Despite their questionable utility, terminal multiplexers have skyrocketed to fame in the tech world over the last decade.
  • mycotrip@lemmy.ko4abp.comEnglish
    12·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • sorrybookbrokeEnglish
    6·
    1 year ago

    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

  • mvirts@lemmy.world
    6·
    1 year ago

    I’ll take higher bandwidth on a single ssh session over multiple ssh sessions any day. Plus terminal multiplexers also provide persistent sessions.

    • sebastiancarlos@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
      3·
      1 year ago

      Hey, just wondering, how using a terminal multiplexer adds “more bandwidth” to your ssh session? What do you mean by more bandwidth?

      • mvirts@lemmy.world
        4·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • calm.like.a.bomb@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    5·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • Frater Mus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    4·
    1 year ago

    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.