On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Michal Suchanek <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23 September 2011 20:59, James Cloos <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> "DS" == Daniel Stone <[email protected]> writes: >> >> DS> (Real summary: That's your opinion. The development team have ours. >> >> Well, *some* of the development texm. Some of us agree that forcing the >> dpi to 96 is a b0rked regression. It is just that those with the contrary >> opinion are more vocal and have more traction. > > So to have this fixed I need to make more traction than those who want > the X server broken :p > >> >> It is easy enough to avoid, though, by always starting X with the -dpi >> option. One has to add -retro, too, for a reasonable startup experience, >> so ading -dpi is not horribly onerous. > > Seriously, though. > I don't care about -retro. The change should have been more documented > so that people who try to test something and start X server by hand > aren't surprised that it does nothing. Indeed, it is easy for any > display manager scripts to have some -noretro option and make -retro > the default for the benefit of X testing. It could even render text > that tells you to use -noretro in the middle of the root window since > X server insists on having a 'fixed' font to start. > > However, breaking the dpi detection is not fixed with any option, and > the patch which adds the option to unbreak it was posted in the bug > about 1.5 year ago and was completely ignored by the X developers > commenting on the bug. They only conjured bogus reasons why the new > behaviour is "correct" which were all refuted. > > Clearly if they wanted the X server broken this way they could use the > -dpi option themselves and did not need to break the X server for > everybody. The -dpi option only allows what they want: set the X > server to one fixed dpi. It cannot be used to restore the > autodetection so that X server uses the DPI of the screen connected > and updates it whenever a different screen is connected.
Okay, it's time for me to speak up. I "sabotaged" this entire effort. You see, five years ago, I had a laptop with a brand-spanking-new Radeon X1650. Only fglrx was available. fglrx used the actual screen DPI, causing all of my fonts to be stupidly large; from login to logout all of my glyphs appeared to be anti-aliased Michelin men. When the open drivers started to pick up support for my chipset, I couldn't help but notice that all of my lettering suddenly reverted to a reasonable size. From then on, I vowed that I would never let the bloated, oversized fonts taint my screen, nor anybody else's screens, ever again. So for the past half-decade I've waged a secret war, carefully manipulating key members of the X.org team in order to protect the 96 DPI "standard" in the name of small fonts everywhere. I feel only small amounts of shame at this revelation; I regret nothing. Nefariously, ~ C. -- When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? ~ Keynes Corbin Simpson <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
