My eyes are no more what they were, however I've always likes the idea to run Linux on a tiny thing (got some Sharp Zaurus) and I've purchased a (second hand) GPD Pocket (I thing I got the idea from a post on this list).
OK, so I've installed my favourite MX-Linux (and TDE) on it. However, the 1200x1920 screen has very tiny pixels and the setup is quite uneasy (with magnifying glass sometime), so before I poke everywhere to try, maybe someone here âlready went through sometiing like that and could suggest settings that work.
I notices that TCC lists the sceen as "Philips PHL 273V7" but Internet search suggests it's a 27" monitor....
I would:
Scaling? Can we do that in TDE? And this machine won't stand KDE (neither would I). xfce did a little better, not much.
Change the screen size? I'd like to try something like 600x960 but nothing such is offered by TCC
Thierry
Anno domini 2026 Wed, 4 Feb 09:29:02 +0100 Thierry de Coulon via tde-users scripsit:
My eyes are no more what they were, however I've always likes the idea to run Linux on a tiny thing (got some Sharp Zaurus) and I've purchased a (second hand) GPD Pocket (I thing I got the idea from a post on this list).
OK, so I've installed my favourite MX-Linux (and TDE) on it. However, the 1200x1920 screen has very tiny pixels and the setup is quite uneasy (with magnifying glass sometime), so before I poke everywhere to try, maybe someone here âlready went through sometiing like that and could suggest settings that work.
I notices that TCC lists the sceen as "Philips PHL 273V7" but Internet search suggests it's a 27" monitor....
I would:
Scaling? Can we do that in TDE? And this machine won't stand KDE (neither would I). xfce did a little better, not much.
Change the screen size? I'd like to try something like 600x960 but nothing such is offered by TCC
That is the bastes option, you might use "tderandrtray" or plain xrandr dor this.
Other option: set the DPI value to e.g. 200 in ~/.Xresources: Xft.dpi:200 ... or in .xsession: echo "Xft.dpi: 200"|xrdb -merge
For GTK apps use lxappereance to set that value.
Then there are some environment variables that might come in handy: QT_FONT_DPI=150 QT_SCALE_FACTOR=1.5
There were used to be environemt varables for managing the GTK/GDK scaling, but they stopped working with GTK3.
Nik
Thierry
tde-users mailing list -- users@trinitydesktop.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@trinitydesktop.org Web mail archive available at https://mail.trinitydesktop.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/users@trinitydeskto...
Dr. Nikolaus Klepp composed on 2026-02-04 10:47 (UTC+0100):
2026 Wed, 4 Feb 09:29:02 +0100
Thierry de Coulon scripsit:
My eyes are no more what they were, however I've always likes the idea to run Linux on a tiny thing (got some Sharp Zaurus) and I've purchased a (second hand) GPD Pocket (I thing I got the idea from a post on this list).
OK, so I've installed my favourite MX-Linux (and TDE) on it. However, the 1200x1920 screen has very tiny pixels and the setup is quite uneasy (with magnifying glass sometime), so before I poke everywhere to try, maybe someone here âlready went through sometiing like that and could suggest settings that work.
I notices that TCC lists the sceen as "Philips PHL 273V7" but Internet search suggests it's a 27" monitor....
I would:
Scaling? Can we do that in TDE? And this machine won't stand KDE (neither would I). xfce did a little better, not much.
Change the screen size? I'd like to try something like 600x960 but nothing such is offered by TCC
Anything less than 1024x768 is capable of producing some pretty awful looking fonts.
That is the bastes option, you might use "tderandrtray" or plain xrandr dor this.
Other option: set the DPI value to e.g. 200 in ~/.Xresources: Xft.dpi:200
Depending on distro, Xresources in /etc/X11/ somewhere should also work.
... or in .xsession: echo "Xft.dpi: 200"|xrdb -merge
Fonts tend to scale best from size to size when DPI is set to a multiple of 24, or at least, 12, so 192 or 168 or 216 or 204 may be better selections.
