On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 15:12 -0500, Chris Blizzard wrote: > The fonts are driven by fontconfig. So it's up to the system config > to do the mapping. > > --Chris Yes, and right now, by default, fontconfig prefers the Nimbus/Luxi fonts over the Bitstream fonts. I have manually modified /etc/fonts/local.conf to fix this problem, but it would be nice to have /etc/fonts/fonts.conf have that as the default. At the moment, the Bitstream fonts are listed as the second or third preferred font for serif, sans-serf and monospace. > On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:52:46 +0100, Kyrre Ness Sjobak > <kyrre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello > > > > After reading to much forums, i can se "everyone" is complaing about > > "the default font in (put your favorite web browser here) is so ugly, it > > is hardly readable!" > > > > Then the reply is "use Bitstream vera (sans) instead" and then "oh! that > > was better! it was really readable! nice!" > > > > Why is it so? Why is those fonts, which it seem like "everyone" thinks > > are really ugly are used, when better fonts are shipped? > > > > I would guess there are more people than me who has opinions on this. > > > > Disclaimer: i am forwarding a "general feeling" from parts of the > > comunity, as not everyone are on this list. But after changing my > > default fonts in firefox, i must say i agree. This was *much* better! > > > > Kyrre Ness Sjøbæk > > > > -- > > Fedora-desktop-list mailing list > > Fedora-desktop-list@xxxxxxxxxx > > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-desktop-list > > > -- Shahms E. King <shahms@xxxxxxxxxx> Multnomah ESD Public Key: http://shahms.mesd.k12.or.us/~sking/shahms.asc Fingerprint: 1612 054B CE92 8770 F1EA AB1B FEAB 3636 45B2 D75B
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
