On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:40:58PM -0400, James wrote: > This argument doesn't make sense. It's the same as saying: > > "Nano and NeoVim are more modern than Emacs. All emacs and vim users > should switch." :P >
Of course I'm not arguing for novelty or modernity's sake. I'm typing this in mutt (and screen :/ ). I probably should have been more clear. As with C# to Java, tmux clearly has benefited by being a modern implementation that could be informed by screen's history (no pun intended). I will probably never switch from screen, but tmux is definitely more flexible in many ways. Given that space constraints suggest that only one multiplexer be included (if at all), I'd say it makes sense to go with the more flexible/feature-rich of the two, which is certainly tmux. _Trevor -- Sent from my Amiga 500. (Trevor Jay) Red Hat Product Security gpg-key: https://ssl.montrose.is/chat/gpg-key
