Long overdue - I was all in a few years ago with Warp, but after the last couple of years of not addressing this need, I have moved on from Warp. I now DO NOT see the need to embed AI into the terminal when you can have all sorts of TUI doing the same job.
I wrote a little wrapper to start tmux with two panes open, one pane is an ssh connection to a host and one runs Claude Code, with an auto-generated CLAUDE.md telling Claude to use tmux commands to interact with the remote host (https://github.com/swelljoe/tandem). Agents can also use ssh, but I wanted an interactive way to poke around on a remote system and also be able to ask Claude to look at or do something on its own without copy/paste.
I was looking at warp, wave, and a few others, and this is the exact stuff I will need, thanks for sharing.
So when I SSH to remote servers, I would like to bring my agent buddy with me, currently, I open two terminals, one with a remote SSH session, and one with opencode/claude code, now I have to copy & paste commands/info between the 2 terminals, which can be anoyying, so that is why I was looking at warp, but it has a paywall for BYOK :)
Confirming that Pi can definitely handles this. I've written a harness "factotum" based on pi just for managing my homelab and my radio club's systems. Has absolutely no issue sshing into things remotely, running ansible/helm/kubectl/talosctl commands.
There's a few skills, a and an extension to switch inventory. The extension is only needed because I want to switch between the two organizations. It's pretty slick. One of my use cases was just getting my homelab under control. So one of the first tasks I gave it was to go find everything that's running on these hosts, system services, docker compose, kube pods, etc. Builds an inventory, memory, todos.
Switches the script from "ai helps me launch more experiments to lose track of" to "organized and back under config management".
How do you use `pi` to ssh? I use `oh-my-pi`, and tried the `/ssh` command, but I couldn't get it to work. Then I saw a suggestion somewhere to just run `!ssh` to place things into the agent's context.
Is there a way to use it like "The current directory is at `ssh server`" and have the agent work from there?
Most if not every agent has access to bash or similar, which ssh typically is available. You don't need any bloated skills or anything, as long as you include `host is available via user@10.55` or whatever, and you have authentication properly setup, it'll figure it out.
Just tell it to use ssh from the shell. From there you can give it extra context to describe the target (if you know/care about it), or just let it loose and if the environment doesn't have what it expects it will "figure something out" - just the same as with your local env.
If there's some least common denominator you know about e.g. python it can streamline things if you tell it to just use that for everything.
I don't think you understand. I'm well aware it can run whatever command on bash. You're taking a significant risk asking it to do what it's doing via ssh, because it could easily forget that it's suppose to be doing ssh and do whatever locally.
The point is: opencode should have a specific deterministic tool like https://www.npmjs.com/package/node-ssh where commands can only be run; the environment can only be the remote; etc.
The last thing I would want is for it to suddenly forget it's suppose to be running commands as ssh and does something local.
In practice I just don't think this is a real problem, or at least not one I've seen.
I do something like this a lot with local VMs managed through Incus (so not literally invoking ssh but the exact same pattern) and they don't "mess up" in that particular way. If they ever did they figured it out immediately and I didn't even make note of it happening.
I guess to sum up my feelings on it: if you don't think the tool is reliable enough to correctly use ssh to execute remote commands, you probably shouldn't be trusting it to run remote commands in the first place.
You're still ignoring the crux of the difference in _risk_. Say the risk of `rm -rf /` for any given model is 1%. That is, the probabilty, that it'll just absolutely saveagly destroy the system you're working on. We know it's lower than that, because millions of tokens per day are generated and we only get a few of these "production database was wiped" news items.
There difference is still: If that risk-reward is to be recieved, you can't tell me you'd rather have it run locally than on some system you're managing. Because POV, you're the one responsible and if a coding tool _takes out your system_, you no longer have any means to fix the problem.
So, maybe the risk-reward is _technically_ equal, but only if the operator of the coding tool continues to operate regardless of what commands it's issuing. That's not the case if you're just saying "hey guy, use ssh for all your commands"
It can equally hallucinate commands. Fine. The problem is, if I'm working on a remote machine, I'm generally doing things that I'd be less concerned about. If I'm on a VPN and it rm -rf / while I'm trying to clean it up; bad break, but it's not _my machine_ it just removed root on.
So if your LLM is just running something like `ssh <remote> "<cmd>"` it could easily foget the ssh <remote> part and suddenly you're modifying your local system.
So it's one thing to YOLO on production servers, etc, but wiping out something locally is a significantly different event. Imagine it erasing all your scripts or whatever.
Anyway, the point is: I wouldn't trust an agent operating with just a bash cli running ssh commands.
I mean… Claude Code desktop will SSH into anything and start coding for ya. Which could sound horrifying but if you setup an isolated system for that specifically its not that horrifying.
