Re: [linux] Re: If it ain't broke, don't fix it and stop worrying about updates
- On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:38:05AM -0000, thad_floryan wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, ed wrote:XFCE controls the GTK rendering settings in xfce4-appearance-settings.
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 02:52:35AM -0000, thad_floryan wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Here are the display tests I ran 13-OCT-2012 using the latest
> > > Firefox for each platform on that date -- it should be obvious
> > > what the issues with the Linux Firefox are (mostly text in
> > > buttons is hosed):
> > >
> > > http://thadlabs.com/PIX/home_page_1_Linux.png UNacceptable
> > > http://thadlabs.com/PIX/home_page_1_Windows.jpg perfect
> > What are the tests like when you turn off font aliasing?
> Hi Ed,
> Though the "identical" versions of Firefox for Linux and Windows have
> a lot of differences, I can find nothing re: "font aliasing" in
> either of the two.
> Or are you referring to some kind of system-wide font aliasing?
> I did find this page:In order to do the aliasing more pixels are required so words take up
> but as you can see, disabling aliasing creates horrible fonts, and I
> fail to see how aliasing per se is causing the problem on all my
> Linux systems (except Red Hat 9 with a version 3 Firefox -- I cannot
> install 16.0.2 on that platform).
more room on the buttons. For hinting, I believe that's sub-pixel, so
words may not require more room, but anti-aliasing will increase the
> > To be honest, the linux firefox tests are far more legible than theYeah, but since Windows doesn't do such a good job of rendering text,
> > windows jagged-and-scrunched up buttons. My guess is that the
> > browser isn't able to accurately predict how much room the words
> > require.
> Hmmm. Then that would be yet another difference between the so-called
> "identical" versions 16.0.2 for Linux and Firefox.
and to me anyway, things are not so clear on Windows as linux, I find
web browsing tedious on Windows now.
> I have compared every possible option in the normal "option" and inPerhaps you need rubbish eyes like me to appreciate how well the fonts
> the advanced settings and they are identical for both the Linux and
> Windows versions but the resultant display is clearly very different.
> I'm a bit puzzled by your comment "windows jagged-and-scrunched up
> butttons". To my eye they look perfect and note also I'm always the
> person asked to judge astronomical photo contents due to my color
> perception (better than 99% of most peoples') and acuity (to detect
> fringing, elongation, etc.) -- in other words, I have much better than
> average eyesight though I am nearsighted and wear glasses.
render on linux 8-)
> As best I can tell, the overflow error is due to the fonts beingBrave man, browsing the web with windows is taking a bit of a risk in my
> rendered larger on Linux than they should be despite the identical
> settings for both the Linux and Windows versions of Firefox. Because
> of that I've relegated all my browsing to just my Windows systems
> since I've spent weeks trying to solve the problem and cannot afford
> to spend any more time.
book since you're using the most common attack vector!
> I'm willing to spend a wee bit more time on this if anyone has someI'd just try the program above, or its equivillent in your desktop and
> good suggestions to try but it looks to me that given how much better
> (from my point of view) the Windows Firefox is than the Linux one at the same version level this is going to be disappointing.
see if twiddling the font options enables text to fit the buttons.
over the buttons and pad them with or something?
sizes. The fonts are subject to change from browser to browser. Another
option to try is to see what happens when both Windows and Linux are
rendering with DejaVu or something common. Looking at it with chrome I
get roughly the same results but with a different UI toolkit.
I would hazzard a guess that this page content was developed whilst
previewing with Windows.
> I'm really now wondering if Firefox for Linux/MacOS X/Windows has theThat'd get messy pretty quick. Probably large parts are included from
> same code base; everything I'm seeing suggests it's not which would
> explain a lot of other gotchas I've experienced.
ifdefines. There must be a large common segment as they build it for
many platforms. When they went XUI (or whatever they called it, I fail
to recall it clearly) I think the justification was to make cross
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, ed wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 02:52:35AM -0000, thad_floryan wrote:Hi Ed,
> > http://thadlabs.com/PIX/home_page_1_Linux.png UNacceptable
> > http://thadlabs.com/PIX/home_page_1_Windows.jpg perfect
> What are the tests like when you turn off font aliasing?
I was going to first answer your today posting but one of your
comments from yesterday has been lingering in my mind (see below).
Turning off aliasing causes ugly fonts to be rendered. This has been
a known issue for multi-decades and has nothing to do with the problem
I'm having with the Linux version(s) of Firefox. Some backgrounders:
> To be honest, the linux firefox tests are far more legible than theAre you looking at a "live" presentation using both a Linux Firefox
> windows jagged-and-scrunched up buttons. My guess is that the
> browser isn't able to accurately predict how much room the words
and a Windows Firefox on my 'NEWS' page? Most people are unaware of
ClearType which renders fonts beautiful on Windows systems:
> This may be a result of the font smoothing, can be turned off withIt seems to be a font sizing problem with the Linux Firefox that does
> the likes of the appearance settings program. Would be worth seeing
> if that helps to cure the overflow error.
not occur in the same of the Windows Firefox. Here are my font
settings for Firefox 16.0.2 both for Linux and Windows in a PDF so
both can be seen at the same time (note I long-ago made sure the fonts
directories on all my Linux and Windows are the same; that meant doing
some copying inter-system including adding another 3000 or so other
True Type fonts) [the following PDF is 2 pages, 220kB]:
I don't see any other font settings possible within Firefox, but I
did find these items regarding Linux fonts:
and 750,000 more which tells me that everyone including myself thinks
Linux fonts and font rendering sucks dead bunnies through straw. A
weird coincidence today is I found a dead bunny on my front lawn who
must have died due to the cold; this leaves 3+ bunnies still kicking.
I already put his carcass in the yard-waste recycling container for
pickup tomorrow so I can't take a picture of it because the carcass
is under the lawn and tree trimmings placed in the same bin by my
gardeners later this afternoon. I surmise cold was the culprit due
to no trauma to the bunny's body from a bobcat, feral cat, or cougar.
The problem is due to something other than "simple" rendering because
as you can see in the menus in the PDF the Linux and Firefox programs
are different. A major difference is selecting one's preferences:
For Linux Firefox it's "Edit -> Preferences" from the top menu
For Windows Firefox it's click [Firefox] at the upper left hand
corner of the Firefox frame, then select "Options -> Options"
which is further evidence the same version number is internally
different for Linux from Windows due to, perhaps, different teams.
- On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 06:46:50AM -0000, thad_floryan wrote:
> http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/48248/how-to-get-good-windows-like-font-rendering-on-linux-mint-kdeIf you want good font rendering, RiscOS is the place to look. It's been
on there since the early 90's long before windows had the botched
ClearType that makes a really poor job of small fonts.
Note that Windows fonts appear differently on screen to print, so
perhaps its windows which is messing it all up and ff is getting it
right on Linux?
This goes back to what experience has taught me, don't try and make web
things work in Windows, just let it work everywhere else. If it doesn't
render (normally in IE, although this problem is windows vs linux ff in
general) don't spend time trying to make it work on the MS product.
If I had my OI VM around right now, I'd try it on that. What I did try
at work however was FF running in EvilWM with xfce settings, and ff
running on XP on another computer. Their button layouts were almost
identical. I'd call that acceptable. For what it's worth that was with a
DPI of 96.