Alt text:

Twitter post by Daniel Feldman (@d_feldman): Linux is the only major operating system to support diagonal mode (credit [Twitter] @xssfox). Image shows an untrawide monitor rotated about 45 degrees, with a horizontal IDE window taking up a bottom triangle. A web browser and settings menu above it are organized creating a window shape almost like a stepped pyramid.

Edit: alt text

      • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
        446·
        1 year ago

        That, right there, is a perfect example of why folks need to stop trying to shoehorn web apps everywhere they don’t belong. It’s a use-case for a proper native mobile app if ever there was one.

        • owsei@lemmy.world
          27·
          1 year ago

          even if it’s just mobile

          you already have to handle landscape/portrait mode

          now imagine having to handle angled

          • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
            344·
            1 year ago

            That’s why you should’ve just handled arbitrary rotations instead of inventing a finite predefined set of orientation “modes” in the first place.

            Things get a lot easier in the long run if you aggressively look for commonalities and genericize the code that handles them instead of writing bunches of one-off special cases.

            • owsei@lemmy.world
              10·
              1 year ago

              true

              however

              everything would be fluid in the layout and you would need to set what should go on top of what. And having this feature doesn’t seem worth the hassle of making if work, or even using it.

              Imagine trying to type in a ‘fluid’ keyboard

              TBH tho, seems like a cool gimmick for some apps.

            • rambaroo@lemmy.world
              53·
              1 year ago

              That’s called over-engineering for use cases that don’t and won’t exist. Please lecture us some more though.

        • CanadaPlus@futurology.todayEnglish
          10·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, but I don’t want to have an app on my phone for a store I go to once. I don’t give a fuck if the page is ugly.

          • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
            114·
            1 year ago

            That just means it shouldn’t be a native app or a web app, but instead should be a plain ol’ webpage that doesn’t try to do app-y things in the first place. The notion that web pages have any legitimate reason to know your viewport size (let alone anything at all about the screen hardware itself) is like one of those “statements dreamed up by the utterly deranged” memes, except not satirical.

            Seriously: literally the entire defining principle of HTML (well, aside from the concept of “hyperlinks”) is that the client has the freedom to decide how the page should be rendered, but misguided – or megalomaniacal – graphic designers webmasters front-end web “devs” have been trying to break it ever since.

            • rambaroo@lemmy.world
              51·
              1 year ago

              Lol - in your other comment you suggested that web devs key off of screen rotation to resize the page, but now you’re saying the client shouldn’t know anything about the viewport at all? Which is it? And why would the rotation angle be useful if I don’t know the aspect ratio of the screen? Or are we now assuming that widescreen will be a thing forever? I thought your ingenius idea was to be able to handle any use case.

              • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                1 year ago

                Lol - in your other comment you suggested that web devs key off of screen rotation to resize the page, but now you’re saying the client shouldn’t know anything about the viewport at all? Which is it?

                Legitimate apps key off screen rotation do fancy stuff. Web pages let the browser render them and don’t try to do fancy stuff. It’s not that fucking hard.

                • CanadaPlus@futurology.todayEnglish
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  Follow up question, would it ideally work like the old Java Applets then, where you have to explicitly ask to launch a web app?

            • CanadaPlus@futurology.todayEnglish
              3·
              1 year ago

              or a web app, but instead should be a plain ol’ webpage

              I did not know about that distinction.

              Hmm, so are there actual inadequacies in the browser-rendered standards that lead people to do this? I’d buy that it’s purely webpage sponsors wanting to be an all-powerful decider that controls what everyone sees and possibly thinks, but on the other hand I don’t know enough about browser rendering and page design to be sure. All my webpages are pretty spartan and scream “backend guy”.

              It’d sure be nice if we could go back to circa-2012 with no popups or stupid bloat.

            • CallumWells@lemmy.mlEnglish
              1·
              1 year ago

              I sort of agree with you to a degree, but I also think that the browser having knowledge of the size of your viewport actually has some use. Now, I would probably like it more if all webpages were just made with the restriction of not knowing the viewport size since that would dictate some design choices. Cellphones can just scroll around the page anyways. They should be second class citizens on the internet anyway in my opinion. The smartphone has been one of the worst inventions for the human race with how much it seems to isolate a lot of people more than connecting them.

          • rambaroo@lemmy.world
            31·
            1 year ago

            The thread OP has an axe to grind against web devs because he thinks they’ve ruined the Internet.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          32·
          1 year ago

          shoehorn web apps everywhere they don’t belong

          Who is doing that? In my experience, “web apps” are on the web or occasionally on desktop and are fine. Slack for example, is a fabulous desktop app and has used web tech from day one to great success

          • Zangoose@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
            71·
            1 year ago

            VS code is an electron app, there are a few others that have a simple enough purpose that they shouldn’t be using a whole dedicated chrome engine to function.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              21·
              1 year ago

              Vs code is an exemplary app and supports what I’m saying. As far as others…what’s the right amount of complexity for using electron? Imo the maintenance advantages alone almost justify using it. It’s not appropriate for every app but slack and vs code are pretty stellar examples of how well it can work.

