Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Displays Operating Systems Linux

Linux Is the Only OS To Support Diagonal PC Monitor Mode (tomshardware.com) 170

Melbourne-based developer xssfox has championed a unique "diagonal mode" for monitors by utilizing Linux's xrandr (x resize and rotate) tool, finding a 22-degree tilt to the left to be the ideal angle for software development on her 32:9 aspect ratio monitor. As Tom's Hardware notes, Linux is the "only OS to support a diagonal monitor mode, which you can customize to any tilt of your liking." It begs the question, could 2024 be the year of the Linux diagonal desktop? From the report: Xssfox devised a consistent method to appraise various screen rotations, working through the staid old landscape and portrait modes, before deploying xrandr to test rotations like the slightly skewed 1 degree and an indecisive 45 degrees. These produced mixed results of questionable benefits, so the search for the Goldilocks solution continued. It turns out that a 22-degree tilt to the left was the sweet spot for xssfox. This rotation delivered the best working screen space on what looks like a 32:9 aspect ratio monitor from Dell. "So this here, I think, is the best monitor orientation for software development," the developer commented. "It provides the longest line lengths and no longer need to worry about that pesky 80-column limit."

If you have a monitor with the same aspect ratio, the 22-degree angle might work well for you, too. However, people with other non-conventional monitor rotation needs can use xssfox's javascript calculator to generate the xrandr command for given inputs. People who own the almost perfectly square LG DualUp 28MQ780 might be tempted to try 'diamond mode,' for example. We note that Windows users with AMD and Nvidia drivers are currently shackled to applying screen rotations using 90-degree steps. MacOS users apparently face the same restrictions.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Is the Only OS To Support Diagonal PC Monitor Mode

Comments Filter:
  • checking calendar (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bloodhawk ( 813939 ) on Friday December 29, 2023 @05:11AM (#64114111)
    Bit early for April fools isn't it? I guess with easter items hitting stores already someone had to jump in.
    • by ls671 ( 1122017 ) on Friday December 29, 2023 @05:32AM (#64114129) Homepage

      No it's true! Many users like to set up their monitor in an unusual way with xrandr! Myself, I rotate all my displays by 180 degrees so the power and control buttons are on top! It makes me much more productive that way.

    • The original article is over two years old, so maybe it's a very late April fools? Not sure how that works...
    • Could be useful on a ship in heavy seas - keep the displayed text horizontal as the ship rolls. Just need a /dev/plumbline or something.

      • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Could be useful on a ship in heavy seas - keep the displayed text horizontal as the ship rolls. Just need a /dev/plumbline or something.

        Back when Macbook Pros had spinning rust drives, they were equipped with the "sudden motion sensor" which would monitor accelerations in an effort to protect the drive by detecting when the unit might be in freefall or parking the heads so they don't crash.

        Someone managed to hack their sensor to get data so they could keep a window level despite how you tilted the laptop. O

    • This is some of the dumbest shit I have seen on /. and I have been around since the beginning.

  • by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Friday December 29, 2023 @05:13AM (#64114113)

    After looking at the image in the tweet, it seems like an odd curiosity, but I don't really get the use case for it... but the electronics gear under the monitor does help their nerd cred. Mine are Rigol...

  • by XaXXon ( 202882 ) <<xaxxon> <at> <gmail.com>> on Friday December 29, 2023 @05:18AM (#64114117) Homepage

    You mean "raises the question"

    Begs the question is when you assume something true without showing that it is in order to come to a conclusion based on that assumption.

    • by ElimGarak000 ( 9327375 ) on Friday December 29, 2023 @05:44AM (#64114137)

      You mean "raises the question"

      Begs the question is when you assume something true without showing that it is in order to come to a conclusion based on that assumption.

      Personally, I have thrown in the towel on this one, and consider the phase to have officially evolved. I'm generally a rigid traditionalist when it comes to language, and resist most evolutionary changes (One exception would be "y'all"; English needs a second-person plural.), but let's face it: the "incorrect" use of the phrase is commonly assumed to be correct because it simply makes more sense. Some old turns of phrase just don't age well, and using the verb "beg" to mean "disingenuously presuppose without evidence" is a little obtuse in today's usage, don'tcha think?

      I have not yet, however, given up on "whom," and I will absolutely die on the hill that "instantaneously" does not mean "instantly," no matter what contemporary dictionaries have conceded.

      • English has always had a second person plural. It is 'you'.

        English also has a second person singular which is 'thou'. Try using that when appropriate.

      • by fyngyrz ( 762201 )

        Personally, I have thrown in the towel on this one, and consider the phase to have officially evolved.

        Unofficially devolved, more like.

        Recently I saw a summary for a Roman gladiator movie on Amazon's streaming service that stated the legion had been "decimated" (and yes, they were trying to say it had been mostly destroyed.) A Roman legion. For fucks sake, lol.

        • You mean they should have used "Ximated"?

        • by rossdee ( 243626 )

          In the time of ancient Rome, decimated was a punishment where every tenth soldier was killed. I think the soldiers of that unit had to do the killing of their own troops.

          The 'nearly wiped out in a battle" (with the implication that 9 out of 10 soldiers were casualties) is a more modern interpretation.

      • by 0xG ( 712423 )

        OK do you have a cake then eat it?
        That's my 'hill'...

      • I have not yet, however, given up on "whom," and I will absolutely die on the hill that "instantaneously" does not mean "instantly," no matter what contemporary dictionaries have conceded.

        When you answer the phone, and the person asks for you, how do you reply? Do you reply with the grammatically correct: "This is he"?

    • "Begs the question" is a contraction from "beggars the question" to make a question worthless. Which begs the question, what if the writer really meant what "begs" as in "asks for", and not "beggars"?
      • by pjt33 ( 739471 )

        Incorrect: the technical sense which some people insist to be the one true meaning isn't a contraction from another English phrase but a bad translation from Latin of a bad translation from Greek which should instead be translated literally as "postulating the original point" or idiomatically as "assuming the conclusion".

    • Actually it is exactly what "begs the question" means. There is no English czar (despite Slashdotters thinking they were appointed as one). No standard workbook that defines all meaning. English as a language evolves over time meaning the "common" use of English phrases ultimately become the "correct" use of English.

      It is after all nothing more than a medium used to convey meaning. And let's face it, you knew the old historical use case for "begs the question", but did that suddenly make you confused or una

      • It is after all nothing more than a medium used to convey meaning.

        Agreed

        you knew the old historical use case for "begs the question"

        Not the person you replied to, but I don't/didn't, it reads like you want to plead to a question to make it do something, which is pretty nonsensical. Even with people who think they know what "begs the question" means there seems to be debate about it in this thread.

        There may be no English czar, but we should try to gravitate towards the greater ability to convey meaning. Etymology and knowing roots/history etc helps with this usually, but not with idioms, which this usage seems to come under.

        • Many idioms are nonsensical. I mean how can a dead person kick a bucket? They are dead. A lot of meaning is established from common understanding, and that's the key there: "Common" It doesn't need to make sense as long as it is common.

          The only one I can't get behind is when the incorrect adaptation of an idiom reverses its actual meaning, i.e. "I could care less". No you couldn't, the correct phrase is
          "I couldn't care less" and in this case reading the incorrect words literally is not nonsense, but activel

        • It is making a statement that is actually the answer to a question that has no relevance to the current discussion, and was not even asked to begin with.
      • by dfghjk ( 711126 )

        If language is to "convey meaning", then some mutual understanding of meaning must pre-exist, language has mutual understanding built into it in order to function. You cannot simply declare, case by case, what previous meaning applies as it suits you. You are literally the one destroying the language when you do. ...and if all we care about is "conveying meaning", then why ignore the elephant in the room? To use a phrase you don't understand is to project sophistication that you don't possess. Is that w

        • If language is to "convey meaning", then some mutual understanding of meaning must pre-exist

          No it doesn't, understanding evolves and spreads into common usage. If it didn't, language wouldn't exist at all. This is why some of the lesser educated youth of America have no problem understanding what someone means when they say "I could care less", even when they mean "I couldn't care less".

