Horrible font rendering

scarecrow · 2006-08-22 21:40:22

Dunno yet if I got to blame the new kdebase or the new cairo (both upgraded at the same time), but after the latest -Syu all gtk apps under KDE look like crap- particularly the fonts. Using gtk-qt-engine 0.7-2, which worked just fine before the "upgrade".
Firing pure kde applications everything is displayed great... and gtk apps also display quite well if gtk-qt-engine is uninstalled.
Any ideas?

funkyou · 2006-08-22 22:32:49

I can comfirm this for the fonts, but not for GTK... Since the last update, the font rendering in Opera is blurry...

Contents of the last upgrade:

synchronizing package lists
starting full system upgrade
upgraded e2fsprogs (1.38-3 -> 1.39-1)
upgraded ttf-arphic-ukai (0.1.20060513-3 -> 0.1.20060513-4)
upgraded ttf-arphic-uming (0.1.20060513-3 -> 0.1.20060513-4)
upgraded ttf-ms-fonts (1.3-8 -> 2.0-1)
upgraded wine (0.9.19-1 -> 0.9.19-2)

Here is a screenshot:
http://funkyou.hinterhof-hosting.de/arc … /fonts.jpg

JGC · 2006-08-22 22:42:03

ttf-ms-fonts includes tahoma now, which is a shitty font when used with autohinting I noticed.

stonecrest · 2006-08-23 05:33:00

JGC wrote:

ttf-ms-fonts includes tahoma now, which is a shitty font when used with autohinting I noticed.

Ahh, indeed that's the issue. I moved the tahoma font out of /usr/share/fonts/TTF/ and everything is back to "good" again. I dunno if there is a better solution, but damn, some websites were literally making my eyes hurt. I'm glad to resolve this issue, if at least temporarily.

sh__ · 2006-08-23 18:05:28

This snippet will convert tahoma to Bitstream Vera Sans (replace font according to taste). Place it in ~/.fonts.conf or /etc/fonts/local.conf

 <match target="pattern">
     <test qual="any" name="family"><string>tahoma</string></test>
     <edit name="family" mode="assign"><string>Bitstream Vera Sans</string></edit>
 </match>

kastor · 2006-08-25 01:17:20

sh__ wrote:

This snippet will convert tahoma to Bitstream Vera Sans (replace font according to taste). Place it in ~/.fonts.conf or /etc/fonts/local.conf
 <match>
     <test><string>tahoma</string></test>
     <edit><string>Bitstream Vera Sans</string></edit>
 </match>

thanx.. this works for me too.

aquila_deus · 2006-08-28 16:56:55

stonecrest wrote:

Ahh, indeed that's the issue. I moved the tahoma font out of /usr/share/fonts/TTF/ and everything is back to "good" again. I dunno if there is a better solution, but damn, some websites were literally making my eyes hurt. I'm glad to resolve this issue, if at least temporarily.

The only true solution is not to let stupid websites decide your fonts!

*
{
  font-family: Andale Sans, Arial Unicode MS ! important ;
}

aquila_deus · 2006-08-28 16:58:38

JGC wrote:

ttf-ms-fonts includes tahoma now, which is a shitty font when used with autohinting I noticed.

It works well with freetype 2.2, autohint + hintslight.

I can't understand why arch just doesn't upgrade?

test1000 · 2006-08-28 17:17:05

I think it was gullible jones who complained too much naaw, i don't know i'm just j/k

I certainly have no problems with the latest freetype..

McQueen · 2006-08-28 18:59:48

Yeah, it was gullible's continual whining.
I use ft-2.2 and it works much better so go for it.

Gullible Jones · 2006-08-28 19:24:28

aquila_deus wrote:

JGC wrote:
ttf-ms-fonts includes tahoma now, which is a shitty font when used with autohinting I noticed.
It works well with freetype 2.2, autohint + hintslight.
I can't understand why arch just doesn't upgrade?

Because 2.2 doesn't let you use bytecode hinting at all, plus other regressions.

aquila_deus · 2006-08-29 02:35:04

Gullible Jones wrote:

aquila_deus wrote:
JGC wrote:
ttf-ms-fonts includes tahoma now, which is a shitty font when used with autohinting I noticed.
It works well with freetype 2.2, autohint + hintslight.
I can't understand why arch just doesn't upgrade?
Because 2.2 doesn't let you use bytecode hinting at all, plus other regressions.