              • Zangoose@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
                71·
                1 year ago

                VS code is a good app in spite of using electron, not because of it. There’s no reason a simple plaintext editor needs to allocate 300MB of ram even without extensions just to launch, and there is definitely no reason a plaintext editor should require compiling chromium to build from source.

                Slack is fine, but only when you exclusively use slack. Throw in an actual browser, discord, VS Code, Whatsapp, teams (?), etc. each with their own chromium instance and now your 16GB of ram are being eaten up at idle.

                • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  I mean yeah it’s a little heavy. Same trade off everyone makes every time they load a web app of any kind.

                  I run a lot of those apps concurrently and I don’t have issues with not having enough ram.

        • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          This could totally be adapted into a game for a very interesting immersive experience. Imagine entire worlds of gameplay that adapted to the orientation of your viewport.

    • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
      71·
      1 year ago

      Congratulations. In almost 30 years, this is the first thing that finally made me want to throw my phone when I saw it.

        • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
          2·
          11 months ago

          I’ve had cell phones for 30 years. Never mentioned anything about them being smart the whole time.

          • fidodo@lemmy.world
            12·
            11 months ago

            What would you be able to see on a 30 year old cell phone that would make you throw it? A weird number?

            • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
              21·
              11 months ago

              i’d like to know what hallucinogen you’re on or neurological damage you have, as you keep responding to things i never said-- i never mentioned a 30 year-old cell phone.

              • fidodo@lemmy.world
                12·
                11 months ago

                So “in 30 years” you never wanted to throw your non existent cell phone. Your original comment just doesn’t make sense.

                • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
                  21·
                  11 months ago

                  It doesn’t make sense to you, because something is very wrong with your brain.

                  Best of luck with that

      • Chewy@discuss.tchncs.de
        1·
        1 year ago

        Linux phones aren’t supported because it’s an Xorg feature. Usually Linux phones use Wayland for the better (touch) experience. If someone wanted to they could implement it on a Wayland compositor, but given that no other OS I know of supports diagonal mode, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

    • blackluster117@possumpat.io
      21·
      1 year ago

      Honestly though, I have an iPhone SE and holding it diagonally like that is pretty comfy. Could actually be on to something here.

  • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
    151·
    1 year ago

    BRB, sticking microcontrollers to the back of my monitors so I can use their accelerometers to report the orientations in real time…

    • MashedTech@lemmy.world
      9735·
      1 year ago

      I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

      Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

      There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux!

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        8610·
        1 year ago

        No, Richard, it’s ‘Linux’, not ‘GNU/Linux’. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.

        Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.

        One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS – more on this later). He named it ‘Linux’ with a little help from his friends. Why doesn’t he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff – including the software I wrote using GCC – and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don’t want to be known as a nag, do you?

        (An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title ‘GNU/Linux’ (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.

        Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn’t the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you’ve heard this one before. Get used to it. You’ll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.

        You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn’t more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn’t perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.

        Last, I’d like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn’t be fighting among ourselves over naming other people’s software. But what the heck, I’m in a bad mood now. I think I’m feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn’t you and everyone refer to GCC as ‘the Linux compiler’? Or at least, ‘Linux GCC’? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?

        If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:
        Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux’ huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don’t be a nag.

        Thanks for listening.

        • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          32·
          1 year ago

          No, Richard, it’s ‘Linux’, not ‘GNU/Linux’…GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.

          Are you implying that this user is the real Richard Stallman? If that’s true, this thread just got 100x more hilarious.

        • bane_killgrind@lemmy.mlEnglish
          1925·
          1 year ago

          The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority.

          This ain’t a bdsm club, so this is a bad argument.

          • U de Recife@literature.cafe
            274·
            1 year ago

            Maybe you’ll like it more under this new guise: I named my cat Goofyball. But since Linnaeus named the species Felis catus, you remind me that my cat’s name should ackchyually be Felis catus/Goofyball. To which I reply, very appropriately, ‘it’s MY cat’. So Goofyball it is.

            Understand now the authority argument? Authority in the sense of authorial, having an author.

              • U de Recife@literature.cafe
                3·
                1 year ago

                Sorry if I mistake your intention. If that’s the case, it’s just me making a wrong guess.

                You’re probably misreading this.

                I authored THE NAME. If you prefer, I’m the name-giver, the author in this sense.

                Linus is the namer and the creator of that kernel.

                As creator he is by right allowed to name his creation whatever he likes. Just like me, as the cat ‘entity creator as a pet’ am allowed to name it whatever I like.

                No outsiders input required. You get now what I mean by author?

                Whatever your reply may be, let me thank you already for engaging. It’s nice to be pressured to explain something in simpler, more accessible terms.

        • TheWoozy@lemmy.world
          310·
          1 year ago

          Don’t feed the trolls.

          I’m pretty sure everyone here understands both sides of the argument, but just don’t concider it important enough to change their vocabulary.