For GTK apps use lxappereance to set that value.
Then there are some environment variables that might come in handy: QT_FONT_DPI=150 QT_SCALE_FACTOR=1.5
1.5 is actually equal to 144, not 150, as 96 is the 100% level foundation created by Windows95 on which fonts have since been based. 150 isn't evenly divisible by 12 or 24. It is by 6, which isn't as good for fonts.
Not all apps one might wish to use pay any attention to Xft.dpi or any envars, but do to X's own DPI, which can be set via DisplaySize in /etc/X11/xorg.con*, or using xrandr or any of the tools that employ xrandr, such as arandr. Simply xrandr will report available supported modes, then xrandr can be used to employ one's choice. On a 1920x1200 screen, likely available modes best supported due to same aspect ratio should include 1680x1050 and 1280x800. Arandr will build an xrandr script that can be used on session start, as xrandr changes don't impact whatever is already running when it's employed. Or one can build such script manually.
On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 05:52 (-0500), Felix Miata via tde-users wrote:
Dr. Nikolaus Klepp composed on 2026-02-04 10:47 (UTC+0100):
2026 Wed, 4 Feb 09:29:02 +0100
Thierry de Coulon scripsit:
<snip>
Anything less than 1024x768 is capable of producing some pretty awful looking fonts.
That is the bastes option, you might use "tderandrtray" or plain xrandr dor this.
Other option: set the DPI value to e.g. 200 in ~/.Xresources: Xft.dpi:200
Depending on distro, Xresources in /etc/X11/ somewhere should also work.
... or in .xsession: echo "Xft.dpi: 200"|xrdb -merge
Fonts tend to scale best from size to size when DPI is set to a multiple of 24, or at least, 12, so 192 or 168 or 216 or 204 may be better selections.
Felix,
do you have any authoritative reference for this that you would care to share? I've seen comments like this before, and every time I try to track an authoritative basis for this, I never find anything except unsubstantiated repetition of the same claim. (That is, if it gets repeated often enough it takes on a life of its own.)
I'd love to find out why this 24 (or 12 or whatever) is special.
For GTK apps use lxappereance to set that value.
Then there are some environment variables that might come in handy: QT_FONT_DPI=150 QT_SCALE_FACTOR=1.5
1.5 is actually equal to 144, not 150, as 96 is the 100% level foundation created by Windows95 on which fonts have since been based. 150 isn't evenly divisible by 12 or 24. It is by 6, which isn't as good for fonts.
For various reasons which aren't germane here, I want my fonts (and other things) to appear at (as close as possible to) the correct size on my screen. On my current laptop, that means using xrandr to set my X DPI to 142 and also setting Xft.dpi to 141.7. And although I'm a bit fussy about how text looks on my screen, I don't see anything wrong with my fonts because I have picked a weird size. YMMV.
Not all apps one might wish to use pay any attention to Xft.dpi or any envars, but do to X's own DPI, which can be set via DisplaySize in /etc/X11/xorg.con*, or using xrandr or any of the tools that employ xrandr, such as arandr. Simply xrandr will report available supported modes, then xrandr can be used to employ one's choice. On a 1920x1200 screen, likely available modes best supported due to same aspect ratio should include 1680x1050 and 1280x800. Arandr will build an xrandr script that can be used on session start, as xrandr changes don't impact whatever is already running when it's employed. Or one can build such script manually. -- Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion, based on faith, not based on science.
This is another thing I don't get. I have my various systems set up to use the correct DPI (i.e., the screen's natural resolution), and things Just Work.
I honestly think people spend a lot of effort trying to work around the "big lie" (i.e., setting the X DPI value to 96).
Caveat: I do put GDK_DPI_SCALE=1.2 for some programs that live in the fantasy world where all screens have 96 DPI, but most of the programs I use are fine when I set the screen DPI to the actual value. And firefox looks a bit better with GDK_DPI_SCALE=0.8. (I ask not why.)
