Farley Flud <fflud@gnu.rocks> wrote at 16:18 this Tuesday (GMT):

I needed to check my screen resolution and so I used the
xrandr utility:

#[~] xrandr

Screen 0: minimum 8 x 8, current 2560 x 1440, maximum 32767 x 32767
...

I've never before noticed this "maximum" value of 32767 x 32767.
Does this mean that X Window is actually capable of handling
screen resolutions of that size?

Of course, the video card cannot display that size but, in
principle, if some device could display it then would X be able
to handle it?

If so, the venerable X Window system can blow that garbage
Microslop Winblows clear out of the water.

Well, I think that's just saying that its compiled as a signed 16 bit
int, since that's the largest number that can hold. Checking mine, it
says 16384, which.. I guess means its compiled as a 4 byte integer?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 03 Jan 2025 01:00:04 +0000, candycanearter07 wrote:

Well, I think that's just saying that its compiled as a signed 16 bit
int, since that's the largest number that can hold. Checking mine, it
says 16384, which.. I guess means its compiled as a 4 byte integer?

I found some info (and already lost the sources) that say that the
maximum values are the max resolution value of the GPU.

But I don't think so because the max for my vid card is only 8K
or something like that.




--
Hail Linux! Hail FOSS! Hail Stallman!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 03 Jan 2025 14:22:36 +0000, Farley Flud wrote:

I found some info (and already lost the sources) that say that the
maximum values are the max resolution value of the GPU.

That's the fucking problem.

There's no hard core information available about the "guts"
of GNU/Linux.

By posting a serious question all that one receives in response
is some distro lackey grunting: "Duh, just press the ersatz
button on the GUI 'wizard,' man."

Doesn't any anyone understand the fundamental operations of
GNU/Linux?

Answer: Fuck no. Only very, very few. The rest are distro
lackeys.


--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-01-03 16:40, Joel wrote:

Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jan 2025 14:22:36 +0000, Farley Flud wrote:

I found some info (and already lost the sources) that say that the
maximum values are the max resolution value of the GPU.

That's the fucking problem.

There's no hard core information available about the "guts"
of GNU/Linux.

By posting a serious question all that one receives in response
is some distro lackey grunting: "Duh, just press the ersatz
button on the GUI 'wizard,' man."

Doesn't any anyone understand the fundamental operations of
GNU/Linux?

Answer: Fuck no. Only very, very few. The rest are distro
lackeys.

Is there something *wrong* with wanting a modern GUI experience, under
Linux? Is there something wrong with wanting it to just install and
boot, instead of compiling everything? You're just stupid.

Larry would have us compile every program, but only after looking at the
code and optimizing it wherever necessary. You know, the kinds of things grandma does.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Fedora 41
KDE supporting member

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)