[Fwd: xorg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 124]
Regina
regina.apel at gmx.de
Thu Jul 3 02:30:41 PDT 2008
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: xorg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 124
Datum: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:54:49 -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: Resolution indpendence (Steven J Newbury)
2. Re: Disable auto repeat for non standard keys? (Simon Thum)
3. Re: [ANNOUNCE] xserver 1.4.99.904 (Adam Jackson)
4. Re: Further notes on 7.4 (James Cloos)
5. [ANNOUNCE] xserver 1.4.99.905 (Adam Jackson)
6. Re: Resolution indpendence (Steven J Newbury)
7. Re: Window manager, how to write ? (Aleksej Struk)
8. Re: Resolution indpendence (James Cloos)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:13:28 +0100
From: Steven J Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Resolution indpendence
To: Felix Miata <mrmazda at ij.net>
Cc: xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
Message-ID:
<1214856809.15478.36.camel at infinity.southview.snewbury.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 15:17 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2008/06/30 19:40 (GMT+0100) Steven J Newbury apparently typed:
>
> > On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 21:03 +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> >> 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 ]
>
> That "most" use 1024x768 is an assertion not universally held. e.g. contra:
> http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2008/June/res.php where the assertion is 46%,
> considerably less than half, and shrinking at a fairly rapid pace now that
> non-widescreen displays are scarce in the marketplace
> <http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2007/June/res.php>.
>
Even using your stats it's still the largest miniority. Is it a
surprise that people wouldn't use a 4:3 resolution on a 16:10 monitor?
Notice that in your stats, there is no breakdown of 16:10 resolutions
(probably most of the 10% unknown), so who's to say which 16:10
resolutions are used from that?
Yet, from the stats I referenced :
3rd spot (8.23%) goes to 1280x800 which is for all intents and purposes
equivalent to 1024x768 for widescreen monitors.
> > 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!
>
> Where exactly to you see that people are not using native resolution on their
> LCD (HW optimum) displays? I don't know of any myself. The results stunk when
> I sampled myself.
Anecdotal, I'd admit, but most of the people I know for whom I
personally didn't have anything to do with setting up their home system.
I think the results stink too, but there you go.
>
> That anyone still uses a sub-optimum setting on a CRT will soon be an
> anachronism if it isn't already. People trying to get rid of CRTs that have
> been replaced with LCDs have a hard time ridding themselves of the old by
> doing anything other than junking them, even perfectly serviceable 19s.
>
> IOW, the future is people for the foreseeable future, until an average
> somewhere around 200-300 is reached, will be more or less locked into using
> whatever the native resolution, and thus PPI/DPI/dot pitch, happen to be.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:13:57 +0200
From: Simon Thum <simon.thum at gmx.de>
Subject: Re: Disable auto repeat for non standard keys?
To: Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org>, Simon Thum
<simon.thum at gmx.de>, drago01 <drago01 at gmail.com>,
xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
Message-ID: <48693E85.7040101 at gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> < daniels> mjg59: hopefully they can convert tears into patches for
> their kernel
Not that my tears would be running but why not detect quirkyness 'by
behaviour' similar to the middle mouse button emulation?
If the issue affects even client message dispatch one may argue that
would be needed. Also, future quirks would need to be even quirkier to
bubble up :)
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:10:21 -0400
From: Adam Jackson <ajax at nwnk.net>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] xserver 1.4.99.904
To: "Valery V. Inozemtsev" <shrek at altlinux.ru>
Cc: xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
Message-ID: <1214856621.24769.102.camel at localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 23:49 +0400, Valery V. Inozemtsev wrote:
> [..]
> > Bump ABI minor numbers for the devPrivate ABI functions.
>
> $ grep XINPUT_VERSION hw/xfree86/common/xf86Module.h
> #define ABI_XINPUT_VERSION SET_ABI_VERSION(3, 1)
>
> typo? must be 2.1
Oh dear.
