Hi all,
I can't seem to get my fonts to look decent under CentOS. I was able to make them look pretty good under Ubuntu, but for the life of me I can't make them look decent on CentOS.
Screenshots: http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/8563/ss1rzo.jpg http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/7655/ss2ocf.jpg http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/6040/ss3j.jpg http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/466/uiprefs.jpg
Any advice is appreciated because this sucks :)
Ryan
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:01:47 -0400 Ryan Pugatch rpug@tripadvisor.com wrote:
I can't seem to get my fonts to look decent under CentOS. I was able to make them look pretty good under Ubuntu, but for the life of me I can't make them look decent on CentOS.
There are 2 sites that have full details:
Using Sharp Fonts On A GNOME Desktop: http://www.howtoforge.com/sharp_fonts_gnome It's not Xfce, but it may be enough to get you started.
and
Optimal Use of Fonts on Linux http://avi.alkalay.net/linux/docs/font-howto/Font.html It's much more general
centos@911networks.com wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:01:47 -0400 Ryan Pugatch rpug@tripadvisor.com wrote:
I can't seem to get my fonts to look decent under CentOS. I was able to make them look pretty good under Ubuntu, but for the life of me I can't make them look decent on CentOS.
There are 2 sites that have full details:
Using Sharp Fonts On A GNOME Desktop: http://www.howtoforge.com/sharp_fonts_gnome It's not Xfce, but it may be enough to get you started.
and
Optimal Use of Fonts on Linux http://avi.alkalay.net/linux/docs/font-howto/Font.html It's much more general
Thanks for the links. I have already basically done everything there and have the ms fonts. Unfortunately they look pretty bad..
Ryan Pugatch wrote:
Hi all,
I can't seem to get my fonts to look decent under CentOS. I was able to make them look pretty good under Ubuntu, but for the life of me I can't make them look decent on CentOS.
Screenshots: http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/8563/ss1rzo.jpg http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/7655/ss2ocf.jpg http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/6040/ss3j.jpg http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/466/uiprefs.jpg
Any advice is appreciated because this sucks :)
Ryan
Get the freetype source RPM and recompile it with the bytecode interpreter enabled.
Glenn
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 16:00, Ryan Pugatchrpug@tripadvisor.com wrote:
Get the freetype source RPM and recompile it with the bytecode interpreter enabled.
Yup already did that too :(
BCI is the one thing that makes a world of difference in fonts in Linux... so if you are still having bad results, it's probably because you did something wrong in the middle of the process...
How did you do that? Did you change the without_bytecode_interpreter variable in the spec file? Did you install the RPM that you rebuilt? Did you restart X (with Ctrl-Alt-Backspace) or reboot the machine after the upgrade? If you have a 64-bit machine, did you build and install a 32-bit RPM as well?
Would you care to show the output of "rpm -qi freetype"?
HTH, Filipe
Filipe Brandenburger wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 16:00, Ryan Pugatchrpug@tripadvisor.com wrote:
Get the freetype source RPM and recompile it with the bytecode interpreter enabled.
Yup already did that too :(
BCI is the one thing that makes a world of difference in fonts in Linux... so if you are still having bad results, it's probably because you did something wrong in the middle of the process...
How did you do that? Did you change the without_bytecode_interpreter variable in the spec file? Did you install the RPM that you rebuilt? Did you restart X (with Ctrl-Alt-Backspace) or reboot the machine after the upgrade? If you have a 64-bit machine, did you build and install a 32-bit RPM as well?
Would you care to show the output of "rpm -qi freetype"?
HTH, Filipe
Yes, I changed the variable in the spec and installed the RPM I built. I am on a 64-bit machine but did not install a 32-bit RPM.
Looks like there are two versions.. the original and mine. What should I do?
Requested output:
[rpug@localhost ~]$ rpm -qi freetype Name : freetype Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 2.2.1 Vendor: CentOS Release : 21.el5_3 Build Date: Fri 22 May 2009 10:04:13 AM EDT Install Date: Thu 27 Aug 2009 01:06:54 PM EDT Build Host: builder16.centos.org Group : System Environment/Libraries Source RPM: freetype-2.2.1-21.el5_3.src.rpm Size : 626801 License: BSD/GPL dual license Signature : DSA/SHA1, Fri 22 May 2009 05:22:59 PM EDT, Key ID a8a447dce8562897 URL : http://www.freetype.org Summary : A free and portable font rendering engine Description : The FreeType engine is a free and portable font rendering engine, developed to provide advanced font support for a variety of platforms and environments. FreeType is a library which can open and manages font files as well as efficiently load, hint and render individual glyphs. FreeType is not a font server or a complete text-rendering library. Name : freetype Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 2.2.1 Vendor: (none) Release : 20 Build Date: Thu 27 Aug 2009 04:24:21 PM EDT Install Date: Thu 27 Aug 2009 04:25:44 PM EDT Build Host: localhost.localdomain Group : System Environment/Libraries Source RPM: freetype-2.2.1-20.src.rpm Size : 655297 License: BSD/GPL dual license Signature : (none) Packager : Pugatch Ryan URL : http://www.freetype.org Summary : A free and portable font rendering engine Description : The FreeType engine is a free and portable font rendering engine, developed to provide advanced font support for a variety of platforms and environments. FreeType is a library which can open and manages font files as well as efficiently load, hint and render individual glyphs. FreeType is not a font server or a complete text-rendering library.
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 17:03, Ryan Pugatchrpug@tripadvisor.com wrote:
Would you care to show the output of "rpm -qi freetype"?
Yes, I changed the variable in the spec and installed the RPM I built. I am on a 64-bit machine but did not install a 32-bit RPM.
Looks like there are two versions.. the original and mine. What should I do?
If you have problems on 32-bit applications (I, for instance, used to run a 32-bit Firefox on a 64-bit machine to get Flash support without nspluginwrapper) you should build a 32-bit RPM and install it too.
You can do that with this command:
$ LDFLAGS=-m32 rpmbuild --target i386 -bb freetype.spec
You might need to install glibc-devel.i386 and libX11-devel.i386 to build that one.
I also noticed that you rebuilt 2.2.1-20 while 2.2.1-21.el5_3 is available, you might want to update it to the latest.
I actually had a look at your last screenshot, and it does not seem too bad... It looks like the quality is already much better, I believe BCI is already working for you. If you still feel that an improvement is needed, then you might want to switch to the msttcorefonts, you might need to do that in Thunderbird's preferences though.
HTH, Filipe
Filipe Brandenburger wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 17:03, Ryan Pugatchrpug@tripadvisor.com wrote:
Would you care to show the output of "rpm -qi freetype"?
Yes, I changed the variable in the spec and installed the RPM I built. I am on a 64-bit machine but did not install a 32-bit RPM.
Looks like there are two versions.. the original and mine. What should I do?
If you have problems on 32-bit applications (I, for instance, used to run a 32-bit Firefox on a 64-bit machine to get Flash support without nspluginwrapper) you should build a 32-bit RPM and install it too.
You can do that with this command:
$ LDFLAGS=-m32 rpmbuild --target i386 -bb freetype.spec
You might need to install glibc-devel.i386 and libX11-devel.i386 to build that one.
I also noticed that you rebuilt 2.2.1-20 while 2.2.1-21.el5_3 is available, you might want to update it to the latest.
I actually had a look at your last screenshot, and it does not seem too bad... It looks like the quality is already much better, I believe BCI is already working for you. If you still feel that an improvement is needed, then you might want to switch to the msttcorefonts, you might need to do that in Thunderbird's preferences though.
HTH, Filipe _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I agree that it looks better, but it doesn't seem to be as good as Ubuntu. I have Thunderbird using the msttcorefonts.
Should rpm -qi freetype show both my built version and the other one as well?
I don't remember how I ended up with the slightly older verison, but I can try updating.
There's got to be some setting I'm missing that makes the fonts look just a bit better, because I think they still look rough.
I have a screenshot from an Xubuntu install that I did and you can see the terminal in the shot. http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/6611/screenshotohr.png
Not exactly the best comparison, but you can see the terminal text is quite a bit clearer than on CentOS: http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/4382/centk.jpg
Thanks for your help, by the way.
Ryan
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 17:22, Ryan Pugatchrpug@tripadvisor.com wrote:
Should rpm -qi freetype show both my built version and the other one as well?
It shows the 32-bit and the 64-bit versions, that's why it shows it twice...
I don't remember how I ended up with the slightly older verison, but I can try updating.
You should probably do that, although it will probably not change anything...
There's got to be some setting I'm missing that makes the fonts look just a bit better, because I think they still look rough.
Yes, there is the font rendering settings (monochrome/best shapes/best contrast/subpixel smoothing [LCD]), and smoothing, hinting and subpixel order advanced settings.
You can set those by running the "gnome-font-properties" program (included in the "control-center" RPM).
It's possible to do those settings manually by tweaking /etc/fonts/fonts.conf or ~/.fonts.conf, but it's a XML file with arcane syntax...
You can try to remove any ~/.fonts.conf if you have any and see if that makes a difference.
HTH, Filipe
Ryan Pugatch wrote:
Yes, I changed the variable in the spec and installed the RPM I built. I am on a 64-bit machine but did not install a 32-bit RPM.
Looks like there are two versions.. the original and mine. What should I do?
Requested output:
[rpug@localhost ~]$ rpm -qi freetype Name : freetype Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 2.2.1 Vendor: CentOS Release : 21.el5_3 Build Date: Fri 22 May 2009 10:04:13 AM EDT Install Date: Thu 27 Aug 2009 01:06:54 PM EDT Build Host: builder16.centos.org Group : System Environment/Libraries Source RPM: freetype-2.2.1-21.el5_3.src.rpm Size : 626801 License: BSD/GPL dual license Signature : DSA/SHA1, Fri 22 May 2009 05:22:59 PM EDT, Key ID a8a447dce8562897 URL : http://www.freetype.org Summary : A free and portable font rendering engine Description : The FreeType engine is a free and portable font rendering engine, developed to provide advanced font support for a variety of platforms and environments. FreeType is a library which can open and manages font files as well as efficiently load, hint and render individual glyphs. FreeType is not a font server or a complete text-rendering library. Name : freetype Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 2.2.1 Vendor: (none) Release : 20 Build Date: Thu 27 Aug 2009 04:24:21 PM EDT Install Date: Thu 27 Aug 2009 04:25:44 PM EDT Build Host: localhost.localdomain Group : System Environment/Libraries Source RPM: freetype-2.2.1-20.src.rpm Size : 655297 License: BSD/GPL dual license Signature : (none) Packager : Pugatch Ryan URL : http://www.freetype.org Summary : A free and portable font rendering engine Description : The FreeType engine is a free and portable font rendering engine, developed to provide advanced font support for a variety of platforms and environments. FreeType is a library which can open and manages font files as well as efficiently load, hint and render individual glyphs. FreeType is not a font server or a complete text-rendering library.
Why do you have two freetypes installed? That shouldn't be possible. They should have conflicting files. Fix this first.
Glenn
RedShift wrote:
Ryan Pugatch wrote:
Yes, I changed the variable in the spec and installed the RPM I built. I am on a 64-bit machine but did not install a 32-bit RPM.
Looks like there are two versions.. the original and mine. What should I do?
Requested output:
[rpug@localhost ~]$ rpm -qi freetype Name : freetype Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 2.2.1 Vendor: CentOS Release : 21.el5_3 Build Date: Fri 22 May 2009 10:04:13 AM EDT Install Date: Thu 27 Aug 2009 01:06:54 PM EDT Build Host: builder16.centos.org Group : System Environment/Libraries Source RPM: freetype-2.2.1-21.el5_3.src.rpm Size : 626801 License: BSD/GPL dual license Signature : DSA/SHA1, Fri 22 May 2009 05:22:59 PM EDT, Key ID a8a447dce8562897 URL : http://www.freetype.org Summary : A free and portable font rendering engine Description : The FreeType engine is a free and portable font rendering engine, developed to provide advanced font support for a variety of platforms and environments. FreeType is a library which can open and manages font files as well as efficiently load, hint and render individual glyphs. FreeType is not a font server or a complete text-rendering library. Name : freetype Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 2.2.1 Vendor: (none) Release : 20 Build Date: Thu 27 Aug 2009 04:24:21 PM EDT Install Date: Thu 27 Aug 2009 04:25:44 PM EDT Build Host: localhost.localdomain Group : System Environment/Libraries Source RPM: freetype-2.2.1-20.src.rpm Size : 655297 License: BSD/GPL dual license Signature : (none) Packager : Pugatch Ryan URL : http://www.freetype.org Summary : A free and portable font rendering engine Description : The FreeType engine is a free and portable font rendering engine, developed to provide advanced font support for a variety of platforms and environments. FreeType is a library which can open and manages font files as well as efficiently load, hint and render individual glyphs. FreeType is not a font server or a complete text-rendering library.
Why do you have two freetypes installed? That shouldn't be possible. They should have conflicting files. Fix this first.
One is likely i386 and the other x86_64 ...
The first thing I do when I install an x86_64 machine is exclude *.i[3456]86 in the yum.conf file. (If I have to run i386 things, I install an i386 machine ... but that is just me). I then remove all i[3,4,5,6] packages and only install update x86_64 packages. I understand that some people have to have x86_64 workstations for certain things (cad/video editing, etc.) where they need > 8 GB RAM and the things x86_64 can do there. They also need some i386 packages (like firefox) since x86_64 alternatives are not good or not available. In these cases, you need to keep as minimal a number if i386 packages on your machine as you possibly can. Again, this is my opinion ... others might have a different one.
If you want to see the arch of all packages with rpm queries, create a file called .rpmmacros in a users home dir and add this line:
%_query_all_fmt %%{name}-%%{version}-%%{release}.%%{arch}
Then when you do "rpm -q" queries, you will see things like this:
rpm -q freetype
freetype-2.1.9-8.el4.6.x86_64 freetype-2.1.9-8.el4.6.i386
(this was just an example from a c4 machine ... package versions not relevant to this thread :D )
RedShift wrote:
Ryan Pugatch wrote:
Hi all,
I can't seem to get my fonts to look decent under CentOS. I was able to make them look pretty good under Ubuntu, but for the life of me I can't make them look decent on CentOS.
Screenshots: http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/8563/ss1rzo.jpg http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/7655/ss2ocf.jpg http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/6040/ss3j.jpg http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/466/uiprefs.jpg
Any advice is appreciated because this sucks :)
Ryan
Get the freetype source RPM and recompile it with the bytecode interpreter enabled.
I have never had to recompile a freetype RPM to have decent fonts. I am not sure this is a good idea for normal users.
If you are going to do this for x86_64 you will also likely need the i386 one too.
But again, I have never heard anyone needing to do this for normal fonts.
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Ryan Pugatchrpug@tripadvisor.com wrote:
Hi all,
I can't seem to get my fonts to look decent under CentOS. I was able to make them look pretty good under Ubuntu, but for the life of me I can't make them look decent on CentOS.
Screenshots: http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/8563/ss1rzo.jpg http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/7655/ss2ocf.jpg http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/6040/ss3j.jpg http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/466/uiprefs.jpg
Any advice is appreciated because this sucks :)
Ryan _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
rpm -ivh http://repo.lastdot.org/tmp/msttcorefonts-2.0-1.noarch.rpm service xfs restart Restart your application.. Is it working now?
Lucian @ lastdot.org wrote:
rpm -ivh http://repo.lastdot.org/tmp/msttcorefonts-2.0-1.noarch.rpm service xfs restart Restart your application.. Is it working now? _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I removed my msttcorefonts pkg and installed yours.. no difference.
I rebuilt freetype again just for good measure.. nothing.
Now I somehow did manage somewhere along the line to make the fonts look a little better. But I still think they look horrible.
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/4732/sucko.jpg
I am so frustrated because I have everything else just the way I want it.. but the fonts are so jagged ;[
Ryan Pugatch wrote:
Lucian @ lastdot.org wrote:
rpm -ivh http://repo.lastdot.org/tmp/msttcorefonts-2.0-1.noarch.rpm service xfs restart Restart your application.. Is it working now? _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I removed my msttcorefonts pkg and installed yours.. no difference.
I rebuilt freetype again just for good measure.. nothing.
Now I somehow did manage somewhere along the line to make the fonts look a little better. But I still think they look horrible.
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/4732/sucko.jpg
I am so frustrated because I have everything else just the way I want it.. but the fonts are so jagged ;[
I never had jagged fonts with the standard xfce in extras and normal CentOS using the liberation fonts and the standard freetype from centos. I was using the same fonts I used in Gnome.
Maybe I am missing something, why did you need to rebuild freetype?
Are you using the xfce from centos 5 extras?
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
Johnny Hughes wrote:
Ryan Pugatch wrote:
Lucian @ lastdot.org wrote:
rpm -ivh http://repo.lastdot.org/tmp/msttcorefonts-2.0-1.noarch.rpm service xfs restart Restart your application.. Is it working now? _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I removed my msttcorefonts pkg and installed yours.. no difference.
I rebuilt freetype again just for good measure.. nothing.
Now I somehow did manage somewhere along the line to make the fonts look a little better. But I still think they look horrible.
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/4732/sucko.jpg
I am so frustrated because I have everything else just the way I want it.. but the fonts are so jagged ;[
I never had jagged fonts with the standard xfce in extras and normal CentOS using the liberation fonts and the standard freetype from centos. I was using the same fonts I used in Gnome.
Maybe I am missing something, why did you need to rebuild freetype?
Are you using the xfce from centos 5 extras?
Here is a list of the relevant fonts I have installed:
bitstream-vera-fonts-1.10-7 liberation-fonts-1.0-1.el5 libXfont-1.2.2-1.0.3.el5_1 libXfontcache-1.0.2-3.1 xorg-x11-fonts-100dpi-7.1-2.1.el5 xorg-x11-fonts-75dpi-7.1-2.1.el5 xorg-x11-fonts-base-7.1-2.1.el5 xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi-7.1-2.1.el5 xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-75dpi-7.1-2.1.el5 xorg-x11-fonts-misc-7.1-2.1.el5 xorg-x11-fonts-truetype-7.1-2.1.el5 xorg-x11-fonts-Type1-7.1-2.1.el5 xorg-x11-font-utils-7.1-2
After you make sure liberation-fonts and bitstream-vera-fonts are installed, try making "Bitstream Vera Sans" or "Liberation Sans" your application font.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
Johnny Hughes wrote:
I never had jagged fonts with the standard xfce in extras and normal CentOS using the liberation fonts and the standard freetype from centos. I was using the same fonts I used in Gnome.
Maybe I am missing something, why did you need to rebuild freetype?
Are you using the xfce from centos 5 extras?
Here is a list of the relevant fonts I have installed:
bitstream-vera-fonts-1.10-7 liberation-fonts-1.0-1.el5 libXfont-1.2.2-1.0.3.el5_1 libXfontcache-1.0.2-3.1 xorg-x11-fonts-100dpi-7.1-2.1.el5 xorg-x11-fonts-75dpi-7.1-2.1.el5 xorg-x11-fonts-base-7.1-2.1.el5 xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi-7.1-2.1.el5 xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-75dpi-7.1-2.1.el5 xorg-x11-fonts-misc-7.1-2.1.el5 xorg-x11-fonts-truetype-7.1-2.1.el5 xorg-x11-fonts-Type1-7.1-2.1.el5 xorg-x11-font-utils-7.1-2
After you make sure liberation-fonts and bitstream-vera-fonts are installed, try making "Bitstream Vera Sans" or "Liberation Sans" your application font.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
I installed from extras. I rebuilt freetype to enable BCI. I'm going to reload the machine and then install your suggested fonts and MS core fonts and see how it goes. It's easier to start fresh now since I've messed with so many things :) Will follow up when I am done.
Thanks
Ryan
Ryan Pugatch wrote:
I installed from extras. I rebuilt freetype to enable BCI. I'm going to reload the machine and then install your suggested fonts and MS core fonts and see how it goes. It's easier to start fresh now since I've messed with so many things :) Will follow up when I am done.
Thanks
Ryan
So after the fresh start I am pleased with how my fonts look. No idea what I horked last time, but apparently I didn't do it again. Thanks all for the advice/help.
Ryan
-
centos＠911networks.com -
Filipe Brandenburger -
Johnny Hughes -
Lucian ＠ lastdot.org -
RedShift -
Ryan Pugatch