That was exactly my question; why fork? I assumed the project owners were preserving their business model, but if you allow it to be opened-up and turn off the cloud features, I see no reason to fork.
Makes plenty of sense to upstream this (possibly makes more more than forking, although I suppose it's one way of gauging interest and implementation complexity).
Let me tell you a disturbing fact. The open source warp does not even have prompts. It is completely cloud-based, including the calling process of various tools in oz cloud. So I think it is better to change than to wait.
Despite the newish "AI" branding for what I would presume is marketing buzz reasons, most of Warp is really centered around trying to make a terminal interface not anchored to legacy assumptions, like the blocks functionality (https://docs.warp.dev/terminal/blocks).
This page doesn't tell me anything useful about what this feature does or how it works. The attached screenshot is pointless. I assume the actual information is in the embedded Youtube video. YouTube is not an acceptable alternative to written documentation
argh, sorry that we made it worse for you, that definitely was not the intention. we were trying to make the modes clearer.
You can still basically get back to the same way of working if you set new terminal sessions to be "agent sessions" and enable natural language detection. that's how i use it.
We hear this feedback a bunch and are trying to make Warp more customizable so you can pick and choose which of the extra, non-terminal features you find most useful . You can turn off all the AI if you want, and also control what editing features are surfaced (e.g. file tree, diff view, etc). Would love feedback on how to improve the experience.
In all honesty, the people who want to turn off AI won't be downloading Warp in the first place. I know Warp has interesting terminal innovations because I've been familiar with it since before the AI boom, but new users can't really tell.
Homepage header is "Warp is the agentic development environment", only screenshot on the homepage shows what appears to be a product similar to cursor/antigravity/etc AI IDE. Fair if that's your product direction but there's nothing there that tells new users about your terminal UX improvements. Honestly even if I was in the market for a new AI tool, there's nothing on your website that really tells me why I should pick Warp over any of the many competitors.
Fwiw I think Warp is quite cool, I just mean this as hopefully useful feedback from a new customer perspective.
I agree, it seems like disabling them is quite easy. I'm more speaking to the new user perspective. From looking at their site I would have no clue that that product even had features aside from AI. I would never have a chance to find out I can disable the AI features.
> trying to make Warp more customizable so you can pick and choose which of the extra, non-terminal features
I think this will contribute even more to the overwhelming feeling. I don't think people want endless configuration. They want something with an opinionated product direction. It seems like Warp lacks that resolve and is trying to be too much because nobody has decided what it is actually supposed to be.
I believe you, though this last time when I installed, the first impression was a giant popup to upsell the Oz agents and all the AI stuff, clicking through it was really difficult, and after that was done I was sort of lost.
I think you need a proper gate before you land so that you have different funnels for onboarding rather than a single journey that assumes all users are the same if you really want to try and have a larger market share.
Then, if you want to upsell stuff to these users, let them opt-in, wait for them to become more sticky, give them some incentive, and that's it.
Alternatively, abandon this direction completely, may not be worth your strategy and priorities as a business.
Since your company is basically based on this agentic coding thing, i really don't see why anybody would run Warp without AI. Why not use a normal terminal then? Oh yeah, to waste space on disk and to use more RAM: we have plenty
They have interesting features, their initial release had snippets, team sharing, time-saver stuff with a nice UX. Same reason one might use Raycast. I was a paying customer for that release, but when they pivoted I cancelled.
we have a lot of users who like warp as a place to run other coding agents (e.g. claude code, codex) and have tried to improve the experience for those beyond what a typical terminal offers (e.g. code review, file tree)
In terms of monetization, we actually don't monetize the terminal at all, we monetize our agent and our orchestration platform (www.oz.dev). Totally happy for you to use Claude or Codex CLI within Warp as your main driver.
Have you given any thought to a webui, and a "warp" server I can install on a VPS and interact with it via the webui? I believe this paradigm/approach is the real future.
But the tl;dr is that I actually think we can build a better product, more quickly if we build it with our community + agents. I also think it's a unique product that I hope developers get a bunch of value from being able to customize and help improve. Our business is now mostly around agents and orchestration through Oz (https://oz.dev), so opening up the client and terminal felt natural.
The big thing for the "why now" though was the agent management piece.
Wrt the github stars, we had an issues-only repo prior and already had a significant number of stars before OSS today.
Warp founder here. Totally understood on the feedback - one thing I would call out is that we actually worked with Alacritty on the initial implementation and they were super helpful and we are grateful for their support.
I sort of can't tell if this is supposed to be a joke or not. It seems like you're explaining that in addition to not supporting the project from which your company spawned 50M, they also supplied free work for which they were never compensated. That's supposed to be better or something?
