4 ms·

> Vertical split panes was the biggest reason, [...] Besides the fact, that screen can also do that, I think this should be implemented at the Window Managemen

> Vertical split panes was the biggest reason, [...] Besides the fact, that screen can also do that, I think this should be implemented at the Window Management Layer anyway - tiling WMs do that. This is actually the main reason, why I do not use tmux or screen at the moment. I used to work with screen, because I liked the terminal splitting, but since using a tiling WM, I get that for free. However I have to admit, that I sometimes miss session management.

mitchty 9y ago
> Besides the fact, that screen can also do that, I think this should be implemented at the Window Management Layer anyway - tiling WMs do that. Genuine question, why? I run my terminal in one giant full screen window, or emacs. Emacs splits itself fine, I just switch to a different screen with my terminal and tmux and i'm good. No need for the window manager to be involved.
- zeptomu 9y ago
  I think it's just a prettier architecture - obviously both ways work, but if the WM has good splitting, applications don't have to bother with windows and layout implementations. Furthermore I like to switch between "windows" (rectangles in a tiling - e.g. vertical/horizontal splits - context) or in general rearranging the layout using input controls on the WM layer, so that it works the same across all applications and not just in a terminal emulator context. In the end it's personal choice, however it has some benefits, as the same workflow works across applications. Obviously this requires a WM itself and does not work in a Linux console context (which is supported by tmux and screen), but I mostly run X11 with a WM anyway.
- adambyrtek 9y ago
  Because the window manager gives your the same consistent experience for non-terminal windows as well, and I'm pretty sure you use at least a web browser. Of course it's all a matter of taste (and habit).
u801e 9y ago
> I used to work with screen, because I liked the terminal splitting, but since using a tiling WM, I get that for free. What about copying text from one split to another (at least without having to use the mouse)?

mitchty 9y ago

> Besides the fact, that screen can also do that, I think this should be implemented at the Window Management Layer anyway - tiling WMs do that. Genuine question, why? I run my terminal in one giant full screen window, or emacs. Emacs splits itself fine, I just switch to a different screen with my terminal and tmux and i'm good. No need for the window manager to be involved.

zeptomu 9y ago
I think it's just a prettier architecture - obviously both ways work, but if the WM has good splitting, applications don't have to bother with windows and layout implementations. Furthermore I like to switch between "windows" (rectangles in a tiling - e.g. vertical/horizontal splits - context) or in general rearranging the layout using input controls on the WM layer, so that it works the same across all applications and not just in a terminal emulator context. In the end it's personal choice, however it has some benefits, as the same workflow works across applications. Obviously this requires a WM itself and does not work in a Linux console context (which is supported by tmux and screen), but I mostly run X11 with a WM anyway.
adambyrtek 9y ago
Because the window manager gives your the same consistent experience for non-terminal windows as well, and I'm pretty sure you use at least a web browser. Of course it's all a matter of taste (and habit).

u801e 9y ago

> I used to work with screen, because I liked the terminal splitting, but since using a tiling WM, I get that for free. What about copying text from one split to another (at least without having to use the mouse)?