8:36 p.m.
Hello everyone, and thanks to one and all for a remarkable distribution!
With the coverage of the freeworld fontconfig enhancements, I wonder if
some of the configuration settings currently implemented in
https://github.com/silenc3r/fedora-better-fonts will be considered as
defaults?
Thanks,
Marty
6:05 a.m.
Le vendredi 09 novembre 2018 à 20:36 -0600, Martin Jackson a écrit :
Hello everyone, and thanks to one and all for a remarkable
distribution!
With the coverage of the freeworld fontconfig enhancements, I wonder
if
some of the configuration settings currently implemented in
https://github.com/silenc3r/fedora-better-fonts will be considered as
defaults?
A lot of this are just individual font packages that just wait for
someone to pick up and maintain within Fedora. It does not depend on any
fontconfig change
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
8:57 a.m.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 7:58 AM Nicolas Mailhot
<nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> wrote:
Le vendredi 09 novembre 2018 à 20:36 -0600, Martin Jackson a écrit :
> Hello everyone, and thanks to one and all for a remarkable
> distribution!
>
> With the coverage of the freeworld fontconfig enhancements, I wonder
> if
> some of the configuration settings currently implemented in
> https://github.com/silenc3r/fedora-better-fonts will be considered as
> defaults?
>
A lot of this are just individual font packages that just wait for
someone to pick up and maintain within Fedora. It does not depend on any
fontconfig change
There is some fontconfig changes[1][2].
Most of these fonts look like they are licensed appropriately, the
only problem is the Ubuntu fonts, which have been noted to have a
non-free license[3] (unless someone can get Canonical to fix it). In
theory, we have a Fonts SIG[4], but it seems to be defunct.
Does anyone actually take care of our fonts stuff anymore?
[1]:
https://github.com/silenc3r/fedora-better-fonts/tree/master/fontconfig-en...
[2]:
https://github.com/silenc3r/fedora-better-fonts/tree/master/fontconfig-fo...
[3]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ubuntu_fonts
[4]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fonts_SIG
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
12:58 p.m.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Does anyone actually take care of our fonts stuff anymore?
Off the top of my head, there's Akira Tagoh covering fontconfig both
upstream and downstream, Marek Kasik covering freetype downstream, and
Nikolaus Waxweiler handling freetype upstream, Cantarell upstream, and
the GNOME settings.
It seems unlikely to me that any downstream customizations would be
accepted directly into Fedora, since we try to stick very close to
upstream defaults. So please, send any desired improvements upstream.
For example, the gschema changes should go to the gnome-settings-daemon
project, where it is probably going to run up against the fact that (I
believe) Nikolaus prefers grayscale hinting. I'm sure he'd be happy to
provide a rationale for why rgba is not default. Then the fontconfig
changes should be submitted to the fontconfig project. The author of
the changes should again be prepared to argue why the changes should
become defaults. I don't see why upstream would reject the changes if
they are good.
At the end of the day, font settings are highly subjective, so I'm
pretty skeptical of anything called "fedora-enhanced-defaults" or
"fedora-better-fonts". They don't look any better or worse to me. They
just look different. So I'm inclined to trust the expertise of the
people maintaining the font packages, who've probably not set the
defaults as they are arbitrarily....
Michael
4:03 p.m.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 2:50 PM <mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Does anyone actually take care of our fonts stuff anymore?
Off the top of my head, there's Akira Tagoh covering fontconfig both upstream and
downstream, Marek Kasik covering freetype downstream, and Nikolaus Waxweiler handling
freetype upstream, Cantarell upstream, and the GNOME settings.
It seems unlikely to me that any downstream customizations would be accepted directly
into Fedora, since we try to stick very close to upstream defaults. So please, send any
desired improvements upstream.
For example, the gschema changes should go to the gnome-settings-daemon project, where it
is probably going to run up against the fact that (I believe) Nikolaus prefers grayscale
hinting. I'm sure he'd be happy to provide a rationale for why rgba is not
default. Then the fontconfig changes should be submitted to the fontconfig project. The
author of the changes should again be prepared to argue why the changes should become
defaults. I don't see why upstream would reject the changes if they are good.
