A native graphical shell for SSH

I like the idea of separating the frontend and backend of a graphical app. But I feel like this is hardly a novel idea, maybe I'm missing something.

I take it you don't know about "X11Forwarding yes" or "html5 web app"

  For browsers, capabilities like connecting to Unix sockets have been dismissed as extremely niche

That is a security concern, that's why it isn't implemented. At least raw unix socks. You can have WebSockets and other ports only limited to http.

Lovely writeup! I'll bookmark this for my own research.

My terminal's "clickity clackity" features [0] are local to the machine so I lose graphical-ness as soon as we remote in somewhere.

That's starting to change a bit with offline replay [1] where the native GUI and TUI work in tandem to unlock some rewind. But there's quite a road ahead and I love seeing others experiment properly. (Terminals are massively underserved.)

[0] https://terminal.click

[1] https://terminal.click/posts/2026/06/tui-stability/#:~:text=...

i'm trying to understand how outer shell works here. on the website you give the following as your motivation:

> Apps like Jupyter and Tensorboard are not typically visible to standard web browsers if they’re running on remote servers, because it would be terribly unsafe to let the whole internet touch this app. Instead, they run on a local port on the server, which your computer can’t access directly.

> Classically, to get access to these, you had to open a new terminal and run:

> ssh -L 24601:localhost:8889 mrcslws@lambda4.mycompany.com &

> ssh -L 24602:localhost:6006 mrcslws@lambda4.mycompany.com &

is this true? isn't the normal thing just to do this ssh forwarding for prototyping, then for deployment, you set up a website like myjupyternotebook.com, and then set up auth so that others can't access it. HTTP basic auth is not too much work.

if you want SSH, not HTTP, to be what's publicly exposed, there's other options too, like putting it behind a VPN or tunnel.

all this to say, outer loop is super cool, but I don't get it. I must be missing something about why you built it, so could you help me understand?

Being able to initiate a shell app from a regular remote ssh CLI prompt (like "ApacheConfig myhost.com" or "Editor ~/myrepo") might improve integration with people's existing CLI workflows.

It does need an agent that starts with every X or Wayland session and waits for requests from remote SSH sessions to start an app.

I don't really know what outerframe frame is. I tried to understand from the video and the blog but I'm still not sure what it is. Is it like a web browser but instead of DOM, HTML and JS you have Swift and SwiftUI running in a sandbox?

If so how would that work on non Apple devices? Also how much will that sandbox protect you?

I’m good with just tailscale and self-hosted web-apps. Seems the main selling point is either native UX or reduced barriers to entry security-wise. I like barriers to entry.

I wrote an early version of the Cylance AV desktop client. The UI side was a web app that talked to its windows service backend using HTTP over windows pipes. This was surprisingly easy to do using WCF.

Just had a quick look but I like the look so far. I’ve been thinking along similar lines for ages but never quite got around to making something. I very much support any effort to make remoting less dependent on the archaic character grid.

One of the more interesting pieces of Microsoft software is the Windows Admin Center where it's a web app to configure a Windows Server. Ideally, it was made for core installs where there's no GUI but it's there as a viable web management panel.

The tool from OP and WAC are pretty similar in terms of functionality and usecase. Why would you want this? Well, imagine your team needing to be able to do server functions but you have less technical team members to do it for you, which is very often the case in big places, most people are familiar with the web browser and having a website to do these sorts of actions makes it easier to have things done in one place without a lot of tools like Remote Desktop, SSH, WinRM, etc. configured.

Lovely video and ingenious implementation. Kudos!

As someone managing various servers, both at home and at work, I see how this can be really useful. I see it not in the production space yet but rather in the experimenting, using a Linux machine as a second compute device!

So regarding your last point, I'm convinced. I think it is useful! The one fact that is bugging me is that now it requires a client specific app, with GUI, on my PC and I wonder if using ssh port forwarding could reduce the surface. I mean I wonder if either having a rich client that executes commands via ssh or a rich server (including Web Server) with ssh port wouldn't suffice, so that I can avoid installing stuff on the server AND on my computer.

I thought this looks interesting, but was a little confused with what appears to be MacOS-only support at https://outerloop.sh/? I'm running Ubuntu 24.04, I kind of assumed from context that it'd be something I could spin up in a few minutes just to give it a go?

I can’t make up my mind if I love it or hate it. On one hand this is like SSHapi on the other there’s no structure, no contract… i had similar doubts with Cockpit.

That's interesting idea. If we put into CLI with some ANSI escape code, that may become something real. Imagine a normal terminal app just render part of the UI in web and communicating in UNIX socket. While doing the fancy UI, everything is still controllable with keyboard, and optionally with mouse. The UI will fallback to text UI for older terminal

I'm confused -- does this compile it live when the server ships code? How do we resolve dependencies, toolset etc.. Is the idea to just pick an old enough platform toolchain you expect to be present?

This is cool. Though I don't see why someone would want to do more work/design for the custom GUI rendering for a custom/renderer (your viewer app) ?

Interesting, kind of like a more fancy web shell. Haven't really ever seen the need for those, mostly because terminals work better than browsers.

I prefer hytelnet and MUDs but I don’t count, I’m just too old.

I am not sure I'd use this over exposing websites with wireguard as those will automatically work across platforms. But it looks like you could create some really cool experiences with it, and I'm happy people are exploring this space.

Defeats the purpose of the shell. The shell is for CLI interaction.

> every app is a small HTTP server

This adds unnecessary overhead for communication. using web and web-like approaches on desktop system is a terrible idea.

> Isn’t it weird that this doesn’t already exist?

It does. MobaXterm have a bunch of it already, file manager on the side and ability to pass X11

Edit: withdrawing this objection, had no idea that right-clicking allowed the speed to be adjusted.

Heresy!