Fonts & Font rendering
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti
I just tried trisquel and I liked the desktop. However, the fonts & font rendering seems to be not that good, especially when I compare to font & font rendering on ubuntu desktop.
I have also noticed that debian has very bad fonts and after years of waiting the situation does not seem to improve. However I think debian is mostly for servers, so perhaps its fonts do not matter.
Is it just my eyes, or is there a reason why the fonts & font rendering in trisquel is poor? Is there a way to fix it?
Maybe you need to install better fonts,
http://packages.trisquel.info/search?keywords=ttf- lists some.
There are various hinting-related options of fontconfig that change how
the fonts look, your DE probably has settings for it (or look in
/etc/fonts).
Maybe you have some screenshots to compare it?
The default DE, GNOME, has font rendering settings that can be found:
* In Applications Menu,
* System Settings,
* Advanced Settings,
* Fonts section on the left.
You can change your hinting and antialiasing options from here to suit your screen.
>However, the fonts & font rendering seems to be not that good, especially when I compare to font & font rendering on ubuntu desktop.
Since Trisquel is Ubuntu without the proprietary parts, the fonts & rendering of the fonts is likely identical. :)
I did a bit of tweaking:
- Installed ttf-ubuntu-font-family package
- Used gnome-tweak-tool to 1) set fonts to ubuntu fonts, 2) set antialiasing to rgba
- Used dconf-editor to set nautilus desktop to use ubuntu mono font
Now the fonts on my trisquel desktop look very clean and nice. Thanks for help!
I do not understand why trisquel has changed the out-of-the-box fonts, as trisquel seems to be ubuntu derivative. As I see it, the font changes are not improving the look.
Surely, Trisquel would benefit from at least an increase of the fonts' size and antialiasing being set to RGBA. With Ubuntu fonts it would be even better. But it's my perception.
Fonts issue is quite personal. May be some people like what is by default.
Font rendering has a great impact on system performance.
A high font rendering is a bad option for a low spec pc. That's why distros like debian have a poor rendering by default.
Trisquel tries to achieve a balance point between a good look and feel and system performance.
I have two questions:
1) Are there measurements about font rendering impact on system performance? Is it for sure that trisquel has better performance than ubuntu?
2) Is trisquel targeting for different hardware specs than ubuntu?
Can I ask you if you managed to replicate ubuntu fonts exactly?
Because I've copied the font settings from gnome-tweak-tool on Ubuntu to gnome-tweak-tool on Trisquel and still it does not look the same.
It's important for me that it looks exactly the same: I've been using the exact same font setup for 3 years and now anything but this setup is extremely distracting.
I attach the screenshot. As you can see, the fonts are identical, and they're both antialiased, but they're different.
I assume you're talking about the menus, in which case the font size is too small. Maybe the text scaling factor?
If you're actually talking about the body, it looks to me like the difference in that is a (cyan-colored) shadow effect of some sort that is toward the top in the one on the left, but toward the right in the one on the right. I guess maybe a different anti-aliasing method, but this is a bit outside of my knowledge-base.
I always put the following into .Xresources and my fonts look perfect no matter in Trisquel, Debian or whatever. Supposedly, these settings are what Ubuntu uses:
!{{{XFT
Xft*dpi: 96
Xft*antialias: true
Xft*hinting: true
Xft*hintstyle: hintslight
Xft*rgba: rgb
Xft.lcdfilter: lcddefault
!}}}
What I do on new installations is:
cd /etc/fonts/conf.d && sudo rm --verbose 01-trisquel.conf && sudo rm --verbose 59-ttf-droid-serif-fonts.conf && sudo rm --verbose 10-hinting-slight.conf && sudo ln --symbolic ../conf.avail/10-hinting-full.conf && sudo ln --symbolic ../conf.avail/10-sub-pixel-rgb.conf cd $HOME gsettings set org.gnome.settings-daemon.plugins.xsettings antialiasing 'rgba' gsettings set org.gnome.settings-daemon.plugins.xsettings rgba-order 'rgb' gsettings set org.gnome.settings-daemon.plugins.xsettings hinting 'full' gsettings set org.gnome.desktop.interface font-name 'Sans 9' gsettings set org.gnome.desktop.interface document-font-name 'Serif 9' gsettings set org.gnome.desktop.interface monospace-font-name 'Monospace 9'
Some of the lines might be wrapped.
The first block removes fonts set as default by Trisquel. This in turn sets the default fonts to DejaVu, which are much more readable. It also sets the system fonts to full hinting and sub-pixeled, which makes them crisp and even more readable.
The other two blocks must be set for each user.
The first of the two set full hinting and sub-pixeled, again. I remember that some programs, such as Abrowser, do not use these settings and others do, so that's why it's needed to set them in both places.
The last block sets desktop fonts to the default generic ones. The generic ones are equal to DejaVu, because of the first block.
Thanks for the suggestions, but it did not work.
I tried all possible combinations with no result.
Finally just installed Mint 14 instead.
The font there looks exactly the same.
I have only one pair of eyes and it's more valuable to me
than a completely free GNU/Linux distribution.
But was that really so much to ask to not screw up the fonts?
I mean Mint did it right.
And I'm not asking for Microsoft fonts,
not even Ubuntu fonts,
I'm just asking for DejaVu Sans Mono size 11
to be rendered consistently on all Ubuntu-based distributions!
>I'm just asking for DejaVu Sans Mono size 11 to be rendered consistently on all Ubuntu-based distributions!
Not exactly a Trisquel's goal. I doubt any other distro's either...
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:39 PM, <name at domain>wrote:
> >I'm just asking for DejaVu Sans Mono size 11 to be rendered consistently
> on all Ubuntu-based distributions!
>
> Not exactly a Trisquel's goal.
>
But that's what Trisquel is: a free Ubuntu-based distribution.
The goal is to make it free, not just on purpose different from Ubuntu.
Otherwise, just remove Ubuntu-based from description and go with that.
The point was the DejaVu Sans Mono which is the default monospaced(i.e.
programmer's) font
in Ubuntu (and preserved so in Linux Mint) was screwed with on Trisquel for
no good reason.
You know how I got enthusiastic about Trisquel: I browsed the list of free
distros
and selected the one labeled Ubuntu-based. And it doesn't qualify for me as
Ubuntu-like
if it can't render the default font properly.
> I doubt any other distro's either...
As I've mentioned a few times, Linux Mint does the proper job.
"Ubuntu-based" is different from "Ubuntu-like". I am pretty sure you have noticed that, for instance, no Trisquel edition uses Unity as a desktop.
Trisquel is Ubuntu-based because almost all its packages are directly copied from Ubuntu's main and universe repositories.
However the developers choose the packages in Trisquel's default system without really taking into account Ubuntu's defaults. As a consequence, it is not "Ubuntu-like".
Thanks a lot for stating the obvious. That doesn't solve my problem with
the fonts though.
I'll try again with different desktops when the official 6.0 comes out.
If it doesn't work, I'll just go with Mint. Hopefully it's spyware free.
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:58 PM, <name at domain> wrote:
> "Ubuntu-based" is different from "Ubuntu-like". I am pretty sure you have
> noticed that, for instance, no Trisquel edition uses Unity as a desktop.
>
> Trisquel is Ubuntu-based because almost all its packages are directly
> copied from Ubuntu's main and universe repositories.
>
> However the developers choose the packages in Trisquel's default system
> without really taking into account Ubuntu's defaults. As a consequence, it
> is not "Ubuntu-like".
>
Mint is spyware free... as long as you don't use Google Chrome, or Adobe Flash, or Skype, or possibly other nonfree programs.
Of course, note that Mint is not an Ubuntu clone, either. Actually, if it's just the look of Ubuntu you really want (and not also the package manager), you might have an easier time using something like Parabola GNU/Linux as a base, then installing all the fonts and stuff from Ubuntu there.
Another thing worth trying in Trisquel: see if you're able to get it looking more like Ubuntu if you use Unity.
It looked like I had to "state the obvious" since you "obviously" had not understood it. Here is what you wrote:
You know how I got enthusiastic about Trisquel: I browsed the list of free distros and selected the one labeled Ubuntu-based. And it doesn't qualify for me as Ubuntu-like
You misunderstand. Ubuntu-based for me means just access to a ton packages
via apt.
I don't care about desktop environments/software centers/settings panels.
All I need is an Emacs window on one half of the screen and abrowser on the
other half.
But I'm used to a standard in font antialiasing that Ubuntu (and probably
most popular distributions)
has been providing for at least 3 years now.
And for some strange reason Trisquel does not provide this standard.
Was the antialiasing algorithm in Ubuntu non-free?
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 10:23 PM, <name at domain> wrote:
> It looked like I had to "state the obvious" since you "obviously" had not
> understood it. Here is what you wrote:
> You know how I got enthusiastic about Trisquel: I browsed the list of free
> distros and selected the one labeled Ubuntu-based. And it doesn't qualify
> for me as Ubuntu-like
>
The problem is with your setup, probably due to setting something that interferers with the options I proposed. On my system the fonts are perfectly anti-aliased and crisp.
In 6.0 the fonts settings are a bit different. Now I do:
cd /etc/fonts/conf.d && sudo rm --verbose 01-trisquel.conf && sudo rm --verbose 59-droid-serif-fonts.conf && sudo rm --verbose 60-droid-sans-mono-fonts.conf && sudo rm --verbose 10-hinting-slight.conf && sudo ln --verbose --symbolic ../conf.avail/10-hinting-full.conf && sudo ln --berbose --symbolic ../conf.avail/10-sub-pixel-rgb.conf gsettings set org.gnome.settings-daemon.plugins.xsettings antialiasing 'rgba' gsettings set org.gnome.settings-daemon.plugins.xsettings rgba-order 'rgb' gsettings set org.gnome.settings-daemon.plugins.xsettings hinting 'full' gsettings set org.gnome.desktop.interface font-name 'Sans 9' gsettings set org.gnome.desktop.interface document-font-name 'Serif 9' gsettings set org.gnome.desktop.interface monospace-font-name 'Monospace 9'
Anytime I install Trisquel from scratch, I increase the font size and do RGB instead of greyscale. It looks better and I have no idea why these aren't set like this by default.
I also switched from Droid Sans to Roboto: http://packages.ubuntu.com/raring/fonts-roboto
I changed for GNOME 3 default configuration.
For those that are unaware, icarolongo is using Gnome Tweak Tool: http://packages.trisquel.info/toutatis/gnome-tweak-tool
Or "Advanced Settings" in System Settings by default on Trisquel.
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti