3 ms·

Since we're pimping terminal multiplexers, I quite enjoy tmux (http://tmux.sourceforge.net/ http://tmux.sourceforge.net/). I used to use screen, but found tmux

by pyrhho 15y ago

Since we're pimping terminal multiplexers, I quite enjoy tmux (http://tmux.sourceforge.net/ http://tmux.sourceforge.net/). I used to use screen, but found tmux to be faster, smoother, and have more logical key-combos (your mileage may vary).

scott_s 15y ago
I saw two people below who say they prefer tmux over Screen, so I just looked it up. What I care about most is persistence; I use multiple terminal sessions if I want to have multiple windows. Did you find any difference for that feature?
- scottschulthess 15y ago
  Can you explain your question better? I don't understand it enough to take a shot at an answer
  - scott_s 15y ago
    The only feature I care about is persistence. Is there a difference between Screen and tmux regarding persistence?
    - djcapelis 15y ago
      No.
    - nzmsv 15y ago
      If you only need persistence, look into dtach. That's all it does. Both screen and tmux offer multiple persistent sessions, the difference is the command syntax. Back when I was deciding on a terminal multiplexer I picked tmux over screen because session sharing seemed to be done in a more sane way. But then again, had I used screen for any length of time I'm sure I'd have gotten used to it.
      - scott_s 15y ago
        Looking briefly at dtach, screen's handling of named sessions seems to be marginally better, so I'll stick with it.
- froseph 15y ago
  I've been using screen for years, and just switched to tmux since so many people have been raving about it. The reasons I switched were: 1/ Configs for status prompt were easier to grok 2/ Actively maintained. I used to use vertical split all the time and tmux had that where as gnu screen required hack patches. If you only want persistence, screen, tmux, dtach do pretty much the same thing.
- guyht 15y ago
  I used to use screen, but then moved on to tmux. Main reasons for my move were * Tmux handles split screens better (had horrible lag in screen, its a known bug) * Panel and window navigation is easier in Tmux

by pyrhho 15y ago

scott_s 15y ago

I saw two people below who say they prefer tmux over Screen, so I just looked it up. What I care about most is persistence; I use multiple terminal sessions if I want to have multiple windows. Did you find any difference for that feature?

scottschulthess 15y ago
Can you explain your question better? I don't understand it enough to take a shot at an answer
- scott_s 15y ago
  The only feature I care about is persistence. Is there a difference between Screen and tmux regarding persistence?
  - djcapelis 15y ago
    No.
  - nzmsv 15y ago
    If you only need persistence, look into dtach. That's all it does. Both screen and tmux offer multiple persistent sessions, the difference is the command syntax. Back when I was deciding on a terminal multiplexer I picked tmux over screen because session sharing seemed to be done in a more sane way. But then again, had I used screen for any length of time I'm sure I'd have gotten used to it.
    - scott_s 15y ago
      Looking briefly at dtach, screen's handling of named sessions seems to be marginally better, so I'll stick with it.
froseph 15y ago
I've been using screen for years, and just switched to tmux since so many people have been raving about it. The reasons I switched were: 1/ Configs for status prompt were easier to grok 2/ Actively maintained. I used to use vertical split all the time and tmux had that where as gnu screen required hack patches. If you only want persistence, screen, tmux, dtach do pretty much the same thing.
guyht 15y ago
I used to use screen, but then moved on to tmux. Main reasons for my move were * Tmux handles split screens better (had horrible lag in screen, its a known bug) * Panel and window navigation is easier in Tmux