      • U de Recife@literature.cafe
        20·
        1 year ago

        I’ve been using it for more than 20 years, but I still love when someone pulls the GNU/Linux card.

        To me it feels like reading an old plaque in Latin. It reminds me of an important past that shouldn’t be forgotten.

      • ylph@lemmy.world
        201·
        1 year ago

        You can have a Linux distro without GNU -Alpine Linux is a popular example

          • ylph@lemmy.world
            15·
            1 year ago

            I think “popular” is stretching it here, Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is dead now, and while Hurd is interesting, it has ways to go.

            Alpine is actually popular, particularly as a lightweight host OS to run docker.

    • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
      301·
      1 year ago

      Probably would fall into scope of a compositer in Wayland, rather than the protocol. I suspect it originated with old CRT displays. Sometimes they can appear scan diagonally.

      Even without that usecase, I think it’s great to have around in order to support novel displays and display-like devices.

  • lynx@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    22·
    1 year ago

    How can you do fractional rotation? Does it only work with x11 or is it also supported in wayland?

    • Chewy@discuss.tchncs.de
      31·
      1 year ago

      Rotating the display by a custom angle is possible through xrandr on X.org.

      There’s no Wayland protocol for custom angle rotation, and I don’t expect anyone to create a protocol extension without a use-case.

      My wild guess: Theoretically it should be possible for a compositor to support similar custom rotation, as applications simply draw to their surface (window), without knowing how and where it is displayed on the viewport (display).

      But it might require quite a bit of work, depending on the project, so I don’t expect to ever see custom rotation on anything besides smaller/niche compositors.

      [1] https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/552138/rotate-a-display-by-custom-angle#552140

      • nintendiator@feddit.clEnglish
        171·
        1 year ago

        There’s no Wayland protocol for custom angle rotation, and I don’t expect anyone to create a protocol extension without a use-case.

        Puh-lease. It’s Wayland; the devs fully and honestly expect every app developer (eg.: calc, Libreoffice, notepad.exe) to implement custom angle rotation on their own.

      • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        1 year ago

        There’s no Wayland protocol for custom angle rotation, and I don’t expect anyone to create a protocol extension without a use-case.

        [gestures at thread] Does this not count??? 😁

        Seriously, though: I suspect there might be non-novelty use-cases in mobile devices, especially things like smart watches. Those aren’t beyond the scope of Wayland in the long run, are they?

        • Zangoose@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          Ok I was joking with the images but now that I think about it this would likely be pretty useful to have on smart watches with circular displays.

          E.g. having the watch face rotating to face towards the wearer would be a pretty neat concept. Definitely something I’d want a toggle for though.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          1·
          1 year ago

          Smart watches tend to be microcontroller class devices because even though you can fit something powerful in there, powering it and heat dissipation make it silly.

          The usual embedded-type application for wayland that it’s even especially designed for is automotive: Things without window management but not particularly hardware-restrained. Also think public transit ticket machines, ATMs, such things. In that sense, from wayland’s perspective android is already desktop.

    • AgnosticMammal@lemmy.zip
      10·
      1 year ago

      I was looking into this earlier to try fixing a display that was being offset on an old tv screen. The display was going off the left side of the TV, causing a black bar on the right side.

      I was trying xrandr, and fixed it somewhat by offsetting the display back, but somehow it did not fix the right side - it seemed as if the display had went under the black bar.

      But yeah you can offset, stretch, skew and rotate with xrandr

      • lynx@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        11·
        1 year ago

        The --rotate normal,inverted,left,right does not work, but you can use the transform option to achieve the same effect. To create the transformation matrix you can use something like: https://angrytools.com/css-generator/transform/

        • for translateXY enter half the screen resolution
        • don’t copy the generated code, it has the numbers in the wrong order just type out the matrix row wise.

        The final command looks like this:

        xrandr --output screen-1 --transform 0.87,-0.50,960,0.50,0.87,540,0,0,1

        To restore the original use (type this in first, because if you screw up you might not be able to see anything anymore):

        xrandr --output screen-1 --transform 1,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1

        I tested it on x11.

        • AgnosticMammal@lemmy.zip
          1·
          1 year ago

          It only had two modes for the VGA source, 16:9 and 4:3. The 16:9 is the right ratio for the laptop but had the offset issue. The 4:3 makes it stretched out / squashed, but it doesn’t have the offset issue.

    • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml
      6·
      1 year ago

      Product owners, you mean. They are the ones that determine support level of browser and as a result, what testers focus on. Devs don’t focus on things that aren’t a priority because otherwise they’re working on that on the evenings and weekends free of charge.

  • Illecors@lemmy.cafeEnglish
    20·
    1 year ago

    I remember seeing the video of this. The guy was doing it for shits and giggles, but it ended up looking great!

  • syd@lemy.lol
    16·
    1 year ago

    I won’t try implement something like this even my boss forces me.

    • muzzle@lemm.ee
      1·
      11 months ago

      No one does this kind of stuff because someone asked them to do it. This is the kind of useless, insane stuff you do for the lulz, or because someone dared you.