Hacker News Reader

Comment by Osiris | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

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.

Native copy/paste typically requires a mouse. using tmux's copy-mode and pasting doesn't require a mouse an still stays inside panes.

But the tmux copy paste is horribly inefficient.

Less efficient than reaching for the mouse? :)

In iTerm2 I use command+f and expand the selection using tab/shift+tab.

Now that's the kind of out of box thinking I like to see (leaning on selection auto-copy). Works well, thanks.

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.

rad, learned a new trick. thanks!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com