what are the differences between domux and herdr ?

I honestly haven't used herdr off a lot myself, but the main thing that jumped out was organising projects. With domux projects can have workspaces which are git worktrees that domux manages, and you can run agents inside them. That helps me see at a glace what workspaces I have in flight, and the work each agent is doing inside them. The navigation is different as well — with cmd+k like experience to rapidly switch between agents.

As a counterpoint, I use herdr in WSL/windows and has never crashed for me.

herdr (supercharged tmux) has also mouse keybindings. So instead of remembering how to split a pane, you just right click with the mouse and choose "split" from the popup menu

This is essentially an ad for crystl.

I haven't check the whole list of features, but I believe herdr can do all the things described in the article (including what tmux offers)

> If you aren't familiar with tmux(or GNU screen), you owe it to yourself to become familiar

Or just jump straight into herdr which offers a superset of what tmux offers.

Not sure why my other reply was flagged, I think it's objectively correct. Different tools for different purposes, and all that. Not unlike emacs vs vi(m), actually. (With vi/vim being more minimal, but also more often preinstalled or available OOTB versus emacs)

And of Herdr, tmux, vim, and emacs, I still use all 4 regularly :)

> The great thing about Ubiquiti APs for me is that each new WiFi generation (or two) I can just buy a few more, snap the existing APs off of the various ceilings they're attached to, snap on the new ones, adopt them, and away we go

Why is this exclusive to Ubiquiti? Can't you do it with any other company that has managed APs?

Yes, but Ubiquiti did a good job of advertising these features and making them available to the “prosumer” segment. With most other brands you have to go through enterprise sales, a distributor, or find them second–hand. Cisco might make the best APs ever, but good luck using them in your home.

I have a TPlink omada system that works exactly the same. Managed controller and APs that get adopted.

I bought them brand new from shops. No distributor, no enterprise sales.

I believe Aruba works in a similar way

They release new models and completely abandon the old ones. You are happy now. Have you asked owners of Flint 1 (or other older models), how they feel now?

Is it better/different than https://tailscale.com/docs/features/taildrop ?

Taildrop looks good, I didn't know about it.

But it's more for when you already use Tailscale, which relies on a central server and someone who "owns" that network.

In Flipflop you don't need anything besides the app, and each two peers form a "network" of their own, with no owner and no management.

> which relies on a central server and someone who "owns" that network

Tailscale connections are peer-to-peer. They only own the coordination server, which you can ignore and host your own.

Yes, but someone, a user with an account on Tailscale, is the manager of that network and can decide what devices can get in, etc.

For some cases that is good, but Flipflop is addressing a slightly different use case.

The Readme literally says "Use it to share stuff between all your devices".

I would argue that Tailnet is a good match for this.

Maybe expand the readme to cover other use cases interesting to existing Tailscale users?

Yes but TailScale specifies "your devices" as "devices registered to a TS account" whereas FlipFlop specifies "your devices" to mean "your devices."

Better, who knows. Seems different in that Flipflop uses P2P connections directly to the peer, alternatively via other available peers (and initial connection might use central signaling server), while taildrop seems to depend on a tailnet, which is typically hosted by Tailscale (unless you run that yourself).

I guess it's a bit like comparing WeTransfer with Airdrop, one tries to use the network they're on already (internet) where the other favors local-local connections.

> which is typically hosted by Tailscale

Tailscale hosts relay servers as a fallback. Connections are peer-to-peer between devices.

I think it always does the initial connection via the DERP relays, doesn't it? Even if a direct initial connection in theory is possible (no NATs or anything else in the way), the connection itself is always established via the relays, then "upgraded" to a local connection. But maybe they've changed this since I looked at it?

Beyond that, even with a local connection established, all the coordination traffic will still go via the tailnet, those don't suddenly become local-first. But this might also have changed.

What I'm sure is still there today, is that all Tailscale clients automatically upload their logs to Tailscale's servers unless you opt out:

> Each Tailscale agent in your distributed network streams its logs to a central log server (at log.tailscale.com). This includes real-time events for open and close events for every inter-machine connection (TCP or UDP) on your network. - https://tailscale.com/docs/features/logging

Of course, doesn't stop a local connection from working so is only tangentially related, but worth keeping in mind that a "local tailscale connection" still has a lot of external traffic related to it, even though the data you transfer, when possible, uses more local connections.

It is two completely different things

1. The co-ordination server for the initial handoff. You can self-host if you want

2. Derp relays (for actual traffic). you can also self-host (peer relays)

Actually if self-hosting is that important to you, there are also newer solutions like netbird and netmaker that might worth a look.

> It is two completely different things

Yes, as I noted, those differences wouldn't stop you from sending data locally. But since parent originally requested how they're different (without stating what exactly is important for them), I figured it is important at least to note what actually is the difference between taildrop and Flipflop.

It'd seem then if you wanted "local-first P2P transfer", with taildrop you'd need ~3 separate services running, unless I misunderstand you? Flipflop seems to do all those things in one package, although again, signaling (for NAT punching) is still via a central server.

yes you understand correctly. The assumption is that you already have Tailscale for remote access and you get taildrop "for free". Installing tailscale just to get file sharing doesn't make sense if FlipFlop already does it and that is the only thing you need.

Tailscale is super popular with people that have a homelab or nas/cameras/photos etc, and they have already solved the NAT problem (which iroh itself markets).

tailscale does P2P too, it only fails back relays to when it cannot do P2P.

It is better in one way: Taildrop supports iOS.

I agree with this

iroh is different and more than just a vpn, where you use a bunch of tools together, you can do it all in iroh with one identity, the tunnel, the file transfer, the ssh access, and others. Look at tunnet for example https://github.com/tunnetio/Tunnet to get a better idea.

While I understand where you are coming from, I think some of those are subjective.

I personally prefer articles that link to other(better) sources for definining concepts instead of trying to explain everything.

So several times I read articles like a stack, starging with A, then in the middle going to B and after finishing B going back to A. It doesn't bother me at all. It actually says to me that the author understands they cannot be experts on everything and recognize other articles.

I also enjoy articles with reveal their twist late if they are not super long.

On my personal blog I am actually writing both styles (just explain right away, or build up to something that will become clear later in the article)

Then the better option would be to quote a paragraph for the impatient reader and provide a link to the source for further reading.

I don't see context size improving.

It was mostly 256k, then it went to 1M and now it has stalled there.