Poll (was Re: [SGVLUG] Possible "Cool Tools" topic)

[Michael Proctor-Smith]

On 11/3/05, Dustin <laurence at alice.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Michael Proctor-Smith wrote:
>
> > The reson it is not set better is that only artist really care and
> > they spend the money for hardware that allows them to tune extactly.
>
> I don't agree.  Part of what prompted this surge of research on my part is
> Teresa's remark that our photos didn't look as good under Linux as on her
> MS-Windows box at work (they looked too dark), and she has never tweaked
> it there.  I had tweaked gamma before, but I've switched distros on this
> box enough that I got out of the habit, and it was obvious to her.
>
> The point is, nobody has ever tried to sell non-experts on *just plain
> unix* before, but parts of the Linux crowd are doing it now.  Also, people
> are putting photos on their boxes now, which makes people notice smaller
> things.  I think the crucial group is not expert enough to do it on their
> own, but also able to see the difference on their own digital photos.
> For desktop use, frankly, Microsoft and Apple are better at making these
> choices than we are and we'd do well to learn.  I don't think it would
> hurt anyone to just put Gamma 1.2 into xorg.conf during the initial
> install, and we'd have fewer people who get the impression that X just
> doesn't do as well for picture rendering as those other OSes.
>
> Not everybody cares about giving a Linux desktop to the masses, but those
> who do should probably deal with details such as this.  I'd be interested
> to know if the commercial, supposedly super-friendly distros already do,
> like Xandros, Linspire, etc.
>
Well I ran monica but on a laptop LCD I can not adjust contrast or
brightness so I think I miss some of the adjustablity needed. The
lines are supposed to disapear? On my screen 1.2 looked look to
bright.