11–20 of 126 posts
To anyone to perhaps who has used both a lot: * Are there particular pros and cons to using screen or tmux ? (I'm generally on macOS for work, but never really go into using iTerm2, so that integration isn't a big thing for me personally.) Edit: I mean why use one over the other. I generally use something on the destination host I'm SSHing to in case the network goes sideways.
screen /dev/ttyUSB0 9600But here's another way of approaching the same problem:
Emacs can serve as a superlative terminal multiplexer if you're willing to give it a shot or if you're already an Emacs user, but do not want to use Emacs's TRAMP (remote editing) functionality:
1. Emacs can run as a server, so you can run it on your remote servers and connect to it with `emacsclient' via SSH. This has the added advantage that $EDITOR stuff will open in your active Emacs session if you want it to.
2. You can use Emacs's builtin shells or terminal emulators (and/or install vterm for a more faithful terminal emulation experience).
3. It is obviously a capable editor also, it goes without saying.
4. Windowing is better in Emacs than the other muxers, and more advanced. In terminal Emacs frames ("windows" everywhere else) serve as decent facsimiles for workspaces.
5. You can use tools like Magit for git management.
... plus all the other benefits of Emacs.
I still prefer TRAMP and GUI emacs, but terminal Emacs does have its own advantages.
Looks like a few QoL improvements and bug fixes. Nothing disruptive that would normally come with a major release version. Looks like you can set a password on it now, which is cool (though I personally like having linux perms govern access to my screen/tmux). Multiinput sounds interesting as well, though in the past that was a feature I thought I'd love to have, but once I had I never use. I'm glad to see Screen is…
To anyone to perhaps who has used both a lot: * Are there particular pros and cons to using screen or tmux ? (I'm generally on macOS for work, but never really go into using iTerm2, so that integration isn't a big thing for me personally.) Edit: I mean why use one over the other. I generally use something on the destination host I'm SSHing to in case the network goes sideways.
If you mean vs. not using screen or tmux, the pros to using (among many) are:
1) you get plural terminals in one "window" (xterm, remote ssh session, etc.) that you can switch between with hot-keys. This has a larger advantage for remote ssh sessions, where one ssh connection can be used for plural remote terminals, than it does locally where you could simply launch a second xterm.
2) you gain the ability to 'disconnect' from the screen session (I presume tmux offers a similar feature). This works just like 'disconnect' from a RDP session. All your remote terminals remain active, open, and waiting. When you next ssh in, you simply 'reconnect' and everything is there just as you left it when you disconnected. This helps for both flaky connections where the link drops at times as well as the "done for the day" "disconnect".
3) for screen, there is a screen built in 'copy and paste' controlled by the screen hotkeys, so if you are in a situation where you have no local copy/paste (unlikely in 2024, much more likely back in the days of VT100's) you can still select and copy portions of the screen to a 'clipboard' for pasting into somewhere else. I don't know if tmux offers something similar.
4) screen also offers 'scrollback buffering' (it will retain the last X lines that scroll off the top of your viewport) and has a feature to let you "look back" at what just scrolled out of view. This is less useful in 2024 with xterms/urxvt's offering the same feature locally, but for a remote ssh connect this does give you 'scrollback' that is specific to each screen terminal you have open instead of all mixed up in the local viewer.
There's more advantages, but those are the big ones, and the 'disconnect/reconnect' one is huge if you use the terminal a lot and also often connect via ssh from remote locations.
I used to be an avid user of screen, then later on tmux. My terminal directly launched a session upon opening. But something that was always bugging me was the "ssh unawareness" - I've always wanted to be able to do splits on the remote end, but that was simply not possible without nesting sessions. Now, I've switched my terminal to wezterm, which fills all my multiplexing needs, as it supports this exact "remote-or-…
Still, I'm happy to see work on screen continuing.
Screen, tmux, et al. are great. But here's another way of approaching the same problem: Emacs can serve as a superlative terminal multiplexer if you're willing to give it a shot or if you're already an Emacs user, but do not want to use Emacs's TRAMP (remote editing) functionality: 1. Emacs can run as a server, so you can run it on your remote servers and connect to it with `emacsclient' via SSH. This has the added a…
To anyone to perhaps who has used both a lot: * Are there particular pros and cons to using screen or tmux ? (I'm generally on macOS for work, but never really go into using iTerm2, so that integration isn't a big thing for me personally.) Edit: I mean why use one over the other. I generally use something on the destination host I'm SSHing to in case the network goes sideways.
Screen can connect to serial ports. screen /dev/ttyUSB0 9600
I'm no longer using `screen` on an HP 2392A dumb terminal and PP 14.4kbps modem. But `screen` is still coming in very handy, when working on servers, and for some kinds of developing&running long-running programs on the workstation laptop.
It's also fun, on the occasion that you introduce `screen` or `tmux` to programmers who've been using lesser tools, and they become an instant convert.
Incidentally, given how old the code is, and how there's the potential for various kinds of remote exploits via text (e.g., in SSH session, or in display of user-crafted strings in a console program), I wonder how recently someone has done a rigorous security audit of `screen`.