[Fwd: xorg Digest, Vol 36, Issue 22]
Regina
regina.apel at gmx.de
Thu Jul 3 02:47:45 PDT 2008
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: xorg Digest, Vol 36, Issue 22
Datum: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 02:29:53 -0700
Von: xorg-request at lists.freedesktop.org
Antwort an: xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
An: xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
Send xorg mailing list submissions to
xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
xorg-request at lists.freedesktop.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
xorg-owner at lists.freedesktop.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of xorg digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. [Fwd: xorg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 121] (Regina)
2. [Fwd: xorg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 122] (Regina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:29:25 +0200
From: Regina <regina.apel at gmx.de>
Subject: [Fwd: xorg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 121]
To: xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
Message-ID: <486C9BF5.3050103 at gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: xorg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 121
Datum: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:23:13 -0700
Von: xorg-request at lists.freedesktop.org
Antwort an: xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
An: xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
Send xorg mailing list submissions to
xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
xorg-request at lists.freedesktop.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
xorg-owner at lists.freedesktop.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of xorg digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: xrx-1.0.2 compilation failure (Michael Verret)
2. Re: compiz not working with AIGLX enabled (Mohan Parthasarathy)
3. Re: Resolution indpendence (Daniel Stone)
4. Re: xrx-1.0.2 compilation failure (Dan Nicholson)
5. Summary (Was Re: Resolution indpendence) (Mohan Parthasarathy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:48:11 -0500
From: "Michael Verret" <michael.verret at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: xrx-1.0.2 compilation failure
To: "Adam Jackson" <ajax at nwnk.net>
Cc: xorg list <xorg at lists.freedesktop.org>
Message-ID:
<a55077760806301048v742dd3adsba7706ba6e95ecb4 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I eventually made it compile fine using the fixed GIT code.
However, on the subject of deprecating...
Is there a list of deprecated software? I see here
http://www.x.org/wiki/Releases/7.4 the list of new/updated modules but
could we also add to the bottom of that page a list of deprecated
modules?
This would help me to have a clear listing of the supported modules
between releases.
:)
Michael
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Adam Jackson <ajax at nwnk.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-06-28 at 10:30 -0500, Michael Verret wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I can't seem to get xrx-1.0.2 to compile on a system on which
>> xrx-1.0.1 has not problem. Here are the ouput of my configuration and
>> compilation. Googles give me nothing for the last few days. Any clues
>> at to what I am missing is greatly appreciated.
>
> It strikes me at this point that we never did formally deprecate xrx,
> though we certainly intended to.
>
> - ajax
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:52:19 -0700
From: "Mohan Parthasarathy" <suruti94 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: compiz not working with AIGLX enabled
To: "Adam K Kirchhoff" <adamk at voicenet.com>
Cc: xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
Message-ID:
<89dd3da60806301052v10002d15ld328fd7a117c04d0 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Ah! it looks like setting LIBGL_ALWAYS_INDIRECT=1 + a reboot did the magic.
Initially not setting the INDIRECT
and killing/restarting X server caused some damage. Now everything is
working fine..
Let me know if there are still some problems with my log..
Thanks a lot
mohan
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Mohan Parthasarathy <suruti94 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I am using the Xorg drivers. Attached is the output of my Xorg log and
> glxinfo log.
>
> thanks
> -mohan
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Adam K Kirchhoff <adamk at voicenet.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> If you get a white screen when starting up compiz, your drivers are
>> almost certainly not setup correct. Are you using fglrx or the open
>> source drivers? If it's fglrx, you should ask on the appropriate forum
>> for help from AMD: http://www.phoronix.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=19
>>
>> If it's the open source drivers, please attach or pastebin
>> your /var/log/Xorg.0.log file and the output of
>> 'LIBGL_ALWAYS_INDIRECT=1 glxinfo'.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:12:51 -0700
>> "Mohan Parthasarathy" <suruti94 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I tried but with no difference. First the screen goes "white" and i
>> > need to "ctrl-C" to get back.
>> >
>> > -mohan
>> >
>> > P.S: The odd thing is that my "ctrl-Alt-F?" does not work anymore and
>> > makes it even more harder
>> > to debug
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:56 AM, drago01 <drago01 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Mohan Parthasarathy
>> > > <suruti94 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > Hi,
>> > > >
>> > > > According to my Xserver log, AIGLX is enabled and glxinfo is
>> > > > reporting
>> > > that
>> > > > direct rendering is enabled
>> > > > and it is able to find all the server side glx extensions
>> > > > (GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap etc.)
>> > > >
>> > > > When i run "compiz --replace", I get the error saying
>> > > >
>> > > > "GL_EXT_texture_from_pixmap is not supported by rendering
>> > > > context, trying indirect rendering context instead"
>> > > > inotify_add_watch: No such file or directory
>> > > > failed to create drawable.
>> > > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > It is extremely slow after this. Any clues on what is going on ?
>> > > > I am running on ubuntu fiesty with Xserver 1.5.99.1 on ATI RADEON
>> > > > X1650
>> > > PRO.
>> > >
>> > > do export LIBGL_ALWAYS_INDIRECT=1 before starting compiz
>> > >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20080630/e8ee6b08/attachment.html
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:03:50 +0300
From: Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org>
Subject: Re: Resolution indpendence
To: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>
Cc: xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
Message-ID: <20080630180350.GC24418 at fooishbar.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 06:21:22PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le Ven 27 juin 2008 17:50, Daniel Stone a ?crit :
> > The problem as I see it is the conflation of DPI as 'the thing I need
> > to
> > change to make my fonts render at a reasonable size because 12pt is
> > the
> > standard for very reasonably readable text and changing all my
> > documents
> > as stupid' (users care about)
>
> Actually, no. You have two sources of computer text:
>
> 1. system applications that should just use the user default font size
> -> have a setting where the user enters his preferred font, the
> preferred size for it in pt, and have apps obey it (with % sizes for
> titles)
>
> 2. documents produced by someone else, that may use different prefs
> from the ones of the user
> -> all the apps that manage those documents have a built-in zoom
> system, and it's stupid to even try to correct all those with a
> system-wide dpi kludge because every external document won't use the
> same font sizes anyway and the correction will vary document per
> document (you can try to automate "match to the system font size later
> but it'd be a dynamic document-specific adjustment not a fixed fake
> dpi value)
>
> So "the thing you need to change for documents" is document-specific.
No, because everyone except desktop publishers deals in a standard,
well-understood set of point sizes, which they expect to translate at
about 96dpi, instead of maybe reallyreallytiny or LUDICROUSLY BIG.
> And it's different from "the thing you need to change for the desktop
> gui" where you have *not* reason not to use pt size directly assuming
> you kill all the dpi forcing kludges which have make it lose a
> specific meaning on many systems.
I'd be more than happy for everything to be redesignated as 'size'
rather than points, because as you say, it stops the conflation of the
two use cases. One use case involves people who just want to use their
computer and have it behave as they expect. The other involve people
who get very upset when their computer behaves in a manner that's not
completely in accordance with certain rigid principles.
> > and 'thing which must match my physical
> > properties exactly as I'm doing typesetting' (statistically, no-one
> > cares about this).
>
> Do you have any study that says users would not like this? They only
> do not care because it's been broken so long (just as they didn't care
> about AA text when the only thing available was pixelated bitmap
> fonts).
>
> > As long as the
> > two
> > are fundamentally in opposition,
>
> They're only in fundamental opposition because some people insist in
> abusing physical scaling to change font sizes instead of
> (revolutionnary idea) just specifying different size defaults
Look, I'm happy that you care about this stuff. Really, because we need
more people to tell us that we're screwing up and going wrong. But
please trust me that real people don't feel that way. They see 'size
12' (something readable), rather than '12pt' (however many inches).
Nothing that exists today works at all with high-density displays -- the
Nokia tablets still just always smash the DPI to 96 or so, because
surprisingly you have NO ROOM ON YOUR SCREEN AT 220DPI BECAUSE
EVERYTHING IS REALLY BIG AND JUST IMAGINE THIS BIT IS TAKING UP THIRTEEN
LINES RATHER THAN JUST BEING IN CAPS. It's ridiculous.
