tmux vs scrotwm

S

sjakke

This might sound like a stupid question, but I'll ask anyway....

What is the difference between the two?

I know that scrotwm relies on X11 and tmux doesn't. Both do tiling. Other than that, I know nothing.
 
I knew I would get that answer:)

I mean usage wise. I just want something that can tile, surf the web, use mplayer and mpd. Visually I don't see any difference between the two.

I just want to know pros and cons in daily, non-administrative, usage.

I'm sorry if I'm not able to phrase my question correctly. English is my third language.
 
Think logically:
How do you expect terminal multiplexer to tile mplayer?

They bough server completely different purposes and can't substitute each other
 
Looks like this is screen-vs with mplayer tiled....

vMXBsMA
 
I think the biggest difference would be the screen size. Console is pretty limited even if you use vidcontrol to crank up the resolution. It also gets kinda slow with the higher resolutions. Using X and a window manager greatly increases the usable screen size and the overall speed.

Both have their uses. I like screen (which is a similar tool as tmux) when I'm ssh'ing into a server.
 
In that screenshot, mplayer is running on the linux framebuffer: it's a bit different.
If you are going to use just terminal stuff, tmux is the best; however you cannot run firefox "inside" tmux.
(Firefox it's just an example, actually you could use text-only browsers like www/elinks).

tmux and whatever-wm are not mutually-exclusive. For instance, I use tmux and x11-wm/ratpoison together, they handles different tasks.
 
tmux is a console application, it does not use X in any way.

scrotwm is an X application, it requires a running X server.

Pretty obvious what the difference is. :)
 
I just want something that can tile, surf the web, use mplayer and mpd. Visually I don't see any difference between the two.
Click to expand...
running mplayer in framebuffer basically requires much more resources than using even dumb -vo x11.
also tmux is NOT window manager for console. For that you could use dvtm.
 
Apologies for reviving a dead thread, but I wanted to add one thing:

I see a lot of comments saying that the difference between a tiled window manager and terminal multiplexer is obvious, but I don't think that's true at all, especially to a new unix user. On an abstract level, they both multiplex screen space so that it can be shared by multiple clients. And they even do so using a nearly identical tiling paradigm!

The fact that on a modern unix there is a strong divide between X11 apps and CLI apps is kind of nonsensical. For example, see the design of Plan 9: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs#Graphical_programs In it, a lightweight window manager is part of the base system, and graphical apps can just replace the shell they were launched from.

Anyways, I just wanted to add my newbie friendly 2¢.
 
rodarmor said:
Apologies for reviving a dead thread, but I wanted to add one thing:

I see a lot of comments saying that the difference between a tiled window manager and terminal multiplexer is obvious, but I don't think that's true at all, especially to a new unix user. On an abstract level, they both multiplex screen space so that it can be shared by multiple clients. And they even do so using a nearly identical tiling paradigm!

The fact that on a modern unix there is a strong divide between X11 apps and CLI apps is kind of nonsensical. For example, see the design of Plan 9: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs#Graphical_programs In it, a lightweight window manager is part of the base system, and graphical apps can just replace the shell they were launched from.

Anyways, I just wanted to add my newbie friendly 2¢.
Click to expand...

what does the x in POSIX stand for?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top