6 ms·

This...seems like complete and total bullshit. It's so bad-faith I'm not going to bother responding to each pseudo-point. They're not wrong in a general sense t

This...seems like complete and total bullshit. It's so bad-faith I'm not going to bother responding to each pseudo-point. They're not wrong in a general sense that Wayland isn't a 1:1 compatible x replacement yet - that part is absolutely true - but this whole "boycott wayland!" nonsense is just done in such a way that I can only conclude malice as the author's objective. Wayland DOES work with fractional scaling values. It's labeled "experimental" right now but in my personal experience it works fine on both GNOME and KDE. "Nothing we can do from the $SOMESOFTWARE side so we're closing this issue." stuff is also bullshit. Yes, there IS something you can do from your side software wise, and that's UPDATE THE GOD DAMN SOFTWARE. Steam w/ Wine works out of the box with Wayland and GNOME on Fedora Workstation 36. I just did daily quests in The Elder Scrolls Online with it earlier today. I can even run Elden Ring in the exact same configuration. With a damn controller, no less. So yeah, this is just bullshit.

ndiddy 4y ago
> Wayland DOES work with fractional scaling values. It's labeled "experimental" right now but in my personal experience it works fine on both GNOME and KDE. I'm not sure about how it works in KDE, but at least in GNOME the way it works is kind of a hack IMO. When you do a 150% scale, it renders to a framebuffer at 3x the resolution of your display and then scales the framebuffer down by 1/2, which compromises the video quality, as well as wasting CPU (and battery life if you use a laptop).
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Is this true for all windows or only ones running in Xwayland?
- diffeomorphism 4y ago
  > When you do a 150% scale, it renders to a framebuffer at 3x the resolution of your display and then scales the framebuffer down by 1/2, which compromises the video quality, Isn't that exactly how apple does fractional scaling? > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19052960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19052960
  - vetinari 4y ago
    It is exactly how Apple does fractional scaling. There is also some kind of belief, that scaling down framebuffer is somehow demanding. It isn't. The output encoder (the modern equivalent of VGA DAC) can do it on the fly. For several overlaid planes, each at different scale, at once (one of these planes is going to be your cursor).
- zamadatix 4y ago
  That's just how GNOME/GTK handles scaling on any platform, it's unrelated to what the underlying display server can do. Windows DWM, Android's SurfaceFlinger, and Wayland allow for true native per display fractional scaling but it's still up to each app to actually use it.
michaelmrose 4y ago
Does fractional scaling work with xwayland.
- vetinari 4y ago
  Depends how you define "work". Since X11 apps can find out the display dpi and render accordingly, they do not communicate to compositor at which scale they really do render their contents. This gets even more interesting, once there are multiple scales (i.e. you have multiple displays, each at different scale). This leads to compromise, where xwayland assumes that all X11 clients render at 96 dpi and upscales them to the actual one. It is not pretty, bilinear would not be my choice of algorithm here, but the apps are at least correct size. There are patches floating around that modify this assumption, let X11 clients render at actual dpi, and if they don't, let have the user apps with tiny UI. So YMMV.
  - michaelmrose 4y ago
    This actually works seamlessly on X wherein one can scale down lower DPI displays down from a higher resolution so everything is drawn the same size. However X does this it doesn't result in a blurry mess. Logically there is no particular reason it can't be done well on xwayland. To be charitable one would suppose that its just a low priority as fewer people have high dpi displays. If one was less charitable making X apps work slightly shittier serves as motivation for developers to support the new standard. If you listen to these people talk the less charitable interpretation sounds entirely plausible.
    - vetinari 4y ago
      > This actually works seamlessly on X wherein one can scale down lower DPI displays down from a higher resolution so everything is drawn the same size. Where does it work seamlessly? Yes, Chrome can do that. Gimp and myriad of other X11 apps can't. I will repeat the point from the previous comment: from the point of compositor there is no way to tell, whether the X11 client does support dpi properly or not. And since it cannot tell (short of guessing), it assumes they don't. In theory, you could invent a new protocol for X11 apps announcing their capabilities. But good luck with adoption, you may switch to an entirely incompatible protocol as well. > To be charitable one would suppose that its just a low priority as fewer people have high dpi displays Strictly speaking, it is not a problem with hidpi. It is problem with fractional scaling. With hidpi on and fractional scaling off (not set to 200%, entirely turned off), you get all the 1:1 pixel glory. If some app doesn't adjust to dpi, you will see that immediately (basically everything except gtk3+, qt5+ and current firefox/chrome/electron). I actually prefer the blurry one, it makes the apps at least usable. > If one was less charitable making X apps work slightly shittier serves as motivation for developers to support the new standard. IMO it is actually too nice anyway. Should have gone XDarwin all the way -- i.e. to run X11, you have to manually launch separate application, and that server does not support hidpi at all. > If you listen to these people talk the less charitable interpretation sounds entirely plausible. AFAIK there were multiple approaches tried. Even theone, where whitelisted (i.e. the ones that passed manual test) applications would be allowed to run hidpi and the rest upscaled. It went nowhere. But as they say, patches welcome.