At the end of the day, font settings are highly subjective, so I'm pretty skeptical
of anything called "fedora-enhanced-defaults" or
"fedora-better-fonts". They don't look any better or worse to me. They just
look different. So I'm inclined to trust the expertise of the people maintaining the
font packages, who've probably not set the defaults as they are arbitrarily....
Most of the defaults upstream are largely due to legal issues that are
no longer applicable. And Fedora is the only distribution I know of
that actually actively maintains a very large fontconfig configuration
for every single font. I *know* we deviate from "upstream" in some
regards because our font configuration isn't something they ship. In
addition, until Fedora 29, we didn't even have Liberation 2.0 fonts in
the distribution, and those fonts were produced by Red Hat years ago
(and included in most other distributions).
None of what you said should imply we should abdicate our
responsibility to actively improve how our distribution works. That
said, I would certainly like to see our maintainers and experts in
this weigh in and examine what we can do to include these improvements
across the board, which is why I've CC'd our freetype and fontconfig
maintainers to ask them to weigh in.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
4:43 p.m.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 4:03 PM, Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Most of the defaults upstream are largely due to legal issues that
are
no longer applicable.
As of very recently, Marik did make one change: subpixel rendering is
now enabled by default in Fedora's freetype package (if you have the
latest F29 updates) at build time, whereas it's still disabled by
default upstream. But it remains disabled at runtime. But I don't think
that's due to legal reasons. I think it's just because that's what
Nikolaus prefers. He's an expert on font rendering, and I'm not, so
you'd have to ask him.
Another difference is that we disable bitmap fonts at the fontconfig
level, because it's insane not to. That really ought to be changed
upstream.
And Fedora is the only distribution I know of
that actually actively maintains a very large fontconfig configuration
for every single font.
I wasn't aware of this?
Michael
4:57 p.m.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 5:43 PM <mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 4:03 PM, Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Most of the defaults upstream are largely due to legal issues that are no longer
applicable.
As of very recently, Marik did make one change: subpixel rendering is now enabled by
default in Fedora's freetype package (if you have the latest F29 updates) at build
time, whereas it's still disabled by default upstream. But it remains disabled at
runtime. But I don't think that's due to legal reasons. I think it's just
because that's what Nikolaus prefers. He's an expert on font rendering, and
I'm not, so you'd have to ask him.
I'm aware of the subpixel rendering enablement, as I tested it and
sent a pull request to actually fix the enablement[1].
Unfortunately, a lot of text on the web renders really poorly without
rgba subpixel rendering (aka ClearType). It's a lot less noticeable if
you're lucky enough to have a 4K display (which I do not). But having
text look squishy and spaced incorrectly does not make for enjoyable
reading...
[1]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/freetype/pull-request/1
Another difference is that we disable bitmap fonts at the fontconfig
level, because it's insane not to. That really ought to be changed upstream.
And Fedora is the only distribution I know of
that actually actively maintains a very large fontconfig configuration for every single
font.
I wasn't aware of this?
We require every font packaged in Fedora to have fontconfig
configuration. I know this because I learned about it when I packaged
a font a while ago[2]. Most fonts probably have similarly trivial
fontconfig config files, but there are some that have more complex
ones.
[2]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/d-din-fonts
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
8 p.m.
Neal Gompa wrote:
Unfortunately, a lot of text on the web renders really poorly
without
rgba subpixel rendering (aka ClearType). It's a lot less noticeable if
you're lucky enough to have a 4K display (which I do not).
I have a 1280×1024 LCD and I think subpixel rendering looks a lot sharper
than grayscale one. I cannot notice issues such as:
But having text look squishy and spaced incorrectly does not make
for
enjoyable reading...
here, and I don't see how that is related to using subpixel rendering. That
sounds more like a hinting issue.
Kevin Kofler
9:13 p.m.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 9:53 PM Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
Neal Gompa wrote:
> Unfortunately, a lot of text on the web renders really poorly without
> rgba subpixel rendering (aka ClearType). It's a lot less noticeable if
> you're lucky enough to have a 4K display (which I do not).
I have a 1280×1024 LCD and I think subpixel rendering looks a lot sharper
than grayscale one. I cannot notice issues such as:
> But having text look squishy and spaced incorrectly does not make for
> enjoyable reading...
here, and I don't see how that is related to using subpixel rendering. That
sounds more like a hinting issue.
It probably is. But blurriness vs sharpness in rendering is a subpixel
rendering thing, while hinting issues are usually fontconfig things.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
12:08 a.m.
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 03:53, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
Neal Gompa wrote:
> Unfortunately, a lot of text on the web renders really poorly without
> rgba subpixel rendering (aka ClearType). It's a lot less noticeable if
> you're lucky enough to have a 4K display (which I do not).
I have a 1280×1024 LCD and I think subpixel rendering looks a lot sharper
than grayscale one. I cannot notice issues such as:
Can the sub pixel renderer actually know the actual subpixels on the screen
or is some pattern just assumed?
> But having text look squishy and spaced incorrectly does not
make for
> enjoyable reading...
here, and I don't see how that is related to using subpixel rendering.
That
sounds more like a hinting issue.
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
6:55 a.m.
Le samedi 10 novembre 2018 à 17:57 -0500, Neal Gompa a écrit :
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 5:43 PM <mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org> wrote:
It's a lot less noticeable if
you're lucky enough to have a 4K display (which I do not).
BTW, those have become pretty cheap last time I looked, some of them are
cheaper than many FHD screens, and anything between FHD and UHD will be
more expensive. Having everyone standardise on specific resolutions has
nice price scaling effects.
Of course, entry-level UHD/4K screens won’t have the low-latency
properties gamers prefer, their color profile will suck — forget about
doing serious photo/video work on them. You want a screen with high
scores everywhere you have to pay a pretty penny for it.
But, to pore on text all day round and forget about text rendering
artifacts they're prefect.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
3:08 a.m.
Le samedi 10 novembre 2018 à 16:43 -0600, mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org a écrit :
>
> And Fedora is the only distribution I know of
> that actually actively maintains a very large fontconfig
> configuration
> for every single font.
I wasn't aware of this?
It's not large, fontconfig xml syntax is verbose so the resulting files
are bulky, but for the average font you have three rules max (the
generic associated to the font, in direct and reverse mapping, and the
list of fonts this font can substitute for). Having the font packager
identify those scales better than asking Akira to write rules for every
single font we package in the fontconfig package itself (not to mention,
that would require updating the fontconfig package on every user system
every time a font is added to the distro).
And when upstream is agreeable (many are not) the files are pushed
upstream.
Of course for huge font families split over lots of files the rules can
get a lot more complex. There’s at most a handful of those in the
distro.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
3:23 a.m.
Le samedi 10 novembre 2018 à 17:03 -0500, Neal Gompa a écrit :
Hi
Most of the defaults upstream are largely due to legal issues that
are
no longer applicable.
That’s a gross over simplification “render fonts like windows” has long
been impossible for legal reasons, but “render fonts like windows” has
never been an universal standard the majority of our users subscribe to.
You can easily find on the internet decades of rants where windows users
state their font rendering is best and others suck, OSX users state the
reverse and Linux users are somewhere in the middle (because freetype
allows many different rendering styles). Add the Adobe style of
rendering that Adobe contributed to the CFF freetype engine some years
past to the list. Also, add to the list the fact “render fonts like
windows” is not a single style, Microsoft provides several rendering
engines of various ages, some devel stack specific, so when people say
“render fonts like windows” that means “render fonts like my current
windows system and not like other windows systems”. Finally, add to the
fact that baring a HiDPI screen, all kinds of font renderings are
basically heuristic base and will work better on some fonts and screen
resolutions and fail catastrophically on others.
So yes there has always been a vocal user minority that asked for our
rendering to move to windows style, because they are former windows
users accustomed to this style. They've always been told most users did
not share their preferences and anyway windows-style rendering was
legally encumbered. Since most of them can not imagine others may not
share their preferences they concluded it was not the default for legal
reasons. But that has never been the only (or principal) reason.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
8:01 p.m.
>>>> "NG" == Neal Gompa
<ngompa13(a)gmail.com> writes:
NG> Most of these fonts look like they are licensed appropriately, the
NG> only problem is the Ubuntu fonts, which have been noted to have a
NG> non-free license[3] (unless someone can get Canonical to fix it).
I had a look at the license at https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/font-licence
and didn't see anything that strikes me as particularly non-free.
The license has a forced renaming requirement for "Modified Versions
which are Substantially Changed", but that kind of thing hasn't rendered
something non-free in the past. The only thing which I've not seen
before is a forced renaming requirement which specifies the name to be
used:
3. Modified Versions which are not Substantially Changed must be renamed
to both
1. retain the name of the Original Version and
2. add additional naming elements to distinguish the Modified Version
from the Original Version. The name of such Modified Versions must be
the name of the Original Version, with "derivative X" where X
represents the name of the new work, appended to that name.
So maybe that's an issue. The font doesn't appear in our list of
licenses (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Font_Licenses)
so I guess it wouldn't hurt to ping the legal list, which I'll do now.
- J<
1:46 a.m.
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 08:01:48PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>> "NG" == Neal Gompa
<ngompa13(a)gmail.com> writes:
NG> Most of these fonts look like they are licensed appropriately, the
NG> only problem is the Ubuntu fonts, which have been noted to have a
NG> non-free license[3] (unless someone can get Canonical to fix it).
I had a look at the license at https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/font-licence
and didn't see anything that strikes me as particularly non-free.
The license has a forced renaming requirement for "Modified Versions
which are Substantially Changed", but that kind of thing hasn't rendered
something non-free in the past. The only thing which I've not seen
before is a forced renaming requirement which specifies the name to be
used:
3. Modified Versions which are not Substantially Changed must be renamed
to both
1. retain the name of the Original Version and
2. add additional naming elements to distinguish the Modified Version
from the Original Version. The name of such Modified Versions must be
the name of the Original Version, with "derivative X" where X
represents the name of the new work, appended to that name.
So maybe that's an issue. The font doesn't appear in our list of
licenses (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Font_Licenses)
so I guess it wouldn't hurt to ping the legal list, which I'll do now.
The previous attempt is here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642
--
Tomasz Torcz ,,(...) today's high-end is tomorrow's embedded
processor.''
xmpp: zdzichubg(a)chrome.pl -- Mitchell Blank on LKML
6:10 a.m.
I had a quick look at fedora-better-fonts and found this:
1. The defaults in
https://github.com/silenc3r/fedora-better-fonts/blob/master/fontconfig-en...
are redundant. Turning off the autohinter and selecting hintslight...
will turn it back on :D The LCD filter and subpixel order can be
selected by existing conf files inf fontconfig's conf.avail folder already.
2. The rest seems to be mostly boilerplate font replacements? Standard
stuff like Arial is already covered by fontconfig/Fedora defaults, other
replacements like Arial Black are not really replacements, but wholesale
changes. A replacement for a font family should be a metrically
compatible drop-in, as e.g. PDF viewers will use the same information
(not all PDF generators embed fonts when they should...). If the
replacement works for your use-case, good, but I would be uncomfortable
aliasing Consolas to Fira Mono distro-wide.
For example, the gschema changes should go to the
gnome-settings-daemon project, where it is probably going to run up
against the fact that (I believe) Nikolaus prefers grayscale hinting.
What? 😁 Do note that I never touched GNOME settings, the grayscale
default comes from the time where subpixel rendering was guarded by
ClearType patents. All I remember saying is that subpixel rendering is
not essential to getting nicely rendered fonts, as you can see in Qt5:
https://i.postimg.cc/t4XnfGzt/Bildschirmfoto-vom-2018-11-11-11-45-41.png
https://i.postimg.cc/c4GnRngz/Bildschirmfoto-vom-2018-11-11-11-46-28.png
Download the original PNGs and compare 😊 subpixel rendering (here with
the light LCD filter) can improve contrast a bit, but grayscale looks
pretty good, too. Provided you like the overall smooth look of light
hinting.
Unfortunately, a lot of text on the web renders really poorly without
rgba subpixel rendering (aka ClearType). It's a lot less noticeable if
you're lucky enough to have a 4K display (which I do not). But having
text look squishy and spaced incorrectly does not make for enjoyable
reading...
Subpixel rendering shouldn't modify squishiness or spacing, just add
some color to boring text. Can you send some screenshots my way?
Can the sub pixel renderer actually know the actual subpixels on the
screen or is some pattern just assumed?
No, you have to tell FreeType what to render. By default it assumes RGB
subpixels, but you can change that in fontconfig to BGR or their
vertical cousins.
That’s a gross over simplification “render fonts like windows” has
long been impossible for legal reasons, but “render fonts like windows”
has never been an universal standard the majority of our users subscribe to.
It's also technically (mostly) impossible because Windows and macOS do
correct font rendering (linear alpha blending and gamma correction to
various degrees) which on X11/Wayland currently only Qt5 does (see
screenshots above). Nothing you can do anywhere else in stack weights
that up.
7:39 a.m.
Le dimanche 11 novembre 2018 à 12:10 +0000, Nikolaus Waxweiler a écrit :
It's also technically (mostly) impossible because Windows and macOS do
correct font rendering (linear alpha blending and gamma correction to
various degrees) which on X11/Wayland currently only Qt5 does (see
screenshots above).
Nice work on QT’s part, congratulations to everyone who made this
happen. It’s been known for years gamma correction was needed for good
screen text rendering. I hope other GUI toolkits follow suit quickly.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
12:43 p.m.
Nikolaus Waxweiler wrote:
2. The rest seems to be mostly boilerplate font replacements?
Standard
stuff like Arial is already covered by fontconfig/Fedora defaults, other
replacements like Arial Black are not really replacements, but wholesale
changes. A replacement for a font family should be a metrically
compatible drop-in, as e.g. PDF viewers will use the same information
(not all PDF generators embed fonts when they should...). If the
replacement works for your use-case, good, but I would be uncomfortable
aliasing Consolas to Fira Mono distro-wide.
Even if we accept the idea of close-looking but not metrically compatible
replacements (I think it is better than nothing, where you get the default
font that is neither), the list contains some errors (e.g., OpenSymbol is
NOT a valid replacement for Wingdings, the Wingdings font from WINE
(wine-wingdings-fonts-system) is) and controversial choices, so it would
have to be double-checked manually. (E.g., I think the closest replacement
for Verdana is probably DejaVu Sans, not Noto Sans. The choices for the
cursive and fantasy families are also strange. In the browser I use
(Falkon), I configured Grand Hotel as cursive and Comic Neue as fantasy
(Komika Text would also do the job, I guess, but Comic Neue is already
packaged), whereas silenc3r's list has Komika Text as cursive (!) and the
heavy Passion One as fantasy.)
It's also technically (mostly) impossible because Windows and
macOS do
correct font rendering (linear alpha blending and gamma correction to
various degrees) which on X11/Wayland currently only Qt5 does (see
screenshots above). Nothing you can do anywhere else in stack weights
that up.
Does it really? The discussion in:
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-41590
sounds like they actually reverted the gamma to 1.0 on X11 because of a
chicken&egg problem (FreeType doesn't want to enable stem darkening by
default because of broken gamma settings in toolkits, and Qt cannot set a
better gamma because stem darkening is not enabled).
Kevin Kofler
4:39 a.m.
On 11/11/2018 01:10 PM, Nikolaus Waxweiler wrote:
All I remember saying is that subpixel rendering is
not essential to getting nicely rendered fonts, as you can see in Qt5:
https://i.postimg.cc/t4XnfGzt/Bildschirmfoto-vom-2018-11-11-11-45-41.png
https://i.postimg.cc/c4GnRngz/Bildschirmfoto-vom-2018-11-11-11-46-28.png
This is not an example of good rendering IMHO.
It looks like the standard blurry grayscale you get on a Mac.
Subpixel rendering (rgb, slight hinting, slight filtering) would improve
this a lot.
Download the original PNGs and compare 😊 subpixel rendering (here
with
the light LCD filter) can improve contrast a bit, but grayscale looks
pretty good, too. Provided you like the overall smooth look of light
hinting.
Any links for the subpixel variants?
--
Roberto Ragusa mail at robertoragusa.it
11:16 a.m.
On Fri, 2018-11-09 at 20:36 -0600, Martin Jackson wrote:
Hello everyone, and thanks to one and all for a remarkable
distribution!
With the coverage of the freeworld fontconfig enhancements, I wonder if
some of the configuration settings currently implemented in
https://github.com/silenc3r/fedora-better-fonts will be considered as
defaults?
BTW, slightly off topic, but since we're talking about fonts -
something went really weird for me in Rawhide subpixel stuff lately. I
have my displays rotated 90 degrees, so I have vRGB set as the subpixel
ordering, but since some recent update, it seems like it's not working
properly, as I can see obvious colors in text that shouldn't be
colored, especially things like underscores (which basically just look
straight-up green).
Anyone else seen that? I'll try and find some time to dig into it, but
I've been spending all my time lately trying to fix up Rawhide in more
important ways...
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
11:23 a.m.
On 11/11/2018 17:16, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2018-11-09 at 20:36 -0600, Martin Jackson wrote:
> Hello everyone, and thanks to one and all for a remarkable distribution!
>
> With the coverage of the freeworld fontconfig enhancements, I wonder if
> some of the configuration settings currently implemented in
> https://github.com/silenc3r/fedora-better-fonts will be considered as
> defaults?
BTW, slightly off topic, but since we're talking about fonts -
something went really weird for me in Rawhide subpixel stuff lately. I
have my displays rotated 90 degrees, so I have vRGB set as the subpixel
ordering, but since some recent update, it seems like it's not working
properly, as I can see obvious colors in text that shouldn't be
colored, especially things like underscores (which basically just look
straight-up green).
That's interesting because I'm seeing the same thing in F29 but with
vertical edges on a non-rotated display!
I assumed it was related to subpixel antialiasing being enabled but
turning that off doesn't seem to help.
I'd say it looks more blueish than green, and it only seems to happen
at certain sizes.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (tom(a)compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
12:04 p.m.
On Sun, 2018-11-11 at 17:23 +0000, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 11/11/2018 17:16, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-11-09 at 20:36 -0600, Martin Jackson wrote:
> > Hello everyone, and thanks to one and all for a remarkable distribution!
> >
> > With the coverage of the freeworld fontconfig enhancements, I wonder if
> > some of the configuration settings currently implemented in
> > https://github.com/silenc3r/fedora-better-fonts will be considered as
> > defaults?
>
> BTW, slightly off topic, but since we're talking about fonts -
> something went really weird for me in Rawhide subpixel stuff lately. I
> have my displays rotated 90 degrees, so I have vRGB set as the subpixel
> ordering, but since some recent update, it seems like it's not working
> properly, as I can see obvious colors in text that shouldn't be
> colored, especially things like underscores (which basically just look
> straight-up green).
That's interesting because I'm seeing the same thing in F29 but with
vertical edges on a non-rotated display!
Aha, so maybe it's just...generally...broken :P
I assumed it was related to subpixel antialiasing being enabled but
turning that off doesn't seem to help.
It seemed to change things a bit for me. Note that the changes don't
always take effect immediately in all apps, I don't think - you may
have to quit and restart, or at least cause the contents of the app
window to change somehow.
I'd say it looks more blueish than green, and it only seems to
happen
at certain sizes.
For me it depends on the character and yeah, the colors can vary. Green
underscores is just the most really obvious one.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
1:31 p.m.
On 11/11/2018 19:23, Tom Hughes wrote:
[....]
That's interesting because I'm seeing the same thing in F29 but with
vertical edges on a non-rotated display!
I assumed it was related to subpixel antialiasing being enabled but
turning that off doesn't seem to help.
I'd say it looks more blueish than green, and it only seems to happen
at certain sizes.
Tom
That sounds/looks like subpixel rendering with the lcddefault lcd
filter. AIUI on F29, freetype-2.9.1-5 enabled subpixel rendering at
build time[1].
