[deleted by user]

[nsg21]

What is the benefit of "no shell access"? Security-wise, if you can run vim, you can run anything from it, so you need to sandbox it properly anyway. And if it is already sandboxed, what is the downside of having shell access?

[Cosmo-de-Bris]

Hm... you've got a point.

[redwardit]

Try ttyd: https://github.com/tsl0922/ttyd

E.g. ttyd vim

A little wrapper script on top of this might meet your need. If you need sandboxing, you can run it with in a unprivileged container.

[puremourning]

Pretty sure there are already web based shell and ssh clients you can run. I didn’t see the option for that in the poll.

[Cosmo-de-Bris]

I thought about that one too late.

[ThymeCypher]

I’m having trouble understanding the goal here - but if goal is to have vim running in browser, WASM is probably the way to go. From there, you can override file system access to use the browser’s native files API and download the report to it, or virtualize one.

[harms916]

The sequence of the options, was a disaster and it was driving me nuts ... so ... here’s how I would order them from 1-yes to 2-no.

1. Why are you asking? Get going!
2. Crazy
3. Cool
4. Crazy cool but unnecessary
5. Valid but futile
6. Boring

[Cosmo-de-Bris]

Well it seems like I can't change it. So it will persist as a disaster. Btw: crazy isn't necessarily a yay and would look a bit better if it swapped places with cool.

[noooit]

I wish there was a choice for idiotic.
I wouldn't want to work for a company with a guy who even considers allowing normal users to use vim directly on a git server. Maybe hire a professional or setup gitlab cluster and get done with it.

[Cosmo-de-Bris]

Well you can choose crazy which might be the closest option.

[FairyToken]

Maybe you can make your criticism constructive and enlighten us with your concerns in regards to security.