There's an interview that got scrubbed from the internet with Zach on the 20VC podcast with Harry Stebbings. This comment and its lack of self-awareness exemplify what was on display for 60 minutes.
Zach is undoubtedly smart but for anyone who is not an SV insider, they would listen to that podcast they same way you are looking at this comment and wonder if it's all one big joke.
The charitable read is that the original project team willingly worked with Warp, knowing the direction they were going. I don't know any background on the drama FWIW.
that's the correct read - we shared what we were building and they helped us integrate alacritty. it's similar to how mitchell h reached out and asked today if we wanted to integrate ghostty.
we have a lot of open source library dependencies and are grateful to the folks who worked on them
I thought the negative sentiment being shared here was hyperbolic, but you look absolutely ridiculous in these comments.
"Actually, we are sure people who were critical to our success are happy they received nothing in return for their labor." <- This is you. This is what you sound like.
> "Actually, we are sure people who were critical to our success are happy they received nothing in return for their labor." <- This is you. This is what you sound like.
Have you ever contributed to open source?
Not everyone is doing it out of the expectation of a paycheck. For all the open source code I've worked on, my goal has unironically been for those using it to achieve whatever positive end they were trying to use my software for, and that's it.
The one time I did go further and agree to do some one-off changes for money it actually caused me a hassle that year as I had to account for it under the right tax treatment, I was nearly outside the "hobby" exception you can get.
You're in the minority.
Just about every open source project that I use has a "Donate/Contribute" link somewhere on their website/Github, and I see articles constantly about projects being shut down or archived because the developer couldn't afford the time investment anymore due to lack of income. I keep a list of open source software I use so I can donate every couple of years to pay them for their work, and I've run into maybe 2-5 projects out of the dozens of donations I've done over the years that either don't have a donate option or just tell you to donate to a charity instead (eg. Unlock Origin)
> You're in the minority. Just about every open source project that I use has a "Donate/Contribute" link somewhere on their website/Github
I just checked and I didn't see a Donate/Contribute link for Alacritty.
Is there something I'm missing? Or do we have an entire thread full of people bashing on Warp for doing something Alacritty themselves do not wish to solicit?
As you point out yourself, it's not hard to throw up a Donate link if you're that kind of open source developer.
I think a conversation about the ethics and morals of forked software hitting it big, and how/how much they should give back to their upstream, is a good one to have, if the tone wasn't so personal and aggressive.
I have no skin in the game for either side of this, but I looked pretty hard at his comment history and couldn't find anything even remotely sounding like that. All he does is express gratitude for the projects they collaborated with. Alacritty folks themselves are saying as much here.
There's some undercurrent of something that seems to be driving a lot of the rage in the comments here. Anti-AI/OpenAI/"VC money"/"the rich"?
So if I use vim or emacs for free, or VS Code for that matter, I have to hunt down the maintainers and pay them? Do I need to empty my wallet for every project I use for free? Because that's not sustainable for normal people, let alone businesses.
If you use them for free to spawn a 50M business, yeah, give back a little. Nobody's saying every user should open their wallet, let alone "empty" it as you hyperbolate.
I don't have particularly strong preference for copyleft (I use the Apache license for my personal projects), but these don't seem like particularly compelling arguments.
> So if I use vim or emacs for free, or VS Code for that matter
Vim and emacs both use licenses that require you to share any source code modifications if you distribute binaries that you change, so that's kind of a strange comparison. You literally couldn't do the things that Warp did with Alacritty. As for VS Code, it seems pretty disingenuous to compare a single solo developer to a multi-trillion dollar company.
> I have to hunt down the maintainers and pay them?
I don't understand why you think it would be hard to "hunt down" someone when an email is literally in every commit in the git history of open source software.
> Do I need to empty my wallet for every project I use for free? Because that's not sustainable for normal people
Most "normal people" do not have access to $50 million of VC money
> let alone businesses
Paying the developer of the one piece of software that they forked for the entire basis of their business $100,000 of the VC money would not meaningfully have hurt their ability to succeed. They could have just as easily reached the same level of success they have now with $49.9 million.
> I don't understand why you think it would be hard to "hunt down" someone when an email is literally in every commit in the git history of open source software.
I use Arch Linux, tell me which of the thousands of packages am I obligated to donate to? Im not exactly a money fountain to be giving money away to strangers I am grateful for, but it I put something on the internet as open source, for free, I dont cry if nobody reaches out to give me money. Honestly, I rather just be informed that my project is being used to make someone a profitable business, thats good enough for me personally. If I thought different, I wouldnt open source said projects.
> I use Arch Linux, tell me which of the thousands of packages am I obligated to donate to? Im not exactly a money fountain to be giving money away to strangers I am grateful for, but it I put something on the internet as open source, for free, I dont cry if nobody reaches out to give me money.
