Firefox fonts : Mozilla binary VS Arch package

bangkok_manouel · 2006-10-29 14:16:48

Hi,

You can see the difference hereunder. Does anyone know the reason ? TBH, I prefer the Moz binary fonts display but of course, I would prefer to use the Arch package.

Thanks in advance.

Mozilla
http://img93.imageshack.us/my.php?image=binhn0.png

Arch
http://img97.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pkgjc7.png

JGC · 2006-10-29 16:15:48

Simple, mozilla's package doesn't understand your fontconfig configuration and uses some internal static compiled snapshot of freetype2 that can't do bytecode hinting. The arch package however dynamically links to freetype2 on the system and uses your fontconfig settings, which tell it to use bytecode hinting.

bangkok_manouel · 2006-10-29 16:37:59

Noted with thanks.

Cheers.

stonecrest · 2006-10-29 16:55:10

For what it's worth, I think the Arch screenshot looks much nicer.

1c3d0g · 2006-10-29 21:43:32

TBH, I'm with bangkok_manouel, the first one looks better IMO. :-P

bangkok_manouel · 2006-10-30 04:39:41

well, i guess i'll start a poll

shadowhand · 2006-10-31 16:37:17

stonecrest wrote:

For what it's worth, I think the Arch screenshot looks much nicer.

It's definitely hinted better, and has cleaner, more evenly spaced fonts. I think the moz binary screenshot looks more fuzzy and sloppy.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-10-29 14:16:48

Firefox fonts : Mozilla binary VS Arch package

#2 2006-10-29 16:15:48

Re: Firefox fonts : Mozilla binary VS Arch package

#3 2006-10-29 16:37:59

Re: Firefox fonts : Mozilla binary VS Arch package

#4 2006-10-29 16:55:10

Re: Firefox fonts : Mozilla binary VS Arch package

#5 2006-10-29 21:43:32

Re: Firefox fonts : Mozilla binary VS Arch package

#6 2006-10-30 04:39:41

Re: Firefox fonts : Mozilla binary VS Arch package

#7 2006-10-31 16:37:17

Re: Firefox fonts : Mozilla binary VS Arch package

Board footer