- ajax
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:30:04 -0400
From: James Cloos <cloos at jhcloos.com>
Subject: Re: Further notes on 7.4
To: Adam Jackson <ajax at nwnk.net>
Cc: xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
Message-ID: <m3od5i1x98.fsf at lugabout.jhcloos.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>>>> "Adam" == Adam Jackson <ajax at nwnk.net> writes:
Adam> The core fonts are still listed there, but really, don't. The
Adam> only one you want is font-misc-misc for fixed/cursor, expect the
Adam> rest to leave the list in 7.5.
There are still a wide array of very useful apps out there which require
core fonts. 7.5 is nowhere near far enough in the future to gut the
list of fonts included in the core release.
Prune the list, perhaps, but don't gut it.
I also question the removal of xmag and xfd. xfd is still the best way
to see what a given fontconfig pattern will display, and xmag remains
the best choice for getting a magnified view of a chunk of the dpy.
-JimC
--
James Cloos <cloos at jhcloos.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:27:26 -0400
From: Adam Jackson <ajax at redhat.com>
Subject: [ANNOUNCE] xserver 1.4.99.905
To: xorg-announce at lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
Message-ID: <1214857646.24769.110.camel at localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Bah, last one went out with a bad xinput ABI number. Don't use that
one, use this one.
---
Adam Jackson (2):
XInput ABI is 2.1, not 3.1.
xserver 1.5RC5
Keith Packard (1):
Wrap AddTraps in exa and damage.
git tag: xorg-server-1.4.99.905
http://xorg.freedesktop.org/archive/individual/xserver/xorg-server-1.4.99.905.tar.bz2
MD5: aa873a0d1571685959122aa101bd8b35 xorg-server-1.4.99.905.tar.bz2
SHA1: e68c18b84277b06160cfe5667319e24cfc98ae8f
xorg-server-1.4.99.905.tar.bz2
http://xorg.freedesktop.org/archive/individual/xserver/xorg-server-1.4.99.905.tar.gz
MD5: d149dbac94811c12a93a133f68be97bd xorg-server-1.4.99.905.tar.gz
SHA1: edf52e849d1b217de653261e1c1683b4db46bdc8
xorg-server-1.4.99.905.tar.gz
- ajax
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20080630/b7b73800/attachment-0001.pgp
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:36:38 +0100
From: Steven J Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Resolution indpendence
To: Glynn Clements <glynn at gclements.plus.com>
Cc: xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
Message-ID:
<1214858198.15478.58.camel at infinity.southview.snewbury.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 21:05 +0100, Glynn Clements wrote:
> Steven J Newbury wrote:
>
> > > 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!
>
> Yep. Because that actually works better than selecting the 120 dpi
> option and using a higher resolution.
>
> The DPI setting only affects fonts, so with the 1280x1024 at 120dpi
> option, the icons are too small, borders and dividers are too small,
> etc.
>
> To make 1280x1024 at 120dpi look exactly like 1024x768 at 96dpi, just with
> higher-quality, you would need to either provide another version of
> every icon, or you would have to tolerate rescaled icons.
Every version of Windows from Windows95 (I think) had a set of high
resolution (large) icons for this very reason.
>
> If the original icons are 16x16 pixels, the higher resolution versions
> need to be 20x21.33. And what you do about the extra 0.33 pixel is far
> from straightforward.
>
Going forward with SVG icons it's not going to be a problem. A "best" (user
preference) solution can be applied for "legacy" software if necessary.
Notice that Vista deals with all legacy applications by using the hardware
scaler of the graphics card to provide 96dpi compatiblity.
> You also have to figure out how to make marquees etc 1.2 pixels wide
> instead of 1 pixel wide.
>
> > > 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?
>
> The interface between software components needs to be rigid, but the
> interface between the computer and a human less so. Users are normally
> asking for more DWIM, not less.
>
> [Much of the time, it's because they don't really understand the
> consequences of what they're asking for, and wouldn't like it if they
> got it. But that's not always the case.]
I'm not sold on this. Computers currently lack sufficient context and
intelligence to achieve DWIM in any way that doesn't really annoy a very
large proportion of the userbase. Until we get to AI, I think computers
should do as they're told and respond in a predictable manner.
