On Wednesday, March 27, 2002, at 04:31 AM, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:

> 	If you don't know why it is not a good measurement, then I am not sure
> 	if there is any point in continuing this.
> 	
> What _is_ the point of this ad hominem attack?

This is not an ad hominem attack.  It is a simple matter of fact.

> The physical reality is that the resolution is 96 dpi.

I'd bet with you that if you measured it really carefully, it would turn 
out NOT to be 96 dpi.

> The computational reality is that SQUEAK CAN EASILY FIND THIS OUT.

No it cannot.  All a user has to do is adjust the size controls on their 
monitor for the number to be quite meaningless.  Or hook up a different 
monitor.  For example:  a projection display.  In which case not even 
the *display* has any idea of how big the pixels might be, even if it 
knew about all the internal parameters.

> Many people have complained in the past about the tiny, hard-to-read,
> nature of Squeak's default fonts, which assume 72 dpi.  That's another
> area where Squeak SHOULD take physical dimensions into account, and
> select font sizes appropriately.

A device-independent imaging model would be nice, but that's not what 
Squeak has.  If you want to revamp Squeak's imaging model:  have at it!


> 	> It's quite a precise description.
> 	
> 	No it is not.  Do you want help or do you just want to bitch?
> 	
> Is every request for help to be attacked?

Is every attempt at helping to be attacked?  Because that's what you've 
been doing, primarily.  If I tell you that it is not a precise 
description, then it is not.

> Is every self-defence to be constructed as bitching?

Why are you defending yourself against help?  And yes, if you bitch, it 
will be regarded as bitching.

> 	>   The effect is not sensitive to details.
> 	
> 	Yes it is.  You may not be aware of the fact, but it is.
> 	
> I have tried it repeatedly, and for me, it is NOT sensitive to details.

Well, golly gee whiz, you might consider that this is because the 
details remain constant for you.  That doesn't mean that there isn't any 
sensitivity to details or that the details are not important.

> I think the burden of proof is on someone who says it is sensitive to
> details.

No, the burden is on the one who wants help to provide the one who is 
trying to help with the details that person deems necessary to help.  If 
you don't accept that, then you cannot be helped.
> 	
> 	Once again, 2 inches on a monitor is not a useful description, 
> because a
> 	monitor is not a calibrated device.
>
> It IS a useful description,

No it is not, because it is not reproducible, because I do not have your 
compuer + monitor system in front of me.


>  It simply doesn't matter whether Squeak knows
> what the size is or not.

Yes it does.

>   If you set your screen resolution to 96 dpi,
> then follow the steps I listed, you will end up quite reproducibly with
> the situation I described.

Not necessarily.

> 	Squeak has no way at all of knowing how large (in inches)
> 	something it draws will be on your monitor.  None at all.
> 	
> As I went to some trouble to point out, this isn't even close to true.

As I went to some trouble to point out, this is absolutely true, except 
possibly for some laptops or other devices without some kind of 
video-out signal.

> Squeak may not *ASK*, but the information is *THERE* to be had.

No it is not.  There may be some information, but it is just some values 
somebody entered someplace, not anything that has a definitive 
relationship to the actual dimensions of the pixels you will see.

> (OK, not to micron accuracy, but close enough to be useful.)
> Not that it's relevant here, because the measurement is a measurement
> to be made by a person, not by Squeak.

> Great.  The important thing is that this is a scaling THAT I DID NOT 
> REQUEST.

No, this is not important at all, since you didn't write the code.  The 
ones that wrote the code found the functionality useful as written.  If 
you want different functionality:  CHANGE THE CODE.

> Not in 3.0.1 there isn't.
>
> 	However, printSpecs is actually never written, so it looks like
> 	some functionality was intended here but not completed.
> 	
> Ah.  So I'm not the only one to want this feature, and I'm not the only
> one to spend half a day getting lost trying to plug it in.

Well, obviously someone didn't want the functionality badly enough to 
actually finish coding it up.

> 	> I would point out that my screen SIZE is not at issue, my screen
> 	> RESOLUTION is.
> 	
> 	Yup.  And Squeak has no way of knowing your screen resolution.
>
> It can do a lot better than it does do.

(a) Not really.

> 	EXACTLY.  It seems you DO understand why "screen inches" is not a 
> useful
> 	measurement.
> 	
> Not at all.  Screen inches is not only a useful measurement, it is the
> MOST useful measurement in this context.

Once again, screen-inches is not useful at all.

