Zellij: A terminal workspace with batteries included

50 pointsposted 5 hours ago
by ndr

42 Comments

kstrauser

40 minutes ago

An endorsement: I freaking love Zellij. I mainly use it like one might use Tmux, to keep remote sessions alive so I can reconnect to them from other host than where I began the session:

* Ssh in to myserver.cloud from my laptop. Run Zellij. Fire off various long-running processes in multiple tabs.

* On my commute home, ssh in from my phone, run `zellij attach`, and check on the status of those processes.

* Once home, ssh in from my desktop, run `zellij attach`, and continue where I left off earlier.

Tmux is nice, but Zellij fits my brain a lot better. Plus, it has a lot of UI affordances to discover features without me having to memorize keystrokes. I use these kinds of tools often enough to care about them, but not so often or in such depth that I'm any kind of a power user. There were certain things I did so rarely in Tmux that I'd have to look up the manual every single time. With Zellij, I don't have to.

mixmastamyk

24 minutes ago

Neat. Any idea how well it runs on the linux console, or fbterm perhaps? Maybe there is a better fbterm by now, remember it being a bit lacking as well.

Milpotel

2 hours ago

2025 and actual devs are still recommending to type "bash <(curl -L ...)" into a terminal...

Rucadi

an hour ago

If the source is known, it is not less bad that downloading a program and running it

homebrewer

an hour ago

It is if the script is written badly, gets truncated while it's being downloaded, and fails to account for this possibility.

Look into tailscale's installation script, they wrapped everything into a function which is called in the last line — you either download and execute every line, or it does nothing.

manmal

an hour ago

Serious question, why or how would a script get truncated when transferred over https?

nilamo

32 minutes ago

You pull the Ethernet cable out before it finishes. Or your wifi router hiccups

Analemma_

an hour ago

This "what if it gets truncated in the middle of the download, and the half-run script does something really bad" objection gets brought up every time "curl | bash" is mentioned, and it always feels like "what if a cosmic ray flips a bit in your memory which makes the kernel erase your hard drive". Like, yes, it could happen in the same way getting killed by a falling asteroid could happen, but I'm not losing sleep over it.

quantummagic

an hour ago

It's just assumed you'll run it in an isolated container, or some other sandbox...

sesm

2 hours ago

My dream workspace is a real browser (with all dev tools), with integrated terminal emulator and integrated editor. Editor plugins could be prototyped with web technology and debugged on the fly (like Obsidian plugins). Is there anything like this?

maccard

an hour ago

You’ve basically described vscode!

pomdtr

2 hours ago

I built a project to add a terminal emulator to the browser (using a chrome extension): https://github.com/pomdtr/tweety.

I'm working on a `tweety edit` command which open arbitrary files in your $EDITOR of choice in a new tab.

not-so-darkstar

2 hours ago

I don't understand the idea to make everything terminal-centric. It should be one component of all the tools available to the programmer.

All text editors worth using have a way to open a terminal for that one time you need it, everything else should be a GUI (with all the advantages that come with it).

dr_kretyn

an hour ago

Extremes are on both ends. Some people want to use a terminal for all, some don't want a terminal at all.

I'm a terminal guy because most UI I use is just unintuitive and requires a lot of mouse clicking - using mouse is just inconvenient to me. And often there are no tools for what I want to do, or rather, I'd need to open many tools to do something simple like change a file on a remote machine.

But I like a nice IDE, I use DB explorers, I use cloud code to write GUI for data processing and reporting visuals. Terminal is just a "killer app" that's useful for almost everything. So, if you're using regardless, why not make the experience better?

not-so-darkstar

an hour ago

I don't think terminal multiplexers (even Zellij which claims not to be one) make the experience better. They make it worse, actually, because when you have a problem there's one more thing to keep track of: Your terminal emulator, your terminal multiplexer and your TUI.

A decent terminal emulator like kitty solves all of this.

dr_kretyn

an hour ago

Horses for courses. A decent terminal emulator solves most of it. But I'm guessing there's a reason why there's so many terminal emulators and multiplexers.

Until a few months ago I used to use tmux + foot (tiny terminal), and I enjoyed the setup because I could copy over my tmux config to remote hosts and work as if nothing changed. As I'm mainly working local now, I'm now mostly using Kitty.

chrysoprace

an hour ago

GUIs are often mouse-centric, resource-hungry.

TUIs and CLIs are often keyboard centric only use as many resources as it takes to do the task, and then minimal resources to draw the text. Most CLIs also follow the Unix philosophy of doing one thing well, so you can get an output from a CLI and then pipe it into another.

At work I literally use the same workflow at home across two different operating systems because they both share a terminal. I don't even know how to switch workspace on a Mac because I don't need to, tmux sessions fulfil the same task.

Barrin92

an hour ago

>Most CLIs also follow the Unix philosophy of doing one thing well,

basi cli tools yes, but software like the one we're commenting on has a TUI so complex they simply emulate graphical user environments and widgets but on a text rendering stack, akin to web apps pretending to be graphical applications on top of a markup language, except they do it out of necessity because that's how the web works.

