From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Mar 18 10: 6:23 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA5037B401 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:06:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpproxy2.mitre.org (smtpproxy2.mitre.org [192.80.55.70]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9B9D43F75 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:06:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jandrese@mitre.org) Received: from avsrv2.mitre.org (avsrv2.mitre.org [128.29.154.4]) by smtpproxy2.mitre.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2II6IOC020658; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:06:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from MAILHUB1 (mailhub1.mitre.org [129.83.20.31]) by smtpsrv2.mitre.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2II6Ck2026264; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:06:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from mm112324-2k.mitre.org (128.29.3.65) by mailhub1.mitre.org with SMTP id 1559620; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:06:10 -0500 Message-ID: <3E776010.8050706@mitre.org> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:06:08 -0500 From: Jason Andresen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kenneth W Cochran Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: XFree 4.3.0 / Xft font problems References: <200303181439.JAA5706913@shell.TheWorld.com> <200303181649.LAA5741960@shell.TheWorld.com> In-Reply-To: <200303181649.LAA5741960@shell.TheWorld.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Kenneth W Cochran wrote: >>Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:27:44 -0500 >>From: Jason Andresen >>To: Kenneth W Cochran >>Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG >>Subject: Re: XFree 4.3.0 / Xft font problems >> >>Kenneth W Cochran wrote: >> >>>"Regular" xchat 1.8.11 and gaim 0.59.9 look fine. >>>Mozilla built without Xft (-DWITHOUT_XFT) looks ok (menu bar >>>looks good, as with other apps) but not great (displayed >>>text looks "ok" but not very good). >> >>Mozilla uses whatever you have configured in the preferences panel as >>the font for the menubar IIRC. Try changing your font from serif to >>sans-serif. >> >>Additionally, you're probably having trouble with the antialiased small >>text. You might want to try creating a /usr/X11R6/etc/fonts/local.conf >>file with the following lines: >> >> >> >> >> >> 12 >> >> >> false >> >> >> >>And see if that's any easier on your eyes. > > > Where is that kind of thing documented? I did a search on google and found this page: http://fontconfig.org/fontconfig-user.html > And how can I "isolate" these changes across OS/system > maintenance/upgrades? The local file should not be touched by upgrades. > Why does the "default install" look so bad? (Hmm, maybe > don't answer that... ;) Because they left the antialiasing on for all pixel sizes. Some people consider this a feature for some reason, I think it just makes the small text fuzzy, especially if you're running a low resolution (like 800x600) on a big display. > As installed, Mozilla-1.3b,1 fonts: (WITHOUT_XFT) > Proportional: Serif 12 pixels > Serif: adobe-avantgarde-iso8859-1 > Sans-serif: (same) > Cursive: (same) > Fantasy: (same) > Monospace: (same) 16 pixels > > As installed, Mozilla-1.3b,1 fonts: (default build, with Xft) > Proportional: Serif 12 pixels > Serif: Bitstream Charter > Sans-serif: (same) > Cursive: (same) > Fantasy: (same) > Monospace: (same) 16 pixels Xft handles fonts differently than X by defaul, which is why it only has the name there. The "font classes" are defined by the browser for various elements in the HTML. TT and CODE tags are frequently monospace for instance. The "Proportional" dialog there is asking weather you want the serif or sans-serif font by default (you have serifs activated), and you can choose whatever fonts you want for each one from the dropdown list (even if it doesn't make sense, like Helvetica for the Serif font). You may want to consider installing some other fonts as well, the ones that come with X are kinda ugly. I use Arial for my sans-serif font, as it looks quite nice at screen resolution. There are documents on the web for installing the various free Microsoft fonts under X. > > Complexities/oddities such as this are, I think, > part of what hinders "public/PHB acceptance" of > Unix/Linux/*BSD/opensource and keeps in place certain > monopolies. As a friend of mine says, "you have to have > a Decoder Ring to run this stuff." > Xft is too complex IMHO, it's also rather poorly documented and used everywhere. Actually, the whole font situation in X is rather sad, but it is getting better. Probably in a year or two people will have written the support utilites and documentation that makes it easier for the end user. > Please pardon my, umm, "venting," I'm sure stuff like this > will be fixed before long. ;) You should have heard me the first time (6 months ago or so), when Xft broke a lot of my compiles, and then when it did work the documentation was wrong, notably the ability to turn off antialiasing didn't work for quite some time. It really has gotten quite a bit better in even the past few months. -- \ |_ _|__ __|_ \ __| Jason Andresen jandrese@mitre.org |\/ | | | / _| Network and Distributed Systems Engineer _| _|___| _| _|_\___| Office: 703-883-7755 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message