31 ms·

If your primary use wasn't the background/attach feature, sure this will work as will many other mechanism. I know like many users my main motivation is not los

• na85 11y ago
  My thoughts exactly. In fact I'd go so far as to say if you aren't using it for the attach/detach functionality why on earth would you bother? I'm not seeing how using tmux beats "Just open another terminal" which is the absolute minimum. Surely anyone doing dev work is using an editor that supports tabbing and in-editor consoles a la emacs.
  • carussell 11y ago
    Most of the other features that both screen and tmux include give me reason enough not to use either one. If you're just in it for the detachability, see dtach. <http://dtach.sourceforge.net/> http://dtach.sourceforge.net/> Some people like split panes, though.
    • cm3 11y ago
      tmux and screen make it comfortable to manage multiple sessions. That's why I don't just use dtach. Having one session with multiple buffers/windows is easier to manage than one file for each dtach'ed program. Basically, I'd have to script my way out of dtach's bare bones session management feature set. I don't really use tmux's or screen's split functionality, and if I did I'd probably start using http://www.brain-dump.org/projects/dvtm/ http://www.brain-dump.org/projects/dvtm/. Hmm, abduco seems like dtach on stereoids and is thankfully separate from dvtm and required for detaching dvtwm sessions. Maybe I should give that a try.
      • qu4z-2 11y ago
        I would recommend abduco+dvtm. That's where I've ended up. Then again, I'm biased in favor of suckless-brand things. I also somehow configured abduco to always start a dvtm instance inside it, so there's no pain from it being two separate programs.
      • deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]