On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 08:58:20PM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > You might consider looking at tmux as a replacement for screen. I find > it much more robust and the learning curve is not much. It makes some of > screen's *features* more functional such as split screen w/o using one of > the screen numbers that allow direct access (<ctrl-a>2). Tmux uses > <ctrl-b> rather than <ctrl-a>, and allows direct access to > 10 screens, > buffers, ....
This is all completely OT, but... using <ctrl-b> is an absolute non-starter as it's an emacs-mode editing character. I've been using screen for almost two decades now. The lack of quick access to screens past 9 is somewhat annoying, but I can live with that. Same with buffers. So I doubt I'll switch, but I may give it a try sometime just to see.
