3 ms·

X11 allowed resolution independence (run 'xdpyinfo | grep dimensions' and the report includes the physical size, which will almost certainly be wrong) and in th

by kps 9y ago

X11 allowed resolution independence (run 'xdpyinfo | grep dimensions' and the report includes the physical size, which will almost certainly be wrong) and in the days of pixel fonts shipped with two sets, for 75dpi and 100dpi, corresponding to the two common display densities of the time. The ‘free desktops’ could have built on this when vector fonts took over, but ignored it in their zeal to imitate Windows.

vetinari 9y ago
> but ignored it in their zeal to imitate Windows. You are letting your zeal affect your judgement. Of course the free desktops did explore the resolution issue. They came to similar result that the proprietary counterparts did, namely that: 1) hardware lies about it capabilities. There are entire product lines that use the same EDIDs. For manufacturers, that it simpler to just copy an existing ROM for a new product, that to bother with customizing. Customers do not care anyway. 2) hardware may have no knowledge at all, what the pixel density is. How do you imagine, that a projector measures and reports it's density? In the case of a projector, it might even change mid-flight, with the intent to change the entire size of the picture, not it's sharpness. 3) meanwhile, there were practical concerns with software. What kind of bitmap assets are you going to recommend to developers to prepare? They won't ship for the entire continuum of densities. That's why Apple approach was practical - just ship two or three.
- kps 9y ago
  This predated EDID, and digital displays generally. The point was that Gnome & KDE actually regressed from base X11 and painted themselves into a 100dpi corner. Technologically, scaling for physical display resolution and scaling for legibility are substantially the same; done right, either would enable the other.

3 ms·

X11 allowed resolution independence (run 'xdpyinfo | grep dimensions' and the report includes the physical size, which will almost certainly be wrong) and in th

by kps 9y ago

vetinari 9y ago
> but ignored it in their zeal to imitate Windows. You are letting your zeal affect your judgement. Of course the free desktops did explore the resolution issue. They came to similar result that the proprietary counterparts did, namely that: 1) hardware lies about it capabilities. There are entire product lines that use the same EDIDs. For manufacturers, that it simpler to just copy an existing ROM for a new product, that to bother with customizing. Customers do not care anyway. 2) hardware may have no knowledge at all, what the pixel density is. How do you imagine, that a projector measures and reports it's density? In the case of a projector, it might even change mid-flight, with the intent to change the entire size of the picture, not it's sharpness. 3) meanwhile, there were practical concerns with software. What kind of bitmap assets are you going to recommend to developers to prepare? They won't ship for the entire continuum of densities. That's why Apple approach was practical - just ship two or three.
- kps 9y ago
  This predated EDID, and digital displays generally. The point was that Gnome & KDE actually regressed from base X11 and painted themselves into a 100dpi corner. Technologically, scaling for physical display resolution and scaling for legibility are substantially the same; done right, either would enable the other.