Cheers,
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20080630/2000cef7/attachment-0001.pgp
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:08:36 -0700
From: "Dan Nicholson" <dbn.lists at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: xrx-1.0.2 compilation failure
To: "Michael Verret" <michael.verret at gmail.com>
Cc: xorg list <xorg at lists.freedesktop.org>
Message-ID:
<91705d080806301108wa1eed67mfe1a8978e9b2c0bd at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Michael Verret
<michael.verret at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> However, on the subject of deprecating...
>
> Is there a list of deprecated software? I see here
> http://www.x.org/wiki/Releases/7.4 the list of new/updated modules but
> could we also add to the bottom of that page a list of deprecated
> modules?
>
> This would help me to have a clear listing of the supported modules
> between releases.
Ajax, Daniel or Alan would certainly know better, but there are a few
bits floating around on fd.o. The ModuleDescriptions page has an
Obsolete/Deprecated section:
http://xorg.freedesktop.org/wiki/ModuleDescriptions
However, I think the authoritative location for module information is
the MAINTAINERS file in xorg-docs:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/doc/xorg-docs/tree/MAINTAINERS
It doesn't exactly correspond to modules/tarballs, though. Probably
someone should keep the Releases/ModuleVersions page updated. For
instance, xkbdata is listed at version 1.0.1 for Xorg 7.2 and 7.3, but
it was deprecated in 7.2 and not released as part of either.
--
Dan
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:23:11 -0700
From: "Mohan Parthasarathy" <suruti94 at gmail.com>
Subject: Summary (Was Re: Resolution indpendence)
To: "Daniel Stone" <daniel at fooishbar.org>, "Nicolas Mailhot"
<nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>, "Steven J Newbury"
<steve at snewbury.org.uk>, xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
Message-ID:
<89dd3da60806301123u435c31bctfca19f16f36eefee at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hello,
I never thought that this topic would fire off a major debate :-) I want to
try
and summarize what people are trying to say here so that we can come to some
sort
of conclusion (possibly)
>>>From my side, it all triggered off when i was reading the following:
http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/GraphicsImaging/RN-ResolutionIndependentUI/
and the latest leopard release has some specific notes on this:
http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/Cocoa/AppKit.html#HiDPI
I don't know how this is any different from Windows allowing the user to
change
from 96 dpi to anything else depending on the screen resolution/user needs.
It
looks like Quartz in the olden days assumed 72 dpi for monitors and it is
changing now
to suit higher dpis.
Please read http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/mac-os-x-10-5.ars/9
to see how this is still not completely solved in the case of Apple. There
are still
some quirks.
The original question that i raised is what should application do in Linux?
I guess
some applications provide "Font size" option like Word Processors, Browsers
which
helps adjust to different resolutions/user needs. You can't assume a
reasonble size
to start with. Recently, i got to play around with the browser on HTC touch
diamond
which has a VGA screen with 260 dpi. By default the font size is so small
that it
is almost unreadable to my eyes. Perhaps, it is targeted at younger people
:-)
Sure, it could almost get the whole page in that small screen. The point
here is
that as long as there is font size provided by applications, it should be
acceptable.
I don't know how else one could solve this problem.
But this does not solve all the problems. How about handling the UI
scaling automatically that is beyond font rendering ? SVG (like WPF in
windows) help to
some extent but the system needs to handle this automatically for many
applications depending
on the screen resolution/UI. There were many opinions on this topic.
- One point of view is that it does not matter Fixed DPI like 96 or 120 as
in windows is sufficient. Scaling is just not about fonts but also the
whole UI
- Gnome detects dpi and uses right size fonts except there are some bugs
that
need fixing. Some folks feel that Gnome works reasonably well.
- 96 dpi is not enough, use the real dpi of the screen. Using the real dpi
means the
UI needs to be designed with the max dpi in mind, but then may not look
good at other
dpis.
- DPI is not the only factor, distance and viewing angle also matters. We
can arrive
at a normalized DPI which can then be used to scale UI. But some
folks argue that it does not matter as majority of computer screens are
at the same distance. Videoprojectors can be handled separately with some
basic assumptions on distance, scaling etc.
- Screens as high as 200 dpi are appearing. OLPC and embedded devices
are reaching high dpi. Look at HTC black diamond with 260 dpi
So, with so many views, it is not clear as to what the right solution here
is.
I have not possibly summarized everyones view. Am i missing anything ? Can
someone
better understanding than me summarize this issue so that it will be useful
in
the future. Or we want to debate this forever :-)
thanks a lot,
mohan
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 06:21:22PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le Ven 27 juin 2008 17:50, Daniel Stone a ?crit :
> > > The problem as I see it is the conflation of DPI as 'the thing I need
> > > to
> > > change to make my fonts render at a reasonable size because 12pt is
> > > the
> > > standard for very reasonably readable text and changing all my
> > > documents
> > > as stupid' (users care about)
> >
> > Actually, no. You have two sources of computer text:
> >
> > 1. system applications that should just use the user default font size
> > -> have a setting where the user enters his preferred font, the
> > preferred size for it in pt, and have apps obey it (with % sizes for
> > titles)
> >
> > 2. documents produced by someone else, that may use different prefs
> > from the ones of the user
> > -> all the apps that manage those documents have a built-in zoom
> > system, and it's stupid to even try to correct all those with a
> > system-wide dpi kludge because every external document won't use the
> > same font sizes anyway and the correction will vary document per
> > document (you can try to automate "match to the system font size later
> > but it'd be a dynamic document-specific adjustment not a fixed fake
> > dpi value)
> >
> > So "the thing you need to change for documents" is document-specific.
>
> No, because everyone except desktop publishers deals in a standard,
> well-understood set of point sizes, which they expect to translate at
> about 96dpi, instead of maybe reallyreallytiny or LUDICROUSLY BIG.
>
> > And it's different from "the thing you need to change for the desktop
> > gui" where you have *not* reason not to use pt size directly assuming
> > you kill all the dpi forcing kludges which have make it lose a
> > specific meaning on many systems.
>
> I'd be more than happy for everything to be redesignated as 'size'
> rather than points, because as you say, it stops the conflation of the
> two use cases. One use case involves people who just want to use their
> computer and have it behave as they expect. The other involve people
> who get very upset when their computer behaves in a manner that's not
> completely in accordance with certain rigid principles.
>
> > > and 'thing which must match my physical
> > > properties exactly as I'm doing typesetting' (statistically, no-one
> > > cares about this).
> >
> > Do you have any study that says users would not like this? They only
> > do not care because it's been broken so long (just as they didn't care
> > about AA text when the only thing available was pixelated bitmap
> > fonts).
> >
> > > As long as the
> > > two
> > > are fundamentally in opposition,
> >
> > They're only in fundamental opposition because some people insist in
> > abusing physical scaling to change font sizes instead of
> > (revolutionnary idea) just specifying different size defaults
>
> Look, I'm happy that you care about this stuff. Really, because we need
> more people to tell us that we're screwing up and going wrong. But
> please trust me that real people don't feel that way. They see 'size
> 12' (something readable), rather than '12pt' (however many inches).
> Nothing that exists today works at all with high-density displays -- the
> Nokia tablets still just always smash the DPI to 96 or so, because
> surprisingly you have NO ROOM ON YOUR SCREEN AT 220DPI BECAUSE
> EVERYTHING IS REALLY BIG AND JUST IMAGINE THIS BIT IS TAKING UP THIRTEEN
> LINES RATHER THAN JUST BEING IN CAPS. It's ridiculous.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkhpIAYACgkQUVYB1rKAgJQVLgCfQk+1jypMtX8FkneqarsdQn5e
> OWIAniHmuTPaCLXNZ7ZpBLTfyP/9e5UU
> =sYnY
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> xorg mailing list
> xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20080630/7fb09d88/attachment.htm
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
xorg mailing list
xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
End of xorg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 121
*************************************
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:29:49 +0200
From: Regina <regina.apel at gmx.de>
Subject: [Fwd: xorg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 122]
To: xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
Message-ID: <486C9C0D.4090405 at gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: xorg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 122
Datum: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:00:29 -0700
Von: xorg-request at lists.freedesktop.org
Antwort an: xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
An: xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
Send xorg mailing list submissions to
xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
xorg-request at lists.freedesktop.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
xorg-owner at lists.freedesktop.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of xorg digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: xrx-1.0.2 compilation failure (Michael Verret)
2. Re: Resolution indpendence (Steven J Newbury)
3. Re: Resolution indpendence (Daniel Stone)
4. Further notes on 7.4 (Adam Jackson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:30:43 -0500
From: "Michael Verret" <michael.verret at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: xrx-1.0.2 compilation failure
To: "Dan Nicholson" <dbn.lists at gmail.com>
Cc: xorg list <xorg at lists.freedesktop.org>
Message-ID:
<a55077760806301130u5c88be9dk9f97f9d96809d092 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> It doesn't exactly correspond to modules/tarballs, though. Probably
> someone should keep the Releases/ModuleVersions page updated. For
> instance, xkbdata is listed at version 1.0.1 for Xorg 7.2 and 7.3, but
> it was deprecated in 7.2 and not released as part of either.
>
> --
> Dan
>
Things like this make it hard to follow what's what. Try as I may with
all of the above you mentioned not one of them seems to included
everything. http://www.x.org/wiki/Releases/7.4 does not list
deprecated modules,
http://xorg.freedesktop.org/wiki/ModuleDescriptions is not updated and
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/doc/xorg-docs/tree/MAINTAINERS is
missing info for modules such as "xrx".
I am very, very humbly asking for a up-to-date master list of what
state the modules are in. I'll gladly maintain this list if I can be
informed of changes. I have helped with updating
http://www.x.org/wiki/Releases/7.4 but I now feel not informed enough
to continue, for example I saw that xrx was recently updated yet it is
deprecated?
Michael
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:40:37 +0100
From: Steven J Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Resolution indpendence
To: Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org>
Cc: xorg at lists.freedesktop.org, Nicolas Mailhot
<nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>
Message-ID:
<1214851237.15478.25.camel at infinity.southview.snewbury.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 21:03 +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 06:21:22PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le Ven 27 juin 2008 17:50, Daniel Stone a ?crit :
> > > The problem as I see it is the conflation of DPI as 'the thing I need
> > > to
> > > change to make my fonts render at a reasonable size because 12pt is
> > > the
> > > standard for very reasonably readable text and changing all my
> > > documents
> > > as stupid' (users care about)
> >
> > Actually, no. You have two sources of computer text:
> >
> > 1. system applications that should just use the user default font size
> > -> have a setting where the user enters his preferred font, the
> > preferred size for it in pt, and have apps obey it (with % sizes for
> > titles)
> >
> > 2. documents produced by someone else, that may use different prefs
> > from the ones of the user
> > -> all the apps that manage those documents have a built-in zoom
> > system, and it's stupid to even try to correct all those with a
> > system-wide dpi kludge because every external document won't use the
> > same font sizes anyway and the correction will vary document per
> > document (you can try to automate "match to the system font size later
> > but it'd be a dynamic document-specific adjustment not a fixed fake
> > dpi value)
> >
> > So "the thing you need to change for documents" is document-specific.
>
> No, because everyone except desktop publishers deals in a standard,
> well-understood set of point sizes, which they expect to translate at
> about 96dpi, instead of maybe reallyreallytiny or LUDICROUSLY BIG.
I really don't understand this argument. Surely this is only the case
because most people use 1024x768:
[ http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox51_screen_resolutions_internet.html ]
Yes, that's right, most people set the resolution of their display to a
value lower than the display hw optimimum so that text (and image) sizes
are what they are accustomed to. Most(!) people work around the fact the
96dpi hack by adujsting the resolution!
>
> > And it's different from "the thing you need to change for the desktop
> > gui" where you have *not* reason not to use pt size directly assuming
> > you kill all the dpi forcing kludges which have make it lose a
> > specific meaning on many systems.
>
> I'd be more than happy for everything to be redesignated as 'size'
> rather than points, because as you say, it stops the conflation of the
> two use cases. One use case involves people who just want to use their
> computer and have it behave as they expect. The other involve people
> who get very upset when their computer behaves in a manner that's not
> completely in accordance with certain rigid principles.
I'm sorry, but computers *should* act in accordance with rigid priciples
otherwise what's the point? That's why we have standards, no?
>
> > > and 'thing which must match my physical
> > > properties exactly as I'm doing typesetting' (statistically, no-one
> > > cares about this).
