While learning about and configuring weechat this evening, I noticed a lot of complexity and unsatisfying tradeoffs related to its UI, its mouse support, and its built-in window system. Got to wondering what I'd do differently, if I wrote my own IRC client, to avoid those problems.

The first thing I realized is, it is not a good idea to think about writing your own IRC client. Danger will robinson..

So, let's generalize. This blog post is not about designing an IRC client, but about exploring simpler ways that something like an IRC client might handle its UI, and perhaps designing something general-purpose that could be used by someone else to build an IRC client, or be mashed up with an existing IRC client.

What any modern IRC client needs to do is display various channels to the user. Maybe more than one channel should be visible at a time in some kind of window, but often the user will have lots of available channel and only want to see a few of them at a time. So there needs to be an interface for picking which channel(s) to display, and if multiple windows are shown, for arranging the windows. Often that interface also indicates when there is activity on a channel. The most recent messages from the channel are displayed. There should be a way to scroll back to see messages that have already scrolled by. There needs to be an interface for sending a message to a channel. Finally, a list of users in the channel is often desired.

Modern IRC clients implement their own UI for channel display, windowing, channel selection, activity notification, scrollback, message entry, and user list. Even the IRC clients that run in a terminal include all of that. But how much of that do they need to implement, really?

Suppose the user has a tabbed window manager, that can display virtual terminals. The terminals can set their title, and can indicate when there is activity in the terminal. Then an IRC client could just open a bunch of terminals, one per channel. Let the window manager handle channel selection, windowing (naturally), and activity notification.

For scrollback, the IRC client can use the terminal's own scrollback buffer, so the terminal's regular scrollback interface can be used. This is slightly tricky; can't use the terminal's alternate display, and have to handle the UI for the message entry line at the bottom.

That's all the UI an IRC client needs (except for the user list), and most of that is already implemented in the window manager and virtual terminal. So that's an elegant way to make an IRC client without building much new UI at all.

But, unfortunately, most of us don't use tabbed window managers (or tabbed terminals). Such an IRC client, in a non-tabbed window manager, would be a many-windowed mess. Even in a tabbed window manager, it might be annoying to have so many windows for one program.

So we need fewer windows. Let's have one channel list window, and one channel display window. There could also be a user list window. And there could be a way to open additional, dedicated display windows for channels, but that's optional. All of these windows can be seperate virtual terminals.

A potential problem: When changing the displayed channel, it needs to output a significant number of messages for that channel, so that the scrollback buffer gets populated. With a large number of lines, that can be too slow to feel snappy. In some tests, scrolling 10 thousand lines was noticiably slow, but scrolling 1 thousand lines happens fast enough not to be noticiable.

(Terminals should really be faster at scrolling than this, but they're still writing scrollback to unlinked temp files.. sigh!)

An IRC client that uses multiple cooperating virtual terminals, needs a way to start up a new virtual terminal displaying the current channel. It could run something like this:

x-terminal-emulator -e the-irc-client --display-current-channel

That would communicate with the main process via a unix socket to find out what to display.

Or, more generally:

x-terminal-emulator -e connect-pty /dev/pts/9

connect-pty would simply connect a pty device to the terminal, relaying IO between them. The calling program would allocate the pty and do IO to it. This may be too general to be optimal though. For one thing, I think that most curses libraries have a singleton terminal baked into them, so it might be hard to have a single process control cursors on multiple pty's. And, it might be innefficient to feed that 1 thousand lines of scrollback through the pty and copy it to the terminal.

Less general than that, but still general enough to not involve writing an IRC client, would be a library that handled the irc-client-like channel display, with messages scrolling up the terminal (and into the scrollback buffer), a input area at the bottom, and perhaps a few other fixed regions for status bars and etc.

Oh, I already implemented that! In concurrent-output, over a year ago: a tiling region manager for the console

I wonder what other terminal applications could be simplified/improved by using multiple terminals? One that comes to mind is mutt, which has a folder list, a folder view, and an email view, that all are shoehorned, with some complexity, into a single terminal.

In one of the good parts of the very mixed bag that is "Lo and Behold: Reveries of the Connected World", Werner Herzog asks his interviewees what the Internet might dream of, if it could dream.

The best answer he gets is along the lines of: The Internet of before dreamed a dream of the World Wide Web. It dreamed some nodes were servers, and some were clients. And that dream became current reality, because that's the essence of the Internet.

Three years ago, it seemed like perhaps another dream was developing post-Snowden, of dissolving the distinction between clients and servers, connecting peer-to-peer using addresses that are also cryptographic public keys, so authentication and encryption and authorization are built in.

Telehash is one hopeful attempt at this, others include snow, cjdns, i2p, etc. So far, none of them seem to have developed into a widely used network, although any of them still might get there. There are a lot of technical challenges due to the current Internet dream/nightmare, where the peers on the edges have multiple barriers to connecting to other peers.

But, one project has developed something similar to the new dream, almost as a side effect of its main goals: Tor's onion services.

I'd wanted to use such a thing in git-annex, for peer-to-peer sharing and syncing of git-annex repositories. On November 13th, I started building it, using Tor, and I'm releasing it concurrently with this blog post.

Now git-annex can serve a repository as a Tor onion service, and that can then be accessed as a git remote, using an url like tor-annex::tungqmfb62z3qirc.onion:42913. All the regular git, and git-annex commands, can be used with such a remote.

Tor has a lot of goals for protecting anonymity and privacy. But the important things for this project are just that it has end-to-end encryption, with addresses that are public keys, and allows P2P connections. Building an anonymous file exchange on top of Tor is not my goal -- if you want that, you probably don't want to be exchanging git histories that record every edit to the file and expose your real name by default.

Building this was not without its difficulties. Tor onion services were originally intended to run hidden websites, not to connect peers to peers, and this kind of shows..

Tor does not cater to end users setting up lots of Onion services. Either root has to edit the torrc file, or the Tor control port can be used to ask it to set one up. But, the control port is not enabled by default, so you still need to su to root to enable it. Also, it's difficult to find a place to put the hidden service's unix socket file that's writable by a non-root user. So I had to code around this, with a git annex enable-tor that su's to root and sets it all up for you.

When two peers are connected over Tor, one knows it's talking to the owner of a particular onion address, but the other peer knows nothing about who's talking to it, by design. This makes authentication harder than it would be in a P2P system with a design like Telehash. So git-annex does its own authentication on top of Tor.

With authentication, users would need to exchange absurdly long addresses (over 150 characters) to connect their repositories. One very convenient thing about using XMPP was that a user would have connections to their friend's accounts, so it was easy to share with them. Exchanging long addresses is too hard.

This is where Magic Wormhole saved the day. It's a very elegant way to get any two peers in touch with each other, and the users only have to exchange a short code phrase, like "2-mango-delight", which can only be used once. Magic Wormhole makes some security tradeoffs for this simplicity. It's got vulnerabilities to DOS attacks, and its MITM resistance could be improved. But I'm lucky it came along just in time.

So, it takes only installing Tor and Magic Wormhole, running two git-annex commands, and exchanging short code phrases with a friend, perhaps over the phone or in an encrypted email, to get your git-annex repositories connected and syncing over Tor. See the documentation for details. Also, the git-annex webapp allows setting the same thing up point-and-click style.

The Tor project blog has throughout December been featuring all kinds of projects that are using Tor. Consider this a late bonus addition to that. ;)

I hope that Tor onion services will continue to develop to make them easier to use for peer-to-peer systems. We can still dream a better Internet.

This work was made possible by all my supporters on Patreon.