I recently built https://debug-me.branchable.com/ which also does quick and easy terminal sharing, but with the addition of a cryptographically secure proof of what was done in the session, rooted at the gpg key of the person who connected to it.
Just say that it's a signed log of the session. "Cryptographic proof" isn't necessarily incorrect but it has other connotations which don't make any sense here and make it sound like it's doing something it's not (think cryptanalysis or ZKPs).
Cool tool but in the Readme you should probably explain a little bit 'how it works' rather than just 'how to work it'. In this case, I imagine it needs to connect to and trust some outside coordinating service run/owned by someone (you?).
Both the client and the server (warpd) seem to be in the repo. I agree there should be an explanation early in the readme because when I came to the part with IDs I immediately went 'wtf? does this go through their servers?'.
Edit: Reading through some of the replies here it might actually be using their servers at least for the ID resolution.
I agree. This tool is pretty cool but I was a bit confused about how it could work since it just "worked" without prompting for a server. Looking at netstat it looks like warp connections are handled by connecting to an ec2 instance at ec2-35-162-152-151.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com, on port 4242.
Looking at the source code suggests it is peer to peer. The code for daemon indicates you need to specify what address and port to listen on when starting up, and there is code about receiving incoming clients.
It looks like it defaults to connecting to `warp.link:4242`. I can't tell if it's routing the entire connection through warp.link or if it's just resolving the name to an IP address that then connect directly (I don't know Go very well).
Given that it's not explicit in the readme, not that easy to find in the code, and repeatedly posted to HN I would assume malicious intent and stay away from it.
Assuming no malicious intent, not disclosing anything about it in the readme suggests not very security oriented mindset and therefore it's likely just not secure enough to use.
Seems to be using their server by default, but you can change it to your own instance using the environment variable. And yes, it looks like all the data passes through the chosen server as well.
How many times is it reasonable to submit the same URL to HN?
This link is to https://github.com/spolu/warp?attempt=8. If one needs to add an "attempt" HTTP parameter to track submissions of the same URL, and this is the 8th attempt, that seems like way too many.
Here's a few prior identical submissions by the same person:
Given that it is suddenly ranking high, I assume the ranking is arbitrary enough to warrant multiple attempts. Likewise, I'd like to see following topics of submissions so that I see this instead of many other, for me irrelevant, news and articles.
If something had enough inherent interestingness to end up at the #1 position (as this submission is right now), then I'd argue that its taking a number of attempts to do so is an indictment of the ranking algorithm for burying it before, rather than an indictment of the author for persisting.
Certainly, if someone persists in trying and the thing just never gets popular, that's just spam. But if "the right timing" was all that was needed to cause the sumission to hit #1? Maybe "the right timing" needs to be a concept built into the submission queue.
It's an interesting question. I could see it being a mix of that and a poor-quality ranking algorithm, so that it's too easy for articles to end up buried.
Most examples of this are one person submitting daily articles from their own site or sites they're paid to market. Sometimes even those end up near the top of the front page, and often when that happens, if one looks at prior submissions from that same person and site, the article that made the front page seems like it would do worse than prior articles.
I could see all of this as an indicator that the ranking/voting doesn't do a great job of letting interesting stuff get a shot, nor of penalizing folks who constantly submit posts on their own site (for months - different than this situation). The "New" page is easy enough to ignore that I could imagine few visitors looking at it regularly, so the profile of visitors to that page is different than to the home page.
Thanks for pointing this out, I've been thinking about this very question myself. Perhaps Stan is trying to test out different titles, or felt that a different title does this project more justice as he is progressing with its development?
Different titles he used, in chronological order:
* Show HN: Warp – Simple terminal sharing for better developers interactions
* Warp – share your terminal with one simple command
* Show HN: Instantaneous terminal sharing
Instantaneous terminal sharing
My take away from this: Don't include app/product name, describe product in as few words as possible, don't include examples (... for ...) so readers has the opportunity to imagine the possibilities.
> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait.
Basically, the HN title should be the page title (with a few exceptions noted in the doc above). The whole point is not to use the title to do what you're proposing and apparently, observing.
My interest wasn't "How do I get something to rank on HN?", it was "I want to encourage people to submit things that they discover and love, not repeatedly submitting things they're affiliated with." I may be in the minority, though.
Agreed with everything that was said here. I personally think it's better to post multiple times than to post with a vote ring. The latter is unfair to the community while the former is not annoying since they just come and go through new
It's a bit rude to post alternatives in someone's Show HN without also giving ideas on how to improve their product (e.g. which features specifically would you be missing out on?)
