The FreeBSD site has a very ugly font in Firefox. Up to now it's the only site that is so ugly. Which font am I missing on my FreeBSD install?
Last edited by a moderator:
I know that but it does not work for this forum. I get ugly fonts. After installing some fonts, mentioned earlier, the side renders well.
Ohhhh, thank you so much. This is such a good advice. I installed a whole bunch of fonts, and everything is now looking so much better on the internets, including FreeBSD forums.
pkg installBecause thats how it should be. FreeBSD is not the only one. Arch Linux, Void Linux, Artix Linux, Chimera, OpenBSD...none of them are installing fonts by default. Some desktop environments like KDE Plasma and Gnome have them as dependency and they install them automatically but thats not going to work for all regions like China, Korea, India. Unless you install complete noto fonts set which is more than 2GB in size. If i want to setup a FreeBSD server, i dont want 2GB of uneccessary fonts.
It's more than FreeBSD doesn't commit to a given look or setup as much as Linux does. It's part of how we can get away with having only a few major choices versus the thousands of Linux Distros and the culture of hopping between distros until you find one that does everything you like with as few annoyances as possible. It's also part of why it's so rare to have to outright reinstall FreeBSD versus Linux as it's trivial to uninstall every user installed package or port and all the user configurations and start from scratch if you really need to.
Other than desktop users, no one needs fancy fonts and they just take up space and need care.
... and slow software down.
# fc-cache -f to fix that.What do you mean its not bare bones as Arch? They are literally same. You get nothing with FreeBSD base install. And you get nothing with Arch base install.
I use it as desktop os and it works flawlessly. In fact, until recently, i was unable to use FreeBSD because it has inferior graphics card support. And this is not about who gets into what business. Whatever that means. Linux distros i mentioned above and all BSDs can be used as desktop operating systems. And if you are going to use them as such, you need to at least know the basics. How to install essential components like audio system, fonts, desktop environments, network managers...etc. Just because it was not obvious to you, doesnt mean it should be included in default install. Go to LFS forums and tell them their distro is retarded because you need to build it from scratch. Comon man...
When people say ugly fonts, that usually means they didnt install basic system fonts. Beginer error.
There are distros out there with ZFS support offering same snapshot capabilities like FreeBSD. And they also have BTRFS that supports snapshots. Not to mention immutable monstrocities that can not be broken by total beginers.
This guy gets it.
FreeBSD has a more or less standard POSIX/SUS userland. This includes C compiler, make, nfs, etc, so being a full operating system, is not entirely bare bones thankfully but actually quite well thought out and planned (though PkgBase will likely reduce this capability in the coming years).
When i say bare bones, i mean neither one of them include xorg, desktop environments, fonts and other garbage. You comparison is extreme. I used Alpine as desktop. Works well too.
Alpine is possibly the only (non-embedded) Linux I would consider.
I would daily drive it on some of my older machines if their setup-desktop script included more desktop environments like Cinnamon. I dont like Plasma and Gnome, and everything else has poor 4K support. And that drives me nuts. For now, Alpine is running all my containers and there is nothing like it.
ZFS support would be nice. Chimera and Void have it and its easy to setup.
My point exactly. RHEL is cancer. I have PTSD from it.
Apologies for the slight off-topic: I never quite got the point of the setup-desktop script.
I do tend to agree. What OpenBSD do is very risky. Spleen, compiled into the kernel and size dependent entirely on screen size. Strangely, it always seems about right, even if L,l and 1 are a little difficult to discern in the font style.
Good point. You cant make everyone happy. Current "solution" works best in my opinion. Dont include anything. Keep number of packages as low as possible, install only essentials. Simple as that.
There is no right answer. Do what works for you.
Not quite. They also install elogind which is essential for some desktop environments that depend on systemd because there is no systemd in Alpine.
You should try Guix or the newcomer Chimera.
It might be the people that I hang around with, but I hear far more people complaining about the intentionally used fonts in various things being ugly than wrong fonts.