If you want to draw graphical user interfaces on an operating system just use the... actual graphics stack. There's terminal apps with widget frameworks now that painstakingly try to reproduce what every OS ships with just because it's.. cool to be a terminal hacker or something?

acedTrex

an hour ago

Because its convenient in a terminal flow to simply hot key through everything without ever touching a mouse. Most GUI programs are inherently mouse driven so if you never touch your mouse they are not very convenient.

ghusto

an hour ago

For me it's because it's because most things are faster, easier, and don't change (what you learn retains it's value, and doesn't become worthless when the new hotness arrives). So for me it's the other way around; everything should be in the terminal, with a GUI for that one time you need it (`open .` on Mac to open Finder).

not-so-darkstar

25 minutes ago

With all the new CLI tools it looks like the opposite to me. For example the ag, ack, rg history.

VS Code still has the same style from 2018.

tomtomtom777

an hour ago

It's quite often useful to have multiple tabs or panes in your terminal. Zellij does this. It's a terminal multiplexer, like tmux. Mostly just a bit more beginner-friendly and polished.

So obviously it's terminal-centric.

klooney

an hour ago

The author's father agrees with you, which is pretty funny.

hollerith

2 hours ago

I don't even use a terminal to run shell commands.

not-so-darkstar

an hour ago

Another fellow GVim user?

hollerith

an hour ago

Emacs, and as soon as I spawn it, I send the shell process EOF, which is my way of saying, "I'm interested in seeing what you write on your stdout, but have no interest in conducting a dialog with you".

mistercheph

an hour ago

Keyboards are higher bandwidth man-machine interfaces than mouse + GUI unless what you're exchanging is spatial information, which is typically not the case for writing software.

There is a higher learning curve, and we can argue about the tradeoffs you make, but some powerful tools can be difficult to learn to use. Complexity != bad design; sometimes you're just exposing an underlying problem space that can't be simplified without being cut off from part of the solution space.

homebrewer

an hour ago

I use IDEA for most things and barely touch the mouse. It has its problems (like terrible performance), but it's a good example of a GUI done right.

Everything can be controlled through the keyboard, typing into every window does fuzzy search of its contents (and that window might contain a list of code symbols, a list of database tables, a list of search results, or many other things).

Every action can be bound to a key combo of your choice. Every interaction with the GUI can be stored as a macro, edited and replayed.

And so on, and so forth.

grepex

an hour ago

This 100%. For me, the philosophy is not so much a terminal-centric design but a keyboard-centric design. Sure, this could be done in a GUI, but even GUIs with a keyboard-centric design are not as fluid as a TUI.

I'll also add that (like the parent comment) I did not get the appeal. Not until I forced myself to use it more and saw the benefits.

not-so-darkstar

an hour ago

I didn't understand much of you said but it sounded mathy so I'm going to reply with a counterexample, just look up on youtube Russ Cox solving AoC with Acme and tell me that's not impressive!

By the way, using a GUI doesn't automatically using the mouse for everything, think of GVim or Emacs. the problem with terminal emulators is the emulating part, where they are forced to comply with the idiotic rules from the '70s.

mutkach

an hour ago

Does it support sending and executing commands to the panes like tmux does?

like this:

tmux send-keys -t 0:1.1 "ls" Enter

edit: well, yes, you can:

zellij action write-chars ls

zellij action write 10

chb

33 minutes ago

Ha! I've been using tmux for years and I didn't realize one could do this.

tdubey

2 hours ago

Is there improved guidance on migrating from tmux to zellij?

I've attempted to move over a few times, and while this is certainly user skill, it just felt too different from screen/tmux. Perhaps I should bite the bullet and force myself to get used to a new paradigm...

stusmall

36 minutes ago

For something as simple as a terminal multiplexer, if you aren't seeing immediate value in a switch maybe its fine if you stick with what you have. You don't always need to be on the newest thing. I prefer zellij over tmux, but it is evolutionary not revolutionary. Instead of forcing yourself, save the effort and focus on something more valuable.

whimsicalism

2 hours ago

i've switched over and really enjoy it. i feel like it's largely self documenting, what are your biggest hurdles?

dr_kretyn

2 hours ago

I'm a terminal person and would love to try new things. But I just spent a few minutes on their page and have no idea why I would try to use it.

Can anyone help me learn why this over, say, kitty?

chrysoprace

an hour ago

It's not an alternative to kitty; it's an alternative to tmux or GNU screen.

I believe it's positioned to be more user-friendly than tmux but I've already got things memorised with tmux and it wasn't bringing anything new to the table, so I didn't try zellij for more than a few days.

tym0

18 minutes ago

I feel the same. If someone would ask me for a recommendation I would point them toward Zellij but if you've been using tmux for years it's probably not worth it.

The modal nature of Zellij is nice though.

pletnes

an hour ago

I like tmux better as well (muscle memory) but AFAIK you need tmuxinator for preconfiguring layouts?

atmosx

an hour ago

You need a session manager like tmuxinator, tmuxp and tmux-sessionx are popular choices.