You are not logged in.

#26 2004-07-16 20:30:51

sweiss
Member
Registered: 2004-02-16
Posts: 635

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

I found a solution to your problem by accident. Edit the file /opt/xfce4/etc/xfce4/xinitrc (if you want it to be changed per user, copy this file to ~/.xfce4/xinitrc and make it executable) and change the line "Xft.hinting: 1" to "Xft.hinting: 0".

This will disable font hinting and you'll recieve your gnome-like fonts.

Goodluck.

Offline

#27 2004-07-16 23:14:09

slackhack
Member
Registered: 2004-06-30
Posts: 738

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

sweiss wrote:

I found a solution to your problem by accident. Edit the file /opt/xfce4/etc/xfce4/xinitrc (if you want it to be changed per user, copy this file to ~/.xfce4/xinitrc and make it executable) and change the line "Xft.hinting: 1" to "Xft.hinting: 0".

This will disable font hinting and you'll recieve your gnome-like fonts.

Goodluck.

thanks, but as i mentioned in the first post:
"the only change that seems to do anything is turning off the hinting in the xfce4 xinitrc file, which darkens the fonts to a pretty good level, but makes them ragged and uneven (one part of the character fat, one thin, etc.)"

you can get an idea of what i mean here:
http://datadump.homelinux.com/fontcomp/no_hinting.png

the weight in the fonts is not even, and it gives a really ugly effect. notice it in the upper-case characters especially.

i bought a matrox video card on ebay to see if that would help, thinking it might be because the ati drivers won't install on my system with arch or the latest slackware, but that was no better. i installed slack 9.1 again just to assure myself that i wasn't losing my sanity, and the fonts there are all normal looking again, with the same exact TTF directory, same exact /etc/fonts directory, same exact xfce4 xinitrc file, and same exact XF86Config file (i copied them from my arch install).

there is some problem somewhere else, maybe with the new gcc (main suspicion), maybe somewhere else, i don't really know what's doing it. somehow gnome is able to get around it with their grayscale option. if i get my new processor tomorrow, this weekend i am going to build a lunar linux install from the ground up with the option of using the old gcc, and see if my hypothesis is correct. something is drastically wrong is all i know -- you should see the windows true type fonts on my computer -- truly awful looking:
http://datadump.homelinux.com/fontcomp/timesnr.png
http://datadump.homelinux.com/fontcomp/trebuchet.png

verdana is the best of them, but even there you can see the "washed-out" faded thin-ness of the fonts, with almost entire parts of the fonts missing in places (most noticeable here in the / and lower-case x):
http://datadump.homelinux.com/fontcomp/verdana.png

they just shouldn't look that bad. as much as i like arch and slack, i'll just have to keep trying different distros until i get it.

appreciate

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
actually, come to think of it, the fact that the ati drivers won't install on arch or slackware 10 might be a clue as to what's going on. i haven't tried them in a few days, but it gives some error about a .ko file not being there. that might be related to the problem, because they install for me no problem on slack 9.1.

Offline

#28 2004-07-17 00:00:39

xerxes2
Member
From: Malmoe, Sweden
Registered: 2004-04-23
Posts: 1,249
Website

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

I was going through my fonts right now and the only ones that looks good is Luxi and Bitstrem. The others looks like yours.


arch + gentoo + initng + python = enlisy

Offline

#29 2004-07-17 01:59:32

slackhack
Member
Registered: 2004-06-30
Posts: 738

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

xerxes2 wrote:

I was going through my fonts right now and the only ones that looks good is Luxi and Bitstrem. The others looks like yours.

exactly. i have a feeling that a lot of people don't even realize they are using substandard fonts b/c it is what they've always been used to. i was lucky (or unlucky tongue ) enough to have had good fonts once, so now i notice when they're not right.

look at the xfce4 CVS version screenshot -- that's more like how they should look:
http://xfce.org/images/screenshots/xfce42.png

see how full and balanced they are, while not being too fat like in the gnome example? (which were fatter than i like, but they had the good anti-aliasing to use as an example.)