If you read past that part of the comment to pick out the one thing you had a rebuttal for out of context, you might have noticed the parts about having $50 million dollars of VC money.
> Honestly, I rather just be informed that my project is being used to make someone a profitable business, thats good enough for me personally. If I thought different, I wouldnt open source said projects.
That's a totally valid take. It's also totally valid to think that a company that takes all that money to release a product that doesn't offer that much more than the original is a waste of resources that could be at least somewhat useful by giving 1/500th of it to the person who did almost all of the work they took.
If you're actually asking the question, I'll give you my answer: I was lucky enough to go to a nice spa resort earlier this year, I just handed a few bills to an attendant who had laid out a towel for me when an older man sitting next to me chuckled and shook his head saying "You don't actually have to give them them anything, they have to do it anyway." Super nice resort, nobody here hurting for a few dollars in tips.
I guess it's valid to take everything you legally can, but personally, I'm saying it's fucked up move not to pay even a token amount. That's their only consequence, (some) people thinking it's a fucked up move.
People are upset they raised 50 million, how many employees? How long does that keep their lights on? Maybe if they were raking in hundreds of millions I would be inclined to be outraged but if I make a startup tomorrow I cant just donate my VC bucks to every open source project I like until I have some real income coming in or my investors will want my head.
You once again drag things in a wildly hyperbolic direction. Nobody's talking about throwing money around wildly at unrelated projects. When there is a single project that sits at your very heart, without which your entire startup is a nonstarter, yes, donate.
Not saying its not, I guess the core of my argument is that people are outraged that these guys raised 50 million… how much of that is going to employees and infrastructure? Is the owner sitting on 50 million in his personal bank account? Because the outrage feels very premature, not to mention they just open sourced the project when they really did not need to under any obligation. Far as I can tell they also did a lot of custom work on top of Alacritty, so its not 100% Alacritty.
I mean, if they have a working relationship with each other then I guess the alacritty folks don't hate their guts. That's meaningful from my perspective.
Also remember that the $50m is not revenue that they can use however they want. They have an obligation to their investors to make money with it.
> They have an obligation to their investors to make money with it.
It's bit more nuanced. The company management have fiducial responsibilities to the investors but also have responsibility to the company itself and its employees. E.g. Milton Friedman's shared-holder primacy is a crap philosophy and one of the most damaging ones to actual healthy free market economies. For example, in corporate bankruptcy in the US workers get paid before shareholders.
The courts have also tended to favor the company management as long as they're acting reasonably, so I've read. IANAL, but it shouldn't be too hard to say hey this support contract for a core piece of software reduces risk for us by X, Y or helps get Z feature.
I feel obligated to chime in here a bit. I was the Alacritty member who was contacted and who offered some feedback.
I have absolutely no hard feelings.
Would it have been a good idea to charge them for my time, IDK. I was in between a research role and a new job at the time and more than happy to help. Do I feel like I missed out on something, maybe a little bit, but that's more on me than them. I'm sure if I had angled for a position working for or with them, they would have considered it seriously.
Would it be nice to have more support for Alacritty, perhaps. But there are a lot of conflicting opinions on what to work on and what features are good for the project, so it's not as simple as just adding money and people. I was always hoping alacritty could be a minimal library others could use, and I'm glad it has turned out that way.
thanks for the support here. we are very grateful for the help you all provided initially, and if you are interested in sponsorship for the repo, we are also happy to provide some. alacritty is awesome
This isn't feedback. This is saying your company and your leadership are absolutely toxic to the tech community if this is how you treat people that made you wealthy.
you shouldn’t be surprised though. most people in tech only care about money and you already know if you align yourself with Altman, your morals already aren’t in the right place.
This should be banned on this platform. If you are against Altman or his values or morals, that is fine, but calling others who do feel aligned with him immoral… well that kind of hate leads to attempts on Altman’s life of which we have already seen one. You better stop with this behaviour before you encourage others to do actions that you will regret
You don't understand why people are upset at an individual that is proudly proclaiming that 100s of millions of Americans will become unemployed and there is nothing to do be done about it? In a country where being unemployed is a literal death sentence?
What kind of responses do you expect in return? I'm sorry but everyone in his orbit needs to be publicly shamed as well. These people are ghouls and we're seeing them create the next generation of ghouls in real time.
lol you’re a moron. Altman actively promotes neofeudalist ideas and has shown time and again he does not care about safety or human wellbeing. Sociopathic narcissists like him will be the downfall of our species.
> we got rid of this requirement a couple of years ago.
Do you regret having this requirement in the first place?
Personal feedback: I live in a terminal 24x7 for the last 30+ years and once Warp came out I wanted to try it out immediately, but I was impressed by the requirement. So I never had a chance to try it out.
reply