          You cannot simply declare, case by case, what previous meaning applies as it suits you.

          I didn't. The english speaking world came together and agreed it. Which is why "begs the question" is commonly used in the way it is in TFS. You can either jump on board the bandwagon or be forever remembered as th

      • was not a native speaker of English who developed new words out of stock phrases of strung-together-words.

        One of them is that she would say "Francis" when she meant "for instance."

        Another was "funnymcgee." The origin of that one was, of course, the radio program Fibber McGee and Molly. Molly's stock line critizing Fibber was, "That's not funny, McGee!" I believe the time Mom came to the U.S. was well after the heyday of that radio program, but "That's not funny, McGee!" was solidly part of the 50's

    • This is a trigger that halts my reading of text for a moment as well, but my reason for stopping reading books by even well-established authors is the use of get, got, gotten instead of the correct terms. I'm always automatically substituting or rewriting sentences in my head while reading, and I wonder why editors (the people checking text, not software) don't flag those instances.

      I get the feeling like everyone can only get across or get down words by getting forms of get because they get confused at offi

    • You mean "raises the question"

      Begs the question is when you assume something true without showing that it is in order to come to a conclusion based on that assumption.

      Jesus, just stop already. That rendition of "begs the question" comes from a...ahem...questionable 16th century translation of Aristotle's use of the phrase 'petitio principii', which is far better translated as that which "assumes a conclusion". The original translation was a tortuous use of the plain meaning of the words, even in the 16th century.

      The phrase is today used far more often in the form of "raises the question", or, more specifically, really is now taken to mean "to a reasonable person it sho

  • Isn't there enough screen orientation controversy already between the logical horizontal users and the irrational vertical users ? there is no need for add more choices and more petty bickering over which is best.
    • by znrt ( 2424692 )

      there is no controversy whatsoever, just a mannerism fight and in this particular instance just someone desperately seeking attention by being weird.

      this is not like traditional flames like vi/emacs or atari/amiga where under all the nonsense and jokes some actual interesting points could be made.

      just ignore this one, or relax and watch the kids fight it out, shake your head, have a laugh.

    • Vertical isn't as irrational as you think. With an UHD monitor in vertical 2160x3840, the effective width is still greater than the old effective width of a normal monitor say 1920x1080. So you don't lose anything from an older monitor landscape configuration. The vast majority of the work I do (e-mail, most websites (and particularly financial stock websites where I utilize graphing) aren't particularly wide. Many websites even throw away most of the available horizontal with wide bands of white on either

      • by leptons ( 891340 )
        I use three 4k 32" screens in portrait, and I love it. I use Displayfusion to split up the screens into virtual screen zones. The setup is pretty awesome, but I'm waiting for a curved 8k screen. I hope I'm alive to see that be produced.
  • It has finally come! the missing feature! Now i can have triangular toolbars in my word processor!

  • by Askmum ( 1038780 ) on Friday December 29, 2023 @06:09AM (#64114165)

    This rotation delivered the best working screen space on what looks like a 32:9 aspect ratio monitor [...] no longer need to worry about that pesky 80-column limit."

    If a 32:9 aspact ratio monitor (which is probably not a 17" with VGA resolution) gives you worries about an 80-column limit, then I think you need to look somewhere else to solve your problems then tilting your monitor.

    • This rotation delivered the best working screen space on what looks like a 32:9 aspect ratio monitor [...] no longer need to worry about that pesky 80-column limit."

