I doubt it? An apparently old version of the tmux FAQ listed these advantages: a clearly-defined client-server model: windows are independent entities whic

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.