Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I have mostly gone back to plain ssh. mosh was fantastic for keeping a connection running across network changes and when accessing a plain command line it does feel a bit snappier on slow connections.

But screen or tmux give me persistence and re-establishing an ssh connection isn't very time consuming. A terminal multiplexer has a lot of advantages that mosh does not provide.

mosh adds another layer of terminal emulation and while the extra latency might not be a killer the terminal emulation can be as it is opaque to some features.

Why not just use mosh to establish & maintain the connection then then use tmux/screen to manage the terminal sessions?

It is practically necessary with mosh to run tmux/screen anyway because mosh removes scrollback. I find mosh adds little benefit for me most days and it makes a few things worse.

mosh is a great idea and sometimes useful when you are changing connections or opening and closing a laptop all day but most days I think I am better off without it.

Also I rarely have a remote connection open without forwarding some ports about so mosh often doesn't do what I need anyway.

Unfortunately every layer of terminal emulation tends to filter out some terminal capabilities. It is a small thing but I like to be able to yank a selection out of a remote vim and paste it locally and last I saw mosh's terminal emulation eats the necessary control codes.

Yeah, this is what I use, and that's also the official recommendation for managing scrollback.


Also wondering this. Why not both?

That's what I do. My laptop moshes into a tmux. It's like I'm just always connected to my servers; the network is abstracted away. Mosh even has a very useful "7 seconds since connection dropped" message for when the café WiFi lags etc.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact