[gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2018 bytes --]

Howdy,

New monitor came in.  Found it on my porch.  Unboxed it and hooked it
up.  Started with no xorg.conf file.  It's high res, plasma comes up so
all that is fine.  Now comes the problem.  Everything is HUGE.  Even on
SDDM screen, it's like it is zoomed in or something.  Icons are huge,
fonts are huge.  I think what it is doing is this, and it may be the
video card.  I think it is thinking I have four monitors set up as one
large screen.  With this one monitor, I'm seeing the top left monitor
but not seeing the rest since I only have one monitor connected.  I
might add, when I click to logout, that screen is huge too. 

I generated a xorg.conf with the nvidia tool.  No change.  I tried
removing options that I thought might cause this largeness problem.  I
even rebooted.  No change.  I open the Nvidia GUI software and tried
adjusting things there.  No change.  I compared the setting to my main
rig, other than the difference in the cards, all settings appear to be
the same including what should be displayed where.  The resolution is
correct too.   

Is it possible this card functions differently than my usual cards? 
Someone mentioned these tend to be used in a business system which could
mean they use four monitors for one large display, for presentations or
something.  Is there something I need to disable or enable so the card
knows I want independent monitors maybe?

I'm attaching the xorg.conf file, including options I commented out.  I
also checked the logs, no errors or anything.  It's just the usual
things like mouse and keyboard loading and it finding the monitor
connected, unlike the old LG.  Maybe someone here as ran into this at
work or for a client and has a idea on how to fix or that this card is
not designed for my use. 

While I'm waiting on a reply, I'm going to try one of my older spare
video cards.  If it works fine, it could be the new video card is set up
to work this way.  May not can even change it. 

Thanks.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[-- Attachment #2: nvidia-generated-working-xorg.conf --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1963 bytes --]

root@Gentoo-1 ~ # cat /etc/X11/xorg.conf
# nvidia-settings: X configuration file generated by nvidia-settings
# nvidia-settings:  version 550.90.07

# nvidia-xconfig: X configuration file generated by nvidia-xconfig
# nvidia-xconfig:  version 550.90.07

Section "ServerLayout"

#    Option         "Xinerama" "0"
    Identifier     "Layout0"
    Screen      0  "Screen0" 0 0
    InputDevice    "Keyboard0" "CoreKeyboard"
    InputDevice    "Mouse0" "CorePointer"
    Option         "Xinerama" "0"
EndSection

Section "Files"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"

    # generated from data in "/etc/conf.d/gpm"
    Identifier     "Mouse0"
    Driver         "mouse"
    Option         "Protocol"
    Option         "Device" "/dev/input/mice"
    Option         "Emulate3Buttons" "no"
    Option         "ZAxisMapping" "4 5"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"

    # generated from default
    Identifier     "Keyboard0"
    Driver         "kbd"
EndSection

Section "Monitor"
    Identifier     "Monitor0"
    VendorName     "Unknown"
    ModelName      "Samsung LS32B30"
    HorizSync       30.0 - 84.0
    VertRefresh     50.0 - 75.0
    Option         "PreferredMode" "1920x1080_60.00"
    Option         "DPMS"
EndSection

Section "Device"
    Identifier     "Device0"
    Driver         "nvidia"
    VendorName     "NVIDIA Corporation"
    BoardName      "Quadro P1000"
EndSection

Section "Screen"

#    Option         "Stereo" "0"
#    Option         "MultiGPU" "Off"
#    Option         "BaseMosaic" "off"
    Identifier     "Screen0"
    Device         "Device0"
    Monitor        "Monitor0"
#    DefaultDepth    24
#    Option         "Stereo" "0"
#    Option         "nvidiaXineramaInfoOrder" "DP-3"
#    Option         "metamodes" "1920x1080 +0+0"
#    Option         "SLI" "Off"
#    Option         "MultiGPU" "Off"
#    Option         "BaseMosaic" "off"
    SubSection     "Display"
        Depth       24
    EndSubSection
EndSection

root@Gentoo-1 ~ #

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3081 bytes --]

On Tuesday, 2 July 2024 19:58:59 BST Dale wrote:
> Howdy,
> 
> New monitor came in.  Found it on my porch.  Unboxed it and hooked it
> up.  Started with no xorg.conf file.  It's high res, plasma comes up so
> all that is fine.  Now comes the problem.  Everything is HUGE.  Even on
> SDDM screen, it's like it is zoomed in or something.  Icons are huge,
> fonts are huge.  I think what it is doing is this, and it may be the
> video card.  I think it is thinking I have four monitors set up as one
> large screen.  With this one monitor, I'm seeing the top left monitor
> but not seeing the rest since I only have one monitor connected.  I
> might add, when I click to logout, that screen is huge too. 
> 
> I generated a xorg.conf with the nvidia tool.  No change.  I tried
> removing options that I thought might cause this largeness problem.  I
> even rebooted.  No change.  I open the Nvidia GUI software and tried
> adjusting things there.  No change.  I compared the setting to my main
> rig, other than the difference in the cards, all settings appear to be
> the same including what should be displayed where.  The resolution is
> correct too.   
> 
> Is it possible this card functions differently than my usual cards? 
> Someone mentioned these tend to be used in a business system which could
> mean they use four monitors for one large display, for presentations or
> something.  Is there something I need to disable or enable so the card
> knows I want independent monitors maybe?
> 
> I'm attaching the xorg.conf file, including options I commented out.  I
> also checked the logs, no errors or anything.  It's just the usual
> things like mouse and keyboard loading and it finding the monitor
> connected, unlike the old LG.  Maybe someone here as ran into this at
> work or for a client and has a idea on how to fix or that this card is
> not designed for my use. 
> 
> While I'm waiting on a reply, I'm going to try one of my older spare
> video cards.  If it works fine, it could be the new video card is set up
> to work this way.  May not can even change it. 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-) 

If it is this *this* monitor:

https://www.samsung.com/us/computing/monitors/flat/32--s30b-fhd-75hz-amd-freesync-monitor-ls32b300nwnxgo/#specs

you should be able to set:

Section "Monitor"
    Identifier     "Monitor0"
    VendorName     "Unknown"
    ModelName      "Samsung LS32B30"
    HorizSync       30.0 - 84.0
    VertRefresh     50.0 - 75.0
    Option         "PreferredMode" "1920x1080_75.00"
    Option         "DPMS"
EndSection

for better responsiveness with less flicker when watching sports.

Did you comment out all the #lines in the "Screen" section, rather than 
letting nvidia set configure it as it needs to?

Set the screen to the desired resolution to match the monitor, e.g.:

Option         "metamodes" "1920x1080 +0+0"

and it should scale correctly.

Also check if "Samsung Magic Upscale" has been enabled and this affects what 
screen size is eventually displayed on the monitor:

https://www.samsung.com/us/support/answer/ANS00086623/

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Dale]

Michael wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 July 2024 19:58:59 BST Dale wrote:
>> Howdy,
>>
>> New monitor came in.  Found it on my porch.  Unboxed it and hooked it
>> up.  Started with no xorg.conf file.  It's high res, plasma comes up so
>> all that is fine.  Now comes the problem.  Everything is HUGE.  Even on
>> SDDM screen, it's like it is zoomed in or something.  Icons are huge,
>> fonts are huge.  I think what it is doing is this, and it may be the
>> video card.  I think it is thinking I have four monitors set up as one
>> large screen.  With this one monitor, I'm seeing the top left monitor
>> but not seeing the rest since I only have one monitor connected.  I
>> might add, when I click to logout, that screen is huge too. 
>>
>> I generated a xorg.conf with the nvidia tool.  No change.  I tried
>> removing options that I thought might cause this largeness problem.  I
>> even rebooted.  No change.  I open the Nvidia GUI software and tried
>> adjusting things there.  No change.  I compared the setting to my main
>> rig, other than the difference in the cards, all settings appear to be
>> the same including what should be displayed where.  The resolution is
>> correct too.   
>>
>> Is it possible this card functions differently than my usual cards? 
>> Someone mentioned these tend to be used in a business system which could
>> mean they use four monitors for one large display, for presentations or
>> something.  Is there something I need to disable or enable so the card
>> knows I want independent monitors maybe?
>>
>> I'm attaching the xorg.conf file, including options I commented out.  I
>> also checked the logs, no errors or anything.  It's just the usual
>> things like mouse and keyboard loading and it finding the monitor
>> connected, unlike the old LG.  Maybe someone here as ran into this at
>> work or for a client and has a idea on how to fix or that this card is
>> not designed for my use. 
>>
>> While I'm waiting on a reply, I'm going to try one of my older spare
>> video cards.  If it works fine, it could be the new video card is set up
>> to work this way.  May not can even change it. 
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-) 
> If it is this *this* monitor:
>
> https://www.samsung.com/us/computing/monitors/flat/32--s30b-fhd-75hz-amd-freesync-monitor-ls32b300nwnxgo/#specs
>
> you should be able to set:
>
> Section "Monitor"
>     Identifier     "Monitor0"
>     VendorName     "Unknown"
>     ModelName      "Samsung LS32B30"
>     HorizSync       30.0 - 84.0
>     VertRefresh     50.0 - 75.0
>     Option         "PreferredMode" "1920x1080_75.00"
>     Option         "DPMS"
> EndSection
>
> for better responsiveness with less flicker when watching sports.
>
> Did you comment out all the #lines in the "Screen" section, rather than 
> letting nvidia set configure it as it needs to?
>
> Set the screen to the desired resolution to match the monitor, e.g.:
>
> Option         "metamodes" "1920x1080 +0+0"
>
> and it should scale correctly.
>
> Also check if "Samsung Magic Upscale" has been enabled and this affects what 
> screen size is eventually displayed on the monitor:
>
> https://www.samsung.com/us/support/answer/ANS00086623/

I tried it with those options and without.  Neither changed anything.  I
originally tried it with no xorg.conf at all.  I was hoping maybe the
Nvidia GUI thing would adjust things.  I may try that again.  No
xorg.conf and use the GUI thing.  That's what I use to set up my TV and
such anyway.  Thing is, the sddm screen is HUGE too.

I just installed a older NVS 510 video card.  It behaves the same way. 
I think that rules out a video card problem. 

I checked the menus on the monitor and it doesn't seem to have the
upscale feature.  I saw other options included in their screenshot tho. 
Just not that one.  I did try other options tho.  They tend to change
instantly.  Most of them only affected brightness and such.

Given a different video card does the same way, it is either a driver
issue or a wrong setting somewhere.  I don't see anything in any option
about scaling or zooming in the monitor.  It is a fairly basic monitor. 
I might add, after I bought it, the price dropped.  :/   Oh, while in
KDE, I did go find the options for zoom and magnify and disabled all
those.  I never use them anyway.  Still no change.

Looks like we going to have to pull out a larger hammer.  Fix one
problem, another pops up.  What is that game, whack a mole???? 

I'm going to put the faster card back in so we can work on just one
card.  Beat it into submission.  LOL

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 494 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 12:44 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
> I tried it with those options and without.  Neither changed anything.  I
> originally tried it with no xorg.conf at all.  I was hoping maybe the
> Nvidia GUI thing would adjust things.  I may try that again.  No
> xorg.conf and use the GUI thing.  That's what I use to set up my TV and
> such anyway.  Thing is, the sddm screen is HUGE too.
<SNIP>
> :-)  :-)

???

xdpyinfo | grep -B2 resolution

???

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 943 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Dale]

Dale wrote:
>
> I tried it with those options and without.  Neither changed anything.  I
> originally tried it with no xorg.conf at all.  I was hoping maybe the
> Nvidia GUI thing would adjust things.  I may try that again.  No
> xorg.conf and use the GUI thing.  That's what I use to set up my TV and
> such anyway.  Thing is, the sddm screen is HUGE too.
>
> I just installed a older NVS 510 video card.  It behaves the same way. 
> I think that rules out a video card problem. 
>
> I checked the menus on the monitor and it doesn't seem to have the
> upscale feature.  I saw other options included in their screenshot tho. 
> Just not that one.  I did try other options tho.  They tend to change
> instantly.  Most of them only affected brightness and such.
>
> Given a different video card does the same way, it is either a driver
> issue or a wrong setting somewhere.  I don't see anything in any option
> about scaling or zooming in the monitor.  It is a fairly basic monitor. 
> I might add, after I bought it, the price dropped.  :/   Oh, while in
> KDE, I did go find the options for zoom and magnify and disabled all
> those.  I never use them anyway.  Still no change.
>
> Looks like we going to have to pull out a larger hammer.  Fix one
> problem, another pops up.  What is that game, whack a mole???? 
>
> I'm going to put the faster card back in so we can work on just one
> card.  Beat it into submission.  LOL
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-) 
>


Micheal and I had a email or two off list.  This is what I think the
problem was.  Nvidia and KDE was clashing with each other.  I ended up
connecting both the new monitor and old LG that gave me so much
trouble.  I think Nvidia wanted to set the first port as primary but KDE
wanted to set the 2nd port because I had that monitor connected before
and it remembered it or something.  I set Nvidia GUI settings to what I
wanted but it was still making everything HUGE.  I found the settings
for KDE and actually reversed it.  One reason I wanted to reverse it,
the plasma panel on the bottom was also on the wrong monitor.  It was on
port 2, the old LG monitor, and I wanted it on port 1, the new Samsung
monitor.  That's how I want it when I switch rigs as well.  Anyway, when
I set it in KDE backwards, the mouse and such got a little weird.  I had
to figure out how to get from one screen to another.  You may want to do
that before changing settings.  Once I set it up backwards, I hit
apply.  I think it had a confirm box for this which is why you need to
know how to get the mouse pointer from one display to the other.  After
I did that, I checked Nvidia and it still had the same settings for
where displays were.  I then went back to the KDE settings and set them
correctly.  I set Samsung as primary, new monitor, and LG as Right of
Samsung.  I hit apply.  The screens blinked, plasma moved to the Samsung
monitor and that HUGE problem went away.  Things are larger but just
because it is a larger monitor.  Basically, it is as it should be. 
Oddly, the old LG monitor works pretty well now too.  ROFL

If I had the new monitor and used it from the beginning, it might have
just worked.  I think KDE remembered it and insisted on making it
primary instead of what I was telling Nvidia.  Setting it backwards and
then setting it the correct way forced KDE to rethink the settings. 
This may be a rare problem to run into but if someone reading this ever
recycles a system and connects things differently, this may help. 
Forcing KDE to do something backwards and then setting it to the correct
way just may force KDE to forget previous info and work like you want it
too. 

I'm still trying to decide if I want to keep using the splitter or not. 
I could bypass the splitter and connect directly to a video card port. 
I'm just not sure why I should rework my cabling tho. 

Thanks to all for the help, Micheal and Mark for sure.  I hope this info
will help someone else tho.  When one of us beats something into
submission, we can all learn from it.  It's why I read almost every post
on this list.  It just might come in handy one day, if I remember what I
read.  LOL 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Dale]

Dale wrote:
> Micheal and I had a email or two off list.  This is what I think the
> problem was.  Nvidia and KDE was clashing with each other.  I ended up
> connecting both the new monitor and old LG that gave me so much
> trouble.  I think Nvidia wanted to set the first port as primary but KDE
> wanted to set the 2nd port because I had that monitor connected before
> and it remembered it or something.  I set Nvidia GUI settings to what I
> wanted but it was still making everything HUGE.  I found the settings
> for KDE and actually reversed it.  One reason I wanted to reverse it,
> the plasma panel on the bottom was also on the wrong monitor.  It was on
> port 2, the old LG monitor, and I wanted it on port 1, the new Samsung
> monitor.  That's how I want it when I switch rigs as well.  Anyway, when
> I set it in KDE backwards, the mouse and such got a little weird.  I had
> to figure out how to get from one screen to another.  You may want to do
> that before changing settings.  Once I set it up backwards, I hit
> apply.  I think it had a confirm box for this which is why you need to
> know how to get the mouse pointer from one display to the other.  After
> I did that, I checked Nvidia and it still had the same settings for
> where displays were.  I then went back to the KDE settings and set them
> correctly.  I set Samsung as primary, new monitor, and LG as Right of
> Samsung.  I hit apply.  The screens blinked, plasma moved to the Samsung
> monitor and that HUGE problem went away.  Things are larger but just
> because it is a larger monitor.  Basically, it is as it should be. 
> Oddly, the old LG monitor works pretty well now too.  ROFL
>
> If I had the new monitor and used it from the beginning, it might have
> just worked.  I think KDE remembered it and insisted on making it
> primary instead of what I was telling Nvidia.  Setting it backwards and
> then setting it the correct way forced KDE to rethink the settings. 
> This may be a rare problem to run into but if someone reading this ever
> recycles a system and connects things differently, this may help. 
> Forcing KDE to do something backwards and then setting it to the correct
> way just may force KDE to forget previous info and work like you want it
> too. 
>
> I'm still trying to decide if I want to keep using the splitter or not. 
> I could bypass the splitter and connect directly to a video card port. 
> I'm just not sure why I should rework my cabling tho. 
>
> Thanks to all for the help, Micheal and Mark for sure.  I hope this info
> will help someone else tho.  When one of us beats something into
> submission, we can all learn from it.  It's why I read almost every post
> on this list.  It just might come in handy one day, if I remember what I
> read.  LOL 
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-) 
>

Another update.  I rebooted several times to make sure whether things
would be consistent.  Most of the time, it came up as it should.  Some
times, not so much.  When I had just the new Samsung monitor connected,
it was consistent.  When I added the old LG, it would not always come up
like it should.  The biggest thing, the plasma panel would be on the
wrong monitor. 

I tried using xrandr to set this but it kept changing what monitors was
connected where which would throw off what monitor got what priority. 
Finally, I removed the old LG.  It has caused enough grief already.  I
unhooked the TV cable for my bedroom TV and connected it to the new
rig.  I then booted.  I installed a package called arandr.  It's a
sister to xrandr but GUI based.  Makes it very easy to see what is
what.  On the first boot, the Samsung showed as connected to port 1. 
The TV showed as port 3 I think.  It seems each port can do two displays
so it kinda skips.  The first port is actually 0.  Anyway, I used arandr
to set it up like I wanted.  I saved the file with the command in my
home directory.  I then moved the command to a file in
/etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.d/ as a file.  They are usually started with a
number in the file name.  Don't forget to add the bash bit on the first
line if needed and make it executable as well.  Once I did that, the
displays worked like they should.  So far at least.

The lesson to be learned is this.  When you have a monitor that is
having issues and keeps showing as connected to different ports and
such, you can't use that display to get a reliable configuration that
will survive a reboot, maybe even a power off and back on.  Another
thing, using either xrandr or arandr is a nifty feature if set up
correctly.  Those two make it so a display, or set of displays more
importantly, work like you want.  The arnadr command since it is a GUI,
makes it a lot easier to create the xrandr command with the right
options.  If you use that route tho, make sure all monitors are
connected and on before starting.  You may can do it without it with
xrandr but arandr needs the monitor to be on and working.  The other
thing, putting the setting in /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.d/ seems to work
pretty well.  So far at least. 

To be honest tho, I wish Nvidia would generate a conf file that contains
both monitors and I could set it up properly there.  Then when I boot
up, it reads that file and knows what monitor is what long before DM
and/or sddm even starts.  It could also keep a monitor powered on even
while on a console with nothing GUI running.  I kinda wish we could do
it like we did back in the old days. 

I also had another thought. When changing the xorg.conf file, I wonder
if it only reads that file when loading the nvidia drivers but not when
DM is started/restarted.  I noticed on my system, when I booted but have
not started DM, the Nvidia drivers were already loaded.  I'm not sure
when the xorg.conf file is loaded but if it is loaded when the drivers
load, then that could explain why some changes didn't make any changes
to the display.  The changes were not seen unless I rebooted which I
didn't always do.  Maybe someone here knows what order this happens in. 
It could explain a lot tho. 

I'm hoping all this will help someone. It sure has been a hair puller
for me.  LOL 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5386 bytes --]

On Wednesday, 3 July 2024 10:22:33 BST Dale wrote:

> Another update.  I rebooted several times to make sure whether things
> would be consistent.  Most of the time, it came up as it should.  Some
> times, not so much.  When I had just the new Samsung monitor connected,
> it was consistent.  When I added the old LG, it would not always come up
> like it should.  The biggest thing, the plasma panel would be on the
> wrong monitor. 

If you are adding a second monitor then you need an additional "Monitor" 
section with a different identifier in your xorg.conf for a multi-headed 
setup.  You need to add in the first monitor section:

Section "Monitor"
    Identifier     "Monitor0"
    VendorName     "Unknown"
    ModelName      "Samsung LS32B30"
    HorizSync       30.0 - 84.0
    VertRefresh     50.0 - 75.0
    Option         "PreferredMode" "1920x1080_60.00"
    Option         "Primary" "true"
    Option         "DPMS" "true"
EndSection

and then in the second monitor section:

Section "Monitor"
    Identifier     "Monitor1"
    VendorName     "Unknown"
    ModelName      "LG blah-blah"
    Option         "PreferredMode" "1920x1080_60.00"
    Option         "RightOf" "Monitor0"
    Option         "DPMS" "true"
EndSection

Section "Screen" 
    Identifier     "Screen0"
    Device         "Device0"
    Monitor        "Monitor0"
    SubSection     "Display"
        Depth       24
        Virtual     3840 1080 # 1920 + 1920 (3840), 1080 + 0 (1080)
    EndSubSection
EndSection

You'll get the correct identifiers and "Modelines", "PreferredMode", 
resolution, refresh rate, etc. values for the above by using 'xrandr -q'.


> I tried using xrandr to set this but it kept changing what monitors was
> connected where which would throw off what monitor got what priority.

Manually instructing xranrd to set up your monitors will not survive between 
reboots unless you store its settings in your xorg.conf.  You need to rerun it 
each time, manually or via a script.  Or, you just set correctly your 
xorg.conf once and then you can forget about it.  ;-)


> Finally, I removed the old LG.  It has caused enough grief already.  I
> unhooked the TV cable for my bedroom TV and connected it to the new
> rig.  I then booted.  I installed a package called arandr.  It's a
> sister to xrandr but GUI based.  Makes it very easy to see what is
> what.  On the first boot, the Samsung showed as connected to port 1. 
> The TV showed as port 3 I think.  It seems each port can do two displays
> so it kinda skips.  The first port is actually 0.  Anyway, I used arandr
> to set it up like I wanted.  I saved the file with the command in my
> home directory.  I then moved the command to a file in
> /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.d/ as a file.  They are usually started with a
> number in the file name.  Don't forget to add the bash bit on the first
> line if needed and make it executable as well.  Once I did that, the
> displays worked like they should.  So far at least.
> 
> The lesson to be learned is this.  When you have a monitor that is
> having issues and keeps showing as connected to different ports and
> such, you can't use that display to get a reliable configuration that
> will survive a reboot, maybe even a power off and back on.  Another
> thing, using either xrandr or arandr is a nifty feature if set up
> correctly.  Those two make it so a display, or set of displays more
> importantly, work like you want.  The arnadr command since it is a GUI,
> makes it a lot easier to create the xrandr command with the right
> options.  If you use that route tho, make sure all monitors are
> connected and on before starting.  You may can do it without it with
> xrandr but arandr needs the monitor to be on and working.  The other
> thing, putting the setting in /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.d/ seems to work
> pretty well.  So far at least. 
> 
> To be honest tho, I wish Nvidia would generate a conf file that contains
> both monitors and I could set it up properly there.  Then when I boot
> up, it reads that file and knows what monitor is what long before DM
> and/or sddm even starts.  It could also keep a monitor powered on even
> while on a console with nothing GUI running.  I kinda wish we could do
> it like we did back in the old days. 
> 
> I also had another thought. When changing the xorg.conf file, I wonder
> if it only reads that file when loading the nvidia drivers but not when
> DM is started/restarted.  I noticed on my system, when I booted but have
> not started DM, the Nvidia drivers were already loaded.  I'm not sure
> when the xorg.conf file is loaded but if it is loaded when the drivers
> load, then that could explain why some changes didn't make any changes
> to the display.  The changes were not seen unless I rebooted which I
> didn't always do.  Maybe someone here knows what order this happens in. 
> It could explain a lot tho. 

I think if you change parameters in the "Device" section for the graphics 
driver in your xorg.conf, you need to reload the driver itself, then restart 
X.  If the driver is built-in the kernel, you have to reboot.

If you change something in your "Monitor" section you just need to restart X.


