I am verry happy with `screen` which I use for ~10 years.
Hear about `tmux` here and there, but so far not sure about the benefits. Any particular reason it's better over `screen` ?
Hear about `tmux` here and there, but so far not sure about the benefits. Any particular reason it's better over `screen` ?
tmux handles changing terminal sizes better than screen does. The config language is much easier to read and write. The status line looks a little nicer.
screen knowledge is still valuable as it is more commonly installed
If you use it heavily, then you may be hitting limitations and it would be worth experimenting with.
I find that I do most of the tmux-like things with multiple iterm windows instead, but I’m a lousy mouser.
Overview from the guide:
When you run "tmux -CC", a new tmux session is created. An iTerm2 window opens and it acts like a normal iTerm2 window. The difference is that when iTerm2 quits or the ssh session is lost, tmux keeps running. You can return to the host you were ssh'ed into and run "tmux -CC attach" and the iTerm2 windows will reopen in the same state they were in before.
Later, I switched to `byobu`, which started out as a wrapper around `screen` by Dustin Kirkland (of Ubuntu). At some point `byobu` switched to wrapping `tmux` to fix some corner cases/bugs, and it now prompts on first run whether or not you want `screen`-like ctrl-a behavior. https://linux.die.net/man/1/byobu-ctrl-a
The biggest complaints with screen is that the source code is a disaster, and it’s slow with lots of windows, and has put mouse support.
Tmux is very configurable, I used screen from 2005 until 2017 when I went all in on Tmux. My muscle memory couldn’t adapt though. So not all my Tmux bindings match screen.
https://www.gnu.org/software/screen/manual/screen.html#Regio...