[chaps]

This is more of a `screen` replacement than a `tmux` replacement, yeah? Was hopeful for an actual replacement (no, not iterm) to tmux.

[e12e]

Aren't tmux and screen rather equivalent these days? How is an alternative to one, not an alternative to the other?

Shpool doesn't appear to allow for session sharing/remote pairing though?

[chaps]

shpool doesn't allow splitting screens either! But I guess in my head, screen is largely for resuming a shell connection on a remote host while tmux is a window splitter.

[Phrodo_00]

Screen and tmux are almost the same these days. Screen used to not allow side-by-side splits, but it can do that too now.

[wnoise]

It has allowed that for a long, long time.

[chaps]

Okay, but is it actually good?

[e12e]

Screen vertical split works fine.

[remram]

Both of them are both of those things.

[lanstin]

I always get scared when I accidentally have two shell sessions visible at once in tmux. I immediately exit one. I suppose I should read a bit on it. When I want side to side comparisons I go to the shell running emacs and do it there (post vague because I never remember the different words for windows and panes and shells etc these different apps use.)

[remram]

tmux has a server containing sessions containing windows containing panes. Screen has sessions, windows, and panes (which it calls regions).

I recently finally switched from screen to tmux and I found that it's pretty seamless (especially because I use vi keybinds in tmux still). Some machines at work don't have screen anymore.

[lanstin]

Ok,makes sense. Using this terminology, I asked claude and found out how to move a shell from a standalone window to sharing 2 panes with another shell.

Incidentally, this "screen absent" is why you should always volunteer to help create base shells (programmatically via packer not by hand) - emacs and tmux are always there when I made the image.