Cheers. Jim
Jim composed on 2026-02-04 10:42 (UTC-0400):
On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 05:52 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote:
Fonts tend to scale best from size to size when DPI is set to a multiple of 24, or at least, 12, so 192 or 168 or 216 or 204 may be better selections.
Felix,
do you have any authoritative reference for this that you would care to share? I've seen comments like this before, and every time I try to track an authoritative basis for this, I never find anything except unsubstantiated repetition of the same claim. (That is, if it gets repeated often enough it takes on a life of its own.)
I'd love to find out why this 24 (or 12 or whatever) is special.
Computer fonts at least originally last century, were tuned to 96 DPI, even though few computer displays offered anywhere near that display density. Medium fonts were nominally 12pt, so at 96 DPI, 16px, which website designers found to be enormous, and so they were on those low DPI screens of 1024x768 or worse. 24 and 12 are major harmonics of 96, which translate into more linear size progression than lesser harmonics, or fractional values.
It's related to why 96 as a DPI frame of reference, or baseline, coming from Windows, when Unix used to provide a choice between 75 and 100, and inherited by Linux, as well as the differences between sizing fonts in points, which used to be the only measurement for font size, to sizing on computers in pixels, the bastardization of computerdom responsible for scaling and lack of scaling issues in computer UIs. Were everything sized in ems instead of px, the computer would do the computing instead of the programmers, and scaling would be automatic based upon simply picking a baseline em size. Real points, as opposed to logical points, which no modern web browser any more supports, depend on display density. Pixel to points conversion thus varies by density as well. I did an enormous amount of font testing after creating my website, which no longer exists due to spammers and ISP interference, over two decades ago. It's in the individual font definitions. From one size to the next, best results come from a linear progression. In the smallest sizes, 9-16px, or 6.75-12pt, there simply aren't enough pixels in a glyph box to get a linear progression from one size to the next. A "10px" glyph box only has about 50 dots to work with, barely enough to get a recognizable lower case character that barely uses half the box. As density increases, requiring more px to keep same physical size, increments get more linear, as pixel quantity is a function of squares. By the time DPI increases by about 25% beyond 96, or 120, you take a 12pt/16px font, which is typically an 8px X 16px box, or 128 px, to 12pt/20px box, or 200px. That's 56% more detail going into linearity just going up 25%. So IOW, if you're running a genuine hiDPI display, the importance of multiples of 12 or 24 effectively disappear, so becomes moot for users like OP running upwards of 144 DPI. At 141.7 DPI, I wouldn't have the eyesight required to notice the effect, which on the 90 DPI or less 1024x768 or 1280x1024 CRT screens and neighbors to 10pt/13px fonts of yesteryear was blatant.
On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 10:47 (-0500), Felix Miata via tde-users wrote:
Jim composed on 2026-02-04 10:42 (UTC-0400):
On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 05:52 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote:
Fonts tend to scale best from size to size when DPI is set to a multiple of 24, or at least, 12, so 192 or 168 or 216 or 204 may be better selections.
Felix,
do you have any authoritative reference for this that you would care to share? I've seen comments like this before, and every time I try to track an authoritative basis for this, I never find anything except unsubstantiated repetition of the same claim. (That is, if it gets repeated often enough it takes on a life of its own.)
I'd love to find out why this 24 (or 12 or whatever) is special.
Computer fonts at least originally last century, were tuned to 96 DPI, even though few computer displays offered anywhere near that display density. Medium fonts were nominally 12pt, so at 96 DPI, 16px, which website designers found to be enormous, and so they were on those low DPI screens of 1024x768 or worse.
? The DPI of a 1024x768 screen can be quite high, if the screen is physically small.
24 and 12 are major harmonics of 96, which translate into more linear size progression than lesser harmonics, or fractional values.
I don't follow you there. Would you care to elaborate a bit more?
It's related to why 96 as a DPI frame of reference, or baseline, coming from Windows, when Unix used to provide a choice between 75 and 100, and inherited by Linux, as well as the differences between sizing fonts in points, which used to be the only measurement for font size,
Really? I recall choosing between things like 7x13 and 9x15 fonts a long time ago. (Measured in pixels, not points. For better or worse.)
to sizing on computers in pixels, the bastardization of computerdom responsible for scaling and lack of scaling issues in computer UIs.
