this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024

322 points (81.9% liked)

linuxmemes

21607 readers

360 users here now

Hint: :q!

Sister communities:

Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html

2. Be civil

Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.

Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.

Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.

Bigotry will not be tolerated.

These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.

3. Post Linux-related content

Including Unix and BSD.

Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.

No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.

4. No recent reposts

Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't fork-bomb your computer.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

322

Framework 2880 x 1920 (new) display review (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

96 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Wuuttup. I'm here complaining again about Framework's Linux unfriendly display. The new one this time.

https://frame.work/products/display-kit?v=FRANJF0001

Old display, 2256 x 1504 (3:2)

GNOME

100% scale

Nothing looks blurry
Everything is tiny
Unusable

100% scale + large text accessibility

Nothing looks blurry
Most apps scale appropriately
Some apps don’t respect GNOME’s large text setting (Alacritty)

125% scale

Most apps look blurry (Picard, Firefox, Spotify, Alacritty)

200% scale

Everything is way too big
Unusable

Plasma

100% scale

Nothing looks blurry
Everything is tiny
Unusable

125% scale + Apply scaling themselves

Nothing looks blurry
Most apps scale appropriate
Some apps can’t scale themselves and look tiny (Picard)

125% scale + Scaled by system

Most apps look blurry (Picard, Firefox, Spotify, Alacritty)

200% scale

Everything is way too big
Unusable

New display, 2880 x 1920 (3:2)

GNOME

100% scale

Nothing looks blurry
Everything is tiny
Unusable

100% scale + large text accessibility

Nothing looks blurry
Most apps scale appropriately
Some apps don’t respect GNOME’s large text setting (Alacritty)
Everything is tiny

150% scale

Most apps look blurry (Picard, Firefox, Spotify, Alacritty)

200% scale

Everything is way too big
Unusable

Plasma

100% scale

Nothing looks blurry
Everything is tiny
Unusable

150% scale + Apply scaling themselves

Nothing looks blurry
Some apps can’t scale themselves, but look a little better here? (Picard)

150% scale + Scaled by system

Most apps look blurry (Picard, Firefox, Spotify, Alacritty)

200% scale

Everything is way too big
Unusable

tl;dr

In the old display, GNOME at 100% + large text was the best compromise. In the new display, Plasma at 150% + Apply scaling themselves is the best compromise.

Interestingly, Picard scaling itself looks super tiny in the old display, but in the new display it looks... better. It's still not correctly scaled like native Wayland apps, but it's better.

Warning

If you can't stomach moving from GNOME to Plasma, then 🚨 DO NOT BUY THE NEW DISPLAY 🚨. The new display is worse for GNOME.

Once again

I am once again begging Framework to just give us a damn regular DPI display that works! Without workarounds. Without forcing users on specific DEs. Without forcing users to stop using their favorite apps. This new display has basically all of the flaws as the previous one.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

sober (RoL support) has scaling issues for me too

[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 months ago

You want hardware manufacturers to provide shitty screens in perpetuity just so Linux devs can avoid implementing proper scaling? Yeah, no.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

GNOME sucks, both in their community engagement culture, and actual look. I've never liked their culture, but they used to have a superior desktop IMO.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I like GNOME. I make it look good and provide a great workflow.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

My exposure to Linux is pretty minimal, especially Linux with a GUI, so forgive my ignorance. Even reading over this thread I'm confused as to the issue here.

I don't need an ELI5, but maybe someone can explain it like I don't know what Wayland is?

My understanding is that an app should ask the system to display an object at X size, let's say text at size 14. The system then works out that at the currently selected display resolution, size 14 will be Y pixels big. If needed, the system can scale that based on user preferences- a small, high DPI screen could render size 14 at only a couple of millimetres, for example.

Is the problem that devs are building things in a way that bypasses scaling? For example, hardcoding size 14 text to be Z pixels high?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

One of the issues at hand is that X11, the predecessor of Wayland, does not have a standardized way to tell applications what scale they should use. Applications on X11 get the scale from environment variables (completely bypassing X11), or from Xft.dpi, or by providing in-application settings, or they guess it using some unorthodox means, or simply don't scale at all. It's a huge mess overall.

It is one of the more-or-less fundamentally unfixable parts of the protocol, since it wants everything to be on the same coordinate space (i.e. 1 pixel is 1 pixel everywhere, which is... quite unsuitable for modern systems.)

Wayland does operate like how you say it and applications supporting Wayland will work properly in HiDPI environments.

However a lot of people and applications are still on X11 due to various reasons.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

That is basically the problem. Also that fractional scaling on Linhx generally still gives blurry results. Fractional scaling without explicit support from the apps side is very difficult to implement.

And yes, there are a ton of of apps that don't correctly respect OS hints for size. Even more common among apps that aren't Linux first, or are proprietary.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

XFCE

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

Honestly I might be dumb, but I don't understand why I can't scale any app individually to custom fractions. Why don't DEs add this as a feature?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago

I really hope that all Linux desktop software gets scaling support soon. Can't live with only integer scaling increments

[+] [email protected] -9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Try changing display resolution instead of scaling. Scaling was always a hack.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Scaling is the future, too low set resolution was always the hack…

[+] [email protected] -17 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

No, the problem is, built-in displays have too high resolution for their usecase (because vendors can demand more cash for it). Things don't get less sharp if you scale that (via resolution) to comfortale size, your angular resolution doesn't get better just with that. You don't lose pixels you can't see.
The hack is the solution that sometimes works and sometimes not, which is the case with software scaling.

And your "future" is at least five years ago.

edit: "too low set resolution", what are you talking about? It's too high originally, heating your notebook and lowering battery live for nothing.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

🤣🤣WTF are you talking

Setting scale down makes everything looks shit! Are you blind?! The pixels are fucking gigantic if you do this. I go through up if I have to use lowDPI screens, evry usecase demands at least 2k or better 3kfor me (at 14”). Speaking desktop 32” 4k it is.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Usecase matters for pixel density. You have the phone close to your face, 400 dpi are just enough here. Notebook, more far away, is about 300 dpi ideal. Desktop, about 200 dpi. This is why a TV, usually 3m+ away, has about 65" in 4k. But if you sit 1m before your TV, you see big pixels.

Now, for notebook, usual size of 13" to 17", resolution between 1280x and 2560x is good. You see no pixels, no battery draining and fan noise, and no issues with some tool not/weird scaling.

Ah you know what, please read here.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

1280 is nearly "2k" being typically 1440, and yea that’s "good" but I still see some pixel framing, to be "great” it need to be at least more than 2500 for me

[–] [email protected] 22 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Weird... My experience with the old display is quite different

Plasma

100% Scale

Nothing looks blurry
Everything a perfect size
Wonderful

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I guess you are working closer to the screen, but I feel you, I use 100% on 2000:3000 surface book 3 screen as well as 100% on 4k 32” and I love it 😂 but I think I am the only one in our office…

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I bought 1440p instead of 4k last year on purpose because I didn't want to have to deal with scaling. Plus it was cheaper and I need less power to run games on it lol

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

For gaming, 1440 is often better than 4k because the refresh rate is generally higher with lower resolution at the same price point. I don’t even know if a 4k 240Hz screen already is payable 😂🤑

load more comments