4 ms·

I understand using console window managers when logged into a headless system where you don't otherwise have access to a UI, but I'm baffled by the desire to us

by Osiris 14y ago

I understand using console window managers when logged into a headless system where you don't otherwise have access to a UI, but I'm baffled by the desire to use console-based window managers within well defined GUI like OS X. In OS X, there are multitudes of tools to allow you to manage windows. Spectacle is a simple one, Slate is extremely customizable. Why not use the built-in OS X window manager to manager various windows rather than a console-based one? If you say the advantage is the shortcut keys, Slate lets you setup shortcut keys to do just about anything. Can anyone give me a list of pros/cons for using a console-based window manager over a native one?

joelhooks 14y ago
it is lightweight, contained, and excellent if you have a "unix-like" workflow. Typically I'll have a watch script, server, and vim in a given window, and it is super compact. Some cons are probably the learning curve required to see any advantage, and the fundamental lack of any respect for mousing, which can be in the pro column for many.
- Osiris 14y ago
  That's interesting. I practically never use the mouse to switch between windows in OS X or Windows. The biggest problem I have with tmux is vertical splits don't work with native copy-paste because the selection goes across both panes. Using multiple terminal windows, on the other hand, doesn't have that issue.
  - emidln 14y ago
    Native copy/paste typically requires a mouse. using tmux's copy-mode and pasting doesn't require a mouse an still stays inside panes.
    - mackwic 14y ago
      But the tmux copy paste is horribly inefficient.
      - cturner 14y ago
        Less efficient than reaching for the mouse? :)
        reyan 14y ago
        In iTerm2 I use command+f and expand the selection using tab/shift+tab.
        danneu 14y ago
        Now that's the kind of out of box thinking I like to see (leaning on selection auto-copy). Works well, thanks.
    - jasonlotito 14y ago
      Using a mouse, you can use tmux's new (in 1.8) pane expansion. prefix + z causes the current pane to take up the entire window. prefix + z again and it goes back to normal. Essentially, it's a maximized/restore capability.
      - joelhooks 14y ago
        rad, learned a new trick. thanks!
asveikau 14y ago
One use case I used to do often is switching between headless/remote and local use. Imagine sitting at your desktop, starting something, then detaching, going somewhere else... Then you ssh back to the desktop and resume the same session. Your stuff has been running there the whole time.
yungchin 14y ago
As the article concludes: "These tools are powerful not because you can use the keyboard instead of a mouse, they are powerful because you can combine them in new ways" (for context: through tmux-prefixed commands, your scripts can talk to your terminals). But more importantly, if you don't think of it as a replacement for a window manager it makes more sense - it's "only" a terminal multiplexer. You'll still have need/use for a great WM, too.

by Osiris 14y ago

joelhooks 14y ago

it is lightweight, contained, and excellent if you have a "unix-like" workflow. Typically I'll have a watch script, server, and vim in a given window, and it is super compact. Some cons are probably the learning curve required to see any advantage, and the fundamental lack of any respect for mousing, which can be in the pro column for many.

Osiris 14y ago
That's interesting. I practically never use the mouse to switch between windows in OS X or Windows. The biggest problem I have with tmux is vertical splits don't work with native copy-paste because the selection goes across both panes. Using multiple terminal windows, on the other hand, doesn't have that issue.
- emidln 14y ago
  Native copy/paste typically requires a mouse. using tmux's copy-mode and pasting doesn't require a mouse an still stays inside panes.
  - mackwic 14y ago
    But the tmux copy paste is horribly inefficient.
    - cturner 14y ago
      Less efficient than reaching for the mouse? :)
      - reyan 14y ago
        In iTerm2 I use command+f and expand the selection using tab/shift+tab.
        danneu 14y ago
        Now that's the kind of out of box thinking I like to see (leaning on selection auto-copy). Works well, thanks.
  - jasonlotito 14y ago
    Using a mouse, you can use tmux's new (in 1.8) pane expansion. prefix + z causes the current pane to take up the entire window. prefix + z again and it goes back to normal. Essentially, it's a maximized/restore capability.
    - joelhooks 14y ago
      rad, learned a new trick. thanks!

asveikau 14y ago

One use case I used to do often is switching between headless/remote and local use. Imagine sitting at your desktop, starting something, then detaching, going somewhere else... Then you ssh back to the desktop and resume the same session. Your stuff has been running there the whole time.

yungchin 14y ago

As the article concludes: "These tools are powerful not because you can use the keyboard instead of a mouse, they are powerful because you can combine them in new ways" (for context: through tmux-prefixed commands, your scripts can talk to your terminals). But more importantly, if you don't think of it as a replacement for a window manager it makes more sense - it's "only" a terminal multiplexer. You'll still have need/use for a great WM, too.