compare that to an old version on their site, where the fonts are thin and uneven (notice the x's again, and the k's):
http://xfce.org/images/screenshots/Xfce-curve.png

those fonts are uneven, but since they are so thin you don't really notice. aside from the x's and k's, you can see it best when the text is highlighted (like in "External," "Galeon," "Xfce-curve" and "default.keys," but also see the 2 in "Sans 12" in the User Interface Preferences dialog). those font parts shouldn't be "blanked out" like that -- and those look a lot better than mine! they don't even really look that bad except for those few dropouts. the kerning (spacing between characters) is actually pretty good.

if the hinting on those were turned off, they would look raggedy again like in the examples i posted with no hinting. and in other apps besides native xfce4 apps, they can look really bad, like the truetype fonts. but i assure you xerxes, your truetype fonts should not look that way. when i get slack 9.1 set up again (have to compile a kernel to get network support and then swaret updated versions of xfce4 and xfree), i'll make some shots again with the ms TT fonts, and then you'll really see how fonts should look in linux! 

it might not seem like a huge difference, but i'm a graphic designer and it *really* bugs me, especially since i got used to them for a year the good way. i guess the next step for me is to try the CVS version, maybe they fixed/changed something, and that will do the trick. big_smile

Offline

#30 2004-07-17 02:18:12

xerxes2
Member
From: Malmoe, Sweden
Registered: 2004-04-23
Posts: 1,249
Website

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

I agree with everything you say but I don't think we can blame xfce for bad fonts.
That screeenshot of xfce cvs is probably truetype fonts and those have I not any problems with.
It's the bitmap fonts that looks bad.


arch + gentoo + initng + python = enlisy

Offline

#31 2004-07-17 02:38:57

slackhack
Member
Registered: 2004-06-30
Posts: 738

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

xerxes2 wrote:

I agree with everything you say but I don't think we can blame xfce for bad fonts.
That screeenshot of xfce cvs is probably truetype fonts and those have I not any problems with.
It's the bitmap fonts that looks bad.

really? :interest: so how can we get our desktop not to use the bitmapped fonts anymore? there are differences in those examples (like if you notice the "x-height" of the lower case a is different), so you could be right that it's entirely a case of a different font altogether. if it's only a matter of turning off the bitmaps so X defaults to using true types, that would be awesome. (!)

>edit: Yes, i think you're totally right! the c is different also, with little half-serifs on the bitmap version, and other characters are different, also. i know that can be changed, because i used to change it by removing Xfree and installing X from source. that no longer works, though, so how can it be done?

Offline

#32 2004-07-17 02:58:10

xerxes2
Member
From: Malmoe, Sweden
Registered: 2004-04-23
Posts: 1,249
Website

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

My local.conf is in another thread nearby "Font problems after.....
you could give it a try. Don't forget the "rgba" part. 
I'm pleased with my tt fonts but not with the others.


arch + gentoo + initng + python = enlisy

Offline

#33 2004-07-17 03:18:19

slackhack
Member
Registered: 2004-06-30
Posts: 738

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

here's mine -- i don't really see much difference. you're not saying that putting the subpixel section at the end would make a difference???

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE fontconfig SYSTEM "fonts.dtd">
<!-- /etc/fonts.conf file to configure system font access -->
<fontconfig>

        <match target="font">
                <edit name="antialias" mode="assign"><bool>true</bool></edit>
                <edit name="hinting" mode="assign"><bool>true</bool></edit>
        </match>

        <match target="pattern">
                <edit name="dpi" mode="assign"><double>96</double></edit>
        </match>

        <match target="font">
                <test qual="all" name="rgba">
                        <const>unknown</const>
                </test>
                <edit name="rgba" mode="assign"><const>rgb</const></edit>
        </match>

        <!-- font aliases  -->

        <alias>
                <family>serif</family>
                <prefer>
                        <family>Bitstream Vera Serif</family>
                </prefer>
        </alias>

        <alias>
                <family>sans-serif</family>
                <prefer>
                        <family>Bitstream Vera Sans</family>
                </prefer>
        </alias>

        <alias>
                <family>monospace</family>
                <prefer>
                        <family>Bitstream Vera Sans Mono</family>
                </prefer>
        </alias>

<dir>/usr/local/share/fonts</dir>
<dir>/usr/share/fonts</dir>
<dir>/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts</dir> 

</fontconfig>


>edit: maybe i'll install nptl and that will aa my fonts more like in rex0's thread. tongue

Offline

#34 2004-07-17 21:39:53

xerxes2
Member
From: Malmoe, Sweden
Registered: 2004-04-23
Posts: 1,249
Website

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

it looks ok.

I found this at f.g.o

#~/.gtkrc-2.0

gtk-font-name = "bitstream bold 12"

Just put this file in your home dir.

Now you can experiment with different fonts in gtk2 apps!!! big_smile


arch + gentoo + initng + python = enlisy

Offline

#35 2004-07-18 02:52:45

slackhack
Member
Registered: 2004-06-30
Posts: 738

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

xerxes2 wrote:

I found this at f.g.o

#~/.gtkrc-2.0

gtk-font-name = "bitstream bold 12"

Just put this file in your home dir.

Now you can experiment with different fonts in gtk2 apps!!! big_smile

hmm, doesn't work for me, but changing some of the values in ~/.gtkrc works gtk apps like gentoo. (what is f.g.o., btw?)

i notice that i don't have the bitstream fonts as an option in xfontsel, what's up with that? is X even reading the bitstreams?

in my browsers, the italic text is still bolded if it's vera sans, but i notice that if i switch to vera serif or verdana, it's okay. that seems like a clue, yes?

Offline

#36 2004-07-18 03:47:55

xerxes2
Member
From: Malmoe, Sweden
Registered: 2004-04-23
Posts: 1,249
Website

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

That file worked for me.
Did you saved it as ~/.gtkrc-2.0 ?

Edit:boldfonts.jpg


arch + gentoo + initng + python = enlisy

Offline

#37 2004-07-18 04:10:31

slackhack
Member
Registered: 2004-06-30
Posts: 738

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

gtkrc.png

tongue

>edit: as you can see, they're still the skinny bitmap fonts:
nogtk.png

</shameless Kerry plug>

big_smile

Offline

#38 2004-07-18 04:15:22

xerxes2
Member
From: Malmoe, Sweden
Registered: 2004-04-23
Posts: 1,249
Website

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

That's how my fonts looked before.
I restarted x, have you done that?


arch + gentoo + initng + python = enlisy

Offline

#39 2004-07-18 04:43:06

slackhack
Member
Registered: 2004-06-30
Posts: 738

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

okay, i think it's working in some things. i had a popup dialog box in gaim, and it looked like bitstream 12 bold. cool! thanks.

i'm actually getting more used to the spindly fonts. i would prefer them the other way, so i will keep working on it, but apparently this is the way it is for now.

Offline

#40 2004-07-18 04:48:47

xerxes2
Member
From: Malmoe, Sweden
Registered: 2004-04-23
Posts: 1,249
Website

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

Good it worked.
I will probably try other fonts as well.

Edit: f.g.o = http://forums.gentoo.org


arch + gentoo + initng + python = enlisy

Offline

#41 2004-07-18 16:42:22

slackhack
Member
Registered: 2004-06-30
Posts: 738

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

actually now i think it's not working. i set the font from 12 to 11, and it stayed the same size in the dialog (restarted X).  so it's strange that it doesn't work. :?: i'll set it to 8, see if that changes it. thx.

meanwhile, still trying to find out how to get X to use the antialiased fonts instead of the spindly bitmaps. anyone?