ndiddy 4y ago

> Wayland DOES work with fractional scaling values. It's labeled "experimental" right now but in my personal experience it works fine on both GNOME and KDE. I'm not sure about how it works in KDE, but at least in GNOME the way it works is kind of a hack IMO. When you do a 150% scale, it renders to a framebuffer at 3x the resolution of your display and then scales the framebuffer down by 1/2, which compromises the video quality, as well as wasting CPU (and battery life if you use a laptop).

Gigachad 4y ago
Is this true for all windows or only ones running in Xwayland?
diffeomorphism 4y ago
> When you do a 150% scale, it renders to a framebuffer at 3x the resolution of your display and then scales the framebuffer down by 1/2, which compromises the video quality, Isn't that exactly how apple does fractional scaling? > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19052960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19052960
- vetinari 4y ago
  It is exactly how Apple does fractional scaling. There is also some kind of belief, that scaling down framebuffer is somehow demanding. It isn't. The output encoder (the modern equivalent of VGA DAC) can do it on the fly. For several overlaid planes, each at different scale, at once (one of these planes is going to be your cursor).
zamadatix 4y ago
That's just how GNOME/GTK handles scaling on any platform, it's unrelated to what the underlying display server can do. Windows DWM, Android's SurfaceFlinger, and Wayland allow for true native per display fractional scaling but it's still up to each app to actually use it.

michaelmrose 4y ago

Does fractional scaling work with xwayland.

vetinari 4y ago
Depends how you define "work". Since X11 apps can find out the display dpi and render accordingly, they do not communicate to compositor at which scale they really do render their contents. This gets even more interesting, once there are multiple scales (i.e. you have multiple displays, each at different scale). This leads to compromise, where xwayland assumes that all X11 clients render at 96 dpi and upscales them to the actual one. It is not pretty, bilinear would not be my choice of algorithm here, but the apps are at least correct size. There are patches floating around that modify this assumption, let X11 clients render at actual dpi, and if they don't, let have the user apps with tiny UI. So YMMV.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  This actually works seamlessly on X wherein one can scale down lower DPI displays down from a higher resolution so everything is drawn the same size. However X does this it doesn't result in a blurry mess. Logically there is no particular reason it can't be done well on xwayland. To be charitable one would suppose that its just a low priority as fewer people have high dpi displays. If one was less charitable making X apps work slightly shittier serves as motivation for developers to support the new standard. If you listen to these people talk the less charitable interpretation sounds entirely plausible.
  - vetinari 4y ago
    > This actually works seamlessly on X wherein one can scale down lower DPI displays down from a higher resolution so everything is drawn the same size. Where does it work seamlessly? Yes, Chrome can do that. Gimp and myriad of other X11 apps can't. I will repeat the point from the previous comment: from the point of compositor there is no way to tell, whether the X11 client does support dpi properly or not. And since it cannot tell (short of guessing), it assumes they don't. In theory, you could invent a new protocol for X11 apps announcing their capabilities. But good luck with adoption, you may switch to an entirely incompatible protocol as well. > To be charitable one would suppose that its just a low priority as fewer people have high dpi displays Strictly speaking, it is not a problem with hidpi. It is problem with fractional scaling. With hidpi on and fractional scaling off (not set to 200%, entirely turned off), you get all the 1:1 pixel glory. If some app doesn't adjust to dpi, you will see that immediately (basically everything except gtk3+, qt5+ and current firefox/chrome/electron). I actually prefer the blurry one, it makes the apps at least usable. > If one was less charitable making X apps work slightly shittier serves as motivation for developers to support the new standard. IMO it is actually too nice anyway. Should have gone XDarwin all the way -- i.e. to run X11, you have to manually launch separate application, and that server does not support hidpi at all. > If you listen to these people talk the less charitable interpretation sounds entirely plausible. AFAIK there were multiple approaches tried. Even theone, where whitelisted (i.e. the ones that passed manual test) applications would be allowed to run hidpi and the rest upscaled. It went nowhere. But as they say, patches welcome.