Hi again. I think we're on the same page, really - just on different sides of the fence. I DID read the release notes when I first got my hands on 8 (actually, beforehand, and several times after). Also, I haven't deployed Red Hat 8 except for on a few desktop and laptop machines, so I haven't really jumped in the pool without looking for water first. This version may just be a play version so I can get used to all the new stuff (there's plenty of other new stuff, even without looking at the GUI at all). The next version will probably get deployed on actual servers (currently running 7.3). > in the future. My point is that this is not Red Hat creating > some software that is different from everyone else and going off > on our own, or being incompatible with everyone else, like some > people make it out to sound. > > It is standard XFree86.org source code, that is available for > everyone to use, and was produced by XFree86.org, NOT by Red Hat. > I understood that part. I didn't mean to make it sound like that. Relax. :) > > And we've done that, by allowing backward compatibility. I think > people would be somewhat upset, if I were to disable the xfs font > server, and core X server support, and ship only Xft2. Think > about it. How can you say you have allowed for backward compatibility, and then say the following? > Well, both GNOME and KDE require Xft, so getting rid of Xft would > involve getting rid of GNOME and KDE, and deleting core libraries > that are a part of XFree86. Users are free to do that of course, > it is open source afterall. Such systems would be unsupported > however. This doesn't sound to me like backward compatibility. In fact, it sounds like I HAVE to use this new font system if I want to use pretty much anything my users expect to see. Backward compatibility means I have a choice of doing things the old way, or that doing things the old way will either work for everything, or seamlessly be translated to the new way in the background. > Or prehaps some people just don't actually *read* the > RELEASE-NOTES. And I quote: > > o Red Hat Linux now uses Xft for fonts in GNOME and KDE, which uses > fontconfig for configuring fonts. The old style Xft config file > /etc/X11/XftConfig is no longer used or supported, having been > replaced by the new unified fontconfig method of configuration. The > fontconfig config file can be customized by editing > /etc/fonts/fonts.conf file. > > If you have fonts that you would like to add to your configuration, > you can copy them to ~/.fonts (or /usr/share/fonts), and run fc-cache > directory. The fonts will then be available. > > > Perhaps had you read that, you would have known what to do, and > wouldn't to stumble around. I did read that. The stumbling started when it didn't work for everything. Note that the release notes say Xft is used for GNOME and KDE. It says nothing about the stuff in your earlier email about not working with *everything*. So what do you do when you find it doesn't appear to be working with everything? Search google, and start hacking at it. This led to my stumbling. Also note that 'fontconfig' doesn't appear to be an end user tool. Why is it sort of portrayed as one in the Release Notes, which make it sound like you can run fontconfig and everything will be dandy? Getting to know this is system is a non-trivial event. > >I did not imagine this *library* was a 'random Red Hat thing'. The fact that > >they've decided to shove it down my throat is a bit inconvenient though. > > It's not shoved down your throat. Legacy fonts using core server > fonts are supported now as much as they ever have been. > I'll refer you to the release notes, and to your earlier comments about how this is NOT true. As you've said, GNOME and KDE require Xft, and it's now a core X library. Inasmuch as there's not really much of a choice in how I configure fonts, that's pretty much shoving it down my throat, no? While the 'fonts' are supported, the implementation has changed. > >Agreed. In addition, having this new technology and not telling > >people what the heck is going on and how to hack this beast into > >submission is also less than useful to some of us. I can't > >deploy until I know what's going on - in gory detail - with > >probably about 40% of the packages on the Redhat CDs. Xft would > >be one of those packages. > > Xft is installed automatically. You don't need to know about it > at all, or even know it exists. This mentality may work for a home user. It does not work for people who maintain and support it for a bunch of other users. And what am I to say to the department chair who is working with someone who wants to read Hebrew on her screen and is having issues because the fonts don't render 'properly' or consistently? "Sorry boss, I don't know how those fonts even get there? I didn't even know there was a font rendering interface?" That's unacceptable. At some point I guess one has to come to terms with the fact that it's nearly impossible to know everything, and you pick your battles. This is one I sorta have to battle with whether I like it or not. > Linux on the desktop needs to be simplified greatly if it is > going to be a contender against Microsoft. Agreed. It also needs to look prettier :-) I, for one, am glad there are people who like hacking with things like fonts. I have neither the eye nor the patience for them. FWIW, I happen to like the way the fonts look these days. I *want* to get to know this system, and I will in time. I don't hate Red Hat, and I don't hate the XFree people. I don't hate new technology, and I've read the release notes. I thank you for your input and the information, which I've found invaluable. Undoubtedly, in a few months I'll be answering Xft questions on this very list. Thanks again. > > -- > Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris > OS Systems Engineer > XFree86 maintainer > Red Hat Inc. > > > > -- > Psyche-list mailing list > Psyche-list@redhat.com > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list -- Brian K. Jones System Administrator Dept. of Computer Science, Princeton University jonesy@cs.princeton.edu http://www.linuxlaboratory.org http://phat.sourceforge.net Voice: (609) 258-6080 -- Psyche-list mailing list Psyche-list@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list
