Re: loader/boot fonts are painfully small (again)

Am 15.02.2021 um 16:55 schrieb Daniel Nebdal:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 at 15:33, Rodney W. Grimes <
> freebsd-rwg_at_gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> On 11. Feb 2021, at 23:21, Yuri Pankov <yuripv_at_yuripv.dev> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Lenovo P51 laptop, 15'' 4k (3840x2160) display.
>>>>
>>>> Booting from the latest available current snapshot (20210107), fonts
>>>> were at least readable; updating to the latest bits (manually
>> installing
>>>> new loader as well) made them really small -- terminal size reported by
>>>> stty is 480x135.
>>>>
>>> It is a issue about not so good automatic font size setup. The original
>> code was using 80x24 terminal as base, it was complained it did end up with
>> too large fonts, so I did pick uefi terminal size as base (see output from
>> mode command), but thats also not perfect. Till better solution, right now
>> the option is to set font manually (screen.font variable).
>>
>> Can we just stick with the "known to work almost everywhere and always"
>> default value of 80x24?  These small fonts are great for those of you
>> who have 20/20 un corrected vision, but it is a royal PITA for almost
>> anyone who has even a slight visual imparement, even corrected I find
>> it near imposible to read the default efi screens we put up.
>>
>> I would suggest we also override this in the -RELEASE/SNAPSHOT
>> media as one just does not need to fight this font size issue
>> while trying to install a new system.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rod
>>>> I have also noticed large delays between different loader screens,
>>>> probably caused by very slow screen blanking given the terminal size?
>>> yes, it definitely needs boost.There are few things we can do about it.
>>>
>>> rgds,
>>> toomas
>>
> If we assume that 16:9 screens are the most common aspect ratio, and that
> the font we use is 1:2 (which is just guesswork, based on the 8x16 console
> font), that gives us a 32:9 aspect ratio counted in characters.
>
> It seems sensible to stick to an integer multiple of that, to avoid any
> uncomfortable stretching or scaling. The 480x135 console you got follows
> that idea - it's the 15x scale. That's obviously a bit optimistic, but how
> about the 3x or 4x scale, at 96x27 or 128x36?

128x36, resp. 100x37 (previous 800x600 native) is the very lowest 
geometry numbers (biggest font result) we should consider reasonlable.
80x25 is evil pain having to read logs in emergency situations on any 
contemporary (commodity, server-console connected) display.
As long as nobody can prove she's connecting CRTs smaller than 14" and a 
maximum resolution of 640x480 to real-world setups, there's no use for 
80x25.
Post 20210107 fonts were way oo big on all my real world server setups, 
no matter if it's iLO/bmc KVM, or any first-to-find LCD.
Greatest surprise was on an 30" 2560x1600, where the UEFI/GOP limit of 
1920x1200 led to fonts with a size of fingernails - readable almost from 
the other building 20 meters away...
This is completely unusable too.
Obviously, Laptops fight the other direction.

I haven't tested how the new selection model works out...
And I don't have Laptop beyond 211dpi, but previous selection model 
showed too big fonts on that Laptop too (usable, but slightly too big, 
even for my very weak eyes [not without glasses anymore...])
Just wanted to note that we mustn't forget to take server consoles into 
account - it's all arround 100dpi at max. usually, and spliting single 
syslog line around the whole screen is real pain!

Thanks,
-harry