> I'm hoping all this will help someone. It sure has been a hair puller
> for me.  LOL 

Yeah, that LG monitor has been a pain.  You better keep it matched to the old 
PC where you know it just works.  ;-)


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Dale]

Michael wrote:
> On Wednesday, 3 July 2024 10:22:33 BST Dale wrote:
>
>> Another update.  I rebooted several times to make sure whether things
>> would be consistent.  Most of the time, it came up as it should.  Some
>> times, not so much.  When I had just the new Samsung monitor connected,
>> it was consistent.  When I added the old LG, it would not always come up
>> like it should.  The biggest thing, the plasma panel would be on the
>> wrong monitor. 
> If you are adding a second monitor then you need an additional "Monitor" 
> section with a different identifier in your xorg.conf for a multi-headed 
> setup.  You need to add in the first monitor section:
>
> Section "Monitor"
>     Identifier     "Monitor0"
>     VendorName     "Unknown"
>     ModelName      "Samsung LS32B30"
>     HorizSync       30.0 - 84.0
>     VertRefresh     50.0 - 75.0
>     Option         "PreferredMode" "1920x1080_60.00"
>     Option         "Primary" "true"
>     Option         "DPMS" "true"
> EndSection
>
> and then in the second monitor section:
>
> Section "Monitor"
>     Identifier     "Monitor1"
>     VendorName     "Unknown"
>     ModelName      "LG blah-blah"
>     Option         "PreferredMode" "1920x1080_60.00"
>     Option         "RightOf" "Monitor0"
>     Option         "DPMS" "true"
> EndSection
>
> Section "Screen" 
>     Identifier     "Screen0"
>     Device         "Device0"
>     Monitor        "Monitor0"
>     SubSection     "Display"
>         Depth       24
>         Virtual     3840 1080 # 1920 + 1920 (3840), 1080 + 0 (1080)
>     EndSubSection
> EndSection
>
> You'll get the correct identifiers and "Modelines", "PreferredMode", 
> resolution, refresh rate, etc. values for the above by using 'xrandr -q'.
>
>
>> I tried using xrandr to set this but it kept changing what monitors was
>> connected where which would throw off what monitor got what priority.
> Manually instructing xranrd to set up your monitors will not survive between 
> reboots unless you store its settings in your xorg.conf.  You need to rerun it 
> each time, manually or via a script.  Or, you just set correctly your 
> xorg.conf once and then you can forget about it.  ;-)
>
>
>> Finally, I removed the old LG.  It has caused enough grief already.  I
>> unhooked the TV cable for my bedroom TV and connected it to the new
>> rig.  I then booted.  I installed a package called arandr.  It's a
>> sister to xrandr but GUI based.  Makes it very easy to see what is
>> what.  On the first boot, the Samsung showed as connected to port 1. 
>> The TV showed as port 3 I think.  It seems each port can do two displays
>> so it kinda skips.  The first port is actually 0.  Anyway, I used arandr
>> to set it up like I wanted.  I saved the file with the command in my
>> home directory.  I then moved the command to a file in
>> /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.d/ as a file.  They are usually started with a
>> number in the file name.  Don't forget to add the bash bit on the first
>> line if needed and make it executable as well.  Once I did that, the
>> displays worked like they should.  So far at least.
>>
>> The lesson to be learned is this.  When you have a monitor that is
>> having issues and keeps showing as connected to different ports and
>> such, you can't use that display to get a reliable configuration that
>> will survive a reboot, maybe even a power off and back on.  Another
>> thing, using either xrandr or arandr is a nifty feature if set up
>> correctly.  Those two make it so a display, or set of displays more
>> importantly, work like you want.  The arnadr command since it is a GUI,
>> makes it a lot easier to create the xrandr command with the right
>> options.  If you use that route tho, make sure all monitors are
>> connected and on before starting.  You may can do it without it with
>> xrandr but arandr needs the monitor to be on and working.  The other
>> thing, putting the setting in /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.d/ seems to work
>> pretty well.  So far at least. 
>>
>> To be honest tho, I wish Nvidia would generate a conf file that contains
>> both monitors and I could set it up properly there.  Then when I boot
>> up, it reads that file and knows what monitor is what long before DM
>> and/or sddm even starts.  It could also keep a monitor powered on even
>> while on a console with nothing GUI running.  I kinda wish we could do
>> it like we did back in the old days. 
>>
>> I also had another thought. When changing the xorg.conf file, I wonder
>> if it only reads that file when loading the nvidia drivers but not when
>> DM is started/restarted.  I noticed on my system, when I booted but have
>> not started DM, the Nvidia drivers were already loaded.  I'm not sure
>> when the xorg.conf file is loaded but if it is loaded when the drivers
>> load, then that could explain why some changes didn't make any changes
>> to the display.  The changes were not seen unless I rebooted which I
>> didn't always do.  Maybe someone here knows what order this happens in. 
>> It could explain a lot tho. 
> I think if you change parameters in the "Device" section for the graphics 
> driver in your xorg.conf, you need to reload the driver itself, then restart 
> X.  If the driver is built-in the kernel, you have to reboot.
>
> If you change something in your "Monitor" section you just need to restart X.
>
>
>> I'm hoping all this will help someone. It sure has been a hair puller
>> for me.  LOL 
> Yeah, that LG monitor has been a pain.  You better keep it matched to the old 
> PC where you know it just works.  ;-)
>


I was going to reply when the new monitor came in.  I thought it would
be here fairly soon.  It didn't ship yesterday as expected.  Today is a
holiday and I just saw that the seller is "away" until next Tuesday.  I
guess they went out of town or something.  Anyway, it could be Monday
week before it gets here.  Might arrive early on Saturday week, maybe. 

I found a command that I plan to try.  I read that one can run Xorg
-configure and it will generate a xorg.conf based on everything it
finds.  If nothing else, it should give me a starting point.  Given my
two monitors are identical, I should be able to copy and paste the
monitor section and just change the setting that identifies the second
monitor, device name or something.  That should get me off to a start. 

I think between that above and xrandr and arandr, I should be able to
get a monitor setup that just works.  I do want it to also be able to
handle when the second monitor is turned off.  Keep in mind, I'll have a
TV connected too.  Technically 3 monitors.  One that may not being
running all the time. 

I'm sure once I get this set up, it will just work after that as long as
I don't change anything.  I'm gonna try to make notes on how I get this
to work, in case I do have to change something a few years from now.  I
just think it is best to do this when I get what I'm going to use
connected up.  Plus, that LG is just making things harder by being weird. 

Now I get to wait.  I wish it had shipped the other day.  It would be
here early next week then. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3101 bytes --]

Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 12:44 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com
> <mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com>> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > I tried it with those options and without.  Neither changed anything.  I
> > originally tried it with no xorg.conf at all.  I was hoping maybe the
> > Nvidia GUI thing would adjust things.  I may try that again.  No
> > xorg.conf and use the GUI thing.  That's what I use to set up my TV and
> > such anyway.  Thing is, the sddm screen is HUGE too.
> <SNIP>
> > :-)  :-)
>
> ???
>
> xdpyinfo | grep -B2 resolution
>
> ???


I booted my new rig up again.  Dang that thing.  It was HUGE again.  I
started reading stuff, mainly about xorg.conf and the available
settings.  I changed all sorts of stuff, including some things Micheal
suggested.  I restarted DM each time.  I was about ready to toss it in
the old minnow pond, that's where everything goes to die here.  Lots of
CRT monitors in there.  LOL  Anyway, I had to install that package to
run that command.  It spit out a oops when I tried to run it after a
copy and paste.  I also installed it on my main rig, just to compare. 
On the new rig, the DPI was a fairly large number.  I thought I had the
output saved but it seems to be gone.  My main rig tho showed 80x80 dots
per inch.  I did a duck search, finally found how to set that.  I then
restarted DM and YEPPIE!!!  It was a normal size again. 

Now the monitor on my main rig is a bit older too.  Maybe 6 or 7
years???  Should newer monitors be set to a higher number for DPI?  Is
that normal?  Why was it using such a high number by default?  I want to
say one was like 200 or something.  It was quite large.  The reason I'm
asking, I may need to set something else to make the screen the right
size but let it use that larger dpi number, if that is what the newer
monitor prefers to use. 

Now to reboot, see if I have thoughts of that minnow pond again.  :/ 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

P. S.  Funny story.  I picked basil again today.  I wash it in cold
water with salt mixed in.  The salt acts like a detergent but without a
nasty taste and easy to rinse off.  Anyway, ran out of salt.  I have
large ammo cans that I store stuff in that I want to keep dry, with some
silica packs to help keep it dry.  Anyway, I started looking for the can
with salt wrote on a post it note stuck to it.  I looked everywhere I
could think of.  Finally, I came to my room and took a break.  Then I
noticed what the new rig was sitting on.  The ammo can with salt wrote
on a post it note stuck to it.  That case was pretty heavy empty but it
is really heavy now with the extra stuff in it.  Anyway, after unhooking
everything, moving the monitor out of the way and all, I got some more
salt.  Given the problems I'm having, I took out two things of salt, in
case it takes a while to beat the new rig into submission. 

Oh, I got a LOT of basil now.  Should last me several years.  I've had
to move to larger jars twice now.  I had almost another ice cream bucket
full which was 5 trays worth in my dehydrator.  O_O 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4544 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5148 bytes --]

On Saturday, 6 July 2024 10:59:30 BST Dale wrote:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 12:44 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com
> > <mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > <SNIP>
> > 
> > > I tried it with those options and without.  Neither changed anything.  I
> > > originally tried it with no xorg.conf at all.  I was hoping maybe the
> > > Nvidia GUI thing would adjust things.  I may try that again.  No
> > > xorg.conf and use the GUI thing.  That's what I use to set up my TV and
> > > such anyway.  Thing is, the sddm screen is HUGE too.
> > 
> > <SNIP>
> > 
> > > :-)  :-)
> > 
> > ???
> > 
> > xdpyinfo | grep -B2 resolution
> > 
> > ???
> 
> I booted my new rig up again.  Dang that thing.  It was HUGE again.  I
> started reading stuff, mainly about xorg.conf and the available
> settings.  I changed all sorts of stuff, including some things Micheal
> suggested.  I restarted DM each time.  I was about ready to toss it in
> the old minnow pond, that's where everything goes to die here.  Lots of
> CRT monitors in there.  LOL  Anyway, I had to install that package to
> run that command.  It spit out a oops when I tried to run it after a
> copy and paste.  I also installed it on my main rig, just to compare. 
> On the new rig, the DPI was a fairly large number.  I thought I had the
> output saved but it seems to be gone.  My main rig tho showed 80x80 dots
> per inch.  I did a duck search, finally found how to set that.  I then
> restarted DM and YEPPIE!!!  It was a normal size again. 
> 
> Now the monitor on my main rig is a bit older too.  Maybe 6 or 7
> years???  Should newer monitors be set to a higher number for DPI?  Is
> that normal?  Why was it using such a high number by default?  I want to
> say one was like 200 or something.  It was quite large.  The reason I'm
> asking, I may need to set something else to make the screen the right
> size but let it use that larger dpi number, if that is what the newer
> monitor prefers to use. 
> 
> Now to reboot, see if I have thoughts of that minnow pond again.  :/ 
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-) 

I'm struggling to follow your post because you do not provide specific 
information on the commands you input, the output you get in your terminal and 
the observed changes in the monitor.

You also don't provide info on the changes you made in your xorg.conf, or 
xrandr and the corresponding changes observed each time in your Xorg.0.log.

Strictly speaking, the pixel density of an on-screen digital image is referred 
to as Pixels Per Inch (PPI), but the term DPI which refers to a printed image 
of ink Dots Per Inch has stuck.

In addition, there is the physical pixel density of your monitor and the 
rendered pixel density of the X11 image(s).  Tweaking the latter allows you to 
scale the display and make images look larger than the native monitor 
resolution.

You can set the DPI in your xorg.conf, or you can set it with xranrd, or you 
can set it on the CLI when you launch X, but usually this is not necessary and 
could mess up the scaling of your fonts, window decorations and symbols too 
(the font DPI is set differently by setting Xft.dpi: in ~/.Xresources, of the 
window manager's/DE font settings).

A good starting point is to get the manual of your monitor and look at its 
published native resolution, e.g. 1920x1080 and the physical monitor size over 
which this resolution is displayed.  Let's assume this 1920x1080 native 
resolution belongs to a 23" monitor.  A 23" diagonal would correspond to a 20" 
wide screen real estate.  Consequently the horizontal PPI would be:

PPI = 1920 pixels / 20" = 96

The same resolution on a 24" wide monitor would give a PPI of:

PPI = 1920 pixels / 24" = 80

Obviously a physically wider 24" monitor with the same native screen 
resolution as a smaller 20" monitor will not look as sharp when viewed from 
the *same* distance.

Similarly, changing the selected resolution on the same 23" monitor from say 
1920 pixels wide to a lower resolution of 1280 pixels gives a PPI of 64.

I leave the calculation of the vertical PPI to the reader.

Usually I start with no xorg.conf and leave the card to detect what the 
monitor prefers, then use the Scale setting in the desktop settings to 
increase/decrease (zoom in/zoom out) the displayed scale.  This has the effect 
of altering the PPI to higher or lower values to improve readability of 
content.  The above should help you arrive at some practical resolution, but I 
would start with the native resolution of the monitor and work down from there 
if you find it difficult to read its display.

NOTE: Using Qt scaling can mess up window decorations, widgets, etc.  I've 
found it doesn't work well with some KDE applications and their menus/
submenus, or pop up windows.  You need to set PLASMA_USE_QT_SCALING=1 to make 
it follow Qt scaling and there's GTK3 too which may need tuning.  This is the 
reason I calculate PPI before I venture into buying a new monitor, unless I 
can see it in person to make sure I can still read its content.  ;-)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Dale]

Michael wrote:
> On Saturday, 6 July 2024 10:59:30 BST Dale wrote:
>> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 12:44 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>>> I tried it with those options and without.  Neither changed anything.  I
>>>> originally tried it with no xorg.conf at all.  I was hoping maybe the
>>>> Nvidia GUI thing would adjust things.  I may try that again.  No
>>>> xorg.conf and use the GUI thing.  That's what I use to set up my TV and
>>>> such anyway.  Thing is, the sddm screen is HUGE too.
>>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>>> :-)  :-)
>>> ???
>>>
>>> xdpyinfo | grep -B2 resolution
>>>
>>> ???
>> I booted my new rig up again.  Dang that thing.  It was HUGE again.  I
>> started reading stuff, mainly about xorg.conf and the available
>> settings.  I changed all sorts of stuff, including some things Micheal
>> suggested.  I restarted DM each time.  I was about ready to toss it in
>> the old minnow pond, that's where everything goes to die here.  Lots of
>> CRT monitors in there.  LOL  Anyway, I had to install that package to
>> run that command.  It spit out a oops when I tried to run it after a
>> copy and paste.  I also installed it on my main rig, just to compare. 
>> On the new rig, the DPI was a fairly large number.  I thought I had the
>> output saved but it seems to be gone.  My main rig tho showed 80x80 dots
>> per inch.  I did a duck search, finally found how to set that.  I then
>> restarted DM and YEPPIE!!!  It was a normal size again. 
>>
>> Now the monitor on my main rig is a bit older too.  Maybe 6 or 7
>> years???  Should newer monitors be set to a higher number for DPI?  Is
>> that normal?  Why was it using such a high number by default?  I want to
>> say one was like 200 or something.  It was quite large.  The reason I'm
>> asking, I may need to set something else to make the screen the right
>> size but let it use that larger dpi number, if that is what the newer
>> monitor prefers to use. 
>>
>> Now to reboot, see if I have thoughts of that minnow pond again.  :/ 
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-) 
> I'm struggling to follow your post because you do not provide specific 
> information on the commands you input, the output you get in your terminal and 
> the observed changes in the monitor.
>
> You also don't provide info on the changes you made in your xorg.conf, or 
> xrandr and the corresponding changes observed each time in your Xorg.0.log.
>
> Strictly speaking, the pixel density of an on-screen digital image is referred 
> to as Pixels Per Inch (PPI), but the term DPI which refers to a printed image 
> of ink Dots Per Inch has stuck.
>
> In addition, there is the physical pixel density of your monitor and the 
> rendered pixel density of the X11 image(s).  Tweaking the latter allows you to 
> scale the display and make images look larger than the native monitor 
> resolution.
>
> You can set the DPI in your xorg.conf, or you can set it with xranrd, or you 
> can set it on the CLI when you launch X, but usually this is not necessary and 
> could mess up the scaling of your fonts, window decorations and symbols too 
> (the font DPI is set differently by setting Xft.dpi: in ~/.Xresources, of the 
> window manager's/DE font settings).
>
> A good starting point is to get the manual of your monitor and look at its 
> published native resolution, e.g. 1920x1080 and the physical monitor size over 
> which this resolution is displayed.  Let's assume this 1920x1080 native 
> resolution belongs to a 23" monitor.  A 23" diagonal would correspond to a 20" 
> wide screen real estate.  Consequently the horizontal PPI would be:
>
> PPI = 1920 pixels / 20" = 96
>
> The same resolution on a 24" wide monitor would give a PPI of:
>
> PPI = 1920 pixels / 24" = 80
>
> Obviously a physically wider 24" monitor with the same native screen 
> resolution as a smaller 20" monitor will not look as sharp when viewed from 
> the *same* distance.
>
> Similarly, changing the selected resolution on the same 23" monitor from say 
> 1920 pixels wide to a lower resolution of 1280 pixels gives a PPI of 64.
>
> I leave the calculation of the vertical PPI to the reader.
>
> Usually I start with no xorg.conf and leave the card to detect what the 
> monitor prefers, then use the Scale setting in the desktop settings to 
> increase/decrease (zoom in/zoom out) the displayed scale.  This has the effect 
> of altering the PPI to higher or lower values to improve readability of 
> content.  The above should help you arrive at some practical resolution, but I 
> would start with the native resolution of the monitor and work down from there 
> if you find it difficult to read its display.
>
> NOTE: Using Qt scaling can mess up window decorations, widgets, etc.  I've 
> found it doesn't work well with some KDE applications and their menus/
> submenus, or pop up windows.  You need to set PLASMA_USE_QT_SCALING=1 to make 
> it follow Qt scaling and there's GTK3 too which may need tuning.  This is the 
> reason I calculate PPI before I venture into buying a new monitor, unless I 
> can see it in person to make sure I can still read its content.  ;-)


The reason I picked Mark's post is that I used the command he gave to
find out the DPI info was different from my main rig.  When I first
booted up and started DM, I got that HUGE screen again.  It worked last
time.  I hadn't changed anything.  I sometimes wonder still if it reads
xorg.conf each time.  Anyway, when it didn't work, I started reading up
a bit.  I tried several things including checking options you posted but
nothing worked.  It stayed HUGE.  Then I ran the command Mark gave and
noticed the difference in DPI between my main rig and the new rig.  I
then found out how to set that in xorg.conf and set it the same as my
main rig.  As soon as I restarted DM, the screen came up the correct
size.  The HUGE part was gone.  When I rebooted, it was still the normal
size.  It also worked each time I restarted DM.  The only change is
setting DPI.  Like this:


Section "Monitor"
        Identifier   "Monitor0"
        VendorName   "Unknown"
        ModelName    "Samsung LS32B30"
        Option       "PreferredMode" "1920x1080_60.00"
        Option          "DPMS"
        Option          "DPI" "80 x 80"


I just booted the new rig again and it has a normal display.  None of
that huge stuff.  I think I've rebooted like three times now and it
worked every time.  I think that is the most reboots with a config that
works since I built this rig.  Usually, it works once, maybe twice, then
fails.  Later on, it might work again.  This machine is like rolling
dice.  You never know what you going to get.  Three consecutive reboots
with it working gives me hope on this one.  I won't be surprised if when
I hook up a second monitor or the TV that it breaks again tho.  ;-) 

My only question now, is that a good setting or is there a better way to
make sure this thing works, each time I reboot? 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7934 bytes --]

On Saturday, 6 July 2024 17:11:23 BST Dale wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > On Saturday, 6 July 2024 10:59:30 BST Dale wrote:
> >> Mark Knecht wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 12:44 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com
> >>> <mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>> <SNIP>
> >>> 
> >>>> I tried it with those options and without.  Neither changed anything. 
> >>>> I
> >>>> originally tried it with no xorg.conf at all.  I was hoping maybe the
> >>>> Nvidia GUI thing would adjust things.  I may try that again.  No
> >>>> xorg.conf and use the GUI thing.  That's what I use to set up my TV and
> >>>> such anyway.  Thing is, the sddm screen is HUGE too.
> >>> 
> >>> <SNIP>
> >>> 
> >>>> :-)  :-)
> >>> 
> >>> ???
> >>> 
> >>> xdpyinfo | grep -B2 resolution
> >>> 
> >>> ???
> >> 
> >> I booted my new rig up again.  Dang that thing.  It was HUGE again.  I
> >> started reading stuff, mainly about xorg.conf and the available
> >> settings.  I changed all sorts of stuff, including some things Micheal
> >> suggested.  I restarted DM each time.  I was about ready to toss it in
> >> the old minnow pond, that's where everything goes to die here.  Lots of
> >> CRT monitors in there.  LOL  Anyway, I had to install that package to
> >> run that command.  It spit out a oops when I tried to run it after a
> >> copy and paste.  I also installed it on my main rig, just to compare.
> >> On the new rig, the DPI was a fairly large number.  I thought I had the
> >> output saved but it seems to be gone.  My main rig tho showed 80x80 dots
> >> per inch.  I did a duck search, finally found how to set that.  I then
> >> restarted DM and YEPPIE!!!  It was a normal size again.
> >> 
> >> Now the monitor on my main rig is a bit older too.  Maybe 6 or 7
> >> years???  Should newer monitors be set to a higher number for DPI?  Is
> >> that normal?  Why was it using such a high number by default?  I want to
> >> say one was like 200 or something.  It was quite large.  The reason I'm
> >> asking, I may need to set something else to make the screen the right
> >> size but let it use that larger dpi number, if that is what the newer
> >> monitor prefers to use.
> >> 
> >> Now to reboot, see if I have thoughts of that minnow pond again.  :/
> >> 
> >> Dale
> >> 
> >> :-)  :-)
> > 
> > I'm struggling to follow your post because you do not provide specific
> > information on the commands you input, the output you get in your terminal
> > and the observed changes in the monitor.
> > 
> > You also don't provide info on the changes you made in your xorg.conf, or
> > xrandr and the corresponding changes observed each time in your
> > Xorg.0.log.
> > 
> > Strictly speaking, the pixel density of an on-screen digital image is
> > referred to as Pixels Per Inch (PPI), but the term DPI which refers to a
> > printed image of ink Dots Per Inch has stuck.
> > 
> > In addition, there is the physical pixel density of your monitor and the
> > rendered pixel density of the X11 image(s).  Tweaking the latter allows
> > you to scale the display and make images look larger than the native
> > monitor resolution.
> > 
> > You can set the DPI in your xorg.conf, or you can set it with xranrd, or
> > you can set it on the CLI when you launch X, but usually this is not
> > necessary and could mess up the scaling of your fonts, window decorations
> > and symbols too (the font DPI is set differently by setting Xft.dpi: in
> > ~/.Xresources, of the window manager's/DE font settings).
> > 
> > A good starting point is to get the manual of your monitor and look at its
> > published native resolution, e.g. 1920x1080 and the physical monitor size
> > over which this resolution is displayed.  Let's assume this 1920x1080
> > native resolution belongs to a 23" monitor.  A 23" diagonal would
> > correspond to a 20" wide screen real estate.  Consequently the horizontal
> > PPI would be:
> > 
> > PPI = 1920 pixels / 20" = 96
> > 
> > The same resolution on a 24" wide monitor would give a PPI of:
> > 
> > PPI = 1920 pixels / 24" = 80
> > 
> > Obviously a physically wider 24" monitor with the same native screen
> > resolution as a smaller 20" monitor will not look as sharp when viewed
> > from
> > the *same* distance.
> > 
> > Similarly, changing the selected resolution on the same 23" monitor from
> > say 1920 pixels wide to a lower resolution of 1280 pixels gives a PPI of
> > 64.
> > 
> > I leave the calculation of the vertical PPI to the reader.
> > 
> > Usually I start with no xorg.conf and leave the card to detect what the
> > monitor prefers, then use the Scale setting in the desktop settings to
> > increase/decrease (zoom in/zoom out) the displayed scale.  This has the
> > effect of altering the PPI to higher or lower values to improve
> > readability of content.  The above should help you arrive at some
> > practical resolution, but I would start with the native resolution of the
> > monitor and work down from there if you find it difficult to read its
> > display.
> > 
> > NOTE: Using Qt scaling can mess up window decorations, widgets, etc.  I've
> > found it doesn't work well with some KDE applications and their menus/
> > submenus, or pop up windows.  You need to set PLASMA_USE_QT_SCALING=1 to
> > make it follow Qt scaling and there's GTK3 too which may need tuning. 
> > This is the reason I calculate PPI before I venture into buying a new
> > monitor, unless I can see it in person to make sure I can still read its
> > content.  ;-)
> The reason I picked Mark's post is that I used the command he gave to
> find out the DPI info was different from my main rig.  When I first
> booted up and started DM, I got that HUGE screen again.  It worked last
> time.  I hadn't changed anything.  I sometimes wonder still if it reads
> xorg.conf each time.  Anyway, when it didn't work, I started reading up
> a bit.  I tried several things including checking options you posted but
> nothing worked.  It stayed HUGE.  Then I ran the command Mark gave and
> noticed the difference in DPI between my main rig and the new rig.  I
> then found out how to set that in xorg.conf and set it the same as my
> main rig.  As soon as I restarted DM, the screen came up the correct
> size.  The HUGE part was gone.  When I rebooted, it was still the normal
> size.  It also worked each time I restarted DM.  The only change is
> setting DPI.  Like this:
> 
> 
> Section "Monitor"
>         Identifier   "Monitor0"
>         VendorName   "Unknown"
>         ModelName    "Samsung LS32B30"
>         Option       "PreferredMode" "1920x1080_60.00"
>         Option          "DPMS"
>         Option          "DPI" "80 x 80"
> 
> 
> I just booted the new rig again and it has a normal display.  None of
> that huge stuff.  I think I've rebooted like three times now and it
> worked every time.  I think that is the most reboots with a config that
> works since I built this rig.  Usually, it works once, maybe twice, then
> fails.  Later on, it might work again.  This machine is like rolling
> dice.  You never know what you going to get.  Three consecutive reboots
> with it working gives me hope on this one.  I won't be surprised if when
> I hook up a second monitor or the TV that it breaks again tho.  ;-) 
> 
> My only question now, is that a good setting or is there a better way to
> make sure this thing works, each time I reboot? 
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-) 

