On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:21:53PM +0100, Nick wrote:
> Sounds great, good job on this. I haven't read about Tox in any
> depth, so don't know how lovely or otherwise it is as a protocol.
> What do you folks think?
I'd say pretty much sensible. The API is nice too.
> Quoth FRIGN:
> > Based on ratox, TLH and I will work on a set of scripts/client
> > rather similar to hysteria[5] with tmux and other tools
> > (pv, rlwrap, ...), once ratox is more or less feature-complete
> > in version 0.2.
>
> I'm not sure how I feel about using tmux as a wrapper to all this,
> like hysteria. After all, we have a good X window manager, I would
> have thought it would be better to make use of that. Is there a
> reason you're planning to use tmux rather than dwm / X for your
> wrapper client thing? persistence using dtach or similar seems less
> important when you can do ssh tunneling as easily as you can with
> ratox.
dwm with the fifo patch[0] could work fine. I generally work in tmux
that's why hysteria is done like that. Also it is mostly running on
a remote machine where I don't have X. You can tunnel your traffic
but when your machine is shut down you are offline :)
[0]
http://dwm.suckless.org/patches/dwmfifo
Received on Tue Sep 30 2014 - 00:38:47 CEST