6 ms·
Every time a post about multiplexers comes up, there is a comment like this. I find it striking that so many people think that their use-case is the only one, a
by orev 6y ago
Every time a post about multiplexers comes up, there is a comment like this. I find it striking that so many people think that their use-case is the only one, and don’t make any effort at all to imagine other cases where the situation might be different.
It’s really not that big if a stretch to see how they would be useful or even necessary when accessing servers (or any machine) remotely. You can have multiple shells and multiple things running, without having to re-login for each separate thing. And for critical processes you need to run, you want some protection to stop them getting killed if there’s a network problem.
- kevincox 6y ago1. I never said "they shouldn't exist" or are useless. I just said that "I" don't see the point. As for multiple shells I just use SSH multiplexing and keep my tmux sessions having one window each. Then I can regroup or reorganize however I wish and still use the same window manager. But I use an SSH key anyways so logging in again is transparent. (The multiplexing just speeds it up a tad) > And for critical processes you need to run... I explicitly said that I understand the benefit of reattaching. I just personally don't find a use case for the multiplexing part.
- orev 6y agoThe phrase “I don’t see the point” means that one does not think there is a use for something and cannot imagine one. Like selling sand in the desert. If you meant “I personally don’t use this feature but I can see how others would find it useful”, then that is not what is meant by that phrase.
- flameW4rVet 6y agoSimilarly every time there’s a comment like the parent there’s a snarky reply reminding us of the obvious: variety exists in the world!