Offline

#42 2004-07-21 02:16:33

slackhack
Member
Registered: 2004-06-30
Posts: 738

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

as an update to an earlier problem in which all my italic fonts were bolded on the web, i created a /usr/share/fonts/bitstream and /usr/share/fonts/luxi directory, and moved the bitstream and luxi fonts from /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/TTF to their respective directory, and deleted the TTF dir. after updating /etc/local.conf and xorg.conf with the new directories and running fc-cache -fv, no more bold italics! i was hoping that would also solve the overall problem, but no such luck, so the search continues.

Offline

#43 2004-07-22 20:10:41

slackhack
Member
Registered: 2004-06-30
Posts: 738

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

as promised, i went back and installed slackware on my other partition and got some screenshots before slack broke when i tried to upgrade mozilla.

here are the comparisons of how fonts generally *should* look, and how they are looking lately with the new fontconfig, freetype, X perhaps, and the new distribution versions (arch 0.6, slack 9.1/10, etc.).

bitstream slack
bistream - arch

luxi - slack
luxi -arch

verdana - slack
verdana - arch

i'm not saying i want to use luxi sans on everything, but you can clearly see that something is wrong. even though they're ugly in the good version, they're still usable. and look at how there are big chunks missing out of the verdana fonts. it's just not right.

the shots of the good fonts are from slackware 9.1, but only after i compile XFree86 from source *over* an existing version (XFree86 4.3 from swaret, in this case). if i don't install a binary first and just compile the 4.4 source, it also looks like h3ll. that procedure doesn't work for arch or slack 10, though, too bad. and btw, in the compiled version the bytcode interpreter is not uncommented, because that's the way i did it before finding out about that flag, and i wanted to do it exactly the same way. if it were uncommented, the slack fonts would probably look even better.

so what is going on? same hardware, same X config files, same /etc/local.conf -- same everything. i do not get it. i think i'm going to pose this to the freetype or fontconfig developers and try to get an answer from them. the new way the fonts are rendering is just really unacceptable, imo. for the first time in a year i'm ready to go back to freaking windoze!  :evil: (okay, not really <shudder> - had to give that a minute to pass. tongue )

Offline

#44 2004-07-22 22:30:42

mctavish
Member
From: Australia
Registered: 2004-03-22
Posts: 48

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

I agree with everything you're saying slackhack.

I think that fonts did look more like your slackware screenshots some time ago in arch, but I can't really say when it changed.

The problem with fonts though is sometimes you don't know when you're mind is playing tricks with you - so what I just said could just be fantasy.

Offline

#45 2004-07-22 23:33:57

slackhack
Member
Registered: 2004-06-30
Posts: 738

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

mctavish wrote:

I agree with everything you're saying slackhack.

I think that fonts did look more like your slackware screenshots some time ago in arch, but I can't really say when it changed.

The problem with fonts though is sometimes you don't know when you're mind is playing tricks with you - so what I just said could just be fantasy.

i don't think so, because the proof is right there in the links. and don't get me wrong -- i'm not saying it's specifically an arch problem -- i just happen to have that distro installed. slack 10 looks exactly the same as the arch examples. and it has nothing to do that i can tell with local.conf, dpi, xfce hinting settings, etc. -- all the usual suspects. none of that works.

there must have been some change in recent freetypes, fontconfigs, X, etc., or more likely the relationship between all of them (or between those things and something else like gcc or glib or gtk-2-4, or whatever), giving many if not most of us lousy fonts. we can "get by" with the bitstreams, but just barely. any other TT fonts are basically unusable, ime.

the sad part is, after seeing a lot of the screenshots coming out now on different forums, it seems that most people are not even aware that somehow we have gotten stuck using substandard fonts. when i first started using linux with MDK9, RH9, slackware 9, etc. the fonts looked so good i couldn't believe it. i had never seen computer fonts look so good.  i cringed everytime i had to go back into windows because it really looked bad.

now it seems that we have lost that, but i am going to press this issue as much as i can with whatever developers will listen (or care), so that we can break out of this "bad font" cycle before it gets too locked in and entrenched. and then hopefully we can get good fonts back again before i totally lose it. tongue