Try setting the lcdfilter in your local fonts.conf (
~/.config/fontconfing/fonts.conf); or better yet, try building freetype
with the "spr" patch disabled. This way freetype will use Harmony
(available since freetype 2.8.1 [2]), a technique that offers LCD
rendering using a different way than ClearType. I find it works well,
for me anyway.
(Sorry for the noise if you already know all that :)).
[1]https://src.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/freetype.git/commit/?h=f29&...
[2] https://sourceforge.net/projects/freetype/files/freetype2/2.8.1/
--
Ahmad Samir
6:16 p.m.
On 11/11/2018 19:31, Ahmad Samir wrote:
On 11/11/2018 19:23, Tom Hughes wrote:
[....]
>
> That's interesting because I'm seeing the same thing in F29 but with
> vertical edges on a non-rotated display!
>
> I assumed it was related to subpixel antialiasing being enabled but
> turning that off doesn't seem to help.
>
> I'd say it looks more blueish than green, and it only seems to happen
> at certain sizes.
That sounds/looks like subpixel rendering with the lcddefault lcd
filter. AIUI on F29, freetype-2.9.1-5 enabled subpixel rendering at
build time[1].
Try setting the lcdfilter in your local fonts.conf (
~/.config/fontconfing/fonts.conf); or better yet, try building freetype
with the "spr" patch disabled. This way freetype will use Harmony
(available since freetype 2.8.1 [2]), a technique that offers LCD
rendering using a different way than ClearType. I find it works well,
for me anyway.
I can confirm that linking
/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/11-lcdfilter-default.conf into the
active configuration in /etc/fonts/conf.d and restarting firefox seems
to have fixed the problem for
me on web pages that were showing the problem before.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (tom(a)compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
7:35 p.m.
Ahmad Samir wrote:
Try setting the lcdfilter in your local fonts.conf (
~/.config/fontconfing/fonts.conf); or better yet, try building freetype
with the "spr" patch disabled. This way freetype will use Harmony
(available since freetype 2.8.1 [2]), a technique that offers LCD
rendering using a different way than ClearType. I find it works well,
for me anyway.
If you want Harmony, you also have to remove the freetype-2.9-ftsmooth.patch
that disables it. Disabling only the spr patch will give you only grayscale
anti-aliasing.
Kevin Kofler
3:06 a.m.
On 12/11/2018 03:35, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ahmad Samir wrote:
> Try setting the lcdfilter in your local fonts.conf (
> ~/.config/fontconfing/fonts.conf); or better yet, try building freetype
> with the "spr" patch disabled. This way freetype will use Harmony
> (available since freetype 2.8.1 [2]), a technique that offers LCD
> rendering using a different way than ClearType. I find it works well,
> for me anyway.
If you want Harmony, you also have to remove the freetype-2.9-ftsmooth.patch
that disables it. Disabling only the spr patch will give you only grayscale
anti-aliasing.
Kevin Kofler
I've been using Harmony since 2.8.1, compiled locally. I didn't notice
the ftsmooth patch in 2.9, thanks for the hint, I'll look into that.
Although I have to saw I didn't notice any drastic changes between 2.8.1
and 2.9 in Fedora, but I'll test disabling that patch all the same.
--
Ahmad Samir
10:28 a.m.
Ahmad Samir wrote:
I've been using Harmony since 2.8.1, compiled locally. I
didn't notice
the ftsmooth patch in 2.9, thanks for the hint, I'll look into that.
Although I have to saw I didn't notice any drastic changes between 2.8.1
and 2.9 in Fedora, but I'll test disabling that patch all the same.
2.8.1 did not have Harmony, unless you backported it. It is new in 2.9.
Kevin Kofler
8:36 p.m.
That would be untrue.
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/freetype/freetype2.git/tree/src/smooth/...
1985
days inactive
1992
days old
27 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
Adam Williamson -
Ahmad Samir -
Andreas Tunek -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Kevin Kofler -
Mark Otaris -
Martin Jackson -
mcatanzaro＠gnome.org -
Neal Gompa -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Nikolaus Waxweiler -
Roberto Ragusa -
Tom Hughes -
Tomasz Torcz