[GH-ISSUE #824] Multi-way keyboard and mouse sharing as opposed to server/client #652

New issue

Open

opened 2026-05-05 06:51:05 -06:00 by gitea-mirror · 4 comments

gitea-mirror commented

2026-05-05 06:51:05 -06:00

Owner

Originally created by @i2 on GitHub (Aug 1, 2020).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/debauchee/barrier/issues/824

Operating Systems

Server: Windows 7 version 6.1 (Build 7601, SP1)

Client: Arch Linux 5.7.11-arch1

Barrier Version

2.3.3

Question

Is there a plan to add two-way or multi-way mouse/keyboard sharing in Barrier as opposed to typical server/client method? (Just like what is implemented in Mouse-Without-Borders or Synergy)

Originally created by @i2 on GitHub (Aug 1, 2020). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/debauchee/barrier/issues/824 ### Operating Systems ### Server: Windows 7 version 6.1 (Build 7601, SP1) Client: Arch Linux 5.7.11-arch1 ### Barrier Version ### 2.3.3 ### Question ### Is there a plan to add two-way or multi-way mouse/keyboard sharing in Barrier as opposed to typical server/client method? (Just like what is implemented in Mouse-Without-Borders or Synergy)

gitea-mirror commented

2026-05-05 06:51:09 -06:00

Author

Owner

@shymega commented on GitHub (Aug 2, 2020):

No plans yet.

On this date - Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 11:23:13AM -0700, Reza wrote:

Operating Systems

Server: Windows 7 version 6.1 (Build 7601, SP1)

Client: Arch Linux 5.7.11-arch1

Barrier Version

2.3.3

Question

Is there a plan to add two-way or multi-way mouse/keyboard sharing in Barrier as opposed to typical server/client method? (Just like what is implemented in Mouse-Without-Borders or Synergy)

--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/debauchee/barrier/issues/824

--
Kind regards,
Dom Rodriguez (shymega)

@shymega commented on GitHub (Aug 2, 2020): No plans yet. On this date - Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 11:23:13AM -0700, Reza wrote: > ### Operating Systems ### > > Server: Windows 7 version 6.1 (Build 7601, SP1) > > Client: Arch Linux 5.7.11-arch1 > > ### Barrier Version ### > > 2.3.3 > > ### Question ### > > Is there a plan to add two-way or multi-way mouse/keyboard sharing in Barrier as opposed to typical server/client method? (Just like what is implemented in Mouse-Without-Borders or Synergy) > > > -- > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: > https://github.com/debauchee/barrier/issues/824 -- Kind regards, Dom Rodriguez (shymega)

gitea-mirror commented

2026-05-05 06:51:11 -06:00

Author

Owner

@vzvzxv commented on GitHub (Feb 18, 2021):

I was excitedly ditching buggy Mouse Without Borders for Barrier, but ran into this in the install process and had to go back. It'd be nice to one day make the switch, as it's an invaluable feature for me, who has multiple computers I frequently walk between in my workspace.

@vzvzxv commented on GitHub (Feb 18, 2021): I was excitedly ditching buggy Mouse Without Borders for Barrier, but ran into this in the install process and had to go back. It'd be nice to one day make the switch, as it's an invaluable feature for me, who has multiple computers I frequently walk between in my workspace.

gitea-mirror commented

2026-05-05 06:51:13 -06:00

Author

Owner

@gregor-anich-uibk commented on GitHub (May 19, 2021):

I would also appreciate this feature very much :-) Thanks for making barrier good and providing it for free!

@gregor-anich-uibk commented on GitHub (May 19, 2021): I would also appreciate this feature very much :-) Thanks for making barrier good and providing it for free!

gitea-mirror commented

2026-05-05 06:51:15 -06:00

Author

Owner

@thursdaybw commented on GitHub (Sep 18, 2021):

This issue should probably be labelled as a enhancement/feature request. Change it's focus on "is there plans" to "what are the plans". I'm curious and not hopefully how trivial an implementation like this would be.

@thursdaybw commented on GitHub (Sep 18, 2021): This issue should probably be labelled as a enhancement/feature request. Change it's focus on "is there plans" to "what are the plans". I'm curious and not hopefully how trivial an implementation like this would be.