Yup, the decision to size things in pixels was (for almost all things) a horrible decision which continues to cause pain so many years later.
Were everything sized in ems instead of px, the computer would do the computing instead of the programmers, and scaling would be automatic based upon simply picking a baseline em size.
And this is one of my points in my previous message... I have been specifying my fonts for various programs in terms of points for a long time now (as opposed to pixels), and that makes sense when the system knows what the actual DPI of the screen is. As opposed to idiotically setting the DPI to 96 and then forcing every program to somehow do an end-run around this lie.
Real points, as opposed to logical points, which no modern web browser any more supports, depend on display density. Pixel to points conversion thus varies by density as well. I did an enormous amount of font testing after creating my website, which no longer exists due to spammers and ISP interference, over two decades ago. It's in the individual font definitions. From one size to the next, best results come from a linear progression. In the smallest sizes, 9-16px, or 6.75-12pt, there simply aren't enough pixels in a glyph box to get a linear progression from one size to the next. A "10px" glyph box only has about 50 dots to work with, barely enough to get a recognizable lower case character that barely uses half the box.
A few years ago when I was looking for a new laptop lots of laptops came with 1024x768 screens. Given that in 2001 (+/-) I bought a 15" laptop with a 1400x1050 screen, it seemed to be that the manufacture and sale of 1024x768 screens was a crime against humanity. If someone had marched all the workers out of the factory that made those screens and blown the factory up, they could have been up for a humanitarian award.
As density increases, requiring more px to keep same physical size, increments get more linear, as pixel quantity is a function of squares. By the time DPI increases by about 25% beyond 96, or 120, you take a 12pt/16px font, which is typically an 8px X 16px box, or 128 px, to 12pt/20px box, or 200px. That's 56% more detail going into linearity just going up 25%. So IOW, if you're running a genuine hiDPI display, the importance of multiples of 12 or 24 effectively disappear, so becomes moot for users like OP running upwards of 144 DPI. At 141.7 DPI, I wouldn't have the eyesight required to notice the effect, which on the 90 DPI or less 1024x768 or 1280x1024 CRT screens and neighbors to 10pt/13px fonts of yesteryear was blatant.
This is all fine. But none of it really explains (to me, anyway) the magic of why the DPI wants to be a multiple of 24 (unless maybe in the case of bitmap fonts). Vector fonts are going to have to be mapped to a rectangular grid of some number of pixels, and I really don't see how this mapping of the glyph curves to the grid is helped when the number of pixels per inch is some multiple of 24. How is an inch special, as opposed to (say) the number of pixels per centimeter being a multiple of 24?
Jim
On Wednesday 04 February 2026 10:47:55 Dr. Nikolaus Klepp via tde-users wrote:
Other option: set the DPI value to e.g. 200 in ~/.Xresources: Xft.dpi:200 For GTK apps use lxappereance to set that value.
THanks, that worked. With the appropriate xrandr -o right in a script in Autostart (this thing uses a Phone screen and defaults to portrait, sideways), coupled with autologin and locked screen, I have a tiny computer that starts with a landscape screen, (barely) readable and still requiring a password at start.
Then there are some environment variables that might come in handy: QT_FONT_DPI=150 QT_SCALE_FACTOR=1.5
Where do you put these lines?
Nik
Anno domini 2026 Wed, 4 Feb 22:28:52 +0100 Thierry de Coulon via tde-users scripsit:
On Wednesday 04 February 2026 10:47:55 Dr. Nikolaus Klepp via tde-users wrote:
Other option: set the DPI value to e.g. 200 in ~/.Xresources: Xft.dpi:200 For GTK apps use lxappereance to set that value.
