https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706024 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706024#c16 Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|WONTFIX |UPSTREAM --- Comment #16 from Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> 2011-07-24 18:20:09 UTC --- Egbert, I filed upstream, and reported the upstream bug URL here before Stefan ever started replying, and he kept on replying here rather than there, and he never suggested there might be more appropriate. Based upon sampling of Fedora 15 and Mandriva 2011, which leave xorg.conf.d/ empty, and *buntu 11.04, which doesn't even provide xorg.conf.d/, it seems unlikely initially testing anywhere but Factory would make any sense for any like me who don't program or build, but depend on rpms to be able to hunt for bugs. It's rarely a given whether a bug I encounter is a bug on the distro's own patches packaging or upstream unless I can test on other distros, while some things aren't even testable on others, as in this case, where the others don't provide xorg.conf.d/ skeletons. I often file upstream instead, but figuring out whether upstream is kernel or freedesktop or driver isn't so easy either. This bug doesn't belong WONTFIX. It belongs either open pending action on the indicated upstream bug, or less logically, resolved UPSTREAM. WONTFIX doesn't make a problem a non-bug, and alludes to a position that it shouldn't get fixed, unlike UPSTREAM. I understand the distro's resource limitations, but when an openSUSE dev who seems also to be upstream active (e.g. eich@pdx.freedesktop.org, sndirsch@suse.de or mhopf@suse.de), thus looking like one who wears multiple hats, fails to point upstream, it seems there could be good reason not to. I wish you people would quit applying the term "corner case" or "minority" to nearly every usability issue I raise, unless ease of use is not a significant goal of the openSUSE project. The US at least has a large and rapidly growing number of retiring and retired baby boomers, a huge number of which no longer have the luxury of good eyesight. This minority, and the younger who also have imperfect vision, do not not deserve short-shrifting of obstacles (like expensive high quality screens that get their quality from high density) to usable systems. (In reply to comment #15)
A CRT usually provides a list of modes for it's aspect ratio which is in most cases just 4:3. It also presents preffered modes and even modes with detailed timing data to be used. In the vast majority you cannot get any better modes without excessive hand tuning.
This isn't about CRTs. It's about HDTVs marketed as computer screens, with a preferred mode of 16:9 aspect, and all optional modes of lower resolution _and_ distorting 4:3 aspect. It's become customary to provide only 1920x1080 plus legacy vesa modes (1024x768, 800x600, 640x480 & sometimes 1280x1024, which @ 5:4 is even worse) on these devices, or 136Xx768 instead of 1920x1080. The distortion provided by 4:3 modes is simply unacceptable to many who are used to enlarging the desktop via the only means they have known, resolution reduction. I know resolution reduction is the wrong way to enlarge the desktop, but vast numbers of people do it anyway. Forcing an artificially large DPI is a much better means to their ends, so until a simpler _global_ method of controlling overall desktop sizing appears, it needs to work, and keep enabled whatever the display's native mode happens to be.
the physics support (or even above) along with forcing logical density up, enables one to enjoy the maximum quality afforded by the hardware, without giving up quality and legibly sized text and other objects.
True, this is a corner case - but what does this have to do with the screen size? The monitor advertises a screen size which should be sufficient for dpi calculation
It isn't sufficient. Actual physical pixel density does not go hand in hand with human needs, and neither does assumed logical density. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.