>  Because that's what I care about.

Well, good for you, but not at all helpful.

> Pixels are only a means to an end.  I have no way of counting pixels for
> myself, but I _can_ put a ruler up against the screen.

I would like to see you put that argument forth with anyone working in 
the graphic arts.

> 	> The X11 system has, since its introduction, made it easy for any
> 	> application
> 	> that cares to discover the actual resolution of a display.
> 	
> 	This is also just a guess, since there is no feedback channel back 
> from
> 	the screen to the computer.
> 	
> (a) Are you really sure about that?

Yes, certainly with standard BNC or VGA type connectors.  Older Macs 
used to have special coding indicating different monitors, but this is 
usually simulated by an adapter.

>     What law of physics says that NO screen can have a feedback channel
>     to ANY computer?

There is no law.  In fact, the newer digital  connectors for LCDs 
probably have one.  Due to the nature of those devices (compared to 
CRTs), it may even be meaningful to send-back such information.

> (b) xdpyinfo seems to come up with the right number.
>     Call it a guess if you like, but it's a *heck* of a lot better than
>     guessing 72 all the time.



> (c) I note that the screen resolution is electronically controllable.

Sure.  But:  set the resolution, unplug the monitor, plug in a 
different-size monitor.  Ta da.

>     Whether there is a feedBACK path or not, there is a feedFORWARD 
> path,
>     and the computer can know what resolution it last told the screen 
> to use.

No.

> 	On the Mac, a pixel is defined to be precisely 1/72 of an inch.  
> If you
> 	have different dpi, you are, technically, out of spec.  and will get
> 	images that are proportionally shrunk.
> 	
> Not true.  Some MacOS components use 1/72" *as their logical unit*.
> The desk accessory that sets the screen resolution is one provided
> by Apple, and it is quite explicit in the Apple Developer web pages
> that users are _intended_ to use that desk accessory and applications
> are _intended_ to respond to it.

Are you aware of a single one that does?

> 	It is also irrelevant, since Squeak does not use a device-independent
> 	imaging model.  Meaning that when you specify dimensions in 
> Squeak, they
> 	are in PIXELS, and will come out whatever the size of pixels are 
> on your
> 	current display device.
> 	
> That's the problem.  Someone may kvetch that the methods I described for
> finding physical resolution are "only guesses", but they are BETTER 
> guesses
> than 72dpi-all-the-time.

> 	This is what I suggested you do.  Why did you have to bitch about it
> 	instead of just doing it?
> 	
> FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE!
>
> He tells me how to do something.
> I *do* it, showing that I paid attention,
> and offer the result for general use,
> and he calls such a response "bitching"!

No.  I asked why you didn't do that in the first place, instead of 
bitching.

> In short, only test pilots are allowed to use Squeak.

Anyone can use Squeeak, but it is made quite clear that this is a 
"test-pilot" sort of system that is constantly changing, where things 
are incomplete and also tend to break after a while.

> Nobody is allowed to ask for help.

Everyone is INVITED to ASK for HELP.  Asking for help entails asking 
questions.  I just checked and the only actual question you asked that I 
can find was:  "EPS files are easy to scale, but PS files?  How?"

Everything else was just complaining and making (mostly untrue) 
statements.



> Look, I am not a Squeak expert.  I don't pretend to be.
> I like Squeak very much.  I tell people how wonderful it is.
> But sometimes I need help, and I really don't appreciate
> being stomped all over when I do that.

You aren't and won't be stomped on when you ASK for help.  It helps when 
you try to be polite, just on a normal level.  It also helps to give the 
information necessary.

For example:

------ snip -------
Marcel Weiher <marcel at metaobject.com> wrote:
	Well, if you have a Postscript printer, Ghostscript or some distiller,
	then you've been able to print Morphs for well over 2 years.
	
Hmm.
Bring up menu, "page setup" gives me an Inspector on some object I don't
know about.  Documentation?  Forget it!  "send contents to printer"
brings up a window (with a scroll bar on the right) saying
     ioFormPrint width: 794 height: 1123 depth: 1 &c &c &c
Not encouraging.
----- snip --------

Now, shoot me, but that doesn't look like asking for help to me.  It 
looks like complaining, and considering the "Forget it!", like bitching.

Marcel

--
Marcel Weiher				Metaobject Software Technologies
marcel at metaobject.com		www.metaobject.com
Metaprogramming for the Graphic Arts.   HOM, IDEAs, MetaAd etc.