But 2.2's autohint rocks! Since I upgrade i have never seen any problem in hintslight with any fonts!

test1000 · 2006-08-30 14:14:29

i didn't see a difference at all when i upgraded.. i think maybe the only difference was it looked better in the konqueror menus; but i'm not sure of that.

GJ: Do you have a third party backing that statement up? Last time i checked the 2.2 changelog i can't remember seeing sopmething like. "oh btw, bytecode hinting doesn't work anymore."

just checking.

hjorthboggild · 2006-08-30 16:04:07

Bytecode hinting works perfectly fine for me with Freetype version 2.2

broch · 2007-12-10 14:42:57

I doubt that you will find many high quality free fonts.
some exceptions:
http://www.josbuivenga.demon.nl/fontin.html
http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page … ws#13Nov07
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_fonts

you don't need to install dejavu. Arch installs Vera, which are as good as dejavu.
MS fonts are pretty good, in fact one of the fonts (Calibri) included in Vista won major font contest. MS hired best font designers to get quality fonts (http://www.tdc.org/news/2005Results/Calibri.html)
Go get nice fonts in FF you only need to install gtk-qt-engine. This will allow you to use system fonts in FF.
you can also force FF and all gtk apps to use specific font by editing
.gtkrc-2.0
and changing
gtk-font-name=""

I don't have any issues with font rendering in general or under FF using freetype2 2.3 and cleartype (which works well with LCD, but users are reporting that on CRT cleartype is not that good) without any manual modification to fonts.conf

briest · 2007-12-10 20:08:37

broch wrote:

Arch installs Vera, which are as good as dejavu.

Vera has only Latin1 characters, IIRC; DejaVu has emerged from several projects aimed at extending coverage. Of course, it may or may not be a concern, but for me Vera is useless -- I cannot even write down my name using the font

BTW, the so-called "Microsoft core fonts" (old ones, not the new C* family) are made by Monotype, bought and rebranded by MS (like almost everything coming from Redmond ), except from Tahoma, I believe.

Another interesting free font is Libertine, I like it.

I just have to mention my favourite typeface here; although I cannot recommend it for on-screen usage due to poor hinting *) (its electronic incarnation comes from TeX world and was made with printing in mind), I find it visually pleasant and interestingly different from all-the-times-clones-out-there, while still excellent readable in long text streams; I use it for most of my prints. The font is Antykwa Półtawskiego.

*) actually, it looks best with hinting set to "medium"

broch · 2007-12-10 20:47:56

Arial is poor's man helvetica (MS did not want to pay Linotype for original)
Times New Roman is.. Times New Roman designed for Monotype before WWII.
Verdana and georgia were made for MS by Matthew Carter. Big name in font typography.

MS did tweak screen look though, so any complaints should be directed to freetype devs eventually

MS did with core fonts what linotype did with XSF fonts, and Monotype with ESQ.

Now, Monotype is famous from copying font designs. But the only low quality crap is Arial and not because of screen look.

I don't have MS fonts, only these that I bought: Helvetica Neue (XFS), Frutiger (XFS), Quadraat (Sans and Serif), Haarlemmer, Stempel Garamond (XFS), Bryant Pro, Klavika, Absara Sans, Nobel, Versa and few other. Most look good on the screen in the wide range of sizes.
I downloaded Antykwa some time ago, but this is (by design of course) quite ancient looking font, so application is really limited.

My only complaint is that Openoffice can't handle OTF (PS) fonts.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-08-22 21:40:22

Horrible font rendering

#2 2006-08-22 22:32:49

Re: Horrible font rendering

#3 2006-08-22 22:42:03

Re: Horrible font rendering

#4 2006-08-23 05:33:00

Re: Horrible font rendering

#5 2006-08-23 18:05:28

Re: Horrible font rendering

#6 2006-08-25 01:17:20

Re: Horrible font rendering

#7 2006-08-28 16:56:55

Re: Horrible font rendering

#8 2006-08-28 16:58:38

Re: Horrible font rendering

#9 2006-08-28 17:17:05

Re: Horrible font rendering

#10 2006-08-28 18:59:48

Re: Horrible font rendering

#11 2006-08-28 19:24:28

Re: Horrible font rendering

#12 2006-08-29 02:35:04

Re: Horrible font rendering

#13 2006-08-30 14:14:29

Re: Horrible font rendering

#14 2006-08-30 16:04:07

Re: Horrible font rendering

#15 2007-12-10 14:42:57

Re: Horrible font rendering

#16 2007-12-10 20:08:37

Re: Horrible font rendering

#17 2007-12-10 20:47:56

Re: Horrible font rendering

Board footer