3 ms·

My first thought was this sounds a lot like the "screen" command. Which is basically true, but with the added benefit of screen splitting. Also, tmux is distrib

• regularfry 13y ago
  That article implies that tmux is faster than screen. While it may be the case that it uses fewer resources (which I've not checked), it's exclusively been my experience that tmux is laggy where screen isn't.
  • Freaky 13y ago
    That's not been my experience at all - I can't say I've ever seen tmux perform noticeably worse than screen, but under extreme load tmux always seems to cope better. e.g. dumping 250k lines takes screen over a minute, while tmux will be done in under 3 seconds and be more responsive while that's happening. It's nice to be able to ^C something spammy and not have time to go make a cup of tea before it responds. I have experienced lagginess with tmux, but this has been more down to VTE and/or mosh performing particularly badly with large terminals. A fullscreen 266x188 tmux session on urxvt is massively smoother than with Terminator/gnome-terminal/Terminology/etc, and with remote sessions ssh is similarly massively smoother than mosh. Kind of disheartening given today's ridiculously powerful hardware.
    • regularfry 13y ago
      Weird. I've had tmux lock up when too much text gets dumped through it.