>
> > > > 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!
>
> If the true resolution is 220 dpi, you will likely get the best
> overall results by pretending that it's 192 dpi, i.e. *exactly* twice
> 96 dpi[1]. The difference between 192 and 220 is just under 15%, which
> is noticable but not critical, but you can then rescale everything by
> exactly 2:1.
Perhaps you should tell the hardware manufacturers?
>
> Fonts actually get rendered at twice the resolution (or, if you have a
> hand-tuned bitmap designed for 24pt @ 96dpi, you would use the same
> bitmap for 12pt @ 192dpi), while icons just have every pixel drawn as
> a 2x2 pixel square. No blurring, no jaggies.
Or you could use outline fonts and vector graphics for icons rendered
with ?sub-pixel anti-aliasing. Little perceivable blurring, full
resolution and correct scaling. It would be interesting to see which
looked better...
>
> The end result is likely to be a lot nicer than if you insist on
> treating point sizes as sacrosanct, scaling everything by exactly
> 2.291666:1 (220:96).
I'm not convinced. You'll have to try harder.
>
> [1] This assumes Windows. For X, you would pretend that it's 225 dpi,
> i.e. exactly triple 75 dpi. That's an error of ~2.3%. It's doubtful
> whether that's even noticable; it's certainly not critical.
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:46:56 +0000
From: Aleksej Struk <astruk at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Window manager, how to write ?
To: xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
Message-ID: <20080630234655.GA6460 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Try to read the following book.
http://www.sbin.org/doc/Xlib/index_contents.html
Although it describes the basics and concepts of X server, the book
gives an example of a most (imao) simplistic WM you can find. There imao
you can find at least the idea of how to write WM.
Unfortunatelly the book itself (at least via this link i found) is a bit
out of date. But still it gives lots of hints :), and should be
helpfull.
Regards,
Aleksej.
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 05:09:52PM +0600, Alexei Babich wrote:
> Hi all,
> Is anybody can tell me, where I can read about writing my own window manager ? WM basics, etc...
>
> Thank you.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Alexei Babich, circuit engineer, OOO NPP "Rezonans", Chelyabinsk, Russia
> http://www.rez.ru
> Jabber ID: impatt at jabber.ru
> _______________________________________________
> xorg mailing list
> xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
--
Aleksej Struk
cell phone: +37061278908
astruk at gmail.com alstruk at unibz.it - http://astruk.googlepages.com/home
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:54:13 -0400
From: James Cloos <cloos at jhcloos.com>
Subject: Re: Resolution indpendence
To: xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
Message-ID: <m3iqvq1w4z.fsf at lugabout.jhcloos.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
[Picking a random article to reply to.... -JimC]
I haven?t read every post in this thread, but of the two sides I /have/
seen, both are right. Or at least have reason.?
A higher pixel density, even just within the range available on any
single given brand, is useful both for getting more data on screen
/and/ for making that data more legible.
The ideal thing to do is for all dialogs to size themselves based on
the user?s chosen main text font size. It is the users? responsibility
to choose a comfortable primary font size for whatever dpy they have.
The documentation should emphasize that; the customization utilities
should make it easy; apps should both expect and respect it.
We should tell the apps our real dpi, but also our preferred font size.
On harware like a moko you may want to use a 5 or 6 pt font. On three
metre projection screen you might choose a 72+ pt font. But once you do
that everything should Just Work.
For the most part, after setting dpi in xrm (Xft.dpi), the -dpi option
to X(1)? and gconf, and specifying a fontsize of seven to eight points
in gtkrc, gconf, and qtrc everthing seems to work fine.
-JimC
1] The idioms one picks up reading fiction....
2] The interger math screws up the dpi calculation; the panel has
exactly 133 dpi, but with the rounding during the math X thinks
it is something like 131x132 if I don?t tell it otherwise.
--
James Cloos <cloos at jhcloos.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
xorg mailing list
xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
End of xorg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 124
*************************************
More information about the xorg
mailing list