- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
No. They are an invaluable tool. I also use a tiling WM. I feel they work better with larger screens that offer more real estate.
I’ll take higher bandwidth on a single ssh session over multiple ssh sessions any day. Plus terminal multiplexers also provide persistent sessions.
Hey, just wondering, how using a terminal multiplexer adds “more bandwidth” to your ssh session? What do you mean by more bandwidth?
Mostly just the terminal commands to draw the tmux borders and move the cursor around for vsplits. For long running commands with lots of output tmux saves bandwidth, especially if I switch to a different screen.
I spend 80% of my work day on Terminator, so I’m going to vote “nope”.
Sorry you’re getting downvoted to hell, good article. Just so people know, the guy in the article uses a terminal multiplexer too, and is simply talking about some limitations. The titles clickbait and it starts off quite critical but that’s to be expected in this day and age
If they’re a fad, they’ve been a fad for over 35 years, so no longer a fad. Get it?
I don’t understand articles like this. Terminal multiplexers are tools that help people. And they’re great tools especially when you work in environments where persistent sessions save your ass.
There is a saying from when the newspaper world that when a headline asks a question the answer is no.
Multiplexers are critical to my workflow due to bandwidth limitations and intermittency. mosh+tmux saves my butt daily.
Not a fad, a niche.
