Live data from Hacker News

You Don't Need a Terminal Multiplexer on Your Desktop

xn--gckvb8fzb.com

21–30 of 45 posts

Re: You Don't Need a Terminal Multiplexer on Your Desktop

#21

From TFA: My impression is that the sole purpose of the terminal multiplexer hype train stems from a perceived sense of pseudo-elitism… —- Whoa there buddy. It’s fine to say: “I tried a thing, and it just wasn’t for me”. But to proceed from that point and onto: “so rather just letting things be, or making a good-faith effort to understand those with differing opinions, I’m going to project and harshly judge them” is…

He's right though. Same for people who use TUI editors. Let's just call a spade a spade.

Re: You Don't Need a Terminal Multiplexer on Your Desktop

#22
post #21

From TFA: My impression is that the sole purpose of the terminal multiplexer hype train stems from a perceived sense of pseudo-elitism… —- Whoa there buddy. It’s fine to say: “I tried a thing, and it just wasn’t for me”. But to proceed from that point and onto: “so rather just letting things be, or making a good-faith effort to understand those with differing opinions, I’m going to project and harshly judge them” is…

He's right though. Same for people who use TUI editors. Let's just call a spade a spade.

Heh. I still remember when we made fun of people for not being able to hack it on the terminal (and we were all still using screen back then to be productive). Tech is such an irrational pop culture. Nobody has respect for history, and anything old is automatically labeled elitist. Where did we go wrong?

Re: You Don't Need a Terminal Multiplexer on Your Desktop

#23

From TFA: My impression is that the sole purpose of the terminal multiplexer hype train stems from a perceived sense of pseudo-elitism… —- Whoa there buddy. It’s fine to say: “I tried a thing, and it just wasn’t for me”. But to proceed from that point and onto: “so rather just letting things be, or making a good-faith effort to understand those with differing opinions, I’m going to project and harshly judge them” is…

Lmao yeah, a hype train that began in checks notes 1987 when screen was released.

These children have zero knowledge of history or the craft itself, and I wish we could take away their computers.

Re: You Don't Need a Terminal Multiplexer on Your Desktop

#25
post #17

The argument here seems to be: “the features you like about terminal multiplexers should be built into your terminal emulator, or your window manager, or I don’t see why they are really necessary.” Plus some complaints about influencers. Sure, I’ll just replace my perfectly functional window manager so I can avoid using a terminal multiplexer. Except I’ll still want a terminal multiplexer on servers, so I still need…

> Except I’ll still want a terminal multiplexer on servers Biggest reason not to use a terminal multiplexer locally, imo: There is nothing worse than hitting Ctrl-b twice for every action when you're also using the muxer remotely.

You can remap the prefix key...

Re: You Don't Need a Terminal Multiplexer on Your Desktop

#26

I use screen all the time in an SSH session. Locally, not so much. Although if I'm running something that I know will take hours, I tend to run that in Screen because I'm likely to nuke the terminal by accident.

"Nuking the terminal by accident" is a serious thing for me; I do it all the time, though usually it is not a big deal. I have way too many terminal windows open because I do all sorts of chaotic nonsense and my "open terminal" shortcut is too convenient. What I really need, however, is a simple shortcut that yanks the terminal window from wherever it is, puts it in the current workspace and focuses on it. I keep pos…

This sounds like a great use case for tmux. Have one (1) terminal open, and as many panes/tabs/whatever as you need.

Re: You Don't Need a Terminal Multiplexer on Your Desktop

#27
post #17

The argument here seems to be: “the features you like about terminal multiplexers should be built into your terminal emulator, or your window manager, or I don’t see why they are really necessary.” Plus some complaints about influencers. Sure, I’ll just replace my perfectly functional window manager so I can avoid using a terminal multiplexer. Except I’ll still want a terminal multiplexer on servers, so I still need…

> Except I’ll still want a terminal multiplexer on servers Biggest reason not to use a terminal multiplexer locally, imo: There is nothing worse than hitting Ctrl-b twice for every action when you're also using the muxer remotely.

Yeah, nested is a headache. The terminal use to connect to the server doesn’t have a tmux session running locally. That would be a nightmare.

Re: You Don't Need a Terminal Multiplexer on Your Desktop

#28
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except I’ll still want a terminal multiplexer on servers Biggest reason not to use a terminal multiplexer locally, imo: There is nothing worse than hitting Ctrl-b twice for every action when you're also using the muxer remotely.

You can remap the prefix key...

I think the point of their comment is that if you're constantly connecting to different remote servers, you're not going to want to have to change the config on each server remotely. It's the same argument for understanding base vi as well and honestly does come in handy, but it's very discipline specific, most people don't have to worry about this use case.

Re: You Don't Need a Terminal Multiplexer on Your Desktop

#29

I started to use tmux on remote machines to stop them disconnecting me when the network changes or the laptop sleeps. (Damn you systemd for breaking that, too) Then I started multiple tmux panes remotely because it was great for dumping the long process monitoring next to the long process Then I started using tmux panes remotely for task switching. Then I started using tmux locally because I already knew all the keyb…

Yeah, I've also achieved a degree of Zen about things like these.

Like, I'm current on-boarding some guys onto linux workstations and linux administration, and honestly, there are many ways of holding the duck and in a lot of situations, most ways of holding the duck work equally well. I can show you two or three ways I found to work well to hold the duck, but it's still up to you to find your perfect duck rotation.

Like, I use i3 as a tiling window manager. But if I'm honest, I don't really use the tiling that much. The most tiling I tend to use is having 2-3 shells eithes stacked as dishes or one tall and a stack of dishes next to each other. Otherwise it's usually a 50/50 split of screenspace of just a full screen window. I just can't focus on more at the same time anyway. The latter use case can be had by using gnome or KDE with about the same amount of key strokes. Tmux offers it equally well, as Kitty windows do.

Personally I enjoy i3 on my workstation because a few key bindings and workflows have found their way into my lizard brain, but the newer guys relying on other window managers aren't much slower for most use cases tbh.

Similar, I've used multiplexers, terminals with such features. Currently I'm experimenting with rofi and single-purpose named kitty-terminals to easily find or launch shell environments I need. But honestly, everything works with little difference in efficiency imo.

It's more about finding something that clicks for you than doing the dogmatically correct thing. That's the wonderful thing about a linux desktop, and also it's biggest curse.

Re: You Don't Need a Terminal Multiplexer on Your Desktop

#30
post #20

The argument here seems to be: “the features you like about terminal multiplexers should be built into your terminal emulator, or your window manager, or I don’t see why they are really necessary.” Plus some complaints about influencers. Sure, I’ll just replace my perfectly functional window manager so I can avoid using a terminal multiplexer. Except I’ll still want a terminal multiplexer on servers, so I still need…

I don't really buy the "I need multiple terminal sessions remotely" argument. It's just as easy to have multiple terminal emulator windows remoted into a server as it is to have multiple windows on a local session.

No it wouldn’t be just as easy.

Source: this is a description of my own workflow and preferences, so I’m the ultimate authority on the subject, haha.

Post reply on HN