14

This was a mistake. Resolution should have never been the main tag for all screen/display/monitor resolution issues. This is more evident when you get exactly 4 tags for all these issues, created by people that couldn't find the correct tag, or that the tag they found didn't make sense:

name isn't self descriptive. Resolution of what? World hunger? This should be named as any of the other three tags instead. I'm lending towards as main tag.

  • 8
    Yes, I agree, display-resolution sounds like a good idea. – Seth Nov 5 '14 at 14:07
  • To me, screen-resolution means the same as monitor-resolution and is hardware dependent. While display resolution would cover the viewing port of the display regardless of the number of screens. The resolution tag in and of itself I would agree is rather pointless for the reasons you state. – Elder Geek Nov 11 '14 at 15:29
  • @Seth status-completed. – muru Jun 27 '15 at 7:22
4

I prefer for reasons related to how multihead works nowadays.

X11, the protocol underlying graphics in Ubuntu until it switches to Mir, defines a "screen" as a single surface that has a resolution and a "display" as the set of screens managed by an X server. (See "multihead" in another distro's wiki.) Thus my netbook has one "display" that consists of two "screens": the internal one (whose "resolution" is 1024x600) and the VGA output (1024x768). If the screens are side-by-side, the display might not even be rectangular. The only relevant meaning for "display resolution" that I can think of is the size of a screenshot covering all the screens that make a display, or possibly with pre-xrandr multihead (Xinerama) that combined all plugged-in monitors into a single X11 screen.

So I'd assume that most should be retagged to either or .

  • 2
    The problem is that we also have a screen tag for GNU screen. – Braiam Nov 8 '14 at 20:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .