4 ms·

I'm curious as to why? Is it licensing issues? I don't think tmux and screen have a feature disparity, since tmux is basically feature complete when compared t

• mrbill 15y ago
  I've used screen for 15 years, am happy with the functionality, and don't see the need (yet) to switch to tmux. Given that, I would rather that iTerm2 not use more system resources supporting a vterm multiplexer that I don't use. It's not going to keep me from using iTerm, though.
  • GrumpySimon 15y ago
    That, and screen is installed on pretty much everything I use. Tmux isn't.
    • pyre 15y ago
      You can modify tmux to use the same shortcuts as screen so that you can use the same muscle memory. I've been a heavy screen user for a while and recently switched to tmux. To me, tmux felt like a breath fresh air. That said, I spent the time (~hour) to convert my heavily modified screen environment over to tmux so I'm using pretty much the same shortcuts.
  • batista 15y ago
    iTerm2 does not use "more system resources supporting a vterm multiplexer" if you don't use it's tmux functionality. Same goes for most all well designed apps a lots of not well designed too: code pages are loaded into memory only when they are needed.
• vidarh 15y ago
  Why switch if screen does what you want? Especially when screen is available "everywhere". To me tmux is a solution to a non-existent problem.
  • joh6nn 15y ago
    my understanding is that tmux has a cleaner code base, is more easily configurable, and is actively maintained. by comparison, screen is said to have stagnated, and have a convoluted code base. for the moment, i continue to use screen, for the same reasons stated elsewhere: i'm familiar with it, and it's available nearly everywhere. but i'm not averse to experimenting with tmux