Offline

#46 2004-07-25 00:57:13

slackhack
Member
Registered: 2004-06-30
Posts: 738

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

i don't think X is using freetype at all. maybe that's the problem.

first i went to the /usr/include directory and changed freetype to freetype.sus and freetype2 to freetype2.sus. i restarted X, and it made no difference at all.

next i removed freetype1 with pacman, just to see what would happen. nothing! i reinstalled it just for kicks.

then i figured i would just cut it off at the source completely. i  commented out the load freetype line in xorg.conf and restarted X. again, no difference.

after renaming the freetype directories in /usr/include, i built freetype2 from source, but they didn't get installed again in /usr/include. so i'm not sure where they are, or where they're supposed to be, or what.

the main question is how come commenting out the load freetype line in xorg.config doesn't do anything? if freetype is responsible for the rendering, i would think things would look quite different without it. but maybe not?

:?:

Offline

#47 2004-07-25 19:25:59

lanrat
Member
From: Poland
Registered: 2003-10-28
Posts: 1,274

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

Look in /var/log/XFree86.0.log to check if x loads freetype module and which version (that's for xfree - I'm not sure if it's true for x.org since I'm still using xfree).

(II) LoadModule: "freetype"
(II) Loading /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libfreetype.a
(II) Module freetype: vendor="The XFree86 Project & the After X-TT Project"
        compiled for 4.4.0, module version = 2.1.0
        Module class: XFree86 Font Renderer
        ABI class: XFree86 Font Renderer, version 0.4
(II) Loading font FreeType

Offline

#48 2004-07-25 21:44:40

slackhack
Member
Registered: 2004-06-30
Posts: 738

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

it's just not making a difference whether it's there or not. here's with "load freetype" uncommented in xorg.conf:

[3] sero:/var/log $ cat Xorg.0.log |grep -ir freetype
(II) LoadModule: "freetype"
(II) Loading /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libfreetype.so
(II) Module freetype: vendor="X.Org Foundation & the After X-TT Project"
(II) Loading font FreeType
[4] sero:/var/log $ 

okay, everything's there. but here's with "load freetype" commented out:

[1] sero:/var/log $ cat Xorg.0.log |grep -ir freetype
[2] sero:/var/log $ 

nothing there, but no difference in font rendering whatsoever. so it seems freetype is not being implemented properly, even when it does load. does that mean the arch packages are not built with the proper flags to allow for freetype/Xft? i don't know what else to conclude.

Offline

#49 2004-07-25 23:41:15

lanrat
Member
From: Poland
Registered: 2003-10-28
Posts: 1,274

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

I don't know what it is with the fonts now. But I think it's not arch related problem only because I could find a lot of complaints about fonts after upgrades to latest versions of x and other font related packages (like some slackware 10 users on linuxquestions).They also tried everything you did and even more but without any success.

BTW I also remember that fonts looked different a few months ago in arch -  they looked exactly as in your "perfect" font rendering screenshot IMO.

Offline

#50 2004-07-26 00:33:43

slackhack
Member
Registered: 2004-06-30
Posts: 738

Re: fonts: how does gnome do it???

lanrat wrote:

I don't know what it is with the fonts now. But I think it's not arch related problem only because I could find a lot of complaints about fonts after upgrades to latest versions of x and other font related packages (like some slackware 10 users on linuxquestions).They also tried everything you did and even more but without any success.

BTW I also remember that fonts looked different a few months ago in arch -  they looked exactly as in your "perfect" font rendering screenshot IMO.

so then i wonder what happened?

i'm really surprised that more people don't seem to be upset -- or even very concerned -- with this situation. i came to linux for a lot of reasons, one of which is that it's just better than windows. but now in this respect it's not. so that kind of sucks.

that slack 10 user might have been me. but yeah, i am not saying it is only arch. slack is a packaged distro, too. i'm just wondering if something changed in x or freetype that now requires packages to be built with specific flags for freetype/Xft that they didn't need before. ? or is it a gtk+ problem, or what? very frustrating.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB