> but you will get all the extra tmux functionality
That is what exactly? I stopped using screen a few months ago, tmux offers a set of default key bindings that are adjusted to modern software, a new biding for copy and paste (so you can control what machine gets the command), and... I still didn't find anything more that is relevant.
If he is used to screen, the key bindings will be more a problem than a solution¹, and the copy and paste thing is very niche. I don't think one has any good reason to migrate from one to the other. I did it to get to know tmux better, and really, that's exactly as much as I got.
1 - Unless you need to keep setting the bindings again and again.
Yes, I'd really love to have a linux version of that.
The biggest advantage of screen to me is that you can more easily fix the dumb prefix key (e.g. screen -e^z^z to use ^Z). This is handy for remote servers wherem you don't have your config files etc.
Vertical split panes was the biggest reason, but for myself, the end comes down to a config file I can actually read and unlike screen, tends to not have things like this in the man page:
> Attach here and now. Whatever that means, just do it.
For those confused, the linked patch page[1] has says that the patch got integrated into Debian (and Ubuntu) from 4.0.3-10, which means it would have been available since Lenny (2009).
> Vertical split panes was the biggest reason, [...]
Besides the fact, that screen can also do that, I think this should be implemented at the Window Management Layer anyway - tiling WMs do that.
This is actually the main reason, why I do not use tmux or screen at the moment. I used to work with screen, because I liked the terminal splitting, but since using a tiling WM, I get that for free. However I have to admit, that I sometimes miss session management.
> Besides the fact, that screen can also do that, I think this should be implemented at the Window Management Layer anyway - tiling WMs do that.
Genuine question, why? I run my terminal in one giant full screen window, or emacs. Emacs splits itself fine, I just switch to a different screen with my terminal and tmux and i'm good. No need for the window manager to be involved.
I think it's just a prettier architecture - obviously both ways work, but if the WM has good splitting, applications don't have to bother with windows and layout implementations.
Furthermore I like to switch between "windows" (rectangles in a tiling - e.g. vertical/horizontal splits - context) or in general rearranging the layout using input controls on the WM layer, so that it works the same across all applications and not just in a terminal emulator context. In the end it's personal choice, however it has some benefits, as the same workflow works across applications. Obviously this requires a WM itself and does not work in a Linux console context (which is supported by tmux and screen), but I mostly run X11 with a WM anyway.
Because the window manager gives your the same consistent experience for non-terminal windows as well, and I'm pretty sure you use at least a web browser. Of course it's all a matter of taste (and habit).
That is what exactly? I stopped using screen a few months ago, tmux offers a set of default key bindings that are adjusted to modern software, a new biding for copy and paste (so you can control what machine gets the command), and... I still didn't find anything more that is relevant.
If he is used to screen, the key bindings will be more a problem than a solution¹, and the copy and paste thing is very niche. I don't think one has any good reason to migrate from one to the other. I did it to get to know tmux better, and really, that's exactly as much as I got.
1 - Unless you need to keep setting the bindings again and again.