Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 06:03:46 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Cc: ed@80386.nl, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tmux(1) in base Message-ID: <20090921130346.GY21946@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <200909211237.n8LCbkxV017364@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <20090921112657.GW95398@hoeg.nl> <200909211237.n8LCbkxV017364@hergotha.csail.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Garrett Wollman <wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> [090921 05:39] wrote: > In article <20090921112657.GW95398@hoeg.nl>, Ed Schouten writes: > > >At the DevSummit in Cambridge we briefly discussed including tmux(1) in > >the base system. We recently had window(1) there, but unfortunately > >window(1) was a very limited tool, compared to tools like screen(1) and > >tmux(1). Why tmux(1) and not screen(1)? Well, simple. The first has a > >better license and very active maintenance. > > Can you explain why any such utility needs to be in the base system? > I'm not seeing it. We have enough things in the base that most users > will never use as it is. I think he already explained that it's supposedly much better than window(1) with a kinder license than screen(1). We really ought to ship with a screen(1)-like program. hopefully we can make it screen compat rather than having something people are not familiar with in base. Any chance in getting the author to go to ^A and be more "Screenish" so people don't have to learn a new tool? Honestly, if it's very different, the people will just continue to install/use screen. -- - Alfred Perlstein .- AMA, VMOA #5191, 03 vmax, 92 gs500, 85 ch250 .- FreeBSD committer
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090921130346.GY21946>