4 ms·

Every time I encounter a tmux recommendation it has me pondering whether it's worth learning minicom. When I first read the author's rationale for tmux it rubb

Every time I encounter a tmux recommendation it has me pondering whether it's worth learning minicom. When I first read the author's rationale for tmux it rubbed me the wrong way, because the main feature they dismiss as cruft- the ability to use it as a terminal emulator for a serial port - is something I still find myself using from time to time. Is tmux really so much nicer than screen it's worth learning minicom?

corndoge 8y ago
Matter of preference. I use tmux as a multiplexer and minicom for serial consoles. Mostly because minicom works out of the box more frequently than screen does, even with proper baud rate and other options set sometimes screen just shits the bed when used for serial. Never had any issues with minicom, it just works.
pmoriarty 8y ago
You could also learn screen instead of minicom. screen supports communication over serial.
- dannypgh 8y ago
  Perhaps I was unclear: screen is what I use now (and have used for quite a long time) and I haven't moved away from it because I actually use and value the support of serial consoles.
theonemind 8y ago
I doubt it? An apparently old version of the tmux FAQ listed these advantages: a clearly-defined client-server model: windows are independent entities which may be attached simultaneously to multiple sessions and viewed from multiple clients (terminals), as well as moved freely between sessions within the same tmux server; a consistent, well-documented command interface, with the same syntax whether used interactively, as a key binding, or from the shell; easily scriptable from the shell; multiple paste buffers; choice of vi or emacs key layouts; an option to limit the window size; a more usable status line syntax, with the ability to display the first line of output of a specific command; a cleaner, modern, easily extended, BSD-licensed codebase. Which is all well enough. However, the way I use screen and tmux, I hardly notice any difference. I don't care about BSD vs GPL. I don't try to script either from the shell, mostly just interactive use. I don't really care whether it uses vi or emacs keybindings. I mostly use the system clipboard. I use one pretty standard status line on either one and I have already memorized what I usually type to get it. i think screen still has some features that tmux doesn't, and vice versa, but I don't have a very strong affinity for either one. They even have similar keybindings. Give them the same prefix key and statusline/statusline color and if I'm not paying close attention, I might not realize which one I'm using.

corndoge 8y ago

Matter of preference. I use tmux as a multiplexer and minicom for serial consoles. Mostly because minicom works out of the box more frequently than screen does, even with proper baud rate and other options set sometimes screen just shits the bed when used for serial. Never had any issues with minicom, it just works.

pmoriarty 8y ago

You could also learn screen instead of minicom. screen supports communication over serial.

dannypgh 8y ago
Perhaps I was unclear: screen is what I use now (and have used for quite a long time) and I haven't moved away from it because I actually use and value the support of serial consoles.

theonemind 8y ago

I doubt it? An apparently old version of the tmux FAQ listed these advantages: a clearly-defined client-server model: windows are independent entities which may be attached simultaneously to multiple sessions and viewed from multiple clients (terminals), as well as moved freely between sessions within the same tmux server; a consistent, well-documented command interface, with the same syntax whether used interactively, as a key binding, or from the shell; easily scriptable from the shell; multiple paste buffers; choice of vi or emacs key layouts; an option to limit the window size; a more usable status line syntax, with the ability to display the first line of output of a specific command; a cleaner, modern, easily extended, BSD-licensed codebase. Which is all well enough. However, the way I use screen and tmux, I hardly notice any difference. I don't care about BSD vs GPL. I don't try to script either from the shell, mostly just interactive use. I don't really care whether it uses vi or emacs keybindings. I mostly use the system clipboard. I use one pretty standard status line on either one and I have already memorized what I usually type to get it. i think screen still has some features that tmux doesn't, and vice versa, but I don't have a very strong affinity for either one. They even have similar keybindings. Give them the same prefix key and statusline/statusline color and if I'm not paying close attention, I might not realize which one I'm using.