims invaded Portugal and Spain, established their strongholds, exploited native population and maintained their rule for several centuries until kicked out fits the same mold, as do countless other examples, from Northern Crusades a thousand years ago to Soviet Union's domination of Central and Eastern Europe just a few decades ago.
If you think that European nations do not have a long history of being invaded by foreigners, seeing their land taken away and given to settlers while being made inferior and exploited, then you are very wrong and I encourage you to pick up a history book on any smaller European nation.
The British Isles is a geographic term. It includes(&always has) Ireland given that Ireland is a part of the British Isles but has never been part of Great Britain (the land mass).
The United Kingdom you refer to has a fuller name - "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" (past) replaced by "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) (present).
I assume you're familiar enough with history to recognise that Ireland(landmass/people/culture) was a colony of the British (with or without your pedantry)?
I live in the former Roman province of Hispania. We were at least colonized by Romans, then by Saxons and then by Arabs.
The Arab imperialists left here 500 years ago.
If I were to live further to the East in many of today’s EU/European countries, I could very well live in places where Ottoman imperialists left only 100 years ago.
Sudan is now free of imperialists for 70 years. Only 30 years less than countries like Greece, Slovenia, Croatia and a few others in Europe.
The Celts were colonized by Romans and then colonized again by Franks, Anglo-Saxons, and Normans. Western Slavs, Balts, and Estonians were colonized by Germans. Parts of Balkans (esp. Greece) were colonized by the Ottomans.
Nationalism did lot in this regard. But really when you consider it Ukraine is just continuation of European nations conquering lands from each other. Which has been going on for well probably before Romans...
Are you perhaps assuming they have no chance of learning to govern themselves peacefully?
I don't subscribe to this fixed mindset. I believe all peoples can learn to do well. It's hard, but possible. So the lack of conolialism isn't the answer, but lack of learning.
Perhaps they can, but there’s 0 evidence for it. Regardless my point was that they have had tremendous suffering since being decolonized. Endless conflict with external meddling from all over. I suspect that had they been under colonial rule since then they’d have significantly less suffering and stable. But what can you do because that ship sailed.
They’ve had endless civil war essentially for 70 years. Maybe “Sudan” isn’t a real place and the people inhabiting those lands need to sort it out and figure out who rules what. The UN should stop recognizing Sudan as a state as it’s obviously failed. Remove itself from the region and let the people there figure out borders. Rip the Bandai’s off instead of prolonging this idea of Sudan that obviously isn’t real.
People need to be ruled to maintain order. The alternative is chaos which leads to suffering until order is restored. The colonists ruled competently and maintained order even if your social justice reflex doesn’t feel good about it. What they left, decolonization, is a soft colonization from afar, managed by entities with no skin in it. This is why it’s disorderly and chaos reigns and suffering is a way of life for the people of those lands.
Colonization is preferable to that. However, because that’s not a palatable form of social order today the next best thing is complete abandonment and true self determination to discover where the borders are and who rules them. This will be bloody, yes, but have an outcome that leads to order if not tampered with. That’s preferable to the last 70 years.
Almost every animal has a simpler, easier life than the average human.
Penguins have a far easier life than the fish they eat. I feel sorry for the small fish; everyone is after them; big fish, sea gulls, octopuses, pelicans, penguins, dolphins, seals, humans... What creature on this earth does not eat herring or sardines? Humans even started feeding their ground up bones to chickens and other farm animals (who would otherwise not eat them)! Give the sardines a break!
I strongly suspect that there is, I've seen this effect in play so many times at smaller timescales, and you'd expect to be even stronger at longer ones
