Also, part of the problem is that really high dpi desktop displays just don't exist, for the most part. If they did, and they were at a reasonable price, I'd consider buying one.
They do exist. Remember, that at 15" My high resolution display for the laptop was a $200 upgrade option. That was anything but cheap. High end displays exist for desktops as well, and they also command a premium price.
True, but on desktops, the dpi and resolution really don't get any better than 27" 2560x1440 or 30" 2560x1600. It would be nice to see an improvement there.
That is partially why I was happy to find the Samsung 2343bwx - as it is 2048x1152 @ 23". A bit better than the norm - and one of only a handful of monitors available at that resolution/size. And this is basically what Torvalds was getting at from the beginning - and the point of the article. As a whole, the resolution and quality of displays is worse now that it was 15 years ago. My last Viewsonic was capable of QXGA resolutions, while my Mitsubishi 17" was capable of UXGA - both capable of 100hz or more in refresh rates. Sorry, but both displays are doing better than the common display of the current generation. the Mits @ 117, the Viewsonic @ 116. The average 22" display today rests at 100, and the average 17" at 106. That may not seem like much of a difference, but it really is. Remember, that laptops share this 100ppi.
So what do we take away from this? That monitors these days were getting cheaper and cheaper? Didn't we already know this? There is a reason you can pick up 24" LCD monsters for $130. Because they are cheap, and no one seems to care. They eat this crap up.