Frederic Cambus wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 08:02:09PM +0200, Artturi Alm wrote:
>
> > > Revised diff below iterating on what Artturi previously sent, and
> > > a snippet of wsconsctl output with the diff applied:
> > >
> > > display.width=1600
> > > display.height=900
> > >
> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 10:43:23 +0100
> From: Frederic Cambus
>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 08:02:09PM +0200, Artturi Alm wrote:
>
> > > Revised diff below iterating on what Artturi previously sent, and
> > > a snippet of wsconsctl output with the diff applied:
> > >
> > > display.width=1600
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 08:02:09PM +0200, Artturi Alm wrote:
> > Revised diff below iterating on what Artturi previously sent, and
> > a snippet of wsconsctl output with the diff applied:
> >
> > display.width=1600
> > display.height=900
> > display.depth=32
> > +display.fontwidth=12
> >
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 06:30:15PM +0100, Frederic Cambus wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 04:27:46PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Ted Unangst wrote:
> >
> > > Artturi Alm wrote:
> > > > display.width=1920
> > > > display.height=1200
> > > > display.depth=32
> > > > display.emulations=vt100
>
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 04:27:46PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Ted Unangst wrote:
>
> > Artturi Alm wrote:
> > > display.width=1920
> > > display.height=1200
> > > display.depth=32
> > > display.emulations=vt100
> > > display.col_x_row=120x37
> > > display.font_wxh=16x32
> >
> > now that
On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 10:39:46PM +0200, li...@wrant.com wrote:
> Just need a manual page and a tunable at some point, didn't much before.
> Still needed more text lines on the console and utf8 options previously.
>
> Got less chars now, so console is a regression in data thus readability.
>
Mon, 07 Jan 2019 16:27:46 -0700 "Theo de Raadt"
>
> use stty -a
>
Also, probably complementary methods could be considered:
$ tput co li
$ wsfontload -l
Ted Unangst wrote:
> Artturi Alm wrote:
> > display.width=1920
> > display.height=1200
> > display.depth=32
> > display.emulations=vt100
> > display.col_x_row=120x37
> > display.font_wxh=16x32
>
> now that we've all had a chance to weigh in on the font, why are you adding
> this weird x format?
Artturi Alm wrote:
> display.width=1920
> display.height=1200
> display.depth=32
> display.emulations=vt100
> display.col_x_row=120x37
> display.font_wxh=16x32
now that we've all had a chance to weigh in on the font, why are you adding
this weird x format? speaking of ugly... it should print
Thank you Frederic for the new console font. I agree with Mischa and
Paul and find it very clean and readable, a definite improvement.
--
Robert W. Curry
I have to concur with Paul!
Saw the new font yesterday and was pleasantly surprised. Very nice!
Mischa
--
> On 6 Jan 2019, at 15:51, Paul de Weerd wrote:
>
> Lots of negativity here, so I just wanted to chime in - really love
> the new console font! Crisp and easily readable letters, big
Lots of negativity here, so I just wanted to chime in - really love
the new console font! Crisp and easily readable letters, big enough
to be readable, with a reasonable number of letters per line
(${COLUMNS}) en lines per screen (${LINES}). It does mean pretty big
characters on big screens when
Just need a manual page and a tunable at some point, didn't much before.
Still needed more text lines on the console and utf8 options previously.
Got less chars now, so console is a regression in data thus readability.
Also, mention of direction in change log / commit message would be nice.
On
> I do NOT like this idea of being stuck with that for the next 10 years.
when do make statements like that, why do you continue to believe any
of us care about any of your opinions?
Hi Frederic, tech@,
This 16x32 font looks both wasteful in screen estate, and difficult to
read on both desktop and laptop screens of average 100 PPI (2010-2020)
Can we actually (do better and) show more data, for example try using:
1) Default font size that is as close to minimum (and NOT
You are failing to provide a proper bug report that has details,
instead, it we got a convoluted diff and an extremely vague description
that makes no sense.
that makes it very hard to care.
> On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 01:50:22AM +0200, Artturi Alm wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > guessing i'm not the only
On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 01:50:22AM +0200, Artturi Alm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> guessing i'm not the only one wondering about these sizes, as w/current
> snapshot the font does seem too big for me(on 2560x1440 display, for
> which radeondrm(4) has never gotten the size right(giving only 1920x1200)).
>
>
17 matches
Mail list logo
