Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [linux] Re: If it ain't broke, don't fix it and stop worrying about updates

Expand Messages
  • ed
    ... XFCE controls the GTK rendering settings in xfce4-appearance-settings. ... In order to do the
    Message 1 of 9 , Feb 12, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:38:05AM -0000, thad_floryan wrote:
      > --- In linux@yahoogroups.com, ed wrote:
      > >
      > > 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?

      XFCE controls the GTK rendering settings in xfce4-appearance-settings.

      <http://docs.xfce.org/xfce/xfce4-settings/appearance>

      > I did find this page:
      >
      > http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=2428091
      >
      > 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).

      In order to do the aliasing more pixels are required so words take up
      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
      width (IIRC).

      > > To be honest, the linux firefox tests are far more legible than the
      > > 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.

      Yeah, but since Windows doesn't do such a good job of rendering text,
      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 in
      > 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.

      Perhaps you need rubbish eyes like me to appreciate how well the fonts
      render on linux 8-)

      > As best I can tell, the overflow error is due to the fonts being
      > 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.

      Brave man, browsing the web with windows is taking a bit of a risk in my
      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 some
      > 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.

      I'd just try the program above, or its equivillent in your desktop and
      see if twiddling the font options enables text to fit the buttons.

      To be honest, if it's that much of an issue, can't some javascript loop
      over the buttons and pad them with   or something?

      > http://thadlabs.com/NEWS.htm

      Ah, I see what's happened here. You've set the button widths to pixel
      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 the
      > same code base; everything I'm seeing suggests it's not which would
      > explain a lot of other gotchas I've experienced.

      That'd get messy pretty quick. Probably large parts are included from
      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
      platform easier.

      --
      Best regards,
      Ed http://www.s5h.net/
    • thad_floryan
      ... Hi Ed, 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
      Message 2 of 9 , Feb 12, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In linux@yahoogroups.com, ed wrote:
        > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 02:52:35AM -0000, thad_floryan wrote:
        > >[...]
        > > 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,

        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:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Font_rasterization

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_anti-aliasing

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpixel_rendering

        http://askubuntu.com/questions/68022/how-to-fix-font-rendering-no-anti-aliasing-in-unity-global-menu-and-search


        > To be honest, the linux firefox tests are far more legible than the
        > windows jagged-and-scrunched up buttons. My guess is that the
        > browser isn't able to accurately predict how much room the words
        > require.

        Are you looking at a "live" presentation using both a Linux Firefox
        and a Windows Firefox on my 'NEWS' page? Most people are unaware of
        ClearType which renders fonts beautiful on Windows systems:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearType

        http://www.microsoft.com/typography/cleartype/tuner/step1.aspx

        http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306527

        http://www.fontshop.com/blog/newsletters/march10a/indexEMAIL.html

        http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/tune-your-cleartype-font-settings-in-windows-vista/

        http://typographica.org/on-typography/microsofts-cleartype-font-collection-a-fair-and-balanced-review/

        http://www.ascendercorp.com/catalog/microsoft/clear-type-font-collection/

        http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/06/23/engineering-changes-to-cleartype-in-windows-7.aspx

        http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2484161

        > This may be a result of the font smoothing, can be turned off with
        > the likes of the appearance settings program. Would be worth seeing
        > if that helps to cure the overflow error.

        It seems to be a font sizing problem with the Linux Firefox that does
        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]:

        http://thadlabs.com/FILES/Fonts_Firefox_16.0.2_Linux+Windows.pdf

        I don't see any other font settings possible within Firefox, but I
        did find these items regarding Linux fonts:

        http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/48248/how-to-get-good-windows-like-font-rendering-on-linux-mint-kde

        http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2012/04/24/a-closer-look-at-font-rendering/

        https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Font_Configuration

        http://crunchbanglinux.org/wiki/howto/font_rendering

        http://puppylinux.org/wikka/ImproveFontRendering

        http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=110&t=116436

        http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4637339

        http://www.rawcomputing.co.uk/linux/linuxtips3.html

        http://linux.arantius.com/linux-font-rendering-stinks

        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.

        Thad
      • ed
        ... If 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
        Message 3 of 9 , Feb 13, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          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-kde

          If 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.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Font_rasterization

          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.

          --
          Best regards,
          Ed http://www.s5h.net/
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.