[SOLVED] Arch versus Ubuntu fonts

Raqua · 2009-11-09 12:37:25

Hi.

To not sound like heretic, I need to state that I use Arch as my main distro, but install Ubuntu to my friends so I keep that one on my machine as well.

I recently compared fonts on this two distros and I have to say, Ubuntu fonts look much better to me. See the images of Pidgin and Apperance Preferences.
Arch is on the left side, Ubuntu on the right.

As you can see, my preferences and fonts are set to be the same. I read wiki page on this, which suggests some ubuntu modified packages from AUR. I remember that once I had some cairo-lcd (and some other) packages installed, but I think I remember them being replaced during some upgrades.
Is it worth to build this cairo-ubuntu and couple of other packages and will it produce fonts like in ubuntu or not?
Anyone has suggestion how can I get my fonts like ubuntu has?
Thanks.

Last edited by Raqua (2009-11-10 08:13:47)

blasse · 2009-11-09 12:44:16

By building cairo-, lxft-, fontconfig-ubuntu pkgs from AUR They are just plain upstream with added ubuntu patches, so yes - installing and configuring them will give you ubuntu font look.

corsakh · 2009-11-09 13:01:55

Hm, its actually weird how I did all I could to clear Ubuntu of these fonts and still failed - but apparently some people prefer them! Sorry I could not be of any help though.

moljac024 · 2009-11-09 14:38:34

The left looks better to me

sokuban · 2009-11-09 14:43:57

moljac024 wrote:

The left looks better to me

Same.

I guess I'm just used to them.

Either way, this is good. The other day I found out about the -ubuntu font packages, and thought about installing them, but after seeing this I can say I'll just keep what I have.

Raqua · 2009-11-09 14:47:04

Thank you for your help, I will try Ubuntu packages and report here if that works.
For me, Ubuntu fonts are somewhat easier on eyes. I found that Arch style makes my eyes strain.

pointone · 2009-11-09 15:27:23

Consider trying the *-cleartype packages in the AUR, which I found to produce the most "readable" fonts (as compared to *-ubuntu, *-lcd, and default packages).

Raqua · 2009-11-09 18:12:14

*-ubuntu packages did the trick for me. Thanks to all of you.

skottish · 2009-11-09 23:51:19

Please mark threads as [SOLVED] when they are. It makes life much easier for other people searching for answers.

******** Side note ********

This subject has come up how many times? 20? 30? 40? This is the first thread that actually has Ubuntu and fonts in the title. How crazy is that?

***************************

Gen2ly · 2009-11-09 23:52:19

@pointone Cleartype packages are dubious in license to say the least.

As for the reason alot of people aren't real set on why the ubuntu fonts look better it is because you used Jpegs for you images Raqua. There is going to be loss in data when you do this.

As for which fonts to choose, I prefer the -lcd ones. I think they are actually better than Ubuntus'. And as for, them being replaced during an upgrade. This comment baffles me and makes me wonder about the legitimacy of this post. No packages installed by pacman will replace any packages from the AUR (and won't be from the official repositories unless '--noconfirm' is used) so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Last edited by Gen2ly (2009-11-10 03:35:55)

sand_man · 2009-11-10 00:11:28

Gen2ly wrote:

@pointone Cleartype packages are dubious in license to say the least.
As for the reason alot of people aren't real set on why the ubuntu fonts look better it is because you used Jpegs for you images Raqua. There is going to be loss in data when you do this.
As for which fonts to choose, I prefer the -lcd ones. I think they are actually better than Ubuntus'. And as for, them being replaced during an upgrade. This comment baffles me and makes me wonder about the legitimacy of this post. No packages installed by pacman will be replaced by any packages from the AUR (and won't be from the official repositories unless '--noconfirm' is used, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

There are of course packages in AUR that conflict with packages in official repos.

Gen2ly · 2009-11-10 01:25:47

Yes, but not the other way around.

Last edited by Gen2ly (2009-11-10 01:26:39)

sand_man · 2009-11-10 02:17:52

Gen2ly wrote:

Yes, but not the other way around.

How do you mean?
2 different packages can both provide the same thing no matter where the package came from.

edit -

Never mind, I just re-read your post.

Last edited by sand_man (2009-11-10 02:23:20)

Gen2ly · 2009-11-10 03:36:39

Yah, had an extra word in there, muffled it up a little bit. Ooop

Fixed.

Last edited by Gen2ly (2009-11-10 03:37:33)

Raqua · 2009-11-10 08:21:22

@Gen2ly
I am pretty much aware that jpegs are lossless, but the images still shows the difference, which was the point of putting them here. I had *-lcd fonts installed before and I was not happy with them. As you can see also in this thread, it is mostly a matter of personal taste. Ubuntu fonts looks better to me, that is why I wanted them.
And pacman will of course replace conflicting packages. There was upgrade that asked me about this. I do not remember details, but I think I was asked if I want to replace *-lcd packages with regular ones. I thought that maybe those were adopted as default. Haven't noticed any significant changes after replacement, so I just did not care.

Surgat_ · 2009-11-10 12:52:20

When you use some non-official packages such as *-lcd or *-ubuntu and a new version comes out, pacman asks if you want to replace (for example) cairo-lcd with cairo, as cairo has a higher version and both provide cairo. What I do then is update replacing all the lcd packages with the official ones and then go to the AUR, grab the latest PKGBUILDs and substitute the official packages with the lcd ones.

The other way to do this would be answering no to replace the packages in the first time, but then nothing will be updated until you update manually your lcd (or ubuntu, or cleartype) packages. I prefer to update everything in the first place and then install my preferred packages manually.

Gen2ly · 2009-11-10 19:58:47

Ah, good point Surgat_ with the higher version and the 'provides', hadn't thought of that.

Ragua, about the jpegs, I'm not sure how you encoded them but I still think it is pretty standard for jpegs to be lossy. I'm only familiar with gimp and imagemagick and I'm pretty sure they both use lossy (though quality 95 might be lossless???). It is also possible that hosting service converted these images to lossy which, in either case, I guessing they probably did.

As to the font look, yeah, the Ubuntu fonts look nice. From what I know there isn't much difference between the -lcd and -ubuntu fonts but I could be wrong. The largest difference between the two is that the ubuntu fonts come pre-configured with 'hintslight' which appears to me to be better developed that the other standards. Anyways, the point seems to be null now , glad you like your fonts.

dcc24 · 2009-11-10 20:01:40

JPG is always lossy, if you want lossless use PNG.

dunc · 2009-11-14 23:24:12

dcc24 wrote:

JPG is always lossy, if you want lossless use PNG.

Lossless JPEG. It's not the same thing as saving an ordinary lossy JPEG at 100 quality though. But it does exist.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-11-09 12:37:25

[SOLVED] Arch versus Ubuntu fonts

#2 2009-11-09 12:44:16

Re: [SOLVED] Arch versus Ubuntu fonts

#3 2009-11-09 13:01:55

Re: [SOLVED] Arch versus Ubuntu fonts

#4 2009-11-09 14:38:34

Re: [SOLVED] Arch versus Ubuntu fonts

#5 2009-11-09 14:43:57

Re: [SOLVED] Arch versus Ubuntu fonts

#6 2009-11-09 14:47:04

Re: [SOLVED] Arch versus Ubuntu fonts

#7 2009-11-09 15:27:23

Re: [SOLVED] Arch versus Ubuntu fonts

#8 2009-11-09 18:12:14

Re: [SOLVED] Arch versus Ubuntu fonts

#9 2009-11-09 23:51:19

Re: [SOLVED] Arch versus Ubuntu fonts

#10 2009-11-09 23:52:19

Re: [SOLVED] Arch versus Ubuntu fonts

#11 2009-11-10 00:11:28

Re: [SOLVED] Arch versus Ubuntu fonts

#12 2009-11-10 01:25:47

Re: [SOLVED] Arch versus Ubuntu fonts

#13 2009-11-10 02:17:52

Re: [SOLVED] Arch versus Ubuntu fonts

#14 2009-11-10 03:36:39

Re: [SOLVED] Arch versus Ubuntu fonts

#15 2009-11-10 08:21:22

Re: [SOLVED] Arch versus Ubuntu fonts

#16 2009-11-10 12:52:20

Re: [SOLVED] Arch versus Ubuntu fonts

#17 2009-11-10 19:58:47

Re: [SOLVED] Arch versus Ubuntu fonts

#18 2009-11-10 20:01:40

Re: [SOLVED] Arch versus Ubuntu fonts

#19 2009-11-14 23:24:12

Re: [SOLVED] Arch versus Ubuntu fonts

Board footer