Forum font

MrBSD said:
What do you mean its not bare bones as Arch? They are literally same.
Click to expand...
Umm, have you ever installed Arch? It's, like, you don't even get any text editor, no dhcp client, no bootloader... It's almost primordial soup. But you already backtracked on your claim, saying you didn't mean what you meant.
MrBSD said:
I use it as desktop os and it works flawlessly.
Click to expand...
No, OpenBSD doesn't have multithreading, it is not suitable for desktop use.
cracauer@ said:
I would still like to know which pkg these fonts are in.
Click to expand...
I mean, google-fonts seems like a pretty default collection these days.
 
loveydovey said:
Umm, have you ever installed Arch?
Click to expand...
No. Im just pasting whatever chatgpt told me.
loveydovey said:
No, OpenBSD doesn't have multithreading, it is not suitable for desktop use.
Click to expand...
No. Thats not true. OpenBSD disables hyperthreading. Not multithreading. And i keep that turned off in bios and i have all my E cores disabled as well.
loveydovey said:
I mean, google-fonts seems like a pretty default collection these days.
Click to expand...
Just stop pls.
 
MrBSD said:
I really like what you are saying. Can you pls put some nice fonts here so we can all enjoy it?
Click to expand...
Sure thing!

fonts-1080x675-1.png
 
MrBSD said:
Not quite. They also install elogind which is essential for some desktop environments that depend on systemd because there is no systemd in Alpine.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that is part of those three lines (add display server). Also a trivial script <https://github.com/alpinelinux/alpine-conf/blob/master/setup-wayland-base.in>

Almost one actual line (since devd, cgroups and dbus is already done by this point):

apk add elogind polkit-elogind "$@"

That said, if people don't know or don't want to know (which is completely fair) about the services, packages, systems they are installing, these ad-hoc setup scripts are fine. I do tend to prefer them to having the random opaque scripts added as pre- post- hooks in i.e .rpm or .deb files. I think those are essentially going to be the downfall of Linux ;)

loveydovey said:
No, OpenBSD doesn't have multithreading, it is not suitable for desktop use.
Click to expand...
It has multi-threading (but internally it is a little basic)

By default OpenBSD disables hyperthreading (behind a hw.smt / hw.blockcpu sysctl) because again, the implementation was quite basic and caused more issues than benefits.
Traditional hyper-threading is also kind of legacy. These days manufacturers tend to be going towards a hybrid core design (although, I just read about a potential return).

Desktop use doesn't really need multi-threading. For example Windows 95 managed quite happily without it ;)
 
kpedersen said:
Yeah, that is part of those three lines (add display server). Also a trivial script <https://github.com/alpinelinux/alpine-conf/blob/master/setup-wayland-base.in>

Almost one actual line (since devd is already done by this point):

apk add elogind polkit-elogind "$@"
Click to expand...
Yeah, but there are always people that will complain that they need "easy way to install desktop". Look at the Arch linux for example. Its user base has grown significantly since they included installer. Then you have people that used that installer and they complain because its tui based and not calamares based. And then you have so called "Arch linux elitists" that complain about installer being there in a first place. Its same here. People are crying because some fonts have not been included in base installation so they had to look at "ugly fonts" because of their own incompetence. And to top it all off, you have people like me complaining about all of them all together. You just cant please everyone.
 
MrBSD said:
You just cant please everyone.
Click to expand...
Indeed. If only there were multiple operating systems available for people to choose from that would suit their abilities. Oh wait.... ;)

I do find it quite funny that so many beginners and students immediately gravitate straight to ArchLinux (to stroke their egos?) and then complain when it is not click and play. This kind of behavior is why no-one can have nice things and everything ends up compromised in one way or another.
 
kpedersen said:
Indeed. If only there were multiple operating systems available for people to choose from that would fit their individual experience-level (beginner, intermediate, advanced) rather than all converging on one and fantasizing that it can ever be suitable for everyone.
Click to expand...
Linux distros are going into that direction and they are almost there. For example, Installing Linux Mint is easier than installing Windows 11 which is insane.
kpedersen said:
I do find it quite funny that so many beginners and students gravitate straight to ArchLinux (to stroke their egos?) and then complain when it is not click and play. This kind of behavior is why no-one can have nice things.
Click to expand...
Its all about ego stroking. And its not happening in linux world only. Just look at this thread. People are using FreeBSD as a desktop operating system with no proper fonts installed. And then, they have audacity to give suggestions or demands on what should be included in the base install because they missed it. If it wasnt for this thread that they accidently stumbled on, they would still be running FreeBSD with no fonts installed. Like...what are we doing here guys?
 
MrBSD said:
People are using FreeBSD as a desktop operating system with no proper fonts installed
Click to expand...
Is there a list somewhere of perhaps "minimum set of proper fonts to correctly render on 90% of the internet"?
Asking because beyond what gets pulled in by installing xorg-fonts, I install noto-basic, droid-fonts, terminus-ttf, roboto-fonts-ttf and maybe one or two others. Don't recall where I got the list of extras.
 
mer said:
Is there a list somewhere of perhaps "minimum set of proper fonts to correctly render on 90% of the internet"?
Click to expand...
No.
mer said:
Asking because beyond what gets pulled in by installing xorg-fonts, I install noto-basic, droid-fonts, terminus-ttf, roboto-fonts-ttf and maybe one or two others.
Click to expand...
Your set is similar to mine. I dont have terminus, i use hack and meslo instead.
mer said:
Don't recall where I got the list of extras.
Click to expand...
I pretty much replicate my arch linux font setup from 16 years ago. However, back then, having just fonts installed was not enough. You had to install infinality font configuration and force full hinting to make them show properly. Today its much easier. You just install fonts, and thats it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mer
MrBSD said:
People are using FreeBSD as a desktop operating system with no proper fonts installed. And then, they have audacity to give suggestions or demands on what should be included in the base install
Click to expand...

No. The suggestion is to install the font in question as a dependency of Firedfox.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mer
It would still be great to know which pkg contained the font needed for the forum. I don't know what kind of size we are talking here. For all I know it is just single fonts worth kilobytes.
 
A browser will use whatever system font is installed if nothing else is available or if the site selects a font that isn't available on the system.
I forgot what this forum selects. iirc, it was one of four including Helvetica. I'll look.

Code: 
"Segoe UI", "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Roboto, Oxygen, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Fira Sans", "Droid Sans", sans-serif
 
Web browsers should be requesting generic names (monospace, serif, sans-serif) which will allow the OS to decide and keep things consistent.

Some poor quality sites will specify 90s Windows fonts, in which case just make sure the Microsoft Corefonts are installed (mirror). Or just find a better website.

If the page really requires a novelty font, then it should provide it using various font APIs, etc. No need for us to install anything else.
 
kpedersen said:
Web browsers should be requesting generic names (monospace, serif, sans-serif) which will allow the OS to decide and keep things consistent.
Click to expand...
Asking because I'm stupid on the "web" side of things.
Is that the browser requesting or "the browser is rendering a page and it's asking for a font type"?
Maybe a bad/misstated idea, but I'm going by what I've done in configuring FireFox around fonts. I specify a default, say a default font with a default size, then a specific serif/sans-serif with minimium sizes.
Example:
I configure firefox to use Noto Sans for "sans-serif", minimum font size of 18.
It sounds like the web page would be coded as "use sans-serif for the font" and the page should render in Noto Sans, size 18 if I don't have "allow page to select their font" checked?

Is that correct understanding?

From a "programming" (create the web page POV) I can imagine creating something and specifying something I have installed, which would imply on the rendering side, the client needs to have the same thing installed. I think that is what kpedersen is implying:
Web page specifies "Car" not "Car, Toyota Prius". Driver specifies in his broswer "Car is Ford F150" so page should render based on Ford F150.
 
As I show in #43, the forum developer or FreeBSD admin put their order of preferences of font display. This order is in the CSS supplied with the HTML. The first one that the system has is the first one that will be displayed except in your case where you specify the font and size you want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mer
I suggest to load them directly in the CSS of the website page so people stop to complain. Google has tons of fonts to link, for example 'Google Sans':
Code: 
<link rel="preconnect" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com"><link rel="preconnect" href="https://fonts.gstatic.com" crossorigin><link href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css2?family=Google+Sans:ital,opsz,wght@0,17..18,400..700;1,17..18,400..700&display=swap" rel="stylesheet">
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top