Is this your monitor?

https://www.samsung.com/us/business/computing/monitors/flat/32--s30b-fhd-75hz-amd-freesync-monitor-ls32b300nwnxgo/#specs

If the screen is 27.5" wide and 15.47 high, then at a native 1,920 x 1,080 
pixel resolution the DPI would be approx. 70x70.  However, if you're happy 
with the way it looks @80x80, then that's a good setting.  After all, you're 
the one looking at it!  :-)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Dale]

Michael wrote:
> On Saturday, 6 July 2024 17:11:23 BST Dale wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 6 July 2024 10:59:30 BST Dale wrote:
>>>> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 12:44 PM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:rdalek1967@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I tried it with those options and without.  Neither changed anything. 
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> originally tried it with no xorg.conf at all.  I was hoping maybe the
>>>>>> Nvidia GUI thing would adjust things.  I may try that again.  No
>>>>>> xorg.conf and use the GUI thing.  That's what I use to set up my TV and
>>>>>> such anyway.  Thing is, the sddm screen is HUGE too.
>>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>>
>>>>>> :-)  :-)
>>>>> ???
>>>>>
>>>>> xdpyinfo | grep -B2 resolution
>>>>>
>>>>> ???
>>>> I booted my new rig up again.  Dang that thing.  It was HUGE again.  I
>>>> started reading stuff, mainly about xorg.conf and the available
>>>> settings.  I changed all sorts of stuff, including some things Micheal
>>>> suggested.  I restarted DM each time.  I was about ready to toss it in
>>>> the old minnow pond, that's where everything goes to die here.  Lots of
>>>> CRT monitors in there.  LOL  Anyway, I had to install that package to
>>>> run that command.  It spit out a oops when I tried to run it after a
>>>> copy and paste.  I also installed it on my main rig, just to compare.
>>>> On the new rig, the DPI was a fairly large number.  I thought I had the
>>>> output saved but it seems to be gone.  My main rig tho showed 80x80 dots
>>>> per inch.  I did a duck search, finally found how to set that.  I then
>>>> restarted DM and YEPPIE!!!  It was a normal size again.
>>>>
>>>> Now the monitor on my main rig is a bit older too.  Maybe 6 or 7
>>>> years???  Should newer monitors be set to a higher number for DPI?  Is
>>>> that normal?  Why was it using such a high number by default?  I want to
>>>> say one was like 200 or something.  It was quite large.  The reason I'm
>>>> asking, I may need to set something else to make the screen the right
>>>> size but let it use that larger dpi number, if that is what the newer
>>>> monitor prefers to use.
>>>>
>>>> Now to reboot, see if I have thoughts of that minnow pond again.  :/
>>>>
>>>> Dale
>>>>
>>>> :-)  :-)
>>> I'm struggling to follow your post because you do not provide specific
>>> information on the commands you input, the output you get in your terminal
>>> and the observed changes in the monitor.
>>>
>>> You also don't provide info on the changes you made in your xorg.conf, or
>>> xrandr and the corresponding changes observed each time in your
>>> Xorg.0.log.
>>>
>>> Strictly speaking, the pixel density of an on-screen digital image is
>>> referred to as Pixels Per Inch (PPI), but the term DPI which refers to a
>>> printed image of ink Dots Per Inch has stuck.
>>>
>>> In addition, there is the physical pixel density of your monitor and the
>>> rendered pixel density of the X11 image(s).  Tweaking the latter allows
>>> you to scale the display and make images look larger than the native
>>> monitor resolution.
>>>
>>> You can set the DPI in your xorg.conf, or you can set it with xranrd, or
>>> you can set it on the CLI when you launch X, but usually this is not
>>> necessary and could mess up the scaling of your fonts, window decorations
>>> and symbols too (the font DPI is set differently by setting Xft.dpi: in
>>> ~/.Xresources, of the window manager's/DE font settings).
>>>
>>> A good starting point is to get the manual of your monitor and look at its
>>> published native resolution, e.g. 1920x1080 and the physical monitor size
>>> over which this resolution is displayed.  Let's assume this 1920x1080
>>> native resolution belongs to a 23" monitor.  A 23" diagonal would
>>> correspond to a 20" wide screen real estate.  Consequently the horizontal
>>> PPI would be:
>>>
>>> PPI = 1920 pixels / 20" = 96
>>>
>>> The same resolution on a 24" wide monitor would give a PPI of:
>>>
>>> PPI = 1920 pixels / 24" = 80
>>>
>>> Obviously a physically wider 24" monitor with the same native screen
>>> resolution as a smaller 20" monitor will not look as sharp when viewed
>>> from
>>> the *same* distance.
>>>
>>> Similarly, changing the selected resolution on the same 23" monitor from
>>> say 1920 pixels wide to a lower resolution of 1280 pixels gives a PPI of
>>> 64.
>>>
>>> I leave the calculation of the vertical PPI to the reader.
>>>
>>> Usually I start with no xorg.conf and leave the card to detect what the
>>> monitor prefers, then use the Scale setting in the desktop settings to
>>> increase/decrease (zoom in/zoom out) the displayed scale.  This has the
>>> effect of altering the PPI to higher or lower values to improve
>>> readability of content.  The above should help you arrive at some
>>> practical resolution, but I would start with the native resolution of the
>>> monitor and work down from there if you find it difficult to read its
>>> display.
>>>
>>> NOTE: Using Qt scaling can mess up window decorations, widgets, etc.  I've
>>> found it doesn't work well with some KDE applications and their menus/
>>> submenus, or pop up windows.  You need to set PLASMA_USE_QT_SCALING=1 to
>>> make it follow Qt scaling and there's GTK3 too which may need tuning. 
>>> This is the reason I calculate PPI before I venture into buying a new
>>> monitor, unless I can see it in person to make sure I can still read its
>>> content.  ;-)
>> The reason I picked Mark's post is that I used the command he gave to
>> find out the DPI info was different from my main rig.  When I first
>> booted up and started DM, I got that HUGE screen again.  It worked last
>> time.  I hadn't changed anything.  I sometimes wonder still if it reads
>> xorg.conf each time.  Anyway, when it didn't work, I started reading up
>> a bit.  I tried several things including checking options you posted but
>> nothing worked.  It stayed HUGE.  Then I ran the command Mark gave and
>> noticed the difference in DPI between my main rig and the new rig.  I
>> then found out how to set that in xorg.conf and set it the same as my
>> main rig.  As soon as I restarted DM, the screen came up the correct
>> size.  The HUGE part was gone.  When I rebooted, it was still the normal
>> size.  It also worked each time I restarted DM.  The only change is
>> setting DPI.  Like this:
>>
>>
>> Section "Monitor"
>>         Identifier   "Monitor0"
>>         VendorName   "Unknown"
>>         ModelName    "Samsung LS32B30"
>>         Option       "PreferredMode" "1920x1080_60.00"
>>         Option          "DPMS"
>>         Option          "DPI" "80 x 80"
>>
>>
>> I just booted the new rig again and it has a normal display.  None of
>> that huge stuff.  I think I've rebooted like three times now and it
>> worked every time.  I think that is the most reboots with a config that
>> works since I built this rig.  Usually, it works once, maybe twice, then
>> fails.  Later on, it might work again.  This machine is like rolling
>> dice.  You never know what you going to get.  Three consecutive reboots
>> with it working gives me hope on this one.  I won't be surprised if when
>> I hook up a second monitor or the TV that it breaks again tho.  ;-) 
>>
>> My only question now, is that a good setting or is there a better way to
>> make sure this thing works, each time I reboot? 
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-) 
> Is this your monitor?
>
> https://www.samsung.com/us/business/computing/monitors/flat/32--s30b-fhd-75hz-amd-freesync-monitor-ls32b300nwnxgo/#specs
>
> If the screen is 27.5" wide and 15.47 high, then at a native 1,920 x 1,080 
> pixel resolution the DPI would be approx. 70x70.  However, if you're happy 
> with the way it looks @80x80, then that's a good setting.  After all, you're 
> the one looking at it!  :-)


Actually, mine is a LS32B304NWN.  I'm not sure what the difference is
between 300 and 304.  There may just be a minor version change but
display is the same.  Sorta like a bug fix.  Could be one is a slightly
newer model or something.  I dunno.  It's hi res and a good deal.  :-D 

Compared to the HUGE display, yea, it looks good.  The reason I was
asking if that is correct is this, maybe it should be set to, just
guessing, 128 x 128 but some other setting makes the picture the right
size, not HUGE.  If 70 x 70 or 80 x 80 is a setting that the monitor is
designed for and ideal, then that is fine.  I don't see a DPI setting on
the link you posted.  Can it be called something else? 

Monitors, even the old CRTs, have resolutions and settings they work
best at.  Those are the ones I'd like to use.  If for no other reason,
it just makes it easier on the monitor to handle.  I read once where a
person had a monitor that had a great picture at 60Hz refresh.  Even tho
it would work at 75Hz, the picture wasn't as good.  It seems that
something didn't like that 75Hz setting.  That person used the 60Hz
setting.  Some things are picky that way.  Higher isn't always better.

I may try that 70 setting.  Odds are, just like the difference between
60 and 75Hz refresh rate, I likely won't be able to tell the
difference.  Time will tell tho. 

By the way, I booted the rig up when I went to heat up supper and was
downloading new messages.  It booted to a normal screen.  I think it is
at least being consistent now.  Before, it was hit or miss, mostly
miss.  Given how good things are at just working, I'm surprised that the
correct setting wasn't used automatically.  I'd think it should be. 
Maybe that is a bug???? 

Now to go eat supper.  I hope the monitor comes in soon.  I ordered a
monitor stand too.  I think the stand will be here before the monitor. 
I'm kinda hoping the monitor was shipped but tracking info just wasn't
uploaded yet.  That would make the monitor arrive sooner.  Kinda
doubtful tho.  Most are pretty quick to update those. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4725 bytes --]

Am Sat, Jul 06, 2024 at 07:32:49PM -0500 schrieb Dale:

> Michael wrote:
> > On Saturday, 6 July 2024 17:11:23 BST Dale wrote:
> >> Michael wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, 6 July 2024 10:59:30 BST Dale wrote:

> >>>> Now the monitor on my main rig is a bit older too.  Maybe 6 or 7
> >>>> years???  Should newer monitors be set to a higher number for DPI?

DPI does not depend on age, but only on physical characteristics, of course. 

> >>> Strictly speaking, the pixel density of an on-screen digital image is
> >>> referred to as Pixels Per Inch (PPI), but the term DPI which refers to a
> >>> printed image of ink Dots Per Inch has stuck.
> >>>
> >>> In addition, there is the physical pixel density of your monitor and the
> >>> rendered pixel density of the X11 image(s).  Tweaking the latter allows
> >>> you to scale the display and make images look larger than the native
> >>> monitor resolution.

> > Is this your monitor?
> >
> > https://www.samsung.com/us/business/computing/monitors/flat/32--s30b-fhd-75hz-amd-freesync-monitor-ls32b300nwnxgo/#specs
> >
> > If the screen is 27.5" wide and 15.47 high, then at a native 1,920 x 1,080 
> > pixel resolution the DPI would be approx. 70x70.  However, if you're happy 
> > with the way it looks @80x80, then that's a good setting.  After all, you're 
> > the one looking at it!  :-)
> 
> 
> Actually, mine is a LS32B304NWN.  I'm not sure what the difference is
> between 300 and 304.  There may just be a minor version change but
> display is the same.

If I look at the Samsung pages:
https://www.samsung.com/us/computing/monitors/flat/32--s30b-fhd-75hz-amd-freesync-monitor-ls32b300nwnxgo/
https://www.samsung.com/us/business/computing/monitors/flat/32--s30b-series-with-dp-cable-ls32b304nwnxgo/
then the difference is in the caption: the 304 comes with a DP cable.

> It's hi res and a good deal.  :-D 

Please define hi res. Full HD at 32″ is definitely not hi res. ;-P
It’s about as much as CRTs back in the day, close to 1024×768 at 17″.

> Compared to the HUGE display, yea, it looks good.  The reason I was
> asking if that is correct is this, maybe it should be set to, just
> guessing, 128 x 128 but some other setting makes the picture the right
> size, not HUGE.  If 70 x 70 or 80 x 80 is a setting that the monitor is
> designed for and ideal, then that is fine.

Well technically, a monitor is not designed for, but designed with a 
specific number. It is determined by the size of its physical pixels.

> Monitors, even the old CRTs, have resolutions and settings they work
> best at.

True, at bigger pictures (meaning more pixels), the frame rate went down and 
the CRT started to visibly flicker. So the sweet spot was at the highest 
resolution for which a comfortably high framerate could be maintained. I was 
too little in the CRT era to know the exact reason, but there are many to 
choose from:
- insufficient GPU power to deliver enough pixels per second
- limited bandwidth in the display cable
- the monitor couldn’t keep up
- the CRT’s pixel pitch in the phosphor screen

> I read once where a
> person had a monitor that had a great picture at 60Hz refresh.  Even tho
> it would work at 75Hz, the picture wasn't as good.  It seems that
> something didn't like that 75Hz setting.  That person used the 60Hz
> setting.  Some things are picky that way.  Higher isn't always better.

How long ago was that? If it was in the VGA era, maybe the analog circuits 
weren’t good enough and produced a bad signal.

> I may try that 70 setting.  Odds are, just like the difference between
> 60 and 75Hz refresh rate, I likely won't be able to tell the
> difference.  Time will tell tho. 

Well don’t mix up frame rate and scaling. 75 Hz vs. 60 is quite sublte, you 
might not even notice 90 Hz. But chaing DPI from 80 to 70 will mean an 
increase in fonts by 14 %.

> By the way, I booted the rig up when I went to heat up supper and was
> downloading new messages.  It booted to a normal screen.  I think it is
> at least being consistent now.  Before, it was hit or miss, mostly
> miss.  Given how good things are at just working, I'm surprised that the
> correct setting wasn't used automatically.  I'd think it should be. 
> Maybe that is a bug???? 
> 
> Now to go eat supper.  I hope the monitor comes in soon.

I’m confused. I thought the new one has already arrived and is the one where 
everything was HUGE. %-)

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

People who are not convex with foreign words should not renovate with them.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Wols Lists]

On 07/07/2024 21:08, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
>> I read once where a
>> person had a monitor that had a great picture at 60Hz refresh.  Even tho
>> it would work at 75Hz, the picture wasn't as good.  It seems that
>> something didn't like that 75Hz setting.  That person used the 60Hz
>> setting.  Some things are picky that way.  Higher isn't always better.

> How long ago was that? If it was in the VGA era, maybe the analog circuits
> weren’t good enough and produced a bad signal.

In Europe, I think many CRTs were 50Hz. Basically, you need at least 
24Hz to fool the eye that it's a moving picture. And if I'm correct (I 
never really dug into that), it's clearly something to do with the 
frequency of the AC supplying the monitor.

I know that has a whole series of weird effects that are "oh THAT'S why" 
when it's pointed out.

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1244 bytes --]

On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 1:09 PM Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Am Sat, Jul 06, 2024 at 07:32:49PM -0500 schrieb Dale:
<SNIP>
>
> Well don’t mix up frame rate and scaling. 75 Hz vs. 60 is quite subtle,
you
> might not even notice 90 Hz. But changing DPI from 80 to 70 will mean an
> increase in fonts by 14 %.

So I understand the 14% calculation, but help me understand the underlying
technology. Is the DPI how a font file, which I presume is some fixed size,
like 25x25, gets scaled onto the screen? I'm not clear about the conversion
from the font to the number of dots used to draw the font on the screen.

With my limited understanding it seems very arbitrary.

With respect to Dale's "huge" problem there's also a scale factor in KDE
that can be set by the user, or could be set wrong such that it will scale
up
what's drawn on the screen. (Display and Monitor->Global Scale)

>
> I’m confused. I thought the new one has already arrived and is the one
where
> everything was HUGE. %-)

Dale does this at times and I get confused also. He will (the way I read the
messages) sometimes be talking about different machines or different
monitors. His 'main rig", his "new rig", etc.

- Mark

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1615 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6972 bytes --]

Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Sat, Jul 06, 2024 at 07:32:49PM -0500 schrieb Dale:
>
>> Michael wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 6 July 2024 17:11:23 BST Dale wrote:
>>>> Michael wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, 6 July 2024 10:59:30 BST Dale wrote:
>>>>>> Now the monitor on my main rig is a bit older too.  Maybe 6 or 7
>>>>>> years???  Should newer monitors be set to a higher number for DPI?
> DPI does not depend on age, but only on physical characteristics, of course. 

Yea, but I figure monitors have improved and have more of them and
closer together.  Maybe they are as tight as they can get them, for now
at least.  Just wait, they will have them at several thousand a inch
before long.  ROFL  If nothing else, it makes a good sales pitch.  o_O

>
>>>>> Strictly speaking, the pixel density of an on-screen digital image is
>>>>> referred to as Pixels Per Inch (PPI), but the term DPI which refers to a
>>>>> printed image of ink Dots Per Inch has stuck.
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition, there is the physical pixel density of your monitor and the
>>>>> rendered pixel density of the X11 image(s).  Tweaking the latter allows
>>>>> you to scale the display and make images look larger than the native
>>>>> monitor resolution.
>>> Is this your monitor?
>>>
>>> https://www.samsung.com/us/business/computing/monitors/flat/32--s30b-fhd-75hz-amd-freesync-monitor-ls32b300nwnxgo/#specs
>>>
>>> If the screen is 27.5" wide and 15.47 high, then at a native 1,920 x 1,080 
>>> pixel resolution the DPI would be approx. 70x70.  However, if you're happy 
>>> with the way it looks @80x80, then that's a good setting.  After all, you're 
>>> the one looking at it!  :-)
>> Actually, mine is a LS32B304NWN.  I'm not sure what the difference is
>> between 300 and 304.  There may just be a minor version change but
>> display is the same.
> If I look at the Samsung pages:
> https://www.samsung.com/us/computing/monitors/flat/32--s30b-fhd-75hz-amd-freesync-monitor-ls32b300nwnxgo/
> https://www.samsung.com/us/business/computing/monitors/flat/32--s30b-series-with-dp-cable-ls32b304nwnxgo/
> then the difference is in the caption: the 304 comes with a DP cable.
>

Well, I think it did come with one of those.  I stuck it somewhere.  My
video card has mini displayport outputs. I have a short adapter that
converts to HDMI.  That's how I connect right now.  I may buy a cable
that has MiniDP on one end and whatever works best for the monitor on
the other.  Less connectors.  For my use, I doubt it matters any.

>> It's hi res and a good deal.  :-D 
> Please define hi res. Full HD at 32″ is definitely not hi res. ;-P
> It’s about as much as CRTs back in the day, close to 1024×768 at 17″.

Well, I still consider 1080P hi res.  That's what I get for any monitor
or TV I buy.  The biggest thing I have is a 32" tho.  My rooms are kinda
small.  No need for a 60" TV/monitor. 

>> Compared to the HUGE display, yea, it looks good.  The reason I was
>> asking if that is correct is this, maybe it should be set to, just
>> guessing, 128 x 128 but some other setting makes the picture the right
>> size, not HUGE.  If 70 x 70 or 80 x 80 is a setting that the monitor is
>> designed for and ideal, then that is fine.
> Well technically, a monitor is not designed for, but designed with a 
> specific number. It is determined by the size of its physical pixels.
>
>> Monitors, even the old CRTs, have resolutions and settings they work
>> best at.
> True, at bigger pictures (meaning more pixels), the frame rate went down and 
> the CRT started to visibly flicker. So the sweet spot was at the highest 
> resolution for which a comfortably high framerate could be maintained. I was 
> too little in the CRT era to know the exact reason, but there are many to 
> choose from:
> - insufficient GPU power to deliver enough pixels per second
> - limited bandwidth in the display cable
> - the monitor couldn’t keep up
> - the CRT’s pixel pitch in the phosphor screen
>
>> I read once where a
>> person had a monitor that had a great picture at 60Hz refresh.  Even tho
>> it would work at 75Hz, the picture wasn't as good.  It seems that
>> something didn't like that 75Hz setting.  That person used the 60Hz
>> setting.  Some things are picky that way.  Higher isn't always better.
> How long ago was that? If it was in the VGA era, maybe the analog circuits 
> weren’t good enough and produced a bad signal.

Could also just be a difference in what the monitor could handle and
what the video card can produce.  I just remember reading that a guy had
to use a lower refresh rate because the faster setting looked worse. 
Could have been the eyes tho.  o_O


>> I may try that 70 setting.  Odds are, just like the difference between
>> 60 and 75Hz refresh rate, I likely won't be able to tell the
>> difference.  Time will tell tho. 
> Well don’t mix up frame rate and scaling. 75 Hz vs. 60 is quite sublte, you 
> might not even notice 90 Hz. But chaing DPI from 80 to 70 will mean an 
> increase in fonts by 14 %.
>

I set it to 70 and I can't really tell a difference.  Since that is what
the math says it should be, I'll leave it there.  Micheal sent a off
list reply with the math.  He has a nifty slide rule.  ROFL 


>> By the way, I booted the rig up when I went to heat up supper and was
>> downloading new messages.  It booted to a normal screen.  I think it is
>> at least being consistent now.  Before, it was hit or miss, mostly
>> miss.  Given how good things are at just working, I'm surprised that the
>> correct setting wasn't used automatically.  I'd think it should be. 
>> Maybe that is a bug???? 
>>
>> Now to go eat supper.  I hope the monitor comes in soon.
> I’m confused. I thought the new one has already arrived and is the one where 
> everything was HUGE. %-)
>
> -- Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’ Please do not share anything
> from, with or about me on any social network. People who are not
> convex with foreign words should not renovate with them.


I ordered a second identical monitor.  I been wanting two monitors for a
while.  On occasion when I have hundreds of files to process manually, I
need a second monitor just to stick a file manager on and drag files
from one directory to another but being able to see both at the same
time.  A second monitor will help with this.  Plus, I have a spare as
well.  So, first monitor is here and fixed a lot of problems except it
added a new one, being HUGE.  Now that is fixed as well.  When I connect
the second monitor, I should be able to set it up the same way except
connected to a different port.  The only thing I'm not sure about, I
want it so that I can cut the second monitor off and it not affect my
main monitor or the TV port(s).  I think it is doable.  Something about
a --auto feature with xrandr and friends.  I'll see when it all gets here. 

The biggest thing I dread right now, cleaning off my desk.  -_o

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 12586 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2575 bytes --]

Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 1:09 PM Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@gmx.de
> <mailto:Warp_7@gmx.de>> wrote:
> >
> > Am Sat, Jul 06, 2024 at 07:32:49PM -0500 schrieb Dale:
> <SNIP>
> >
> > Well don’t mix up frame rate and scaling. 75 Hz vs. 60 is quite
> subtle, you
> > might not even notice 90 Hz. But changing DPI from 80 to 70 will mean an
> > increase in fonts by 14 %.
>
> So I understand the 14% calculation, but help me understand
> the underlying 
> technology. Is the DPI how a font file, which I presume is some fixed
> size, 
> like 25x25, gets scaled onto the screen? I'm not clear about the
> conversion 
> from the font to the number of dots used to draw the font on the screen.
>
> With my limited understanding it seems very arbitrary.
>
> With respect to Dale's "huge" problem there's also a scale factor in KDE
> that can be set by the user, or could be set wrong such that it will
> scale up
> what's drawn on the screen. (Display and Monitor->Global Scale)
>
> >
> > I’m confused. I thought the new one has already arrived and is the
> one where
> > everything was HUGE. %-)
>
> Dale does this at times and I get confused also. He will (the way I
> read the
> messages) sometimes be talking about different machines or different
> monitors. His 'main rig", his "new rig", etc.
>
> - Mark
>


Yea, I try to state which rig I'm talking about when giving info.  It is
confusing for me to at times and if I'm confused, well, my messages will
be too.  After all, I have new rig, main rig, NAS-1 and NAS-2.  It's a
lot to keep up with even for me.

I looked everywhere in KDE and even found and disabled some scale and
zoom features but it didn't change the screen at all.  When it first
started tho, that is what it looked like.  It was like looking through
binoculars or something.  It also looked like I was seeing one part of a
four monitor screen.  It's also why I asked if setting the DPI  could
give a hint about another setting that could also fix the issue. I've
never had to set DPI before.  I find it very odd.  It fixes it but could
another more common option also fix it. 

It's almost supper time.  Nothing cooked and no idea what I want.  Two
deep freezers with food, lots of ammo cans with other food, stuff in
fridge and all, still can't make up my mind on what to eat.  :/   I got
plenty of basil to spice up things tho.  Dang I got a LOT of basil. 

We going to get this all sorted out tho and then the new rig will become
main rig.  That should lead to more confusion.  ROFL 

Dale

:-)  :-)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3993 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2278 bytes --]

Am Sun, Jul 07, 2024 at 04:12:11PM -0500 schrieb Dale:

> >> It's hi res and a good deal.  :-D 
> > Please define hi res. Full HD at 32″ is definitely not hi res. ;-P
> > It’s about as much as CRTs back in the day, close to 1024×768 at 17″.
> 
> Well, I still consider 1080P hi res.  That's what I get for any monitor
> or TV I buy.  The biggest thing I have is a 32" tho.  My rooms are kinda
> small.  No need for a 60" TV/monitor. 

Well my TV sits over 4 m (that’s 13 feet for the imperialists) away from the 
sofa. So I splurged and got myself a 65″ one.

> >> Now to go eat supper.  I hope the monitor comes in soon.
> > I’m confused. I thought the new one has already arrived and is the one where 
> > everything was HUGE. %-)
> 
> I ordered a second identical monitor.  I been wanting two monitors for a
> while.  On occasion when I have hundreds of files to process manually, I
> need a second monitor just to stick a file manager on and drag files
> from one directory to another but being able to see both at the same
> time.

I’ve never grown accustomed to multi-monitor-setups. I’ve always used just 
one (a habit from my long laptop days). Instead I multitask with virtual 
desktops (as you do) and with teminal multiplexers.

At 70 DPI, I recommend the terminus font, a bitmap font which is very 
readable at small sizes and allows you to get lots of information on the 
screen.

>   A second monitor will help with this.  Plus, I have a spare as
> well.  So, first monitor is here and fixed a lot of problems except it
> added a new one, being HUGE.  Now that is fixed as well.  When I connect
> the second monitor, I should be able to set it up the same way except
> connected to a different port.

Considering that you have a thread about GPU temps going, be warned: GPUs 
tend to suck a lot more power when running in multi-head setups.

> The biggest thing I dread right now, cleaning off my desk.  -_o

A clean desk is just a sign for a messy drawer.

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

“A computer is like air conditioning:
it becomes useless when you open Windows.” – Linus Torvalds

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Fonts: was: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Jack]

On 2024.07.07 17:06, Mark Knecht wrote:
[snip...]
> So I understand the 14% calculation, but help me understand the  
> underlying
> technology. Is the DPI how a font file, which I presume is some fixed  
> size,
> like 25x25, gets scaled onto the screen? I'm not clear about the  
> conversion
> from the font to the number of dots used to draw the font on the  
> screen.
When a program requests the system to display a character on the  
screen, depending on the specific font and the available font-drawing  
libraries, it can specify the size either in dots or some physical  
measure - inches, or more likely points.  Points are an "ancient"  
measure from the times of using real, lead type, stored in wooden  
cases, thus upper [capital letters] and lower [everything else] case.   
There are 72 points to the inch.  10 point type is 10/72" tall, but  
with enough spacing between rows, you typically get 6 rows per inch.   
(Sorry for being pedantic - many years ago I did spend some time  
printing with hand set type.)

To how fonts are designed, many if not most modern fonts (such as  
true-type) are specified internally by the commands to draw each  
character, and you request the size in points.  The conversion to how  
many pixels to use is based on the DPI the system thinks is being used  
by the monitor.  Some fonts are actually specified by the Width x  
Height in pixels.  These are bitmap fonts, which often come in sets of  
various sizes.  Fortunately (as far as I can tell) there are fewer and  
fewer bitmap fonts in use any more, as they need to get very larger for  
higher DPI displays.  You can imagine that mixing the two is even more  
likely to lead to confusion and poor looking display, unless you are  
extremely careful.

> With my limited understanding it seems very arbitrary.
Not so arbitrary, but easily confusing.
> 
> With respect to Dale's "huge" problem there's also a scale factor in  
> KDE
> that can be set by the user, or could be set wrong such that it will  
> scale
> up what's drawn on the screen. (Display and Monitor->Global Scale)
And I'm really not sure where this scaling is applied relative the the  
points to pixels calculation of font size.

Hope this helps more than confuses.

Jack

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4731 bytes --]

Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Sun, Jul 07, 2024 at 04:12:11PM -0500 schrieb Dale:
>
>>>> It's hi res and a good deal.  :-D 
>>> Please define hi res. Full HD at 32″ is definitely not hi res. ;-P
>>> It’s about as much as CRTs back in the day, close to 1024×768 at 17″.
>> Well, I still consider 1080P hi res.  That's what I get for any monitor
>> or TV I buy.  The biggest thing I have is a 32" tho.  My rooms are kinda
>> small.  No need for a 60" TV/monitor. 
> Well my TV sits over 4 m (that’s 13 feet for the imperialists) away from the 
> sofa. So I splurged and got myself a 65″ one.

Well, I saw on a website once where it gave info on distance, monitor
size and what you are watching can factor in too.  It claimed that a 32"
is the ideal size for my room.  Given my old eyes tho, a 42" might serve
me better.  Thing is, I'm bad to watch old videos from the 80's, 70's
and even 60's.  Most of those are 480P or if lucky, just a little higher
resolution.  With those, monitor size can make videos worse.

My neighbor has a massive TV.  I think it is at least a 60".  He's
talking about a even larger one. Anything he watches has to be very high
res, above 1080p for sure.  UHD and 4K come to mind.  I'd hate to know
he wanted to watch a old TV series like Combat that was made in the 50's
I think and is usually in 360P at best.  Could even be 240P. 


>>>> Now to go eat supper.  I hope the monitor comes in soon.
>>> I’m confused. I thought the new one has already arrived and is the one where 
>>> everything was HUGE. %-)
>> I ordered a second identical monitor.  I been wanting two monitors for a
>> while.  On occasion when I have hundreds of files to process manually, I
>> need a second monitor just to stick a file manager on and drag files
>> from one directory to another but being able to see both at the same
>> time.
> I’ve never grown accustomed to multi-monitor-setups. I’ve always used just 
> one (a habit from my long laptop days). Instead I multitask with virtual 
> desktops (as you do) and with teminal multiplexers.
>
> At 70 DPI, I recommend the terminus font, a bitmap font which is very 
> readable at small sizes and allows you to get lots of information on the 
> screen.

I prefer a single monitor 95% of the time.  I'm fine with the TV part
since I almost view it as a separate thing.  I've even thought of
building a Raspberry Pi and using that to drive my TV with from a NAS
box.  That 5% of the time tho, I wish I had two monitors.  I might add,
I'm up to 18 virtual desktops.  Yes, at times, I have something on
almost all of them.  With the new rig and it having more memory, I'll
likely have 13 of those in use at all times with one more as my parking
desktop.  I have gkrellm on it and that is where I park when I'm not
sitting in the chair.  I can see gkrellm and monitor what is going on,
updates etc.  I use two more when I'm getting pics off my camera or cell
phone.  When I'm doing config updates, that's another desktop.  It adds
up fast.  My biggest limiting factor right now, memory in my current
rig.  Firefox, Seamonkey and Qbittorrent use a lot of memory.

>>   A second monitor will help with this.  Plus, I have a spare as
>> well.  So, first monitor is here and fixed a lot of problems except it
>> added a new one, being HUGE.  Now that is fixed as well.  When I connect
>> the second monitor, I should be able to set it up the same way except
>> connected to a different port.
> Considering that you have a thread about GPU temps going, be warned: GPUs 
> tend to suck a lot more power when running in multi-head setups.

Right now, the video card is mostly sitting at its lowest power level. 
It's also running very cool.  I don't see the extra monitors making much
difference.  I'm not going to be putting a load on that card even if I
use all the ports.  I think it goes beyond 1080P but my displays don't. 
Just that is going to make the card have less load.  Plus, that is the
fastest card I've ever bought. 


>> The biggest thing I dread right now, cleaning off my desk.  -_o
> A clean desk is just a sign for a messy drawer.
>

Funny you say that.  I plan to put some stuff in a drawer.  I have DVD
boot media, for those old systems where USB isn't bootable.  I mostly
use the Ventoy USB stick nowadays so the DVD stuff can be stuck in a
drawer, which I already have a large drawer full of this sort of stuff. 
That's where a lot of this is going.  I wish I had larger rooms. Heck, I
could use a 20' x 30' computer room.  If I had the money to build one of
those, I could fill it up with puters too.  ROFL 

Still can't figure out supper.  Starting to get hungry tho. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7753 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4446 bytes --]

Am Sun, Jul 07, 2024 at 02:06:04PM -0700 schrieb Mark Knecht:
> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 1:09 PM Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > Am Sat, Jul 06, 2024 at 07:32:49PM -0500 schrieb Dale:
> <SNIP>
> >
> > Well don’t mix up frame rate and scaling. 75 Hz vs. 60 is quite subtle,
> you
> > might not even notice 90 Hz. But changing DPI from 80 to 70 will mean an
> > increase in fonts by 14 %.
> 
> So I understand the 14% calculation, but help me understand the underlying
> technology. Is the DPI how a font file, which I presume is some fixed size,
> like 25x25, gets scaled onto the screen? I'm not clear about the conversion
> from the font to the number of dots used to draw the font on the screen.

Yeah. So, big convoluted topic. ^^

First, there is the physical pixel raster of the screen, which determines 
the PPI value. But what may confuse people without knowing (I was very 
confused in my early computing days when I was using Windows): font sizes 
and their units. People usually think in pixels, but font sizes are given in 
point, especially on modern Linux desktops. Historically, Points come from 
lead typesetting, where 1 pt = 1/72 inch. And monitors of early publishing 
machines (and I think at the time in general) all had 72 ppi, so if you have 
a font size of 12 pt == 1/6 in == 4,233 mm on your screen, it will be 
exactly the same size on the printed paper. No scaling necessary.

I forgot some of the minutiae over time; AFAIR Windows 9x+ assumed a standard 
density of 96 ppi and font sizes were set up in pixels in the control panel. 
The monitor market was very homogeneous, there was not much diversity, so no 
need for scaling factors. The default in Windows 2000 and XP was Tahoma at 8 
pixel. And it was the same on Pocket PCs (PDAs with 3″ touch screens of 
240×320). So if you took a screenshot on all of those screens, the font was 
identical to the pixel.

No comes the clash between the logical and the physical world. Today we have
- high-density screens like tablets and laptops: 4K at 14″ equals 315 ppi
- the standard cheap office screen of 1900×1200 at 24″ equals 94 ppi
- my 8 years old Thinkpad with FullHD at 12.5″ and 176 ppi

A text of size 12 pixel will always be 12 pixels high, so it will appear 
smaller to the eye when the pixels are small, and bigger when the pixels are 
big.

OTOH, a text at 12 pt should be displayed physically (in millimeters or 
inches on the screen) at the same size no matter how fine a screen resolves 
an image. So the computer needs to know how many pixels it needs to reach 
that size. That’s where the ppi come in:

                   font size in pt
Number of pixels = --------------- * Screens density in pixel/in
                     1/96 pt/in

The first factor gives you the font’s physical dimension in inch, the second 
factor converts that into pixel height. The units all cancel each other out 
with pixels remaining.

That’s why you can enter the screen’s ppi into the settings (or use it 
automatically, if possible). So the font size you set will be the same to 
your eye no matter what monitor you plug in. The scaling factor business 
hides that: 100 % means 96 ppi, 200 % means 192 ppi.

This produces two “Unfortunately”s:

Unfortunately 1: people don’t know what the scaling means and how it works 
physically.

Unfortunately 2: UI developers stick to this scaling factor idea. Everything 
outside certain values (meaning integer multiples of 96) looks ugly. But 
none of my screens have a ppi of n * 96. They are all inbetween (117, 176, 
216) and when I set the correct scaling, the Plasma UI becomes ugly as hell 
because the previously nice-looking pixel-perfect lines become blurred or 
their thickness varies depending on where on the screen they are drawn.


> > I’m confused. I thought the new one has already arrived and is the one
> where everything was HUGE. %-)
> 
> Dale does this at times and I get confused also. He will (the way I read the
> messages) sometimes be talking about different machines or different
> monitors. His 'main rig", his "new rig", etc.

We could stick to hostnames. *ducksandruns*

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

It’s a pity that at the end of the money there’s so much month left.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2062 bytes --]

Am Sun, Jul 07, 2024 at 05:10:18PM -0500 schrieb Dale:

> >>>> It's hi res and a good deal.  :-D 
> >>> Please define hi res. Full HD at 32″ is definitely not hi res. ;-P
> >>> It’s about as much as CRTs back in the day, close to 1024×768 at 17″.
> >> Well, I still consider 1080P hi res.  That's what I get for any monitor
> >> or TV I buy.  The biggest thing I have is a 32" tho.  My rooms are kinda
> >> small.  No need for a 60" TV/monitor. 
> > Well my TV sits over 4 m (that’s 13 feet for the imperialists) away from the 
> > sofa. So I splurged and got myself a 65″ one.
> 
> Well, I saw on a website once where it gave info on distance, monitor
> size and what you are watching can factor in too.  It claimed that a 32"
> is the ideal size for my room.  Given my old eyes tho, a 42" might serve
> me better.  Thing is, I'm bad to watch old videos from the 80's, 70's
> and even 60's.  Most of those are 480P or if lucky, just a little higher
> resolution.  With those, monitor size can make videos worse.

This websites’s goal probably was about covering your eyes’ natural field of 
view. Sitting at my desk, my 27 inch monitor appears only slight smaller 
than my 65 inch TV 4 m away. Watching 50s TV shows will be the same 
experience on both in those situations.

If you want to fill that entire field of view with details, then naturally, 
a 50s TV show in 480p won’t suffice. The more of your viewing arc you want 
to cover, the more picture resolution you need. You basically want to map
X amount of pixels on each degree of viewing arc. Physical units are great.

It also goes into the other direction: people these days™ watch 4K movies on 
their phones. Why, just why? Even if the screen can display it physically, 
their eyes cannot resolve that fine detail, because the pixels are too small.

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

How do you recognise a male hedgehog?
It has one more spine.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5340 bytes --]

Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Sun, Jul 07, 2024 at 02:06:04PM -0700 schrieb Mark Knecht:
>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 1:09 PM Frank Steinmetzger <Warp_7@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> Am Sat, Jul 06, 2024 at 07:32:49PM -0500 schrieb Dale:
>> <SNIP>
>>> Well don’t mix up frame rate and scaling. 75 Hz vs. 60 is quite subtle,
>> you
>>> might not even notice 90 Hz. But changing DPI from 80 to 70 will mean an
>>> increase in fonts by 14 %.
>> So I understand the 14% calculation, but help me understand the underlying
>> technology. Is the DPI how a font file, which I presume is some fixed size,
>> like 25x25, gets scaled onto the screen? I'm not clear about the conversion
>> from the font to the number of dots used to draw the font on the screen.
> Yeah. So, big convoluted topic. ^^
>
> First, there is the physical pixel raster of the screen, which determines 
> the PPI value. But what may confuse people without knowing (I was very 
> confused in my early computing days when I was using Windows): font sizes 
> and their units. People usually think in pixels, but font sizes are given in 
> point, especially on modern Linux desktops. Historically, Points come from 
> lead typesetting, where 1 pt = 1/72 inch. And monitors of early publishing 
> machines (and I think at the time in general) all had 72 ppi, so if you have 
> a font size of 12 pt == 1/6 in == 4,233 mm on your screen, it will be 
> exactly the same size on the printed paper. No scaling necessary.
>
> I forgot some of the minutiae over time; AFAIR Windows 9x+ assumed a standard 
> density of 96 ppi and font sizes were set up in pixels in the control panel. 
> The monitor market was very homogeneous, there was not much diversity, so no 
> need for scaling factors. The default in Windows 2000 and XP was Tahoma at 8 
> pixel. And it was the same on Pocket PCs (PDAs with 3″ touch screens of 
> 240×320). So if you took a screenshot on all of those screens, the font was 
> identical to the pixel.
>
> No comes the clash between the logical and the physical world. Today we have
> - high-density screens like tablets and laptops: 4K at 14″ equals 315 ppi
> - the standard cheap office screen of 1900×1200 at 24″ equals 94 ppi
> - my 8 years old Thinkpad with FullHD at 12.5″ and 176 ppi
>
> A text of size 12 pixel will always be 12 pixels high, so it will appear 
> smaller to the eye when the pixels are small, and bigger when the pixels are 
> big.
>
> OTOH, a text at 12 pt should be displayed physically (in millimeters or 
> inches on the screen) at the same size no matter how fine a screen resolves 
> an image. So the computer needs to know how many pixels it needs to reach 
> that size. That’s where the ppi come in:
>
>                    font size in pt
> Number of pixels = --------------- * Screens density in pixel/in
>                      1/96 pt/in
>
> The first factor gives you the font’s physical dimension in inch, the second 
> factor converts that into pixel height. The units all cancel each other out 
> with pixels remaining.
>
> That’s why you can enter the screen’s ppi into the settings (or use it 
> automatically, if possible). So the font size you set will be the same to 
> your eye no matter what monitor you plug in. The scaling factor business 
> hides that: 100 % means 96 ppi, 200 % means 192 ppi.
>
> This produces two “Unfortunately”s:
>
> Unfortunately 1: people don’t know what the scaling means and how it works 
> physically.
>
> Unfortunately 2: UI developers stick to this scaling factor idea. Everything 
> outside certain values (meaning integer multiples of 96) looks ugly. But 
> none of my screens have a ppi of n * 96. They are all inbetween (117, 176, 
> 216) and when I set the correct scaling, the Plasma UI becomes ugly as hell 
> because the previously nice-looking pixel-perfect lines become blurred or 
> their thickness varies depending on where on the screen they are drawn.
>

You and Jack shared some interesting info. 


>>> I’m confused. I thought the new one has already arrived and is the one
>> where everything was HUGE. %-)
>>
>> Dale does this at times and I get confused also. He will (the way I read the
>> messages) sometimes be talking about different machines or different
>> monitors. His 'main rig", his "new rig", etc.
> We could stick to hostnames. *ducksandruns*
>
> -- Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’ Please do not share anything
> from, with or about me on any social network. It’s a pity that at the
> end of the money there’s so much month left.

That's true.  Main rig is Fireball, new rig is Gentoo-1 for the moment. 
Then I have NAS 1 and NAS 2.  Those aren't exactly named that but it's
what I use when posting about them.  I couldn't come up with a new name
for the new rig that would be a increase in speed.  My first rig, long
retired, was named smoker.  Fireball was faster.  Thought about
lightening for new rig but kinda long. 

I do see some interesting names people use for their rigs on here tho. 
Some are quite neat.  I just couldn't think of anything at the time for
the new rig and wanted to finish the install.  Gentoo-1 it is, for now. 

Going to cook a box of mac n cheese for supper.  I haven't had that in a
while.  ;-)  I wonder, what would it taste like with some basil in it. 
ROFL 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7418 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Wol]

On 07/07/2024 23:29, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> It also goes into the other direction: people these days™ watch 4K movies on
> their phones. Why, just why? Even if the screen can display it physically,
> their eyes cannot resolve that fine detail, because the pixels are too small.

What's worse, as far as I can tell, I have no control over the download 
resolution! Why would I want to download a video in Full HD, when I only 
have an HD Ready screen, and it's over a metered connection! So 
basically, I'm paying for resolution I can't see!

Cheers,
Wol

Food was: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Jack]

On 2024.07.07 18:53, Dale wrote:
> Going to cook a box of mac n cheese for supper.  I haven't had that  
> in a
> while.  ;-)  I wonder, what would it taste like with some basil in  
> it. 
> ROFL 
Would be great if you made pesto out of the basil.

Re: Food was: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Dale]

Jack wrote:
> On 2024.07.07 18:53, Dale wrote:
>> Going to cook a box of mac n cheese for supper.  I haven't had that in a
>> while.  ;-)  I wonder, what would it taste like with some basil in it. 
>> ROFL 
> Would be great if you made pesto out of the basil.
>
>


I mostly add basil to tomato and basil hamburger helper and tomato soup
with crackers.  There's also a basil pasta sauce I eat sometimes. 
Usually, I have to go sparingly with it since I never had a large amount
of it.  Now that I got a lot of it and really like basil, I'm open to
more options.  I might add, one of my planters is about ready for
picking again.  The other two may have another picking in them.  I've
picked a lot off them already.  They trying to go to seed.  I keep
pinching them off. 

Mac n cheese was good.  Got my meds taken for the day too. 

I'm still booting the new rig and shutting down a lot.  So far, the
screen has been normal every time.  It seems to be working really well. 
I'm looking forward to the new monitor coming in so I have something
dependable to work with.  I think once I get those two set up, setting
up the TV will be fairly easy.  I hope anyway.  I really like having
hair.  LOL 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2935 bytes --]

Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Sun, Jul 07, 2024 at 05:10:18PM -0500 schrieb Dale:
>
>>>>>> It's hi res and a good deal.  :-D 
>>>>> Please define hi res. Full HD at 32″ is definitely not hi res. ;-P
>>>>> It’s about as much as CRTs back in the day, close to 1024×768 at 17″.
>>>> Well, I still consider 1080P hi res.  That's what I get for any monitor
>>>> or TV I buy.  The biggest thing I have is a 32" tho.  My rooms are kinda
>>>> small.  No need for a 60" TV/monitor. 
>>> Well my TV sits over 4 m (that’s 13 feet for the imperialists) away from the 
>>> sofa. So I splurged and got myself a 65″ one.
>> Well, I saw on a website once where it gave info on distance, monitor
>> size and what you are watching can factor in too.  It claimed that a 32"
>> is the ideal size for my room.  Given my old eyes tho, a 42" might serve
>> me better.  Thing is, I'm bad to watch old videos from the 80's, 70's
>> and even 60's.  Most of those are 480P or if lucky, just a little higher
>> resolution.  With those, monitor size can make videos worse.
> This websites’s goal probably was about covering your eyes’ natural field of 
> view. Sitting at my desk, my 27 inch monitor appears only slight smaller 
> than my 65 inch TV 4 m away. Watching 50s TV shows will be the same 
> experience on both in those situations.
>
> If you want to fill that entire field of view with details, then naturally, 
> a 50s TV show in 480p won’t suffice. The more of your viewing arc you want 
> to cover, the more picture resolution you need. You basically want to map
> X amount of pixels on each degree of viewing arc. Physical units are great.
>
> It also goes into the other direction: people these days™ watch 4K movies on 
> their phones. Why, just why? Even if the screen can display it physically, 
> their eyes cannot resolve that fine detail, because the pixels are too small.
>
> -- Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’ Please do not share anything
> from, with or about me on any social network. How do you recognise a
> male hedgehog? It has one more spine.

Yea.  The website at the time was mostly likely to help people not buy a
TV that is waaaay to large. 

I made a DVD of the TV series Combat for my neighbor.  That was when he
had a little smaller TV.  It said it looked like large blocks on the
screen.  He watched it tho.  lol  He sits about 10 feet from the TV.  It
is a nice TV tho.  All that smart stuff. 

I agree, a device should pick a resolution that it can easily display
without downloading more than it needs.  There's really not much need
putting a 4K or even a 1080P video on a small cell phone.  Unless a
person is using a magnifying glass, they won't see the difference.  I
remember some of my old CRTs that ran at 720P.  For their small size,
that was plenty. 

Monitor stand hasn't made it to the State hub yet.  Doubtful it will
arrive tomorrow. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4403 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3132 bytes --]

On Sunday, 7 July 2024 23:29:21 BST Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Sun, Jul 07, 2024 at 05:10:18PM -0500 schrieb Dale:
> > >>>> It's hi res and a good deal.  :-D 
> > >>> 
> > >>> Please define hi res. Full HD at 32″ is definitely not hi res. ;-P
> > >>> It’s about as much as CRTs back in the day, close to 1024×768 at 17″.
> > >> 
> > >> Well, I still consider 1080P hi res.  That's what I get for any monitor
> > >> or TV I buy.  The biggest thing I have is a 32" tho.  My rooms are
> > >> kinda
> > >> small.  No need for a 60" TV/monitor. 
> > > 
> > > Well my TV sits over 4 m (that’s 13 feet for the imperialists) away from
> > > the sofa. So I splurged and got myself a 65″ one.
> > 
> > Well, I saw on a website once where it gave info on distance, monitor
> > size and what you are watching can factor in too.  It claimed that a 32"
> > is the ideal size for my room.  Given my old eyes tho, a 42" might serve
> > me better.  Thing is, I'm bad to watch old videos from the 80's, 70's
> > and even 60's.  Most of those are 480P or if lucky, just a little higher
> > resolution.  With those, monitor size can make videos worse.
> 
> This websites’s goal probably was about covering your eyes’ natural field of
> view. Sitting at my desk, my 27 inch monitor appears only slight smaller
> than my 65 inch TV 4 m away. Watching 50s TV shows will be the same
> experience on both in those situations.
> 
> If you want to fill that entire field of view with details, then naturally,
> a 50s TV show in 480p won’t suffice. The more of your viewing arc you want
> to cover, the more picture resolution you need. You basically want to map
> X amount of pixels on each degree of viewing arc. Physical units are great.
> 
> It also goes into the other direction: people these days™ watch 4K movies on
> their phones. Why, just why? Even if the screen can display it physically,
> their eyes cannot resolve that fine detail, because the pixels are too
> small.

The rule of thumb is to come as close as possible to the TV screen until you 
start seeing different pixels.  Then you back off a little bit and plonk your 
armchair there.  Obviously with a UHD TV the higher pixel density at a given 
screen size means you can seat much closer - or buy a larger TV.  At some 
point the TV size becomes too large to provide a sharp non-pixelated image, if 
the room is small.  When I asked a friend why he kept upgrading his TV to ever 
larger sizes for what was becoming an obviously worse visual experience, he 
responded "... for a man there's no such thing as too large a TV size!".  o_O

The problem arises when you are watching old TV material recorded at a much 
lower resolution than UHD.  For these you have to move your seat further back 
when using a UHD TV, until the displayed pixels in the picture appear to merge 
and give a smooth(er) non-pixelated image.  The TV chipset will try upscaling/
interpolating and smoothing algos to improve the situation, but this won't 
fare well when the jump is from a VHS equivalent of 320 pixels to the 2160 of 
UHD.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 949 bytes --]

On Monday, 8 July 2024 00:14:59 BST Wol wrote:
> On 07/07/2024 23:29, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> > It also goes into the other direction: people these days™ watch 4K movies
> > on their phones. Why, just why? Even if the screen can display it
> > physically, their eyes cannot resolve that fine detail, because the
> > pixels are too small.
> What's worse, as far as I can tell, I have no control over the download
> resolution! Why would I want to download a video in Full HD, when I only
> have an HD Ready screen, and it's over a metered connection! So
> basically, I'm paying for resolution I can't see!
> 
> Cheers,
> Wol

yt-dlp -F <URL>

will show you what different resolutions the streaming server offers and you 
can then select the one you need/prefer.  Of course this is conditional on yt-
dlp being capable of parsing the stream you want to download and on the 
streaming server offering different resolutions.


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3374 bytes --]

On Monday, 8 July 2024 00:57:40 BST Dale wrote:
> Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> > Am Sun, Jul 07, 2024 at 05:10:18PM -0500 schrieb Dale:
> >>>>>> It's hi res and a good deal.  :-D 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Please define hi res. Full HD at 32″ is definitely not hi res. ;-P
> >>>>> It’s about as much as CRTs back in the day, close to 1024×768 at 17″.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Well, I still consider 1080P hi res.  That's what I get for any monitor
> >>>> or TV I buy.  The biggest thing I have is a 32" tho.  My rooms are
> >>>> kinda
> >>>> small.  No need for a 60" TV/monitor. 
> >>> 
> >>> Well my TV sits over 4 m (that’s 13 feet for the imperialists) away from
> >>> the sofa. So I splurged and got myself a 65″ one.
> >> 
> >> Well, I saw on a website once where it gave info on distance, monitor
> >> size and what you are watching can factor in too.  It claimed that a 32"
> >> is the ideal size for my room.  Given my old eyes tho, a 42" might serve
> >> me better.  Thing is, I'm bad to watch old videos from the 80's, 70's
> >> and even 60's.  Most of those are 480P or if lucky, just a little higher
> >> resolution.  With those, monitor size can make videos worse.
> > 
> > This websites’s goal probably was about covering your eyes’ natural field
> > of view. Sitting at my desk, my 27 inch monitor appears only slight
> > smaller than my 65 inch TV 4 m away. Watching 50s TV shows will be the
> > same experience on both in those situations.
> > 
> > If you want to fill that entire field of view with details, then
> > naturally,
> > a 50s TV show in 480p won’t suffice. The more of your viewing arc you want
> > to cover, the more picture resolution you need. You basically want to map
> > X amount of pixels on each degree of viewing arc. Physical units are
> > great.
> > 
> > It also goes into the other direction: people these days™ watch 4K movies
> > on their phones. Why, just why? Even if the screen can display it
> > physically, their eyes cannot resolve that fine detail, because the
> > pixels are too small.
> > 
> > -- Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’ Please do not share anything
> > from, with or about me on any social network. How do you recognise a
> > male hedgehog? It has one more spine.
> 
> Yea.  The website at the time was mostly likely to help people not buy a
> TV that is waaaay to large. 
> 
> I made a DVD of the TV series Combat for my neighbor.  That was when he
> had a little smaller TV.  It said it looked like large blocks on the
> screen.  He watched it tho.  lol  He sits about 10 feet from the TV.  It
> is a nice TV tho.  All that smart stuff. 
> 
> I agree, a device should pick a resolution that it can easily display
> without downloading more than it needs.  There's really not much need
> putting a 4K or even a 1080P video on a small cell phone.  Unless a
> person is using a magnifying glass, they won't see the difference.  I
> remember some of my old CRTs that ran at 720P.  For their small size,
> that was plenty. 

Devices send a viewport size to the server to fetch scaled images and fonts as 
required, instead of downloading a huge resolution only for it to be consumed 
on the small screen of a phone or tablet.  I'm not sure how the screen size 
information is shared between server-phone-TV when you mirror your phone on a 
TV.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Wols Lists]

On 08/07/2024 10:57, Michael wrote:
> will show you what different resolutions the streaming server offers and you
> can then select the one you need/prefer.  Of course this is conditional on yt-
> dlp being capable of parsing the stream you want to download and on the
> streaming server offering different resolutions.

And on you even having a clue what the hell the url is, seeing as it's 
all hidden behind/inside the tv streaming app ... I would guess it's 
streaming a .ts ...

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Wols Lists]

On 08/07/2024 11:48, Michael wrote:
> Devices send a viewport size to the server to fetch scaled images and fonts as
> required, instead of downloading a huge resolution only for it to be consumed
> on the small screen of a phone or tablet.  I'm not sure how the screen size
> information is shared between server-phone-TV when you mirror your phone on a
> TV.

You wish. Given that the broadcast organisations control both the 
sending server and the consuming app, and that fibre and 5g and 
youngsters with unlimited bandwidth give the impression that "bandwidth 
doesn't matter", monitoring my data usage tells me that these apps 
expect to stream and receive in whatever bandwidth is available, namely 
the single hi-res version on the broadcaster's servers.

Why should I pay £50/month for unlimited data, when my normal monthly 
usage hardly hits 500MB? I'm currently paying £6/m (the cheapest tariff 
available is £5) for unlimited phone, text, and 15GB with rollover. For 
10 months of the year that's effectively unlimited! Why should I pay so 
much more just because some idiot insists on spamming my paid-for 
bandwidth for stuff I can't even use !!!

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Dale]

Michael wrote:
> On Monday, 8 July 2024 00:57:40 BST Dale wrote:
>> Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
>>> Am Sun, Jul 07, 2024 at 05:10:18PM -0500 schrieb Dale:
>>>>>>>> It's hi res and a good deal.  :-D 
>>>>>>> Please define hi res. Full HD at 32″ is definitely not hi res. ;-P
>>>>>>> It’s about as much as CRTs back in the day, close to 1024×768 at 17″.
>>>>>> Well, I still consider 1080P hi res.  That's what I get for any monitor
>>>>>> or TV I buy.  The biggest thing I have is a 32" tho.  My rooms are
>>>>>> kinda
>>>>>> small.  No need for a 60" TV/monitor. 
>>>>> Well my TV sits over 4 m (that’s 13 feet for the imperialists) away from
>>>>> the sofa. So I splurged and got myself a 65″ one.
>>>> Well, I saw on a website once where it gave info on distance, monitor
>>>> size and what you are watching can factor in too.  It claimed that a 32"
>>>> is the ideal size for my room.  Given my old eyes tho, a 42" might serve
>>>> me better.  Thing is, I'm bad to watch old videos from the 80's, 70's
>>>> and even 60's.  Most of those are 480P or if lucky, just a little higher
>>>> resolution.  With those, monitor size can make videos worse.
>>> This websites’s goal probably was about covering your eyes’ natural field
>>> of view. Sitting at my desk, my 27 inch monitor appears only slight
>>> smaller than my 65 inch TV 4 m away. Watching 50s TV shows will be the
>>> same experience on both in those situations.
>>>
>>> If you want to fill that entire field of view with details, then
>>> naturally,
>>> a 50s TV show in 480p won’t suffice. The more of your viewing arc you want
>>> to cover, the more picture resolution you need. You basically want to map
>>> X amount of pixels on each degree of viewing arc. Physical units are
>>> great.
>>>
>>> It also goes into the other direction: people these days™ watch 4K movies
>>> on their phones. Why, just why? Even if the screen can display it
>>> physically, their eyes cannot resolve that fine detail, because the
>>> pixels are too small.
>>>
>>> -- Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’ Please do not share anything
>>> from, with or about me on any social network. How do you recognise a
>>> male hedgehog? It has one more spine.
>> Yea.  The website at the time was mostly likely to help people not buy a
>> TV that is waaaay to large. 
>>
>> I made a DVD of the TV series Combat for my neighbor.  That was when he
>> had a little smaller TV.  It said it looked like large blocks on the
>> screen.  He watched it tho.  lol  He sits about 10 feet from the TV.  It
>> is a nice TV tho.  All that smart stuff. 
>>
>> I agree, a device should pick a resolution that it can easily display
>> without downloading more than it needs.  There's really not much need
>> putting a 4K or even a 1080P video on a small cell phone.  Unless a
>> person is using a magnifying glass, they won't see the difference.  I
>> remember some of my old CRTs that ran at 720P.  For their small size,
>> that was plenty. 
> Devices send a viewport size to the server to fetch scaled images and fonts as 
> required, instead of downloading a huge resolution only for it to be consumed 
> on the small screen of a phone or tablet.  I'm not sure how the screen size 
> information is shared between server-phone-TV when you mirror your phone on a 
> TV.

I was watching a video once on youtube.  I don't remember how but
somehow I found out what info is sent to youtube about what I'm watching
with.  It sent that I was using Linux, version of Firefox, and other
info but also included the resolution of my monitor.  Generally when I
watch a video on youtube, the highest it goes is 1080P.  After all, that
is the max I can display anyway.  It usually gives options for lower
resolution too.  I've read that a person can limit the amount of info
that is being sent.  In a way, I don't like it sharing much info but on
the other hand, it does make it easier for them to provide what I need. 

I don't know about cell phones but if using the youtube app, I'd think
it would know what you are using and the resolution too.  To me, it
looks like it would be best for everyone to only download what is needed
and no more.  It saves bandwidth of the server, bandwidth for the user
as well.  Most people have unlimited nowadays but still, one would think
a company like youtube would see the benefit of only sending enough
resolution to get the job done.  If they do that for millions of users,
it would have to save them some amount of money.  I'd think anyway. 

It looks like my monitor stand won't be here today.  It left New Jersey
but has not even made it to Memphis yet.  It goes from Memphis to the
State hub and then to my local post office.  It might be here tomorrow. 
If the State hub is slow like it usually is, could be Wednesday.  The
new monitor left Memphis last night.  I see no reason it won't be here
today, around lunch I'd think.  It is Monday so could be a little
later.  It's coming through FedEx tho. 

I also ordered a new hard drive.  I'm going to swap a 18TB for a 8TB on
one of my PVs.  Then I'm going to use the 8TB drive to put /home on and
put in the new rig.  Then when I get everything set up and do the
switch, all I have to do is move the sets of data drives over.  There's
six of them.  Three in each PV. 

Dang I got a lot of data here.  ;-) 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Wol]

On 08/07/2024 13:27, Dale wrote:
> I don't know about cell phones but if using the youtube app, I'd think
> it would know what you are using and the resolution too. 

BBC iPlayer,  ITVx. Along with the other Freeview apps for Channels 4 and 5.

> To me, it
> looks like it would be best for everyone to only download what is needed
> and no more. 

You'd think. Trouble is - most people DON'T think!

> It saves bandwidth of the server, bandwidth for the user
> as well.  Most people have unlimited nowadays but still, one would think
> a company like youtube would see the benefit of only sending enough
> resolution to get the job done.  If they do that for millions of users,
> it would have to save them some amount of money.  I'd think anyway.

Youtube doesn't (yet) have a monopoly on streaming, fortunately ...

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Peter Humphrey]

On Monday 8 July 2024 13:59:27 BST Wol wrote:
> On 08/07/2024 13:27, Dale wrote:
> > I don't know about cell phones but if using the youtube app, I'd think
> > it would know what you are using and the resolution too.
> 
> BBC iPlayer,  ITVx. Along with the other Freeview apps for Channels 4 and 5.
> > To me, it
> > looks like it would be best for everyone to only download what is needed
> > and no more.
> 
> You'd think. Trouble is - most people DON'T think!
> 
> > It saves bandwidth of the server, bandwidth for the user
> > as well.  Most people have unlimited nowadays but still, one would think
> > a company like youtube would see the benefit of only sending enough
> > resolution to get the job done.  If they do that for millions of users,
> > it would have to save them some amount of money.  I'd think anyway.
> 
> Youtube doesn't (yet) have a monopoly on streaming, fortunately ...

I don't know about dedicated services with their own clients, but anything you 
get via a web browser is tailored to your screen. That was so when I was 
operating a web site, anyway.

A script blocker in your browser may be able to thwart this query-reply about 
screen sizes; I don't know.

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Peter Humphrey]

On Monday 8 July 2024 10:56:44 BST Michael wrote:

> The rule of thumb is to come as close as possible to the TV screen until you
> start seeing different pixels.  Then you back off a little bit and plonk
> your armchair there.

Correction: That's A rule of thumb. It's not what's recommended by TV 
salesmen. I like your version though.

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1749 bytes --]

On Monday, 8 July 2024 15:52:03 BST Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Monday 8 July 2024 13:59:27 BST Wol wrote:
> > On 08/07/2024 13:27, Dale wrote:
> > > I don't know about cell phones but if using the youtube app, I'd think
> > > it would know what you are using and the resolution too.
> > 
> > BBC iPlayer,  ITVx. Along with the other Freeview apps for Channels 4 and
> > 5.> 
> > > To me, it
> > > looks like it would be best for everyone to only download what is needed
> > > and no more.
> > 
> > You'd think. Trouble is - most people DON'T think!
> > 
> > > It saves bandwidth of the server, bandwidth for the user
> > > as well.  Most people have unlimited nowadays but still, one would think
> > > a company like youtube would see the benefit of only sending enough
> > > resolution to get the job done.  If they do that for millions of users,
> > > it would have to save them some amount of money.  I'd think anyway.
> > 
> > Youtube doesn't (yet) have a monopoly on streaming, fortunately ...

;-)

> I don't know about dedicated services with their own clients, but anything
> you get via a web browser is tailored to your screen. That was so when I
> was operating a web site, anyway.

Still is the case today.  I have not worked on mobile apps, beyond their 
browsers, but the reasonable assumption must be mobile devices should only 
download what they are able to render.  It is really odd they don't do this - 
as Wol attests to.

Back to the previous topic, I have not yet found a case where changing the 
scale by means of the desktop settings, arrives at non-blurred fonts.  The 
clearest sharpest fonts are always rendered at the native monitor resolution, 
at a 100% scale setting.  Am I missing a trick, or is this to be expected?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Mark Knecht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 935 bytes --]

On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 5:27 AM Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
> I don't know about cell phones but if using the youtube app, I'd think
> it would know what you are using and the resolution too.  To me, it
> looks like it would be best for everyone to only download what is needed
> and no more.  It saves bandwidth of the server, bandwidth for the user
> as well.

YouTube knows this and does this if you use the 'Auto' setting. For my
Kubuntu machine using Chrome as a browser I get 1080p. For my phone
using the YouTube app I get 480p by default.

If I choose an 8K video on my TV and watch network traffic I use a lot
more bandwidth than choosing the same 8K video on my phone.

Just my experience with YouTube, NetFlix and Prime. Mostly I
stream video from my library in Plex so I'm not bound by any
bandwidth limits with XFinity, but I suspect most for-pay services do
something similar.

- Mark

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1216 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 950 bytes --]

Am Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 06:26:26PM +0100 schrieb Michael:

> Back to the previous topic, I have not yet found a case where changing the 
> scale by means of the desktop settings, arrives at non-blurred fonts.  The 
> clearest sharpest fonts are always rendered at the native monitor resolution, 
> at a 100% scale setting.  Am I missing a trick, or is this to be expected?

That doesn’t really make sense. Fonts are always rendered natively, no 
matter what size. Except if they are really rendered at 100 % and then the 
rendered bitmap is scaled by the GPU or somesuch.

Or because their hinting information is limited to a certain size range. 
This info gives the renderer special knowledge on how to render the glyphs.

Do you have screenshots?

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

One doesn’t eat salad, one feeds salat to one’s food.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1213 bytes --]

On Monday, 8 July 2024 21:21:19 BST Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 06:26:26PM +0100 schrieb Michael:
> > Back to the previous topic, I have not yet found a case where changing the
> > scale by means of the desktop settings, arrives at non-blurred fonts.  The
> > clearest sharpest fonts are always rendered at the native monitor
> > resolution, at a 100% scale setting.  Am I missing a trick, or is this to
> > be expected?
> That doesn’t really make sense. Fonts are always rendered natively, no
> matter what size. Except if they are really rendered at 100 % and then the
> rendered bitmap is scaled by the GPU or somesuch.
> 
> Or because their hinting information is limited to a certain size range.
> This info gives the renderer special knowledge on how to render the glyphs.
> 
> Do you have screenshots?

I attach two screenshots one at 100% and one at 90%.  When viewed on the 
1366x768 actual monitor they are worse than what the screenshots have 
captured.  Perhaps I need to take a photo of the monitor.  Anyway, if you view 
it on a 1920x1080 monitor you should hopefully see the difference.  The font 
DPI is 96.

~ $ xrdb -query |grep dpi
Xft.dpi:	96

[-- Attachment #1.2: 90.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 93789 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #1.3: 100.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 106038 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: Fonts: was: New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Nuno Silva]

On 2024-07-07, Jack wrote:

> To how fonts are designed, many if not most modern fonts (such as  
> true-type) are specified internally by the commands to draw each  
> character, and you request the size in points.  The conversion to how  
> many pixels to use is based on the DPI the system thinks is being used  
> by the monitor.  Some fonts are actually specified by the Width x  
> Height in pixels.  These are bitmap fonts, which often come in sets of  
> various sizes.  Fortunately (as far as I can tell) there are fewer and  
> fewer bitmap fonts in use any more, as they need to get very larger for  
> higher DPI displays.  You can imagine that mixing the two is even more  
> likely to lead to confusion and poor looking display, unless you are  
> extremely careful.

That's funny, because in my experience the fonts that render poorly are
the non-bitmap ones, and often the best way to get a clear, crisp,
readable text display here is by using bitmap fonts.

Now I'd like to know why are non-bitmap ones so often rendering
poorly. While I've tried to explore settings in the past, I don't think
I've discovered a satisfactory set of settings for non-bitmap. Maybe
some day in the future I'll revisit this...

-- 
Nuno Silva

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5338 bytes --]

New subthread.  Slightly new situation. 

New monitor came in today.  It seems the truck from Memphis got delayed
and didn't arrive in time for yesterday.  No idea why it took over 14 or
15 hours to travel what would take no more than 2 or 3 hours even by
truck.  Maybe the truck broke down.  Oh, monitor stand is stuck in the
USPS State hub still, like most packages do.  I have another unrelated
package that was sent to the wrong post office.  Can those folks not get
it together????  Anyway.

On the old LG monitor, when I first plugged up the new monitor, it
wouldn't power up from standby.  It wouldn't even when I connected only
the new monitor.  The BIOS would beep that it can't find a display as
well.  I thought at first I had a broken monitor.  Getting power but
won't wake up.  I tried another cable, it worked.  So, the first cable,
same as I used on the LG monitor, didn't work at all with the new
monitor.  Might be that the cable has a problem not the LG monitor
itself.  I didn't think of that.  I've used that cable quite often
before.  I'm not sure how old that cable is but it may find a trash can. 

On to the new monitor.  I'm trying to decide whether to use xrandr and
friends to set this up or xorg.conf.  Using both seems to cause a bit of
a clash and KDE isn't helping any.  I'd kinda like to go the xorg.conf
route.  I think, but not sure, that xorg.conf is read very early on.  It
seems, but not sure, that the xinit files are read later on.  I'm not
sure on all that.  It could be the other way around.  I'm also pretty
sure that if set up in xorg.conf, it would work if I logged into another
GUI; Gnome, Fluxbox or some other flavor.  It could be that xrandr and
friends would as well. 

Current situation config wise.  The first problem I noticed, the
monitors are nearly identical.  Even the serial numbers are only a few
digits off and that's the only difference I can see.  I did some
searching and was wanting to set a option in xorg.conf Monitor section
that identifies the monitors by not only model but also serial number. 
That way I could set one to right or left of the other, or above/below,
and it know specifically which monitor is which, even if plugged into a
different port.  I can't find a option for serial number yet.  I did
find where someone else wanted to do the same a couple years ago but
sadly, no answer to that question.  So, if that is not doable, may have
to specify the port number.  If I ever have to disconnect and reconnect,
getting the order right could prove interesting.  ;-) 

Right now, I have this:


root@Gentoo-1 ~ # cat /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.d/20.xrandr
xrandr --output DP-0 --off --output DP-1 --mode 1920x1080 --pos 1920x0
--rotate normal --output DP-2 --off --output DP-3 --primary --mode
1920x1080 --pos 0x0 --rotate normal --output DP-4 --off --output DP-5
--off --output DP-6 --off --output DP-7 --off
root@Gentoo-1 ~ #


From what I've read, that is the correct place for that command.  If
not, please let me know where it should be.  Keep in mind, putting it in
/usr somewhere gets overwritten when the package providing that file
gets updated.  I'm also attaching the current xorg.conf file.  Keep in
mind, gotta add the TV later on.  I think if I can get the monitors set
up, I can add the TV pretty easily.  Even if it only works in KDE, that
is fine since I need KDE up and running to use the TV anyway.  I'm
mostly needing to know if there is a way to add the serial number for
xorg.conf.  I think the rest is OK.  I also need a command to get what
the system sees as the serial number, in case it only sees a part of it,
last few digits or something.

I also had to argue with KDE about which is primary.  At first, like
with the LG, it wanted to make the second monitor the primary despite
the first monitor being marked primary.  I did the old set it backwards,
apply and then set it back the way I want it trick.  It took it a second
but KDE reversed it.  Main screen went to the primary display.  This is
what I mean by it clashing and me setting the displays up in xorg.conf
and KDE hopefully getting its info from that and adjusting itself. 
Plus, if I use a different GUI, it should work too. 

Oh, new hard drive for /home should be here tomorrow.  It's coming UPS
so they pretty good on delivery times.  They beat USPS every day of the
week.  Anyway, USPS claims the new delivery date for monitor stand is
tomorrow too.  When I see it in my mailbox, I'll believe it.  ;-) 

I plan to do some rebooting to see if things come up consistently as
is.  It has booted once the way it should.  Still, I'd like to set up
xorg.conf to make sure things work well despite any changes hardware
wise, like monitors plugged into different ports.  I think, could be
wrong, that is the best way long term.  I could use xrandr which is
likely the second best option. 

These new monitors sure are nice.  My old eyes like them.  o_O  Oh, I
was going to copy over the KDE config directories.  I think I'm going to
take the opportunity to give KDE a fresh start.  I think those old
config files date back to the switch to KDE4.  We on KDE6 now. 

If anyone knows if/how to set up xorg.conf with a monitor serial number,
plus chime in.  Other info welcome as well. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[-- Attachment #2: xorg.conf-current-dual-samsung --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2294 bytes --]

root@Gentoo-1 ~ # cat /etc/X11/xorg.conf
# nvidia-xconfig: X configuration file generated by nvidia-xconfig
# nvidia-xconfig:  version 550.90.07

Section "ServerLayout"
    Identifier     "X.org Configured"
    Screen      0  "Screen0" 0 0
    InputDevice    "Mouse0" "CorePointer"
    InputDevice    "Keyboard0" "CoreKeyboard"
    Option         "Xinerama" "0"
EndSection

Section "Files"
    ModulePath      "/usr/lib64/xorg/modules"
    FontPath        "/usr/share/fonts/misc"
    FontPath        "/usr/share/fonts/TTF"
    FontPath        "/usr/share/fonts/OTF"
    FontPath        "/usr/share/fonts/Type1"
    FontPath        "/usr/share/fonts/100dpi"
    FontPath        "/usr/share/fonts/75dpi"
EndSection

Section "Module"
    Load           "glxserver_nvidia"
    Load           "glx"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
    Identifier     "Keyboard0"
    Driver         "kbd"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
    Identifier     "Mouse0"
    Driver         "mouse"
    Option         "Protocol" "auto"
    Option         "Device" "/dev/input/mice"
    Option         "ZAxisMapping" "4 5 6 7"
EndSection

Section "Monitor"
    Identifier     "Monitor0"
    VendorName     "Unknown"
    ModelName      "Samsung LS32B30"
    Option         "PreferredMode" "1920x1080_60.00"
    Option         "DPMS"
#       Option          "DPI" "80 x 80"
    Option         "DPI" "70 x 70"
EndSection

Section "Monitor"
    Identifier     "Monitor1"
    VendorName     "Unknown"
    ModelName      "Samsung LS32B30"
    Option         "PreferredMode" "1920x1080_60.00"
    Option         "DPMS"
#       Option          "DPI" "80 x 80"
    Option         "DPI" "70 x 70"
EndSection

Section "Device"
    Identifier     "Card0"
    Driver         "nvidia"
    BoardName      "Quadro P1000"
EndSection

Section "Screen"
    Identifier     "Screen0"
    Device         "Card0"
    Monitor        "Monitor0"
    DefaultDepth    24
    Option         "Stereo" "0"
    Option         "MultiGPU" "Off"
    Option         "BaseMosaic" "off"
    Option         "nvidiaXineramaInfoOrder" "DP-3"
    Option         "metamodes" "1920x1080 +0+0"
    Option         "SLI" "Off"
    SubSection     "Display"
        Depth       24
        Modes      "nvidia-auto-select"
    EndSubSection
EndSection

root@Gentoo-1 ~ # 

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8108 bytes --]

On Wednesday, 10 July 2024 06:00:41 BST Dale wrote:
> New subthread.  Slightly new situation. 
[snip ...]
> On the old LG monitor, when I first plugged up the new monitor, it
> wouldn't power up from standby.  It wouldn't even when I connected only
> the new monitor.  The BIOS would beep that it can't find a display as
> well.  I thought at first I had a broken monitor.  Getting power but
> won't wake up.  I tried another cable, it worked.  So, the first cable,
> same as I used on the LG monitor, didn't work at all with the new
> monitor.  Might be that the cable has a problem not the LG monitor
> itself.  I didn't think of that.  I've used that cable quite often
> before.  I'm not sure how old that cable is but it may find a trash can. 

It is best you swap cables around to make sure you are not getting bad or 
inconsistent results just because of a faulty cable.  It goes without saying 
you should select a cable specification which is capable of the required 
bandwidth for your card and monitor and do not gimp this via some lower 
throughput adaptor in-between.


> On to the new monitor.  I'm trying to decide whether to use xrandr and
> friends to set this up or xorg.conf.  Using both seems to cause a bit of
> a clash and KDE isn't helping any.  I'd kinda like to go the xorg.conf
> route.  I think, but not sure, that xorg.conf is read very early on.  It
> seems, but not sure, that the xinit files are read later on.  I'm not
> sure on all that.  It could be the other way around.  I'm also pretty
> sure that if set up in xorg.conf, it would work if I logged into another
> GUI; Gnome, Fluxbox or some other flavor.

Yes, xorg.conf would determine your screen layout for any window manager you 
launch, unless the window manager/DE has its own specific layout configuration 
overriding the default xorg.conf file settings (using libxrandr).


> It could be that xrandr and friends would as well.

No, the xrandr extension of the X11 protocol is meant to be used to 
dynamically change your settings in real time, or query X to obtain current 
settings.  If you're running xrandr from a script, then it will change the X 
settings when it is run.

I suggest you use one tool at a time to avoid conflicts and duplication.


> Current situation config wise.  The first problem I noticed, the
> monitors are nearly identical.  Even the serial numbers are only a few
> digits off and that's the only difference I can see.  I did some
> searching and was wanting to set a option in xorg.conf Monitor section
> that identifies the monitors by not only model but also serial number. 
> That way I could set one to right or left of the other, or above/below,
> and it know specifically which monitor is which, even if plugged into a
> different port.  I can't find a option for serial number yet.  I did
> find where someone else wanted to do the same a couple years ago but
> sadly, no answer to that question.  So, if that is not doable, may have
> to specify the port number.  If I ever have to disconnect and reconnect,
> getting the order right could prove interesting.  ;-) 

xrandr --listmonitors

will show monitor number, which you can use as your monitor identifier in 
xorg.conf, the port of the graphics card it is connected to, which you may 
prefer to use as your monitor identifier in xorg.conf, if the monitor is 
detected as the primary display or not, relevant screen position, size, and 
other current settings of your display(s).


> Right now, I have this:
> 
> 
> root@Gentoo-1 ~ # cat /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.d/20.xrandr
> xrandr --output DP-0 --off --output DP-1 --mode 1920x1080 --pos 1920x0
> --rotate normal --output DP-2 --off --output DP-3 --primary --mode
> 1920x1080 --pos 0x0 --rotate normal --output DP-4 --off --output DP-5
> --off --output DP-6 --off --output DP-7 --off
> root@Gentoo-1 ~ #
> 
> 
> From what I've read, that is the correct place for that command.  If
> not, please let me know where it should be.  Keep in mind, putting it in
> /usr somewhere gets overwritten when the package providing that file
> gets updated.

It is a correct place to put it, if you intend running xrandr to change your 
monitor layout every time you launch X, from whatever it would otherwise be 
detected as.


> I'm also attaching the current xorg.conf file.  Keep in
> mind, gotta add the TV later on.  I think if I can get the monitors set
> up, I can add the TV pretty easily.  Even if it only works in KDE, that
> is fine since I need KDE up and running to use the TV anyway.  I'm
> mostly needing to know if there is a way to add the serial number for
> xorg.conf.  I think the rest is OK.  I also need a command to get what
> the system sees as the serial number, in case it only sees a part of it,
> last few digits or something.

I don't think specifying a serial number is necessary.  Use the identification 
xrandr provides for each monitor.


> I also had to argue with KDE about which is primary.  At first, like
> with the LG, it wanted to make the second monitor the primary despite
> the first monitor being marked primary.  I did the old set it backwards,
> apply and then set it back the way I want it trick.  It took it a second
> but KDE reversed it.  Main screen went to the primary display.  This is
> what I mean by it clashing and me setting the displays up in xorg.conf
> and KDE hopefully getting its info from that and adjusting itself. 
> Plus, if I use a different GUI, it should work too. 

You can specify which monitor is the primary monitor with:

Option "Primary" "true"


> These new monitors sure are nice.  My old eyes like them.  o_O  Oh, I
> was going to copy over the KDE config directories.  I think I'm going to
> take the opportunity to give KDE a fresh start.  I think those old
> config files date back to the switch to KDE4.  We on KDE6 now. 
> 
> If anyone knows if/how to set up xorg.conf with a monitor serial number,
> plus chime in.  Other info welcome as well. 
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-) 

The serial number should be provided in the EDID table.  You can see this and 
check if it is different for your two monitors in the Xorg.0.log output.  Some 
cheap monitors have the same EDID flashed in their EEPROM and the serial 
number would not be of any use.  However, I doubt you need this to provide an 
identifier for each monitor.  It would be much easier using the card port the 
monitor is connected to, e.g.:

Section "Monitor"
    Identifier   "DP-3"
....
        Option   "Primary" "true"
....
EndSection

Section "Monitor"
    Identifier   "DP-5"
....
       Option    "RightOf" "DP-3"
....
EndSection

Section "Monitor"
    Identifier   "DP-7"
....
       Option    "RightOf" "DP-5"
....
EndSection


The randr extension of X11 allows for dynamic changes in real time of your 
layout and it makes sense to use it on the CLI when you want to resize the 
screen displayed in a monitor, its orientation, etc.  Since you want to set up 
a permanent dual-monitor layout, you probably want to configure this in 
xorg.conf.  Today, modern graphics drivers do most of the leg work themselves 
and you only need to specify what the driver won't know about, e.g. the 
relative positioning of your monitors and which is the primary monitor.  So, 
less is more in this respect.

A minimalist xorg.conf configuration would need to include sections for your 
monitors.  With the monitors connected and X running, query xrandr to find out 
what X11 has configured:

xrandr --listmonitors
xrandr -q

Then move your current xorg.conf out of the way and create the file '/etc/X11/
xorg.conf.d/10-monitor.conf' to add your two or three monitor/TV sections in 
there.  Reboot and see if everything works as expected.  If not add the 
minimum directives necessary, e.g. "PreferredMode", or "DPI", but add only one 
of these at a time and restart X or reboot.  Normally you wouldn't need any 
other sections, but if you do, e.g. for Screen, add it with the minimum 
configuration possible and work up from there.  Soon you should have arrived 
at a working layout which should be replicated across different window 
managers and DEs.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Dale]

Michael wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 July 2024 06:00:41 BST Dale wrote:
>> New subthread.  Slightly new situation. 
> [snip ...]
>> On the old LG monitor, when I first plugged up the new monitor, it
>> wouldn't power up from standby.  It wouldn't even when I connected only
>> the new monitor.  The BIOS would beep that it can't find a display as
>> well.  I thought at first I had a broken monitor.  Getting power but
>> won't wake up.  I tried another cable, it worked.  So, the first cable,
>> same as I used on the LG monitor, didn't work at all with the new
>> monitor.  Might be that the cable has a problem not the LG monitor
>> itself.  I didn't think of that.  I've used that cable quite often
>> before.  I'm not sure how old that cable is but it may find a trash can. 
> It is best you swap cables around to make sure you are not getting bad or 
> inconsistent results just because of a faulty cable.  It goes without saying 
> you should select a cable specification which is capable of the required 
> bandwidth for your card and monitor and do not gimp this via some lower 
> throughput adaptor in-between.
>
>
>> On to the new monitor.  I'm trying to decide whether to use xrandr and
>> friends to set this up or xorg.conf.  Using both seems to cause a bit of
>> a clash and KDE isn't helping any.  I'd kinda like to go the xorg.conf
>> route.  I think, but not sure, that xorg.conf is read very early on.  It
>> seems, but not sure, that the xinit files are read later on.  I'm not
>> sure on all that.  It could be the other way around.  I'm also pretty
>> sure that if set up in xorg.conf, it would work if I logged into another
>> GUI; Gnome, Fluxbox or some other flavor.
> Yes, xorg.conf would determine your screen layout for any window manager you 
> launch, unless the window manager/DE has its own specific layout configuration 
> overriding the default xorg.conf file settings (using libxrandr).
>
>
>> It could be that xrandr and friends would as well.
> No, the xrandr extension of the X11 protocol is meant to be used to 
> dynamically change your settings in real time, or query X to obtain current 
> settings.  If you're running xrandr from a script, then it will change the X 
> settings when it is run.
>
> I suggest you use one tool at a time to avoid conflicts and duplication.
>
>
>> Current situation config wise.  The first problem I noticed, the
>> monitors are nearly identical.  Even the serial numbers are only a few
>> digits off and that's the only difference I can see.  I did some
>> searching and was wanting to set a option in xorg.conf Monitor section
>> that identifies the monitors by not only model but also serial number. 
>> That way I could set one to right or left of the other, or above/below,
>> and it know specifically which monitor is which, even if plugged into a
>> different port.  I can't find a option for serial number yet.  I did
>> find where someone else wanted to do the same a couple years ago but
>> sadly, no answer to that question.  So, if that is not doable, may have
>> to specify the port number.  If I ever have to disconnect and reconnect,
>> getting the order right could prove interesting.  ;-) 
> xrandr --listmonitors
>
> will show monitor number, which you can use as your monitor identifier in 
> xorg.conf, the port of the graphics card it is connected to, which you may 
> prefer to use as your monitor identifier in xorg.conf, if the monitor is 
> detected as the primary display or not, relevant screen position, size, and 
> other current settings of your display(s).
>
>
>> Right now, I have this:
>>
>>
>> root@Gentoo-1 ~ # cat /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.d/20.xrandr
>> xrandr --output DP-0 --off --output DP-1 --mode 1920x1080 --pos 1920x0
>> --rotate normal --output DP-2 --off --output DP-3 --primary --mode
>> 1920x1080 --pos 0x0 --rotate normal --output DP-4 --off --output DP-5
>> --off --output DP-6 --off --output DP-7 --off
>> root@Gentoo-1 ~ #
>>
>>
>> From what I've read, that is the correct place for that command.  If
>> not, please let me know where it should be.  Keep in mind, putting it in
>> /usr somewhere gets overwritten when the package providing that file
>> gets updated.
> It is a correct place to put it, if you intend running xrandr to change your 
> monitor layout every time you launch X, from whatever it would otherwise be 
> detected as.
>
>
>> I'm also attaching the current xorg.conf file.  Keep in
>> mind, gotta add the TV later on.  I think if I can get the monitors set
>> up, I can add the TV pretty easily.  Even if it only works in KDE, that
>> is fine since I need KDE up and running to use the TV anyway.  I'm
>> mostly needing to know if there is a way to add the serial number for
>> xorg.conf.  I think the rest is OK.  I also need a command to get what
>> the system sees as the serial number, in case it only sees a part of it,
>> last few digits or something.
> I don't think specifying a serial number is necessary.  Use the identification 
> xrandr provides for each monitor.
>
>
>> I also had to argue with KDE about which is primary.  At first, like
>> with the LG, it wanted to make the second monitor the primary despite
>> the first monitor being marked primary.  I did the old set it backwards,
>> apply and then set it back the way I want it trick.  It took it a second
>> but KDE reversed it.  Main screen went to the primary display.  This is
>> what I mean by it clashing and me setting the displays up in xorg.conf
>> and KDE hopefully getting its info from that and adjusting itself. 
>> Plus, if I use a different GUI, it should work too. 
> You can specify which monitor is the primary monitor with:
>
> Option "Primary" "true"
>
>
>> These new monitors sure are nice.  My old eyes like them.  o_O  Oh, I
>> was going to copy over the KDE config directories.  I think I'm going to
>> take the opportunity to give KDE a fresh start.  I think those old
>> config files date back to the switch to KDE4.  We on KDE6 now. 
>>
>> If anyone knows if/how to set up xorg.conf with a monitor serial number,
>> plus chime in.  Other info welcome as well. 
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-) 
> The serial number should be provided in the EDID table.  You can see this and 
> check if it is different for your two monitors in the Xorg.0.log output.  Some 
> cheap monitors have the same EDID flashed in their EEPROM and the serial 
> number would not be of any use.  However, I doubt you need this to provide an 
> identifier for each monitor.  It would be much easier using the card port the 
> monitor is connected to, e.g.:
>
> Section "Monitor"
>     Identifier   "DP-3"
> ....
>         Option   "Primary" "true"
> ....
> EndSection
>
> Section "Monitor"
>     Identifier   "DP-5"
> ....
>        Option    "RightOf" "DP-3"
> ....
> EndSection
>
> Section "Monitor"
>     Identifier   "DP-7"
> ....
>        Option    "RightOf" "DP-5"
> ....
> EndSection
>
>
> The randr extension of X11 allows for dynamic changes in real time of your 
> layout and it makes sense to use it on the CLI when you want to resize the 
> screen displayed in a monitor, its orientation, etc.  Since you want to set up 
> a permanent dual-monitor layout, you probably want to configure this in 
> xorg.conf.  Today, modern graphics drivers do most of the leg work themselves 
> and you only need to specify what the driver won't know about, e.g. the 
> relative positioning of your monitors and which is the primary monitor.  So, 
> less is more in this respect.
>
> A minimalist xorg.conf configuration would need to include sections for your 
> monitors.  With the monitors connected and X running, query xrandr to find out 
> what X11 has configured:
>
> xrandr --listmonitors
> xrandr -q
>
> Then move your current xorg.conf out of the way and create the file '/etc/X11/
> xorg.conf.d/10-monitor.conf' to add your two or three monitor/TV sections in 
> there.  Reboot and see if everything works as expected.  If not add the 
> minimum directives necessary, e.g. "PreferredMode", or "DPI", but add only one 
> of these at a time and restart X or reboot.  Normally you wouldn't need any 
> other sections, but if you do, e.g. for Screen, add it with the minimum 
> configuration possible and work up from there.  Soon you should have arrived 
> at a working layout which should be replicated across different window 
> managers and DEs.


I did add the primary option after I sent previous email.  I was digging
around and found out how to set it.  So, it is in xorg.conf now. 

It sounds like you recommend me using xorg.conf and not xrandr.  I was
thinking that using both would also cause a clash.  Basically, I need
one tool to do this.  That's why I picked xorg.conf for long term,
xrandr is just for now or a second option.  I may comment that command
and reboot.  See if it is the xorg.conf file doing the work or xrandr. 

I think we talked about this maybe off list.  On my old machine, when
sddm comes up, the password field on the second monitor shows the dots,
TV in my case.  On the new machine, both monitors show the dots for the
password.  I'm not sure what is different tho.  It did that even before
I set the primary option.  I like it that way myself but makes me
curious why my main rig is different.  It seems the new rig sends the
same screen to both monitors.  Once logged into KDE, it splits into two
monitors.  My main rig it seems is always two separate screens. 

I got some things going on.  I'll read the email closer later and make
some changes.  I'll post back then.  Oh, so far, it shows several
packages headed in the right direction.  The monitor stand left a small
hub and when it leaves there, it almost always gets delivered that day. 
So, I may get the monitor stand today.  The new /home hard drive is on
the right path too.  I'm expecting quite a lot of packages.  While
proofing this, got text from USPS that stand and several other packages
are out for delivery.  UPS updates a little later. 

Oh, in /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/ when the files are numbered, does it read
them from low to high?  If I set a option in one file but set the same
option differently in another file, which one does it apply?  Or does it
not apply either? 

Thanks for the info.  :-D  Will work on it shortly. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4033 bytes --]

On Wednesday, 10 July 2024 12:44:28 BST Dale wrote:

> It sounds like you recommend me using xorg.conf and not xrandr.  I was
> thinking that using both would also cause a clash.  Basically, I need
> one tool to do this.  That's why I picked xorg.conf for long term,
> xrandr is just for now or a second option.  I may comment that command
> and reboot.  See if it is the xorg.conf file doing the work or xrandr. 

I recommend using whichever tool does the job best, for your specific needs.  
Normally, sections for xorg.conf can be used for special input and display 
configurations, when the default configuration (running without a xorg.conf) 
will not do.

The xranrd command is there to manually interface in real time with the RandR 
extension of the X11 API and change some settings to make sure they suit your 
preferences.  You can, if you want to, script it and run it every time X 
starts, to change the default settings.

If you are always using Plasma, then it may be convenient to use neither an 
xorg.conf, nor xrandr and instead use the 'Plasma > SystemSettings > Display 
and Monitor' GUI to configure your desktop setup.

Any of the above three options should be able to do the job, but some may be 
more reliable than others.  I found out whenever Plasma was being upgraded to 
a new major/minor version the layout on a dual monitor setup running on X was 
all over the place.  I moved that system over to Wayland and I had no more 
complaints from users about a displaced toolbar, or reversed monitor layout 
and the like.  YMMV.


> I think we talked about this maybe off list.  On my old machine, when
> sddm comes up, the password field on the second monitor shows the dots,
> TV in my case.  On the new machine, both monitors show the dots for the
> password.  I'm not sure what is different tho.  It did that even before
> I set the primary option.  I like it that way myself but makes me
> curious why my main rig is different.  It seems the new rig sends the
> same screen to both monitors.  Once logged into KDE, it splits into two
> monitors.  My main rig it seems is always two separate screens. 

As far as I know SDDM is using the file(s) in /usr/share/sddm/scripts/ to 
start a login GUI.  I haven't looked into how far can these be tweaked for a 
dual monitor setup and if they even have a 'primary' monitor concept.


> I got some things going on.  I'll read the email closer later and make
> some changes.  I'll post back then.  Oh, so far, it shows several
> packages headed in the right direction.  The monitor stand left a small
> hub and when it leaves there, it almost always gets delivered that day. 
> So, I may get the monitor stand today.  The new /home hard drive is on
> the right path too.  I'm expecting quite a lot of packages.  While
> proofing this, got text from USPS that stand and several other packages
> are out for delivery.  UPS updates a little later. 
> 
> Oh, in /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/ when the files are numbered, does it read
> them from low to high?  

Yes.

> If I set a option in one file but set the same
> option differently in another file, which one does it apply?  Or does it
> not apply either? 

First the lower numbered file, then the higher numbered file (see man run-
parts).  Also see explanation in the URL below.

> Thanks for the info.  :-D  Will work on it shortly. 
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-) 

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Xorg.conf

The separate files in /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/ are meant to break things up and 
make it easier to check, add, or take out sections.  Configuration files are 
read in numeric order and sequentially, i.e. 10-monitor.conf will be read and 
applied before 20-monitor.conf, or 30-something-else.conf.  Files will be read 
in alphabetic order if they are not prefixed by a number.

Note, as the above URL points out, if you have a /etc/X11/xorg.conf file it 
will take precedence over any files in /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/ and these in turn 
will take precedence over the default files installed in /usr/share/X11/
xorg.conf.d/.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Dale]

Michael wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 July 2024 12:44:28 BST Dale wrote:
>
>> It sounds like you recommend me using xorg.conf and not xrandr.  I was
>> thinking that using both would also cause a clash.  Basically, I need
>> one tool to do this.  That's why I picked xorg.conf for long term,
>> xrandr is just for now or a second option.  I may comment that command
>> and reboot.  See if it is the xorg.conf file doing the work or xrandr. 
> I recommend using whichever tool does the job best, for your specific needs.  
> Normally, sections for xorg.conf can be used for special input and display 
> configurations, when the default configuration (running without a xorg.conf) 
> will not do.
>
> The xranrd command is there to manually interface in real time with the RandR 
> extension of the X11 API and change some settings to make sure they suit your 
> preferences.  You can, if you want to, script it and run it every time X 
> starts, to change the default settings.
>
> If you are always using Plasma, then it may be convenient to use neither an 
> xorg.conf, nor xrandr and instead use the 'Plasma > SystemSettings > Display 
> and Monitor' GUI to configure your desktop setup.
>
> Any of the above three options should be able to do the job, but some may be 
> more reliable than others.  I found out whenever Plasma was being upgraded to 
> a new major/minor version the layout on a dual monitor setup running on X was 
> all over the place.  I moved that system over to Wayland and I had no more 
> complaints from users about a displaced toolbar, or reversed monitor layout 
> and the like.  YMMV.
>

I've read wayland has improved a lot.  A year or more ago I was reading
about people finding bugs and such and some even saying it wasn't usable
in a lot of situations.  Thing is, it was new and that is to be
expected.  Over time, it seems to have improved.  Some people, like you,
say it has advantages to use it now and sometimes even works better.
Once I get things working well, I just may give it a shot.  It seems
things are moving in that direction anyway. 


>> I think we talked about this maybe off list.  On my old machine, when
>> sddm comes up, the password field on the second monitor shows the dots,
>> TV in my case.  On the new machine, both monitors show the dots for the
>> password.  I'm not sure what is different tho.  It did that even before
>> I set the primary option.  I like it that way myself but makes me
>> curious why my main rig is different.  It seems the new rig sends the
>> same screen to both monitors.  Once logged into KDE, it splits into two
>> monitors.  My main rig it seems is always two separate screens. 
> As far as I know SDDM is using the file(s) in /usr/share/sddm/scripts/ to 
> start a login GUI.  I haven't looked into how far can these be tweaked for a 
> dual monitor setup and if they even have a 'primary' monitor concept.
>

I've never really looked into it either.  I mentioned it because it
seems something has changed.  On my old rig, it seems to have kept some
setting somewhere but on new installs, it uses a new setting which we
may both like better.  Luckily one of my TVs is in the same room so I
can see the screen.  If however, you have a second monitor that you
can't see, it may be worth looking into and setting it to the new way. 
It could be that someone reading this long thread would also like to
know to do the same.  ;-)


>> I got some things going on.  I'll read the email closer later and make
>> some changes.  I'll post back then.  Oh, so far, it shows several
>> packages headed in the right direction.  The monitor stand left a small
>> hub and when it leaves there, it almost always gets delivered that day. 
>> So, I may get the monitor stand today.  The new /home hard drive is on
>> the right path too.  I'm expecting quite a lot of packages.  While
>> proofing this, got text from USPS that stand and several other packages
>> are out for delivery.  UPS updates a little later. 
>>
>> Oh, in /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/ when the files are numbered, does it read
>> them from low to high?  
> Yes.
>
>> If I set a option in one file but set the same
>> option differently in another file, which one does it apply?  Or does it
>> not apply either? 
> First the lower numbered file, then the higher numbered file (see man run-
> parts).  Also see explanation in the URL below.
>
>> Thanks for the info.  :-D  Will work on it shortly. 
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-) 
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Xorg.conf
>
> The separate files in /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/ are meant to break things up and 
> make it easier to check, add, or take out sections.  Configuration files are 
> read in numeric order and sequentially, i.e. 10-monitor.conf will be read and 
> applied before 20-monitor.conf, or 30-something-else.conf.  Files will be read 
> in alphabetic order if they are not prefixed by a number.
>
> Note, as the above URL points out, if you have a /etc/X11/xorg.conf file it 
> will take precedence over any files in /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/ and these in turn 
> will take precedence over the default files installed in /usr/share/X11/
> xorg.conf.d/.


I found the man page and another web page with a ton of info on
options.  Link below in case others want to bookmark it.  Some of them I
have no idea what they do.  Even their description for some settings
makes no sense since the terms used are things I never heard of.  I
doubt I need those anyway, thank goodness.  Anyway.  I been playing with
this thing a bit.  I made a simple change in xorg.conf just to see if it
worked or not without changing anything else.  I added this to the
options for the second monitor:


    Option      "Above" "DP-3"


I'll see how that works.  May try another GUI to, Fluxbox or something. 
For some reason tho, the port numbers are still odd, consistent but
odd.  Primary monitor is plugged into the lowest port, the one with #1
stamped on the bracket.  It sees it as DP-3 tho.  Even more odd, the
second monitor is DP-1, which is marked as port #2 on the bracket.  I
can't make heads or tails of that mess.  o_O

I did change how I plan to lay out the monitors tho.  From the primary
monitor as a starting point, second monitor that I use for handling
large volume of files and such will be above the primary monitor.  My TV
will be to the right of the Primary monitor.  The reason for that is
mostly the physical layout.  The monitor stand came in and I'll be
putting the primary monitor on the bottom and second monitor on top of
it.  The TV can just go anywhere config wise but it has been to the
right for so long, when I need my mouse pointer over there, habit makes
me push the mouse to the right.  It's as good a place as any. 

At first, I had the second monitor to the right of primary but then it
hit me, dragging the mouse pointer, and files, to the right to go up to
the top monitor seems kinda odd.  Plus, for a long time now, the TV has
been there on the right.  I rearranged things a bit.  Given the physical
layout, it makes more sense this way.  While I'm thinking on this.  I
may turn off the second monitor at times.  Should I add a option to
xorg.conf to make sure it doesn't go weird on me?  I wouldn't want it to
move my TV location for example.  I'd just want it to power off but not
affect anything else.  I'd close all the apps first tho.  I'd also like
it to have the right settings if it has been off a while and I turn it
on to use it.  I'm not sure how hotpluggable monitors are. 

I got the new 18TB hard drive in.  It's doing a long selftest test right
now.  It finishes later tomorrow night.  Once that is done, I'll do the
pvmove thing with a 8TB drive in one of my PVs.  The 8TB drive will
become /home on the new rig.  I also assembled the monitor stand and put
the brackets on the back of the monitors.  Once I get my desk cleaned
off, I'll put the stand on top of my homemade speakers and then hang the
monitors up.  They just hook on and a bolt locks them in place.  While
not to pricey, the stand isn't half bad.  Heavy metal. 

Later on, I may split the xorg.conf file into sections and put the
sections in the xorg.conf.d directory with a good file name so I know
what contains what.  The one thing I've noticed about the xorg.conf file
being one large file, when I want to edit something, it's always close
to the bottom.  I been using nano to edit files so the down arrow key
has been getting a lot of use. 

I have one of those really large mailboxes.  One can put a rather large
package in that thing and still have room left over.  Today, it was
about full.  I got several orders today.  It was like Christmas or
something.  :-D 

This is the link.  It claims to be a man page but I think it has info my
man page doesn't.  Maybe. 

https://www.x.org/releases/current/doc/man/man5/xorg.conf.5.xhtml

Right now, I'm waiting on the drive to finish testing and me to move
some things over.  Oh, cleaning off my puter desk too.  That could be a
challenge.  I need about five or six junk drawers.  The three or four I
already have just isn't enough.  :/   Where would I put all these
drawers tho.  O_O 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3963 bytes --]

On Thursday, 11 July 2024 07:23:58 BST Dale wrote:
> Michael wrote:

> > As far as I know SDDM is using the file(s) in /usr/share/sddm/scripts/ to
> > start a login GUI.  I haven't looked into how far can these be tweaked for
> > a dual monitor setup and if they even have a 'primary' monitor concept.
> I've never really looked into it either.  I mentioned it because it
> seems something has changed.  On my old rig, it seems to have kept some
> setting somewhere but on new installs, it uses a new setting which we
> may both like better.  Luckily one of my TVs is in the same room so I
> can see the screen.  If however, you have a second monitor that you
> can't see, it may be worth looking into and setting it to the new way. 
> It could be that someone reading this long thread would also like to
> know to do the same.  ;-)

Hmm ... on a system here running with two monitors, the SDDM passwd field is 
only showing being typed in on the right hand side (the secondary) monitor.  
The primary monitor passwd field remains empty, unless I click on it before I 
start typing.  There is no custom SDDM config and no xorg.conf in this system.  
:-/


> I found the man page and another web page with a ton of info on
> options.  Link below in case others want to bookmark it.  Some of them I
> have no idea what they do.  Even their description for some settings
> makes no sense since the terms used are things I never heard of.  I
> doubt I need those anyway, thank goodness.  Anyway.  I been playing with
> this thing a bit.  I made a simple change in xorg.conf just to see if it
> worked or not without changing anything else.  I added this to the
> options for the second monitor:
> 
> 
>     Option      "Above" "DP-3"
> 
> 
> I'll see how that works.  May try another GUI to, Fluxbox or something. 
> For some reason tho, the port numbers are still odd, consistent but
> odd.  Primary monitor is plugged into the lowest port, the one with #1
> stamped on the bracket.  It sees it as DP-3 tho.  Even more odd, the
> second monitor is DP-1, which is marked as port #2 on the bracket.  I
> can't make heads or tails of that mess.  o_O

Yes, this numbering incongruity between physical and logical ports is quite  
strange.  o_O


> I did change how I plan to lay out the monitors tho.  From the primary
> monitor as a starting point, second monitor that I use for handling
> large volume of files and such will be above the primary monitor.  My TV
> will be to the right of the Primary monitor.  The reason for that is
> mostly the physical layout.  The monitor stand came in and I'll be
> putting the primary monitor on the bottom and second monitor on top of
> it.  The TV can just go anywhere config wise but it has been to the
> right for so long, when I need my mouse pointer over there, habit makes
> me push the mouse to the right.  It's as good a place as any. 
> 
> At first, I had the second monitor to the right of primary but then it
> hit me, dragging the mouse pointer, and files, to the right to go up to
> the top monitor seems kinda odd.  Plus, for a long time now, the TV has
> been there on the right.  I rearranged things a bit.  Given the physical
> layout, it makes more sense this way.  While I'm thinking on this.  I
> may turn off the second monitor at times.  Should I add a option to
> xorg.conf to make sure it doesn't go weird on me?  I wouldn't want it to
> move my TV location for example.  I'd just want it to power off but not
> affect anything else.  I'd close all the apps first tho.  I'd also like
> it to have the right settings if it has been off a while and I turn it
> on to use it.  I'm not sure how hotpluggable monitors are. 

I have not observed any discrepancy when a monitor is switched off/on at the 
time of booting or thereafter, but I've used the Plasma Display settings to 
configure the monitors position and in any case here the desktop is on Plasma-
Wayland.  Therefore your experience may differ.



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Dale]

Michael wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 July 2024 07:23:58 BST Dale wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> As far as I know SDDM is using the file(s) in /usr/share/sddm/scripts/ to
>>> start a login GUI.  I haven't looked into how far can these be tweaked for
>>> a dual monitor setup and if they even have a 'primary' monitor concept.
>> I've never really looked into it either.  I mentioned it because it
>> seems something has changed.  On my old rig, it seems to have kept some
>> setting somewhere but on new installs, it uses a new setting which we
>> may both like better.  Luckily one of my TVs is in the same room so I
>> can see the screen.  If however, you have a second monitor that you
>> can't see, it may be worth looking into and setting it to the new way. 
>> It could be that someone reading this long thread would also like to
>> know to do the same.  ;-)
> Hmm ... on a system here running with two monitors, the SDDM passwd field is 
> only showing being typed in on the right hand side (the secondary) monitor.  
> The primary monitor passwd field remains empty, unless I click on it before I 
> start typing.  There is no custom SDDM config and no xorg.conf in this system.  
> :-/
>

I've been watching this some more each time I boot.  When I hit the
power button and the BIOS screen comes up, only the main monitor, the
first or original monitor, or monitor connected to the number #1 port on
bracket, powers up and shows anything.  The second monitor remains off. 
The second monitor remains off until SDDM comes up for a password which
then powers on the second monitor.  When the second monitor powers up,
it appears to be a clone of monitor 1.  If I type in the password, the
dots appear on BOTH monitors. 

I haven't tested this in a while but before I added DM to the default
runlevel, if I switched to a console, Ctrl Alt F1 for example, to try a
different setting or something *after* SDDM came up even once, then both
monitors showed the same thing, they would appear as clones.  If I typed
in a command, it would show on both monitors.  Once the second monitor
powered up, it stayed on the whole time.  It seems SDDM cuts it on but
after that, it stays on even if a clone of monitor 1 in a console. 

My main rig behaves differently.  I think during the install, there is a
different config for how monitors are handled and when they are powered
on.  On my old rig, it behaves as you describe.  On the new rig, like
described above.  Honestly, I like the new way except I wish the second
monitor would come on with the main monitor as clones when the BIOS
screen comes up.  I can live with it tho.  It does come on when it is
able to really show something. 

I suspect, if you did a fresh install, you would see the same behavior I
see with the new rig.  The way my old rig and your rig works is likely
left over from the old default way it was set up.  I don't know if that
is set up with SDDM, Xorg or what.  I think emerge has a --noconf or
something option that updates config files even if they wouldn't
otherwise.  That to might overwrite the old way with the new way.  If
one only knew what package set that to work that way tho.  The new rig
seems to have a new default way to handle the monitors.


>> I found the man page and another web page with a ton of info on
>> options.  Link below in case others want to bookmark it.  Some of them I
>> have no idea what they do.  Even their description for some settings
>> makes no sense since the terms used are things I never heard of.  I
>> doubt I need those anyway, thank goodness.  Anyway.  I been playing with
>> this thing a bit.  I made a simple change in xorg.conf just to see if it
>> worked or not without changing anything else.  I added this to the
>> options for the second monitor:
>>
>>
>>     Option      "Above" "DP-3"
>>
>>
>> I'll see how that works.  May try another GUI to, Fluxbox or something. 
>> For some reason tho, the port numbers are still odd, consistent but
>> odd.  Primary monitor is plugged into the lowest port, the one with #1
>> stamped on the bracket.  It sees it as DP-3 tho.  Even more odd, the
>> second monitor is DP-1, which is marked as port #2 on the bracket.  I
>> can't make heads or tails of that mess.  o_O
> Yes, this numbering incongruity between physical and logical ports is quite  
> strange.  o_O
>

I'm done trying to figure out that weirdness.  ROFL  Maybe it takes
after me.  ROFLMBO 


>> I did change how I plan to lay out the monitors tho.  From the primary
>> monitor as a starting point, second monitor that I use for handling
>> large volume of files and such will be above the primary monitor.  My TV
>> will be to the right of the Primary monitor.  The reason for that is
>> mostly the physical layout.  The monitor stand came in and I'll be
>> putting the primary monitor on the bottom and second monitor on top of
>> it.  The TV can just go anywhere config wise but it has been to the
>> right for so long, when I need my mouse pointer over there, habit makes
>> me push the mouse to the right.  It's as good a place as any. 
>>
>> At first, I had the second monitor to the right of primary but then it
>> hit me, dragging the mouse pointer, and files, to the right to go up to
>> the top monitor seems kinda odd.  Plus, for a long time now, the TV has
>> been there on the right.  I rearranged things a bit.  Given the physical
>> layout, it makes more sense this way.  While I'm thinking on this.  I
>> may turn off the second monitor at times.  Should I add a option to
>> xorg.conf to make sure it doesn't go weird on me?  I wouldn't want it to
>> move my TV location for example.  I'd just want it to power off but not
>> affect anything else.  I'd close all the apps first tho.  I'd also like
>> it to have the right settings if it has been off a while and I turn it
>> on to use it.  I'm not sure how hotpluggable monitors are. 
> I have not observed any discrepancy when a monitor is switched off/on at the 
> time of booting or thereafter, but I've used the Plasma Display settings to 
> configure the monitors position and in any case here the desktop is on Plasma-
> Wayland.  Therefore your experience may differ.

I had a video playing on my main rig.  I been wanting to test this but
was always to chicken.  I wanted to hook up the TV in my bedroom to the
new rig.  I paused the video playing on the old rig.  I then unhooked
the bedroom TV from the splitter, keep in mind that there is still
another TV connected but the config is set to recognize the bedroom TV
which just disappeared.  The main rig did see the TV disappear but other
than a blink on the main monitor, nothing bad happened.  It used the
second monitor hooked to the splitter to keep things going.  What do you
know, it figured out there is still something hooked up there.  Dang,
some dev is smart.  :-D

I then plugged the TV into the new rig.  KDE saw that right away and
popped up a screen wanting to know what to do.  I just closed it and
went to KDE settings then Display and Monitor section.  I arranged the
monitors like I wanted, several times.  It would pop up a window asking
if I wanted to keep the settings.  Problem is, finding where the mouse
pointer went.  After three or four tries, I finally was able to hit the
Keep button before it reverted back and I had to set it up again.  I did
set it up as described earlier.  It's early on yet but it worked.  Next
is setting up xorg.conf for this.  Gotta add the TV as "Right of" and
all that. 

I did run into a error when trying to copy a couple video test files
from a USB stick to the desktop.  The error was this:   'The file or
folder message recipient disconnected from message bus without replying
does not exist.'  It was confusing to say the least.  It reads like it
went through a translator or something.  I checked to make sure
everything was mounted rw correctly, checked permissions and such. 
Everything was set correctly.  Did a search and dug out a thread on the
forums.  It said the kernel had to have the Fuse driver enabled.  I'm
not sure why but OK, I enabled and rebuilt the kernel.  When I booted
the new kernel, I could copy files over.  Weird but it works, cool.  :-) 

Before connecting the TV and all, I tested the audio.  Soundless. 
Earlier, I thought it was able to detect nothing plugged into the output
jack.  Well, it appears it just didn't have any devices.  I enabled the
driver the boot media uses and lspci -k showed it as loaded on the new
install.  It seemed to be missing some decode stuff after a bit of
searching.  It so happens, my old rig and the new rig has almost
identical audio chips.  I just pulled up menuconfig on both in a Konsole
and enabled the same things on the new rig that I had on the old rig. 
Recompiled the kernel and rebooted.  I have sound to the output jacks
now.  That also likely helped me to have audio on the TV as well. 

I got a new 18TB hard drive the other day.  It took a solid day to run
selftests on it.  Then it took another day or so to move data from a 8TB
drive in one of my PVs to the 18TB and then swap things physically. 
Right now, the 8TB is in a external enclosure and I've copied the /home
of main rig to the new /home drive for the new rig.  I plan to rename
the KDE config directories, .share and .config, with .old on the end. 
That will give KDE a fresh start on the new rig. 

I haven't posted much but I been busy.  I also checked the serial
numbers of the monitors.  One ends in 231 while other ends in 240.  They
are 9 digits apart.  About as identical as one can get.  ;-) 

Now to clean off my desk.  I'm thinking about cleaning out a junk drawer
first.  That way some stuff on my desk can go in the junk drawer.  Thing
is, where to put stuff I want to remove from the junk drawer???? 

Making progress tho.  Slowly.  :/

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3167 bytes --]

On Sunday, 14 July 2024 06:08:27 BST Dale wrote:

> I then plugged the TV into the new rig.  KDE saw that right away and
> popped up a screen wanting to know what to do.  I just closed it and
> went to KDE settings then Display and Monitor section.  I arranged the
> monitors like I wanted, several times.  It would pop up a window asking
> if I wanted to keep the settings.  Problem is, finding where the mouse
> pointer went.  After three or four tries, I finally was able to hit the
> Keep button before it reverted back and I had to set it up again.  I did
> set it up as described earlier.  It's early on yet but it worked.  Next
> is setting up xorg.conf for this.  Gotta add the TV as "Right of" and
> all that. 

Do you even need an xorg.conf at all, if the Plasma Display settings can set 
up your monitors/TV reliably, as you want them?


> I did run into a error when trying to copy a couple video test files
> from a USB stick to the desktop.  The error was this:   'The file or
> folder message recipient disconnected from message bus without replying
> does not exist.'  It was confusing to say the least.  It reads like it
> went through a translator or something.  I checked to make sure
> everything was mounted rw correctly, checked permissions and such. 
> Everything was set correctly.  Did a search and dug out a thread on the
> forums.  It said the kernel had to have the Fuse driver enabled.  I'm
> not sure why but OK, I enabled and rebuilt the kernel.  When I booted
> the new kernel, I could copy files over.  Weird but it works, cool.  :-) 

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=473733


> Before connecting the TV and all, I tested the audio.  Soundless. 
> Earlier, I thought it was able to detect nothing plugged into the output
> jack.  Well, it appears it just didn't have any devices.  I enabled the
> driver the boot media uses and lspci -k showed it as loaded on the new
> install.  It seemed to be missing some decode stuff after a bit of
> searching.  It so happens, my old rig and the new rig has almost
> identical audio chips.  I just pulled up menuconfig on both in a Konsole
> and enabled the same things on the new rig that I had on the old rig. 
> Recompiled the kernel and rebooted.  I have sound to the output jacks
> now.  That also likely helped me to have audio on the TV as well. 

These links are for MSWindows OS, but corresponding settings to Linux should 
also work for video cards which include audio processing capability:

https://www.nvidia.com/content/Control-Panel-Help/vLatest/en-us/
mergedProjects/nvdsp/To_set_up_digital_audio_on_your_graphics_card.htm

https://www.nvidia.com/content/Control-Panel-Help/vLatest/en-us/
mergedProjects/nvdsp/Set_Up_Digital_Audio.htm

https://www.xda-developers.com/set-up-nvidia-high-definition-audio-is-it-worth-using/


> I haven't posted much but I been busy.  I also checked the serial
> numbers of the monitors.  One ends in 231 while other ends in 240.  They
> are 9 digits apart.  About as identical as one can get.  ;-) 

You can compare the EDIDs in Xorg.0.conf to see if they are the same.

It seems you're making good progress with your new PC & monitors.  :-)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Dale]

Michael wrote:
> On Sunday, 14 July 2024 06:08:27 BST Dale wrote:
>
>> I then plugged the TV into the new rig.  KDE saw that right away and
>> popped up a screen wanting to know what to do.  I just closed it and
>> went to KDE settings then Display and Monitor section.  I arranged the
>> monitors like I wanted, several times.  It would pop up a window asking
>> if I wanted to keep the settings.  Problem is, finding where the mouse
>> pointer went.  After three or four tries, I finally was able to hit the
>> Keep button before it reverted back and I had to set it up again.  I did
>> set it up as described earlier.  It's early on yet but it worked.  Next
>> is setting up xorg.conf for this.  Gotta add the TV as "Right of" and
>> all that. 
> Do you even need an xorg.conf at all, if the Plasma Display settings can set 
> up your monitors/TV reliably, as you want them?
>

That is likely true unless KDE has a bad update and won't come up.  I'd
like my monitors to come up the same way regardless of what GUI I use. 
I figure xorg.conf is the best way to make sure.  At least as sure as I
can be anyway.  That said, it's been a long time since I had a bad KDE
update.  It may have a minor bug or something but it tends to work OK. 


>> I did run into a error when trying to copy a couple video test files
>> from a USB stick to the desktop.  The error was this:   'The file or
>> folder message recipient disconnected from message bus without replying
>> does not exist.'  It was confusing to say the least.  It reads like it
>> went through a translator or something.  I checked to make sure
>> everything was mounted rw correctly, checked permissions and such. 
>> Everything was set correctly.  Did a search and dug out a thread on the
>> forums.  It said the kernel had to have the Fuse driver enabled.  I'm
>> not sure why but OK, I enabled and rebuilt the kernel.  When I booted
>> the new kernel, I could copy files over.  Weird but it works, cool.  :-) 
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=473733
>

Odd, that bug report didn't show up when I searched with Duck. 
Sometimes I wonder about search engines.  Sometimes I think they assume
to much. 


>> Before connecting the TV and all, I tested the audio.  Soundless. 
>> Earlier, I thought it was able to detect nothing plugged into the output
>> jack.  Well, it appears it just didn't have any devices.  I enabled the
>> driver the boot media uses and lspci -k showed it as loaded on the new
>> install.  It seemed to be missing some decode stuff after a bit of
>> searching.  It so happens, my old rig and the new rig has almost
>> identical audio chips.  I just pulled up menuconfig on both in a Konsole
>> and enabled the same things on the new rig that I had on the old rig. 
>> Recompiled the kernel and rebooted.  I have sound to the output jacks
>> now.  That also likely helped me to have audio on the TV as well. 
> These links are for MSWindows OS, but corresponding settings to Linux should 
> also work for video cards which include audio processing capability:
>
> https://www.nvidia.com/content/Control-Panel-Help/vLatest/en-us/
> mergedProjects/nvdsp/To_set_up_digital_audio_on_your_graphics_card.htm
>
> https://www.nvidia.com/content/Control-Panel-Help/vLatest/en-us/
> mergedProjects/nvdsp/Set_Up_Digital_Audio.htm
>
> https://www.xda-developers.com/set-up-nvidia-high-definition-audio-is-it-worth-using/
>

Well, this was about codec support.  It seems I had none of them
available.  I likely enabled more than needed but if it isn't needed, it
just ignores them, so I've read anyway.  This is a sort list. 

[*] Support initialization patch loading for HD-audio
<*> Build Realtek HD-audio codec support
<*> Build Analog Devices HD-audio codec support
<*> Build IDT/Sigmatel HD-audio codec support
<*> Build VIA HD-audio codec support
<*> Build HDMI/DisplayPort HD-audio codec support
<*> Build Cirrus Logic codec support
< > Build Cirrus Logic HDA bridge support
<*> Build Conexant HD-audio codec support
<*> Build Creative CA0110-IBG codec support
<*> Build Creative CA0132 codec support
<*> Build C-Media HD-audio codec support
<*> Build Silicon Labs 3054 HD-modem codec support


With those and a few others, it works.  I suspect the Realtek is the one
needed but it may need the HDMI one as well.  I just set the same as on
my main rig.  It works.  It seems the card itself had the right driver,
just not the bit that tells the card how to process the sound. 

>> I haven't posted much but I been busy.  I also checked the serial
>> numbers of the monitors.  One ends in 231 while other ends in 240.  They
>> are 9 digits apart.  About as identical as one can get.  ;-) 
> You can compare the EDIDs in Xorg.0.conf to see if they are the same.
>
> It seems you're making good progress with your new PC & monitors.  :-)


Yep.  I think the doctors refer to it as fatigue but basically, I do a
little, take a nap.  It's related to my health issues.  Some days, I'm
like that meme with the guy beating a dead horse.  Some days, the
Energizer bunny with a Sears Die Hard battery.  Don't see those Die Hard
battery days much anymore tho.  ;-) 

I'm making progress.  I stared at my junk drawer and all the stuff in it
for a bit.  Trying to figure out where to put some stuff so I can clean
off my puter desk.  I just want to finish it once I start it, without
running out of energy.  Thing is, to clean desk, need room in the junk
drawer.  To make room in the drawer, need to make space somewhere else
to put stuff from the drawer.  That somewhere else is unknown at the
moment.  I'm dreaming about it during my frequent naps.  LOL 

It's getting close.  Any day now.  It has been a adventure.  That pesky
LG monitor or that HDMI cable caused some issues tho.  I'm looking to
buy either 4K or 8K cables next.  Be ready for the future.  ;-)  I'm
liking some that are braided on the outside that I found.  Should last a
long time.  Me thinks. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5171 bytes --]

On Sunday, 14 July 2024 10:44:30 BST Dale wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > On Sunday, 14 July 2024 06:08:27 BST Dale wrote:
> >> I then plugged the TV into the new rig.  KDE saw that right away and
> >> popped up a screen wanting to know what to do.  I just closed it and
> >> went to KDE settings then Display and Monitor section.  I arranged the
> >> monitors like I wanted, several times.  It would pop up a window asking
> >> if I wanted to keep the settings.  Problem is, finding where the mouse
> >> pointer went.  After three or four tries, I finally was able to hit the
> >> Keep button before it reverted back and I had to set it up again.  I did
> >> set it up as described earlier.  It's early on yet but it worked.  Next
> >> is setting up xorg.conf for this.  Gotta add the TV as "Right of" and
> >> all that.
> > 
> > Do you even need an xorg.conf at all, if the Plasma Display settings can
> > set up your monitors/TV reliably, as you want them?
> 
> That is likely true unless KDE has a bad update and won't come up.  I'd
> like my monitors to come up the same way regardless of what GUI I use. 
> I figure xorg.conf is the best way to make sure.  At least as sure as I
> can be anyway.  That said, it's been a long time since I had a bad KDE
> update.  It may have a minor bug or something but it tends to work OK. 

Yes, an xorg.conf set up as you need it would be universal in its effect, 
across different DEs.


> >> Before connecting the TV and all, I tested the audio.  Soundless.
> >> Earlier, I thought it was able to detect nothing plugged into the output
> >> jack.  Well, it appears it just didn't have any devices.  I enabled the
> >> driver the boot media uses and lspci -k showed it as loaded on the new
> >> install.  It seemed to be missing some decode stuff after a bit of
> >> searching.  It so happens, my old rig and the new rig has almost
> >> identical audio chips.  I just pulled up menuconfig on both in a Konsole
> >> and enabled the same things on the new rig that I had on the old rig.
> >> Recompiled the kernel and rebooted.  I have sound to the output jacks
> >> now.  That also likely helped me to have audio on the TV as well.
> > 
> > These links are for MSWindows OS, but corresponding settings to Linux
> > should also work for video cards which include audio processing
> > capability:
> > 
> > https://www.nvidia.com/content/Control-Panel-Help/vLatest/en-us/
> > mergedProjects/nvdsp/To_set_up_digital_audio_on_your_graphics_card.htm
> > 
> > https://www.nvidia.com/content/Control-Panel-Help/vLatest/en-us/
> > mergedProjects/nvdsp/Set_Up_Digital_Audio.htm
> > 
> > https://www.xda-developers.com/set-up-nvidia-high-definition-audio-is-it-w
> > orth-using/
> Well, this was about codec support.  It seems I had none of them
> available.  I likely enabled more than needed but if it isn't needed, it
> just ignores them, so I've read anyway.  This is a sort list. 
> 
> [*] Support initialization patch loading for HD-audio
> <*> Build Realtek HD-audio codec support
> <*> Build Analog Devices HD-audio codec support
> <*> Build IDT/Sigmatel HD-audio codec support
> <*> Build VIA HD-audio codec support
> <*> Build HDMI/DisplayPort HD-audio codec support
> <*> Build Cirrus Logic codec support
> < > Build Cirrus Logic HDA bridge support
> <*> Build Conexant HD-audio codec support
> <*> Build Creative CA0110-IBG codec support
> <*> Build Creative CA0132 codec support
> <*> Build C-Media HD-audio codec support
> <*> Build Silicon Labs 3054 HD-modem codec support
> 
> 
> With those and a few others, it works.  I suspect the Realtek is the one
> needed but it may need the HDMI one as well.  I just set the same as on
> my main rig.  It works.  It seems the card itself had the right driver,
> just not the bit that tells the card how to process the sound. 

You can build them as modules, see which of these are loaded successfully and 
disable the rest.  Some are generic, e.g.

 "Build HDMI/DisplayPort HD-audio codec support"

Say Y or M here to include HDMI and DisplayPort HD-audio codec support in snd-
hda-intel driver. This includes all AMD/ATI, Intel and Nvidia HDMI/DisplayPort 
codecs.

Others are more specific to individual OEM chips, like e.g. Realtek with its 
proprietary audio converter driver.


> It's getting close.  Any day now.  It has been a adventure.  That pesky
> LG monitor or that HDMI cable caused some issues tho.  I'm looking to
> buy either 4K or 8K cables next.  Be ready for the future.  ;-)  

I think the future is DP rather than HDMI, which works with AMD's FreeSync and 
Nvidia's G-Sync, assuming both card and monitor support this.  You can also 
chainload monitors from a single DP connection.  However, cable bandwidth and 
functionality requirements are dictated by the specification of the devices 
you connect to your card.  A 16K capable DP 2.1, or a 10K capable HDMI 2.1b 
won't make any difference when you're connecting 1920x1080 (i.e. sub-2K) 
display panels.  I don't buy cables often, so I tend to buy the highest 
specification available at the time to future proof, as the monitors and TVs 
are increasingly made available at higher resolutions and refresh rates.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Dale]

Michael wrote:
> On Sunday, 14 July 2024 10:44:30 BST Dale wrote:
>> Well, this was about codec support.  It seems I had none of them
>> available.  I likely enabled more than needed but if it isn't needed, it
>> just ignores them, so I've read anyway.  This is a sort list. 
>>
>> [*] Support initialization patch loading for HD-audio
>> <*> Build Realtek HD-audio codec support
>> <*> Build Analog Devices HD-audio codec support
>> <*> Build IDT/Sigmatel HD-audio codec support
>> <*> Build VIA HD-audio codec support
>> <*> Build HDMI/DisplayPort HD-audio codec support
>> <*> Build Cirrus Logic codec support
>> < > Build Cirrus Logic HDA bridge support
>> <*> Build Conexant HD-audio codec support
>> <*> Build Creative CA0110-IBG codec support
>> <*> Build Creative CA0132 codec support
>> <*> Build C-Media HD-audio codec support
>> <*> Build Silicon Labs 3054 HD-modem codec support
>>
>>
>> With those and a few others, it works.  I suspect the Realtek is the one
>> needed but it may need the HDMI one as well.  I just set the same as on
>> my main rig.  It works.  It seems the card itself had the right driver,
>> just not the bit that tells the card how to process the sound. 
> You can build them as modules, see which of these are loaded successfully and 
> disable the rest.  Some are generic, e.g.
>
>  "Build HDMI/DisplayPort HD-audio codec support"
>
> Say Y or M here to include HDMI and DisplayPort HD-audio codec support in snd-
> hda-intel driver. This includes all AMD/ATI, Intel and Nvidia HDMI/DisplayPort 
> codecs.
>
> Others are more specific to individual OEM chips, like e.g. Realtek with its 
> proprietary audio converter driver.
>

That's true but I wasn't sure which ones I had to have so I just enabled
them all.  I figured if it worked on my main rig, it would work on the
new rig since the audio part is almost identical. That would save me the
trouble of trying to load and remove modules until I figured out which
ones it needed and which ones it didn't.  Basically, it was faster this
way. 

>> It's getting close.  Any day now.  It has been a adventure.  That pesky
>> LG monitor or that HDMI cable caused some issues tho.  I'm looking to
>> buy either 4K or 8K cables next.  Be ready for the future.  ;-)  
> I think the future is DP rather than HDMI, which works with AMD's FreeSync and 
> Nvidia's G-Sync, assuming both card and monitor support this.  You can also 
> chainload monitors from a single DP connection.  However, cable bandwidth and 
> functionality requirements are dictated by the specification of the devices 
> you connect to your card.  A 16K capable DP 2.1, or a 10K capable HDMI 2.1b 
> won't make any difference when you're connecting 1920x1080 (i.e. sub-2K) 
> display panels.  I don't buy cables often, so I tend to buy the highest 
> specification available at the time to future proof, as the monitors and TVs 
> are increasingly made available at higher resolutions and refresh rates.

I think you right.  One reason I was able to get the monitor as cheap as
I did, it is considered old tech now.  Things are moving toward 4k and
such.  I was looking at the 4K cables but then ran up on a cable that is
braided.  Those braided things are tough.  I'd be more worried about
wearing out the connector than damaging the cable.  I could only find
the braided ones in the 8K version.  Still, future proof for me for a
long time to come.  I might get 4k monitor and card the next go around. 
I suspect 8K will be a ways off.  One thing I want to do, replace that
cable that would not work with the new monitor and was used on the LG
monitor when we was arguing with it.  Something funny about that cable. 

It's amazing how much technology changes tho.  What gets me, some things
are a lot faster or bigger but cost is not all that bad given the
improvement.  I still think CPUs are a bit pricey tho. 

I put out 8 Hickory trees this morning.  I also picked my poor sis-n-law
some tomatoes.  I also gave some to a neighbor.  Also making two jars of
pepper sauce today.  I hear my pillow calling me pretty good.  Battery
draining pretty fast.  o_-

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Dale]

Howdy,

A rather large update.  It's got issues still but right now, I'm typing
on the new rig which is not my old main rig, unless something happens to
this new thing.  Old main rig could find itself back again.  Basically,
I'm on the Ryzen thing.  :-D

First, I couldn't open any of my encrypted drives due to missing kernel
options.  Fixed that.  Then openvpn wouldn't work because of missing
kernel drivers.  Fixed that.  Since I started with a new kde config, it
to has issues yet to be banged into submission.  I'm also on a new
keyboard.  Expect some typos until I get used to this dang thing.  The
keys are a little tighter than I'm used too.  I suspect a new keyboard
is on the horizon.  This thing must be made for small kids.  o_o

Right now, only /home hard drive has been moved over.  I still have half
a dozen or so hard drives to move over and get working.  Right now, I'm
banging on KDE configuration stuff.  If it doesn't straighten up soon,
I'm copying the old config files over and it can just deal with that.  o_O

Right now, the second monitor seems to be having a connection issue.  I
had it working then when I pulled the rig out a bit to put in the /home
drive, it went off.  The cables are a bit short.  I think it is pulling
on them enough to disconnect it but not enough for the cable to just
come out completely.  I got cables coming.  They longer and better. 

Another bug I found.  I have 18 virtual desktops.  Yep, 18.  I use Ctrl
F* to switch between #1 to #10.  I can't recall but F11 and F12 is used
by something else.  There is no higher F* keys after that.  They didn't
see me coming.  ROFL  To avoid me having to switch to those, I don't put
anything important there in case I have to use sysreq key to reboot or
the rare occasion it crashes, like running out of memory during a
compile.  Anyway, I found where to set that but some don't work if I
have Firefox on them.  It seems Firefox is watching those keys and
preventing the switch but not doing anything with them either.  That's
kinda bad since sometimes I need to switch to and from those to close
things. 

Well, buggy and lack of configured as it is, it is working.  I'm able to
watch TV and the sound goes to the right place.  I think I can beat the
rest up until it gives in.  Going for a knockout punch, or a hammer.  ;-)

That's it for now.  May have new threads to see if I can get more
setailed help.  Oh, haven't added all the monitors to xorg.conf yet. 
Trying to get some things working first. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3420 bytes --]

Oopsie, I found this mail in my drafts folder just now, where it’s been 
sitting since the ninth. Perhaps I had to pause writing, but now I can’t 
remember anymore. So I’ll just send it off. ;-)


Am Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 12:02:47AM +0100 schrieb Michael:

> On Monday, 8 July 2024 21:21:19 BST Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> > Am Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 06:26:26PM +0100 schrieb Michael:
> > > Back to the previous topic, I have not yet found a case where changing the
> > > scale by means of the desktop settings, arrives at non-blurred fonts.  The
> > > clearest sharpest fonts are always rendered at the native monitor
> > > resolution, at a 100% scale setting.  Am I missing a trick, or is this to
> > > be expected?
> > That doesn’t really make sense. Fonts are always rendered natively, no
> > matter what size. Except if they are really rendered at 100 % and then the
> > rendered bitmap is scaled by the GPU or somesuch.
> > 
> > Or because their hinting information is limited to a certain size range.
> > This info gives the renderer special knowledge on how to render the glyphs.
> > 
> > Do you have screenshots?
> 
> I attach two screenshots one at 100% and one at 90%.  When viewed on the 
> 1366x768 actual monitor they are worse than what the screenshots have 
> captured.  Perhaps I need to take a photo of the monitor.  Anyway, if you view 
> it on a 1920x1080 monitor you should hopefully see the difference.  The font 
> DPI is 96.

I can see it. I use 2560×1440, but viewing an image pixel-perfect is not 
dependent on the screen’s resolution per se, but on it being run at its 
native resolution. So that one pixel in the image is actually displayed by 
one pixel on the screen without any scaling-induced blurring.

I have no real explanation for the fonts. Do they also get blurry at scales 
bigger than 100 %? The only thing I can say is that I use a font setting of 
slight hinting with no RGB subpixel rendering. The latter means that I don’t 
want the coloured fringes, but prefer greyscale aliasing instead. See my 
screenshot. 96 dpi (100 % scaling), main fonts set to 11 pt.

I used to use full hinting in my early (KDE 3) days, which gives me sharp 
1-pixel-lines, because I was used to the crisp look of non-aliased fonts on 
Windows. But for many years now I’ve been using only slight hinting, so the 
font looks more “real-worldy”, natural and not as computer-clean. I think 
that’s something I picked up during the few times I looked at a mac screen 
or screenshot (I’ve never sat at one for a longer time myself).


PS.: Do you really still use KDE 4 or is it just Oxygen on Plasma 5? I kept 
using Oxygen Icons in Plasma 5. But more and more icons are not updated, so 
I get wrong icons or placeholders, so I bit the bullet and switched to 
breeze. :-/
On second thought, I think I can answer that myself, because the blurred 
icons give it away. With Plasma 6, the global scaling not only affects fonts 
but also the entire UI. I wish this could be disabled, because that is the 
actual reason why I can’t keep on using custom DPI setting any longer. The 
UI just becomes ugly with far too much spacing and those blurry icons.

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

Imagine it’s spring time and no tree plays along.

[-- Attachment #1.2: kate.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 41157 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New monitor, new problem. Everything LARGE O_O

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6778 bytes --]

On Sunday, 21 July 2024 16:20:54 BST Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Oopsie, I found this mail in my drafts folder just now, where it’s been
> sitting since the ninth. Perhaps I had to pause writing, but now I can’t
> remember anymore. So I’ll just send it off. ;-)
> 
> Am Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 12:02:47AM +0100 schrieb Michael:
> > On Monday, 8 July 2024 21:21:19 BST Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> > > Am Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 06:26:26PM +0100 schrieb Michael:
> > > > Back to the previous topic, I have not yet found a case where changing
> > > > the
> > > > scale by means of the desktop settings, arrives at non-blurred fonts. 
> > > > The
> > > > clearest sharpest fonts are always rendered at the native monitor
> > > > resolution, at a 100% scale setting.  Am I missing a trick, or is this
> > > > to
> > > > be expected?
> > > 
> > > That doesn’t really make sense. Fonts are always rendered natively, no
> > > matter what size. Except if they are really rendered at 100 % and then
> > > the
> > > rendered bitmap is scaled by the GPU or somesuch.
> > > 
> > > Or because their hinting information is limited to a certain size range.
> > > This info gives the renderer special knowledge on how to render the
> > > glyphs.
> > > 
> > > Do you have screenshots?
> > 
> > I attach two screenshots one at 100% and one at 90%.  When viewed on the
> > 1366x768 actual monitor they are worse than what the screenshots have
> > captured.  Perhaps I need to take a photo of the monitor.  Anyway, if you
> > view it on a 1920x1080 monitor you should hopefully see the difference. 
> > The font DPI is 96.
> 
> I can see it. I use 2560×1440, but viewing an image pixel-perfect is not
> dependent on the screen’s resolution per se, but on it being run at its
> native resolution. So that one pixel in the image is actually displayed by
> one pixel on the screen without any scaling-induced blurring.
> 
> I have no real explanation for the fonts. Do they also get blurry at scales
> bigger than 100 %? 

I'll check this when I'm next at that PC.


> The only thing I can say is that I use a font setting of
> slight hinting with no RGB subpixel rendering. The latter means that I don’t
> want the coloured fringes, but prefer greyscale aliasing instead. See my
> screenshot. 96 dpi (100 % scaling), main fonts set to 11 pt.

I can see the slight hinting on your screenshot.  On a same resolution monitor 
(2560×1440), I have:

General font Noto Sans 10pt,
Fixed width Hack 10pt 
RGB sub-pixel rendering
slight hinting,  

mine look (very slightly) less blurred with naked eye.  However, this may have 
to do with the choice of font and of course the monitor panel construction.

Something else which affects font rendering is the selections on fontconfig.  
A lot of mine are unset - not sure what I should/shouldn't have enabled:

~ $ eselect fontconfig list
Available fontconfig .conf files (* is enabled):
  [1]   05-reset-dirs-sample.conf
  [2]   09-autohint-if-no-hinting.conf
  [3]   10-autohint.conf
  [4]   10-hinting-full.conf
  [5]   10-hinting-medium.conf
  [6]   10-hinting-none.conf
  [7]   10-hinting-slight.conf *
  [8]   10-no-antialias.conf
  [9]   10-scale-bitmap-fonts.conf *
  [10]  10-sub-pixel-bgr.conf
  [11]  10-sub-pixel-none.conf *
  [12]  10-sub-pixel-rgb.conf
  [13]  10-sub-pixel-vbgr.conf
  [14]  10-sub-pixel-vrgb.conf
  [15]  10-unhinted.conf
  [16]  10-yes-antialias.conf *
  [17]  11-lcdfilter-default.conf *
  [18]  11-lcdfilter-legacy.conf *
  [19]  11-lcdfilter-light.conf *
  [20]  11-lcdfilter-none.conf
  [21]  20-unhint-small-dejavu-sans.conf *
  [22]  20-unhint-small-dejavu-sans-mono.conf *
  [23]  20-unhint-small-dejavu-serif.conf *
  [24]  20-unhint-small-vera.conf *
  [25]  25-unhint-nonlatin.conf
  [26]  30-metric-aliases.conf *
  [27]  35-lang-normalize.conf
  [28]  40-nonlatin.conf *
  [29]  45-generic.conf *
  [30]  45-latin.conf *
  [31]  48-spacing.conf *
  [32]  49-sansserif.conf *
  [33]  50-user.conf *
  [34]  51-local.conf *
  [35]  57-dejavu-sans.conf *
  [36]  57-dejavu-sans-mono.conf *
  [37]  57-dejavu-serif.conf *
  [38]  60-generic.conf *
  [39]  60-latin.conf *
  [40]  60-liberation.conf *
  [41]  61-urw-bookman.conf *
  [42]  61-urw-c059.conf *
  [43]  61-urw-d050000l.conf *
  [44]  61-urw-fallback-backwards.conf *
  [45]  61-urw-fallback-generics.conf *
  [46]  61-urw-fallback-specifics.conf *
  [47]  61-urw-gothic.conf *
  [48]  61-urw-nimbus-mono-ps.conf *
  [49]  61-urw-nimbus-roman.conf *
  [50]  61-urw-nimbus-sans.conf *
  [51]  61-urw-p052.conf *
  [52]  61-urw-standard-symbols-ps.conf *
  [53]  61-urw-z003.conf *
  [54]  65-fonts-persian.conf *
  [55]  65-khmer.conf
  [56]  65-nonlatin.conf
  [57]  66-noto-mono.conf *
  [58]  66-noto-sans.conf *
  [59]  66-noto-serif.conf *
  [60]  69-unifont.conf *
  [61]  70-no-bitmaps.conf
  [62]  70-yes-bitmaps.conf
  [63]  75-noto-emoji-fallback.conf *
  [64]  80-delicious.conf *
  [65]  90-synthetic.conf *


> I used to use full hinting in my early (KDE 3) days, which gives me sharp
> 1-pixel-lines, because I was used to the crisp look of non-aliased fonts on
> Windows. But for many years now I’ve been using only slight hinting, so the
> font looks more “real-worldy”, natural and not as computer-clean. I think
> that’s something I picked up during the few times I looked at a mac screen
> or screenshot (I’ve never sat at one for a longer time myself).
> 
> 
> PS.: Do you really still use KDE 4 or is it just Oxygen on Plasma 5? I kept
> using Oxygen Icons in Plasma 5. But more and more icons are not updated, so
> I get wrong icons or placeholders, so I bit the bullet and switched to
> breeze. :-/
> On second thought, I think I can answer that myself, because the blurred
> icons give it away. With Plasma 6, the global scaling not only affects fonts
> but also the entire UI. I wish this could be disabled, because that is the
> actual reason why I can’t keep on using custom DPI setting any longer. The
> UI just becomes ugly with far too much spacing and those blurry icons.

I am still on (mostly) stable portage: 

Operating System: Gentoo Linux 2.15
KDE Plasma Version: 5.27.11
KDE Frameworks Version: 5.116.0
Qt Version: 5.15.14
Kernel Version: 6.6.38-gentoo (64-bit)
Graphics Platform: Wayland

with Oxygen selected as Global Theme and Oxygen on all relevant selections 
below that, under Appearance in SystemSettings.  The Oxygen application icons 
look clear on my 2560×1440 desktop with 96x96 DPI.  I'm glad for this because 
I really dislike the Breeze theme and its application icons - too close to the 
MSWindows flat icons theme.  :p

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]