I guess it's not so much the posting of alternatives, but you're really selling that particular alternative. It'd be nice for Show HNs to be less cutthroat.
I've never heard this. I always find relevant alternatives in HN comments as helpful, allowing people to compare and contrast different features and functionality.
I also don't see anything in the guidelines about this kind of thing, has a mod commented about it before?
The feature I'd suggest for any peer-to-peer application such as this is some kind of firewall punching. It generally requires a 3rd-party on the internet. To avoid running services for a low-bandwidth application like this, maybe it could tunnel through a public IRC server or other public chat system.
Can someone explain the actual use of sharing a terminal with someone while not being in person with them (in which case they could just watch you and shotgun the keyboard?)? I can't imagine watching someone else's terminal session without them talking about what they're doing and why would be particularly informative or help with onboarding. Maybe it's just one of those things that work for some people and not others?
Phone/skype, text chat, ...? (general screen-sharing software of course is an option, but often kind of a pain and if you really only want to share a terminal this might be faster and is by design limited to the terminal)
35 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 28.0 ms ] threadEdit: Reading through some of the replies here it might actually be using their servers at least for the ID resolution.
* You don't need to rely or surrender to the cloud.
* Neither you nor the clients need to create an account (or worse, require a google/facebook account).
I would imagine that this goes through someone's server. It would be helpful if the readme gave a little more detail about how this works.
https://github.com/spolu/warp/blob/master/daemon/cmd/warpd/m...
Looking through the source code, I've found these lines:
https://github.com/spolu/warp/blob/master/client/command/con... https://github.com/spolu/warp/blob/master/client/command/con... https://github.com/spolu/warp/blob/master/protocol.go#L13
It looks like it defaults to connecting to `warp.link:4242`. I can't tell if it's routing the entire connection through warp.link or if it's just resolving the name to an IP address that then connect directly (I don't know Go very well).
Assuming no malicious intent, not disclosing anything about it in the readme suggests not very security oriented mindset and therefore it's likely just not secure enough to use.
This link is to https://github.com/spolu/warp?attempt=8. If one needs to add an "attempt" HTTP parameter to track submissions of the same URL, and this is the 8th attempt, that seems like way too many.
Here's a few prior identical submissions by the same person:
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14398392 (ie, https://github.com/spolu/warp?attempt=1)
4: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14407813
6: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14452505
If 8 isn't too many, what is? 20? Submit the same link every day indefinitely until it reaches the front page?
Certainly, if someone persists in trying and the thing just never gets popular, that's just spam. But if "the right timing" was all that was needed to cause the sumission to hit #1? Maybe "the right timing" needs to be a concept built into the submission queue.
Most examples of this are one person submitting daily articles from their own site or sites they're paid to market. Sometimes even those end up near the top of the front page, and often when that happens, if one looks at prior submissions from that same person and site, the article that made the front page seems like it would do worse than prior articles.
I could see all of this as an indicator that the ranking/voting doesn't do a great job of letting interesting stuff get a shot, nor of penalizing folks who constantly submit posts on their own site (for months - different than this situation). The "New" page is easy enough to ignore that I could imagine few visitors looking at it regularly, so the profile of visitors to that page is different than to the home page.
Different titles he used, in chronological order:
* Show HN: Warp – Simple terminal sharing for better developers interactions
* Warp – share your terminal with one simple command
* Show HN: Instantaneous terminal sharing Instantaneous terminal sharing
My take away from this: Don't include app/product name, describe product in as few words as possible, don't include examples (... for ...) so readers has the opportunity to imagine the possibilities.
> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait.
Basically, the HN title should be the page title (with a few exceptions noted in the doc above). The whole point is not to use the title to do what you're proposing and apparently, observing.
My interest wasn't "How do I get something to rank on HN?", it was "I want to encourage people to submit things that they discover and love, not repeatedly submitting things they're affiliated with." I may be in the minority, though.
This gives you 2 ssh addresses (read only and read write) that you can send out.
This looks like a great project and I'll be keeping my eye on it, but there's no reason for me to switch to this and lose out on features.
It's open source, and you can even set up your own proxy so you don't need to rely on gravitational's servers.
I guess it's not so much the posting of alternatives, but you're really selling that particular alternative. It'd be nice for Show HNs to be less cutthroat.
It does come of a bit like I'm selling it I guess, but I'm not affiliated. I'm all for alternatives and having a choice instead of a monopoly.
Like I said, this project looks great.
I also don't see anything in the guidelines about this kind of thing, has a mod commented about it before?
This wasn't a Show HN when the comment was posted, though, so it's a moot point.
[1]: https://joeyh.name/blog/entry/announcing_debug-me/