Re: Debian Jessie : regular console instead of a hi-res one!
David Wright composed on 2016-09-08 09:08 (UTC-0500):
On Thu 08 Sep 2016 at 04:36:42 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
Nicolas George composed on 2016-09-08 10:07 (UTC+0200):
>Felix Miata composed:
>>The simplest way is to direct KMS's framebuffer to use a lower resolution
>>than the native hi-res one by including a video= parameter on the kernel
>>cmdline. The lower the resolution, the larger the standard (usually 16x9)
>>framebuffer font becomes. On a 1920x1200 display I typically use
>>video=1440x900@60; on a 1920x1080, 1280x720@60; depending on size of display
>>and actual resolutions it supports. Using video=1920x1080 on a 2560x1440
>>display should produce a font 177% of the physical size of the one used
>>natively.
>It may be ONE OF THE simplest ways, but it a very bad one: screen have a
>native resolution, operating at a different one requires scaling: the
>resulting text will be much less readable than with the better solution of
>using a larger font.
Have you ever tried it? Default framebuffer fonts are quite
adaptable to different resolutions, as they are generally produced
with many more pix than typical GUI fonts. All that extra size
enhances readability, compensating rather nicely for the loss in
apparent resolution.
You can play with framebuffers and kernel drivers all you like.
What you cannot do is alter the layout of pixels on the screen.
Absolutely true.
If you don't use a resolution that matches those pixels exactly,
nothing you do can compensate.
False. The difference from one resolution to the next is easily lost if the
screen resolution is beyond the resolving power of the eyes.
You are deluding yourself if you think you can.
Been doing it for years. One factor is called natural optical deterioration.
There's a limit to resolving power that typically gets worse with age. It's a
primary reason why complaints are ever made about tiny fonts accompanying
increased pixel density.
Another factor has to do with screen size and distance, not necessarily
caused by deterioration, but because of eyes never that good to begin with,
and corrective lenses that do a better job at particular focal lengths. Too
close and pixels can become apparent and bothersome. More distance can work
better.
IOW:
1-Don't knock it if you haven't tried it. By this I don't mean tried only on
Debian installations either. The default framebuffer font of Debian and its
derivatives is very commonly different from non-Debian distros, represented
by the spindly ugly thing used by Ubuntu. Without Plymouth, one can typically
see the initial font during post is much bolder, changing somewhere along the
way to the desktop or login prompt to a much lighter stroked variety. If all
you've ever seen is the lightweight, try a (Debian) Knoppix CD or DVD and
you'll see what Fedora and openSUSE users see by default (TerminusBold?) on
their framebuffers, a font that's nicely bold and forgiving of non-optimal
screen resolution.
2-Don't expect just because you decide it's not for you that it can't be for
anyone else.
3-Lowered resolution for the framebuffers does not necessarily dictate
resolution for Xorg. For the past couple of years or so, if using the Intel
Xorg driver, Xorg will default to the cmdline video= directive, in contrast
to nouveau and radeon sticking to native by default, but this can be overcome
via xrandr or xorg.con* or the DE. I normally configure them differently,
native for Xorg, reduced for framebuffer.
4-I'm not suggesting font reconfiguration can't be appropriate, only that
there may be an easier way that is quite suitable, particularly for a machine
that is shared among people with diverse visual acuity.
--
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
Reply to: