Why arent the Liberation fonts in the default install?
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
Since the Liberation fonts are pretty well supported and render well, is there a reason why they are not included in the default install? Since they are metrically compatible with the MS ones, they are a good font replacment and Liberation Sans is a much better Arial/Helvetica replacement than FreeSans for print and the web. Ubuntu includes them and they are under the GPL as well. Is this a space issue or more of an issue with the fonts themselves?
I am a member!
I don't know the answer to this question although I suspect it is just an oversight. If I'm not mistaken Trisquel is made from a base set of Ubuntu packages (with appropriate modifications to those packages).
Trisquel doesn't ship the exact same applications Ubuntu ships on the default install CD although does use the same packages (with possible modifications).
At the end of the day Trisquel is largely compatible with Ubuntu because the base packages are nearly identical except for the kernel and configuration tweaks. The supported hardware differs slightly mainly because the kernel is a derivative of the mainline Linux kernel except without the none-free pieces.
The few exceptions where hardware may not be supported tend to be with the hardware dependent on non-free binary blobs. There have been some bugs due to the way Ubuntu packages firmware though.
So Trisquel's developers have probably just not noticed this critical missing fonts package. The other possibility is it is packaged with fonts that don't comply with the free software definition.
I'm not sure if this link below is being actively used at the moment or not although it would normally be the place to request this feature request. It has 5.0 although not 5.5:
http://trisquel.info/en/project/issues
I imagine there is a high chance it would be included in the future if the developers are made aware of it.
>It has 5.0 although not 5.5:
Also 5.5 now.
>It has 5.0 although not 5.5:
Also 5.5 now.
I am a translator!
t3g, are you referring to the ttf-liberation package, which provides with the
same metrics as Times, Arial and Courier or to a different package?
I am a translator!
The package is listed as part of Brigantia:
http://packages.trisquel.info/brigantia/ttf-liberation
Maybe you need to file a bug?
I am a translator!
t3g, are you referring to the ttf-liberation package (available in Trisquel's repositories) which provides fonts with the same metrics as Times, Arial and Courier or to a different package?
I'm referring to the ttf-liberation fonts because I tried out the latest 5.5 ISO from http://devel.trisquel.info/makeiso/iso/ and they weren't installed by default. I do understand that this isn't a pure Ubuntu clone and it is evident by including the ttf-droid fonts by default which I believe Ubuntu does not.
I also looked at other related fonts like Tinos, Arimo, and Cousine which are the default serif, sans-serif, and monospace for ChromeOS. They were done by the same guy that did the Liberation fonts and they seem like a carbon copy. Cousine doesn't, but the other two fonts are indistinguishable to me when used in LibreOffice and PDFs.
I'd also like to note that the fonts in this release don't look as crisp as the Gnome 2 based ones or Ubuntu 11.10 running Unity with the same settings. Maybe it is the Gnome Fallback but they look "smeary" to me even though I have the same settings on 4.0 and Ubuntu 11.10 which are Subpixel smoothing, Slight Hinting, and RGB for Subpixel Order. When running the live CD, I tried to change the fonts (since they were small) and didn't see an immediate font change. I'm guessing I would have to login and logout to see everything changed and I cannot do that with the live CD.
When I install Trisquel I always set the desktop fonts to DejaVu. The default Droid fonts don't look crisp on LCD screens. Now it occurs to me that this is an issue that should be reported.
By default Ubuntu uses the "Ubuntu" fonts which also look crisp on LCD screens. The Liberation fonts are also crisp. I prefer DejaVu for desktop fonts over the last two because they are more easy on the eyes, and the Cyrillic letters look better. For documents I want to publish or print I generally use the Droid fonts because they are much narrower (take less space) then the DejaVu fonts.
If you set hinting to none or Slight, Droid fonts look much better .
With hinting set to "Slight", the Droid fonts look worser to me. Here is a comparison I made:
- DejaVu Sans, Size 9, Full Hinting
- Droid Sans, Size 10, Full Hinting
- Droid Sans, Size 10, Slight Hinting
The DejaVu fonts definitely look better to me, although its hard see or explain why they are better, if you stare at the images too much – it's more noticeable when you just glance at the text.
On the other hand, if you stare at the word "Places" you may notice that the Droid's letter "l" has a slight shadow on the right side, while with DejaVu it looks like a perfect line. In GIMP one can double check that the right side of the Droid's letter "l" definitely is darker than the DejaVu's. Things like this are probably the reason why I find the DejaVu fonts better and easier on the eyes.
Here is the issue report I made: https://trisquel.info/en/issues/4886
I think it's largely a personal choice. BTW I'm currently using PT Sans Caption and I find it to be much better than Droid and Deja Vu.
What package provides this font, if it's in the repositories?
pt sans isn't in the repo. I downloaded it from google webfonts svn :D
you can download all google webfonts at https://s3.amazonaws.com/joemaller_google_webfonts/googlewebfonts.tgz
P.S. pt sans is under the "SIL open font license"
You can also try http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/PT-Sans
pt sans isn't in the repo. I downloaded it from google webfonts svn :D
you can download all google webfonts at
https://s3.amazonaws.com/joemaller_google_webfonts/googlewebfonts.tgz
P.S. pt sans is under the "SIL open font license"
You can also try http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/PT-Sans
What package provides this font, if it's in the repositories?
I think it's largely a personal choice. BTW I'm currently using PT Sans
Caption and I find it to be much better than Droid and Deja Vu.
With hinting set to "Slight", the Droid fonts look worser to me. Here is a
comparison I made:
DejaVu Sans, Size 9, Full Hinting
Droid Sans, Size 10, Full Hinting
Droid Sans, Size 10, Slight Hinting
The DejaVu fonts definitely look better to me, although its hard see or
explain why they are better, if you stare at the images too much – it's
more noticeable when you just glance at the text.
On the other hand, if you stare at the word "Places" you may notice that the
Droid's letter "l" has a slight shadow on the right side, while with DejaVu
it looks like a perfect line. In GIMP one can double check that the right
side of the Droid's letter "l" definitely is darker than the DejaVu's. Things
like this are probably the reason why I find the DejaVu fonts to be better
and easier on the eyes.
If you set hinting to none or Slight, Droid fonts look much better .
When I install Trisquel I always set the desktop fonts to DejaVu. The default
Droid fonts don't look crisp on LCD screens. Now it occurs to me that this is
an issue that should be reported.
By default Ubuntu uses the "Ubuntu" fonts which also look crisp on LCD
screens. The Liberation fonts are also crisp. I prefer DejaVu for desktop
fonts over the last two because they are more easy on the eyes, and the
Cyrillic letters look better. For documents I want to publish or print I
generally use the Droid fonts because they are much narrower (take less
space) then the DejaVu fonts.
I'm referring to the ttf-liberation fonts because I tried out the latest 5.5
ISO from http://devel.trisquel.info/makeiso/iso/ and they weren't installed
by default. I do understand that this isn't a pure Ubuntu clone and it is
evident by including the ttf-droid fonts by default which I believe Ubuntu
does not.
I also looked at other related fonts which are Tinos, Arimo, and Cousine
which are default serif, sans-serif, and monospace for ChromeOS. They were
done by the same guy that did the Liberation fonts and they seem like a
carbon copy copy. Cousine doesn't, but the other two fonts are
indistinguishable to me when used in LibreOffice and PDFs.
I'd also like to note that the fonts in this release don't look as crisp as
the Gnome 2 based ones or Ubuntu 11.10 running Unity with the same settings.
Maybe it is the Gnome Fallback but they look "smeary" to me even though I
have the same settings on 4.0 and Ubuntu 11.10 which are Subpixel smoothing,
Slight Hinting, and RGB for Subpixel Order. When running the live CD, I tried
to change the fonts (since they were small) and didn't see an immediate font
change. I'm guessing I would have to login and logout to see everything
changed and I cannot do that with the live CD.
I am a translator!
t3g, the package ttf-liberation is listed as part of Brigantia:
http://packages.trisquel.info/brigantia/ttf-liberation
So I assume your question is why the package isn't installed by default. If this is the case, one could also ask why Empathy isn't installed by default either despite providing the same functions (aside from perhaps encryption) which Pidgin does.
I say this because the default FreeFonts are still considered a work in progress and aren't at the quality of the Liberation ones. Steve White and I have been conversing back and forth since this past December and I've been testing his improvements and giving suggestions on how to improve them.
I do admit that glyph wise, the FreeSerif is a lot closer to Times New Roman than Liberation Serif. The issue is that the spacing is a little off vertically and horizontally and not even the OTF and TTF line up metrically to Times New Roman or Liberation Serif. If they fix those issues, then it would be a true drop-in replacement for the MS fonts.
Of course there is the whole politics aspect of it like LibreOffice and OpenOffice not rendering it properly and neither camp is taking suggestions to improve it. Plus the GNU camp prides itself on not trying to copy Microsoft completely. I think you should try to copy them so people can use it in their school papers and such and fulfill the "Times New Roman 12pt" requirement without actually using Microsoft fonts.
I say this because the default FreeFonts are still considered a work in
progress and aren't at the quality of the Liberation ones. Steve White and I
have been conversing back and forth since this past December and I've been
testing his improvements and giving suggestions on how to improve them.
I do admit that character wise, the FreeSerif is a lot closer to Times New
Roman than Liberation Serif. The issue is that the spacing is a little off
vertically and horizontally and not even the OTF and TTF line up metrically
to Times New Roman or Liberation Serif. If they fix those issues, then it
would be a true drop-in replacement for the MS fonts. Of course there is the
whole politics aspect of it like LibreOffice and OpenOffice not rendering it
properly and neither camp is taking suggestions to improve it.
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires