3 ms·

I am not sure if you tried i3 window manager. It provides similar features but with more freedom.

desmap 6y ago
I posted in another comment more about my view on i3. However, compared to tmux it also lacks the capability to be used via ssh. At the end of the day there are not really comparable but yeah, I prefer to work with tmux+nvim on a *nix environment through ssh, all wrapped in a typical window manager such as Windows which handles stuff like hidpi, meta window management, device management etc. The good thing is that I am not stuck with Windows. You can give me any meta/desktop OS/window management such as any Linux wm or macos as long as I have tmux and nvim, my productivity will stay the same. FWIW, while automatic tiling with i3 is super impressive, it's overrated. In the beginning you believe that this really boosts your productivity but you get quickly annoyed. If tmux is set-up right, so not just this seamless navigation but also creating and resizing of panes in a similar fashion with intuitive binds you wouldn't want any automatic tiling anymore. With my binds I am able to open and resize dozen of panes faster than I ever could with i3. And as a bonus tmux' config is just simple some remapping but never a rabbit hole to get basic things working.
- alpaca128 6y ago
  That is why I prefer the static tiling approach compared to the common dynamic tiling window managers. The important difference is that a static window manager never reorders or resizes windows unless you tell it to, and this leads to the same flexibility but without being forced into a predetermined layout. I like it a lot but it's rare, the only one I've used is stumpwm.
alpaca128 6y ago
The disadvantage of that is that i3 is not aware of a window's contents. A terminal multiplexer however knows what the current working directory in each terminal pane is, and if you open a new split it can be automatically set to the same path. This makes the whole process a little bit smoother.

I posted in another comment more about my view on i3. However, compared to tmux it also lacks the capability to be used via ssh. At the end of the day there are not really comparable but yeah, I prefer to work with tmux+nvim on a *nix environment through ssh, all wrapped in a typical window manager such as Windows which handles stuff like hidpi, meta window management, device management etc. The good thing is that I am not stuck with Windows. You can give me any meta/desktop OS/window management such as any Linux wm or macos as long as I have tmux and nvim, my productivity will stay the same. FWIW, while automatic tiling with i3 is super impressive, it's overrated. In the beginning you believe that this really boosts your productivity but you get quickly annoyed. If tmux is set-up right, so not just this seamless navigation but also creating and resizing of panes in a similar fashion with intuitive binds you wouldn't want any automatic tiling anymore. With my binds I am able to open and resize dozen of panes faster than I ever could with i3. And as a bonus tmux' config is just simple some remapping but never a rabbit hole to get basic things working.

alpaca128 6y ago
That is why I prefer the static tiling approach compared to the common dynamic tiling window managers. The important difference is that a static window manager never reorders or resizes windows unless you tell it to, and this leads to the same flexibility but without being forced into a predetermined layout. I like it a lot but it's rare, the only one I've used is stumpwm.

alpaca128 6y ago

The disadvantage of that is that i3 is not aware of a window's contents. A terminal multiplexer however knows what the current working directory in each terminal pane is, and if you open a new split it can be automatically set to the same path. This makes the whole process a little bit smoother.