Ben Rosenberg wrote:

* Patrick Hooker (patrick@goaalaska.com) [030926 20:43]:

...

Hi,

I'm running SuSE 8.2 w/ KDE. I like using the Mozilla browser, downloaded v 1.4, but Mozilla is doing a lousy job of rendering any fonts. The fonts show up very jagged and thin. Konqueror and the other KDE applications do fine. Is this a Mozilla problem? Can it be fixed?

Did you get the 1.4 from ulb that's compiled with xft2 and gtk2? It's really nice and my fonts look fine. I'm currently using Mozilla-Firebird but I've got plain ole Moz 1.4 installed as well and they both look fine but they are both compiled with gtk2 and xft2. Give that a shot.

ulb?

Ben Rosenberg wrote:

* Tom Allison (tallison@tacocat.net) [030926 21:07]:

...

Ben Rosenberg wrote:

...

...

I'm running SuSE 8.2 w/ KDE. I like using the Mozilla browser, downloaded v 1.4, but Mozilla is doing a lousy job of rendering any fonts. The fonts show up very jagged and thin. Konqueror and the other KDE applications do fine. Is this a Mozilla problem? Can it be fixed?

Did you get the 1.4 from ulb that's compiled with xft2 and gtk2? It's really nice and my fonts look fine. I'm currently using Mozilla-Firebird but I've got plain ole Moz 1.4 installed as well and they both look fine but they are both compiled with gtk2 and xft2. Give that a shot.

ulb?

Sorry. I keep forgetting not everyone is familiar with the site. What ulb would be is http://www.usr-local-bin.org ... it's a site that has pretty good Gnome2 and other GTK applications like Mozilla. Take a look.

Cheers!

Oh. I didn't see anything wrong with the mozilla install from Suse8.2. But I did pull in some ttf packages.

Ben Rosenberg wrote:

If you put Mozilla compiled with GTK1 next to Mozilla compiled against GTK2..you will see WORLDS of difference. Give it a look. I've been running the xft2+gtk2 nightlys of Mozilla-Firebird aka Mozilla 1.5b and it's REALLY nice. Not bogged down with a bunch of apps I don't use. But if you do use those apps then that's fine but get an xft2+gtk2 build. :)

Are there nightly seamonkey builds compiled that way? I don't see any distinction at my usual download location: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest-trunk/ I just installed 8.2, and 1.2.1 just doesn't cut it for those of us used to 1.4 and later. What's the best way to upgrade the rpm's installed with the distro to something much more recent? Convert the tar.gz to rpm and install that? -- "...[B]e quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry...." James 1:19 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/

Both of these work. The build (rpm's) from the SuSE mirror are in my opinion almost the same as the ulb build. But I've been using the ulb

That's because myself and Wolfgang merged our specs, so that they would be as close to identical in terms of the build as possible. The difference is in terms of things like the GNOME menu entry, and what specific source is used, eg Wolfgang takes a CVS snapshot of a version, I use the official mozilla.org tarball or a release. Also, in the next version, I'll be ensuring that /opt/mozilla/lib is in ld.so.conf so that apps that link against Mozilla libraries (eg the new Gaim uses libnss3.so) can find them, and obviously I'll be feeding that code to Wolfgang so he can do the same. -- James Ogley, Webmaster, Rubber Turnip james@rubberturnip.org.uk http://www.rubberturnip.org.uk Jabber: riggwelter@myjabber.net Using Free Software since 1994, running GNU/Linux (SuSE 8.2). GNOME updates for SuSE: http://www.usr-local-bin.org

----- Original Message ----- From: Patrick Hooker To: SuSE Linux List Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 7:16 AM Subject: Re: [SLE] Mozilla has lousy font rendering. [snip]

Yeppers! Looking at:

http://qa.mandrakesoft.com/attachment.cgi?id=866&action=view

The fonts I'm seeing on my system are displayed like those on the SuSE 8.1 screen shot. ( and some of the others ) [snip]

You probably need to compile and install the most recent version of freetype2 with the bytecode interpreter enabled and only after that fiddle with unix.js. Font display on my 8.2 machine was generally poor until I did this, using Mozilla 1.4 from the SuSE ftp site. The fonts on 8.1 weren't up to much until I did the same on that. Adjusting font substition may also help, e.g. ensuring that anything called "times", "tms rmn" and the like always resolves to an xft font rather than the adobe one. :) Fish

Charles Philip Chan wrote:

Patrick Hooker wrote:

...

My default font was set to adobe-helvetica..... or something similar.

IIRC the standard abobe-helvetica font that come with all distros is a bitmap font. You should change the default font to a postscript or TT font.

Easier said than done. The Mozilla font selection list doesn't distinguish between bitmapped and scalable fonts. -- "...[B]e quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry...." James 1:19 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/