THanks, that worked. With the appropriate xrandr -o right in a script in Autostart (this thing uses a Phone screen and defaults to portrait, sideways), coupled with autologin and locked screen, I have a tiny computer that starts with a landscape screen, (barely) readable and still requiring a password at start.
Then there are some environment variables that might come in handy: QT_FONT_DPI=150 QT_SCALE_FACTOR=1.5
Where do you put these lines?
I have it in either the starter bash scrips for the respective application or in program-line of the *.desktop file. You can lso put these inside your ~/,xsessionrc like this:
export QT_FONT_DPI=150 export QT_SCALE_FACTOR=1.5
Nik
Nik
tde-users mailing list -- users@trinitydesktop.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@trinitydesktop.org Web mail archive available at https://mail.trinitydesktop.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/users@trinitydeskto...
said Thierry de Coulon via tde-users:
| My eyes are no more what they were, however I've always likes the idea | to run Linux on a tiny thing (got some Sharp Zaurus) and I've purchased | a (second hand) GPD Pocket (I thing I got the idea from a post on this | list).
Probably from me. When I got my GPD Pocket in 2018, I put Linux on it but could never get TDE to run properly there. There was at the time a decent Ubuntu respin that solved the issues you have encountered.
Last fall, I decided to resurrect it, and hit all of the issues you've encountered. You'll find some but not all the solutions on the Reddit GPD group.
| OK, so I've installed my favourite MX-Linux (and TDE) on it. However, | the 1200x1920 screen has very tiny pixels and the setup is quite uneasy | (with magnifying glass sometime), so before I poke everywhere to try, | maybe someone here âlready went through sometiing like that and could | suggest settings that work.
Which GPD are you using? The original, that looks like an Apple notebook that someone left in the dryer?
| I notices that TCC lists the sceen as "Philips PHL 273V7" but Internet | search suggests it's a 27" monitor....
I've not found a way -- there was one in the respin, but I'm running the current Debian on it now -- to make the initial login get bigger. But if you have just one user and know your password you really won't need to be able to read it at all to log in.
| Scaling? Can we do that in TDE? And this machine won't stand KDE | (neither would I). xfce did a little better, not much.
Oddly, I had KDE Plasma running on it okay in its Ubuntu livery. But I found that Enlightenment runs perfectly on it. (Rasterman told me he used to have the GPD, so this might figure in to how easily it is configured with E.) There is a relatively easy screen setting among the Enlightenment settings that lets you set everything's scaling to your liking. The one issue is with the orientation at first -- it's no fun at all trying to land on the buttons you want when the pointer is 90 degrees away from where the pointer control wants to put it. I know people who would smash the thing to the floor before getting there. But it can be done. I approached it as if it were a video game, which was good for anger reduction until I got it working.
| Change the screen size? I'd like to try something like 600x960 but | nothing such is offered by TCC
As I said, I never got TDE to work properly on it, as my anguished posts from 2018 attest. But E will give you good scaling and let you keep the original resolution, which is good if you want to, say, watch a movie on it. And I've found that all the TDE applications work just fine in Enlightenment.
Hope this is of some slight help, at least.
On Wednesday 04 February 2026 23:10:54 dep via tde-users wrote:
Which GPD are you using? The original, that looks like an Apple notebook that someone left in the dryer?
It's called GPD Pocket, with 8GB RAM and 128GB storage and yes it's silver (Aluminium?) like a MacBook, smaller and thicker maybe.
The one issue is with the orientation at first -- it's no fun at all
trying to
land on the buttons you want when the pointer is 90 degrees away from where the pointer control wants to put it.
That's why I used xranr to rotate the screen and used the autologin to get directly to the desktop, with loking replacing the normal login screen.
As I said, I never got TDE to work properly on it
Current TDE runs just fine, but the machine will go to sleep and I can't wake it up without a complete restart (shutdown with the power button). I'll try tweaking the Powersave settings.
I'll give Enlightenment a try.
Anyway, it's rather a toy, but it's funny to play with.
Thierry
-
dep -
Dr. Nikolaus Klepp -
Felix Miata -
Jim -
Thierry de Coulon