      If a 32:9 aspact ratio monitor (which is probably not a 17" with VGA resolution) gives you worries about an 80-column limit, then I think you need to look somewhere else to solve your problems then tilting your monitor.

      The problem with a 32:9 monitor isn't the 80-column limit, it's that you can only fit a handful of lines on the screen -- unless you rotate it 90 degrees to portrait mode, and then you have a problem with the 80-column limit. The 22 degree rotation is clearly intended to provide more lines than in landscape mode, while still providing plenty of columns.

      I think a better solution is not to buy 32:9 aspect ratio monitors. 4:3 is and always will be the ideal, IMO, but 16:10 or 16:9 are okay.

      • by Askmum ( 1038780 )
        Well, if you want to get that serious about it. The only 32:9 monitor that I can find that Dell sells over here is a 49" 5120x1440 monitor and if you can't do 500x80 on that you need your eyes checked. So I remain at my original position, I think you need to look somewhere else to solve your problems then tilting your monitor. And buying a 4:3 monitor will not be it.
  • by illogicalpremise ( 1720634 ) on Friday December 29, 2023 @06:15AM (#64114177)

    It's bad enough this is an article which links to an article which links to a tweet - but even the source is pointless drivel. Thanks for wasting 5 minutes of my time.

    Since the 90's the linux desktop has supported tricks like compositing windows on a 3D cube. That is way cooler than this garbage and you don't end up with most of your window controls cut off.

    • The cube is the coolest gimmick but I gave up on multiple desktops because when new windows pop up they could pop up anywhere.

      When someone successfully solves that, virtual desktops will be much more useful.

      • by Zarhan ( 415465 )

        The cube is the coolest gimmick but I gave up on multiple desktops because when new windows pop up they could pop up anywhere.

        When someone successfully solves that, virtual desktops will be much more useful.

        Umm, that's pretty much up to your window manager. I've been using KDE/Plasma since, well, 3.x days, and "Window rules" have been available at least since then. It's really easy to set up. For me, Firefox always starts on desktop 2, Dolphin browser on desktop 5, some default SSH Konsole sessions on deskt

  • In the file picker (Gnome tried to fix it but it requires per-generating thumbnails in the file manager first), and drag and drop still doesn't work right in Linux either. I tried to use the mpv video player in Linux yet files wouldn't drop into it. Open source software is basically Wikipedia, yet with version control systems like git instead of wiki code, and suffers from the same systemic biases that wiki does, where only the "fun" code gets done, while the rest of us have to pay up to proprietary softwar
  • Having to rotate your screen 22 degree to actually see your code without linebreaks
  • Nice one. I like this sort of FOSS foolery.

  • by bb_matt ( 5705262 ) on Friday December 29, 2023 @07:05AM (#64114257)
    • "First off, I could only get this to work in xorg - no wayland support yet. xrandr --output HDMI-3 --transform lots of numbers here takes a transformation matrix thats used to position the screen. We can use that to rotate the display."

  • Wasted space (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Friday December 29, 2023 @07:27AM (#64114289) Homepage

    So they can have a few really long code lines - in the middle of the screen. Meanwhile, there are all sorts of useless triangles, lots of wasted space.

    It's a curiosity, an attention grabber, but not particularly useful.

    • It's only at the top of the routine, though. You will need to start programming in triangular-shaped routines.
    • What it really means is that when round monitors come out, you can rotate your round monitor any way you like. Windows and Mac won't be able to! ;)

    • by leptons ( 891340 )
      This diagonal orientation has to be the dumbest computing related thing I've seen all year, and that includes all the crypto/NFC nonsense.
  • I am using a 40" 1080p Sony Bravia TV as a monitor, because I do mostly gaming on my PC and I am cheap, and it was $50. It works fairly well, but I can count pixels. I wonder how text would look if I rotated to another angle, as it looks pretty terrible now... are there angles where it would be smoother? Conversely, would using another angle confuse the font renderer?

  • by pitch2cv ( 1473939 ) on Friday December 29, 2023 @07:50AM (#64114307)

    In 2021 I saw https://sprocketfox.io/xssfox/... [sprocketfox.io] looking to explore the Ideal monitor rotation for programmers.

    Not sure why TomsHardware comes up with this old post now, or why anyone cares. Apart from that it's fun to be on Linux.

  • you have an ultrawide screen already, why make it useless for most of the other content just to have a single line being as long as possible? just think of all of the scrolling for that single line to always be in the optimal spot...
  • first Poster got it right
    but... remember Compiz?
    You could shrink /grow and zoom/rotate windows.... Cool looking but it was useless/ unusable.

    best use case was just to see the look on some slack jawed Apple dummy 's face.
    • remember Compiz? You could shrink /grow and zoom/rotate windows.... Cool looking but it was useless/ unusable.

      What? It was neither of those things. Some applications are just too big or too small. Being able to scale windows was very helpful.

  • I'm no expert on fonts, but I do know that there are plenty of fonts that have been crafted specifically to look nice on the screen: laid out as bitmaps on a horizontal/vertical grid. Various anti-aliasing techniques probably also have built-in assumptions that neighboring pixels are directly left-right-above-below, particularly when you start addressing with RGB subpixels. This blows that all to hell. Maybe with a sufficiently dense array it wouldn't matter, but I'd expect problems even with a 1600x1200
    • by Dwedit ( 232252 )

      Even the "display scaling" feature of Windows throws out all those assumptions, but that is still widely used to make 4K displays pretend to be 1080p displays, or make 1080p displays pretend to be 720p displays.

    • Most LCD screens show three vertical stripes in R, G and B which combine to black. So you can move black pixels by a third of a pixel to the left or right. Only works with horizontal or upside down screen.
  • As a Mac user i am so saddened that i can rotate my monitors by 90 degrees only.

    Although i remember an aquarium screen saver for my MacBook that rotated as you rotated the MacBook with the water moving accordingly:-)
  • You would need to have a gyroscope and a display that responds instantly for this to work, but I'd love to have a laptop that adjusts for level while traveling. I can't use a laptop on a train or in a car because I get motion sickness very easily. A screen that compensates for small movements might even prevent motion sickness.
  • ... Wayland.

  • With this kind of innovation, surely 2024 will be THE YEAR!

  • First, 32:9 is pretty niche - generally people only get such boutique monitors for a SPECIFIC purpose, not get the monitor and "then wonder how I'm going to use it"?

    Second, I tend to belong to the 'curved screens are just another gimmick' school, recognizing that
    - 'peripheral vision immersion' might be a thing in games, not so much in coding.
    - is having to scan 28"/45 degrees to the right down a single line of code REALLY going to be that much quicker/more productive than parsing wrapped (80 column) code li

    • It has nothing to do with peripheral vision.

      I used to have a three-monitor setup for coding, which I replaced with a single 38" 32:9 to remove the borders. I bet that if you have three monitors on a desk, you will not have them arranged flat, but each monitor will be pointed to face you (evidence: google image search on multi-monitor setups). The curved ultra-wide does exactly the same thing but seamless. A flat monitor would distort the windows.

      My monitor came with a full color calibration report for the

  • That guy is rotating an already idiotic wide and curved screen. He either has very "special needs" or is just pulling our leg.
  • by xanthos ( 73578 ) <[xanthos] [at] [toke.com]> on Friday December 29, 2023 @10:17AM (#64114631)
    at anything less than 32 degrees
  • That's making the hypotenuse of the given display horizontal.

    Various screen ratios will have different angles.

    I am glad we have nerds who keep experimenting like this.

  • Does it support other monitor shapes than rectangles yet? Hexagon, circles, ellipse, ...? Maybe a girlfriend is a better time investment...
  • So few people are going to use that feature--so many people will carry the bloat of it.

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Working...