by matrixhelix on 2/12/25, 5:32 PM with 40 comments
by bee_rider on 2/12/25, 5:53 PM
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 to be familiar with the way the tool works and I’ll still be happier if I have a nice config (sidenote: the article complains about needing very complicated configurations, but tmux is fine with like… 10 lines of configuration? You can solve the problem of over complicated configs by just not doing them).
Overall it kind of feels like hipsterism or engagement bait. Complaining about “content creators” is a very popular way to show off your bona fides nowadays. I guess this is just going back and forth on “no, you are the influencer/engagement fisher” but I think tons of people have been using terminal multiplexers for decades because they are boring and practical. If someone made a YouTube or a TikTok about them, I guess… I dunno, let the kids have nice things too, <shrug>.
by hyperman1 on 2/12/25, 6:27 PM
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 keybindings and tricks.
And there are still multiple browsers, IDEs and whatnots in other windows.
At no point, the points the article touches had any relevancy. It just grew on me. So you all do whatever floats your boat, and I'll continue doung mine.
by komboozcha on 2/12/25, 7:18 PM
by tolerance on 2/12/25, 8:24 PM
by kristianp on 2/13/25, 4:55 AM
by dpc_01234 on 2/12/25, 9:48 PM
To me, just because most of my workflow doesn't need to change irrespective if I'm working locally or via ssh, is already making terminal multiplexer a win.
Also, there's something to be said about terminal just being a more productive way to work with computers. The constrains that a terminal puts on software used in it, make the individual pieces compose with each other way better, precisely because text composes better than graphic interfaces. (That's why "visual programming" will always suck.)
My workflow for decades now is entirely terminal with terminal multiplexer and a browser window. The graphical interface works better for exploratory work when I'm mostly navigating and consuming information, like clicking around the web, the textual interface works better for actual precise control and interaction with software. The "GUI" for me is just for changing if my browser/terminal are displayed side by side or maximized and switching between them.
by schaefer on 2/12/25, 5:56 PM
—-
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 such a downer.
I guess what I’m trying to say is, I tried reading this blog and it just wasn’t for me.
by mm263 on 2/12/25, 5:44 PM
by Mar0 on 2/12/25, 8:05 PM
Windows manager saves layouts. I want to save both layout and states. I want to be able to quickly switch from one project workspace to another, without having to use ctrl+z and fg or creating term windows everytime.
Also, a lot of people use one workspace for one app on their WM (1 for terminal, 1 for browser, etc...) I like that my terminal has its own workspace, so I don't have to pollute the workspaces of my WM with tons of different terminal windows.
Maybe spend more time understanding the problem that is trying to be solved before writing a long ass arrogant article?
by simpaticoder on 2/12/25, 5:40 PM
by fambalamboni on 2/12/25, 5:46 PM
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.
by explorigin on 2/12/25, 5:50 PM