> >
> > Do you have any study that says users would not like this? They only
> > do not care because it's been broken so long (just as they didn't care
> > about AA text when the only thing available was pixelated bitmap
> > fonts).
> >
> > > As long as the
> > > two
> > > are fundamentally in opposition,
> >
> > They're only in fundamental opposition because some people insist in
> > abusing physical scaling to change font sizes instead of
> > (revolutionnary idea) just specifying different size defaults
>
> Look, I'm happy that you care about this stuff. Really, because we need
> more people to tell us that we're screwing up and going wrong. But
> please trust me that real people don't feel that way. They see 'size
> 12' (something readable), rather than '12pt' (however many inches).
> Nothing that exists today works at all with high-density displays -- the
> Nokia tablets still just always smash the DPI to 96 or so, because
> surprisingly you have NO ROOM ON YOUR SCREEN AT 220DPI BECAUSE
> EVERYTHING IS REALLY BIG AND JUST IMAGINE THIS BIT IS TAKING UP THIRTEEN
> LINES RATHER THAN JUST BEING IN CAPS. It's ridiculous.
This just makes no sense. If the true DPI is 220 on a decent size
screen, text at 12pt will be unreadable by most if the system DPI is
fixed to 96! It will only give the expected (readable) result by either
setting a lower screen resolution or by using the true DPI to render the
text!
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:51:29 +0300
From: Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org>
Subject: Re: Resolution indpendence
To: Steven J Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk>
Cc: xorg at lists.freedesktop.org, Nicolas Mailhot
<nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>
Message-ID: <20080630185129.GD24418 at fooishbar.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 07:40:37PM +0100, Steven J Newbury wrote:
> I really don't understand this argument. Surely this is only the case
> because most people use 1024x768:
> [ http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox51_screen_resolutions_internet.html ]
>
> Yes, that's right, most people set the resolution of their display to a
> value lower than the display hw optimimum so that text (and image) sizes
> are what they are accustomed to. Most(!) people work around the fact the
> 96dpi hack by adujsting the resolution!
Also because Windows is generally terrible at autodetecting these
things, but yes.
> I'm sorry, but computers *should* act in accordance with rigid priciples
> otherwise what's the point? That's why we have standards, no?
Depends on whether the rigid principles are in opposition to general
expectations or not.
> This just makes no sense. If the true DPI is 220 on a decent size
> screen, text at 12pt will be unreadable by most if the system DPI is
> fixed to 96! It will only give the expected (readable) result by either
> setting a lower screen resolution or by using the true DPI to render the
> text!
Right, because all 220 DPI screens are usually viewed from long
distances, right? Except that the vast majority of higher-density
screens are used in mobile devices, hence my example of the
770/N800/N810 having forced the reported DPI to be artificially low.
Cheers,
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20080630/871b0850/attachment-0001.pgp
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:54:50 -0400
From: Adam Jackson <ajax at nwnk.net>
Subject: Further notes on 7.4
To: xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
Message-ID: <1214852090.24769.98.camel at localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain
We will not be doing the -X11R7.4- badging in tarball names anymore. No
one I talked to could come up with any reason for still wanting this,
and it's busy work I don't feel like doing. If you really still want
it, convince me.
I've updated the module list with my current understanding of what
modules are included and what versions people want in 7.4. If you
haven't seen this file, you really should:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/util/modular/tree/module-list.txt
While this list still includes most of the input drivers, be aware that
most of them are slated for the block, according to the input crew. If
you're not evdev/kbd/mouse/vmmouse/void start justifying your existence.
In the same vein, I suspect XEvIE will either go away or be much changed
by 7.5.
Note that almost all of the graphics demos and core font utilities are
gone in that list. Yes, this is intentional. xeyes is not a critical
component of the modern desktop. Run them if you want, but they're not
part of the core release anymore.
The core fonts are still listed there, but really, don't. The only one
you want is font-misc-misc for fixed/cursor, expect the rest to leave
the list in 7.5.
- ajax
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
xorg mailing list
xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
End of xorg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 122
*************************************
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
xorg mailing list
xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
End of xorg Digest, Vol 36, Issue 22
************************************
More information about the xorg
mailing list