Pros of GoTTY

• Written in Go, which may be more familiar to some developers
• Simpler codebase, potentially easier to understand and modify
• Supports custom command execution with arguments

Cons of GoTTY

• Less actively maintained (last commit over 2 years ago)
• Fewer features compared to ttyd (e.g., no multi-user support)
• Limited configuration options

Code Comparison

GoTTY:

func main() {
    app := cli.NewApp()
    app.Name = "gotty"
    app.Version = Version
    app.Usage = "Share your terminal as a web application"
    // ...
}

ttyd:

int main(int argc, char **argv) {
    int opt;
    char *port = "7681";
    char *interface = NULL;
    char *credential = NULL;
    // ...
}

Both projects aim to share terminal sessions via web browsers, but ttyd offers more features and active development. GoTTY's simplicity may appeal to some users, while ttyd's broader functionality and ongoing support make it more suitable for complex use cases. The code snippets show different programming languages and approaches, with GoTTY using a CLI framework and ttyd implementing a more traditional C-style main function.

Pros of Zellij

• Built-in multiplexer functionality, allowing multiple panes and tabs within a single terminal window
• Rust-based, offering better performance and memory safety
• More feature-rich with plugins and customizable layouts

Cons of Zellij

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex functionality
• Requires local installation, not as easily accessible via web browsers

Code Comparison

Zellij (Rust):

use zellij_tile::prelude::*;

#[derive(Default)]
struct State;

register_plugin!(State);

impl ZellijPlugin for State {
    fn update(&mut self, event: Event) -> bool {
        // Handle events
    }
}

TTYD (C):

#include <libwebsockets.h>

int main(int argc, char **argv) {
    struct lws_context_creation_info info;
    memset(&info, 0, sizeof(info));
    // Configure and start the server
}

Summary

Zellij is a feature-rich terminal multiplexer with a focus on customization and performance, while TTYD is a simpler solution for sharing terminal sessions over the web. Zellij offers more advanced functionality but requires local installation, whereas TTYD provides easier web access but with fewer features.

Pros of Teleport

• More comprehensive security features, including role-based access control and multi-factor authentication
• Supports multiple protocols (SSH, HTTPS, RDP) and can be used for various infrastructure components
• Offers advanced auditing and session recording capabilities

Cons of Teleport

• More complex setup and configuration compared to ttyd's simplicity
• Requires more resources to run and maintain
• May be overkill for simple web-based terminal access needs

Code Comparison

ttyd:

int main(int argc, char **argv) {
    struct lws_context_creation_info info;
    memset(&info, 0, sizeof(info));
    info.port = 7681;
    info.iface = NULL;
    info.protocols = protocols;
}

Teleport:

func main() {
    app := utils.InitCLIParser("teleport", "SSH infrastructure management")
    commands := []cli.Command{
        Start,
        Configure,
        Status,
    }
    app.Commands = commands
}

Summary

While ttyd focuses on providing a simple web-based terminal, Teleport offers a more comprehensive solution for secure infrastructure access. ttyd is lightweight and easy to set up, making it suitable for basic terminal sharing needs. Teleport, on the other hand, provides enterprise-grade security features and supports multiple protocols, but comes with increased complexity and resource requirements.

Pros of rtty

• Designed specifically for embedded systems and IoT devices
• Supports SSL/TLS encryption for secure connections
• Includes a built-in file transfer feature

Cons of rtty

• Less active development and smaller community compared to ttyd
• Limited platform support, primarily focused on OpenWrt
• Fewer customization options and features for non-embedded use cases

Code Comparison

rtty (client-side connection):

struct rtty *rtty = rtty_new(host, port, token, description);
if (rtty) {
    rtty_connect(rtty);
    rtty_run(rtty);
    rtty_free(rtty);
}

ttyd (server-side setup):

server = libwebsocket_create_context(&info);
if (server == NULL) {
    lwsl_err("libwebsocket init failed\n");
    return 1;
}
libwebsocket_service(server, 50);

Both projects aim to provide web-based terminal access, but they have different focuses. rtty is tailored for embedded systems and IoT devices, offering features like SSL/TLS encryption and file transfer. However, it has a smaller community and limited platform support compared to ttyd.

ttyd, on the other hand, is more versatile and supports a wider range of platforms. It has a larger community and more active development, making it suitable for various use cases beyond embedded systems. ttyd also offers more customization options and features for general-purpose terminal sharing.

The code comparison shows that rtty uses a client-side approach, while ttyd sets up a server-side WebSocket connection. This reflects their different design philosophies and target use cases.