Solved registering fonts with xorg after install of software

userxbw

userxbw

Is this an absolute necessity to use these fonts in FreeBSD, if so what is the file called exactly and where is it located exactly?

Code: 
===>   NOTICE:

=====
Message from crosextrafonts-carlito-20130920_4:

--
You can start using the fonts by following these instructions:

Add the following line to the "Files" section of your x.org configuration file:

    FontPath "/usr/local/share/fonts/Carlito/"
=====
Message from crosextrafonts-caladea-20130214_4:

--
You can start using the fonts by following these instructions:

Add the following line to the "Files" section of your x.org configuration file:

    FontPath "/usr/local/share/fonts/Caladea/"
=====
Message from GentiumBasic-1102_1:

--
To use these fonts, add the following line to the "Files" section of
xorg.conf:

    FontPath "/usr/local/share/fonts/GentiumBasic/"

Users of older versions of X may additionally have to make sure that
the freetype module is loaded.  Check /var/log/Xorg.0.log for error
messages.  If freetype is required, add the following line to the
"Modules" section of xorg.conf:

    Load "freetype"
=====
Message from liberation-fonts-ttf-2.1.5,2:

--
You can start using the fonts by following these instructions:

Add the following line to the "Files" section of your x.org configuration file:

    FontPath "/usr/local/share/fonts/Liberation/"
=====
 
Create a /usr/local/etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/fonts.conf like this:
Code: 
Section "Files"
  FontPath "/usr/local/share/fonts/Carlito/"
  FontPath "/usr/local/share/fonts/Caladea/"
EndSection
Add all the font paths you need. Then restart X.
 
SirDice said:
Create a /usr/local/etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/fonts.conf like this:
Code: 
Section "Files"
  FontPath "/usr/local/share/fonts/Carlito/"
  FontPath "/usr/local/share/fonts/Caladea/"
EndSection
Add all the font paths you need. Then restart X.
Click to expand...
AAhhhH local, that always gets me on FREEBSD. Linux is the other way around. I looked in /etc/X11 and it was empty
local is used for user compiled then installed programs on Linux. thanks.
 
Ports and packages all have /usr/local as prefix. That's how the base OS is separated from third party software.
 
SirDice said:
Ports and packages all have /usr/local as prefix. That's how the base OS is separated from third party software.
Click to expand...
yeah, it's just a matter of repetitive memory retention when switching back and forth between two "UNIX" type systems.
ON Linux ( me mostly Slackware /slackbuilds) pagkages get put in /usr unless I do them myself then I put them in /usr/local
 
On Linux there's no separation of the "OS" and third party software. Linux is essentially only a kernel and everything else that gets added is from a third party.
 
SirDice said:
On Linux there's no separation of the "OS" and third party software. Linux is essentially only a kernel and everything else that gets added is from a third party.
Click to expand...
Linux/GNU OS system the use of the word Linux is just nowdays used in most cases for the enter system put together by two basic entities GNU (software) Linux (Kernel) then 3rd party whatever other software someone can get to run in it. It still has a uniformed Unix type file system
The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) is a reference describing the conventions used for the layout of a UNIX system. It has been made popular by its use in Linux distributions, but it is used by other UNIX variants as well.[1] It is maintained by the ----->>> Linux Foundation. <<<--- The latest version is 3.0, released on 3 June 2015.[2]
Click to expand...
It is maintained by the ----->>> Linux Foundation. <<<--- The latest version is 3.0, released on 3 June 2015.[2]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard

how one decides how to use /usr and /usr/local is determined by the "heads of state" in control of the OS on a before deployed/ though I am sure even on FreeBSD if I was to (write) compile and install some piece of software I can still use either /usr or /usr/local and it will still work if installed properly.

the use of /usr or /usr/local is just someone deciding that is how the system is going to be set up to run as a standard which has nothing to do with the argument of FreeBSD is an entire OS whereas Linux is just a kernel.

Had Linus Benedict Torvalds decided to set out to write more then just the kernel well then that FreeBSD is an OS and Linux is just a kernel would not be an argument when most people are generalizing to an OS as a Whole when saying Linux instead of ,I use GNU/Linux that was forked from...

because that is what FreeBSD is too a fork in the road. it me it is just petty nit picking over who is better on the basis of OS is... I say Linux is (pre systemD) only on the grounds of, it is better supported. Even FreeBSD uses GNU/Linux software retooled to work on FreeBSD from what little I've read about it. even for parts of its system to work, as well as 3rd party software.

something about FreeBSD got into some legal situation with BSD on who owns what and got put on hold from any further development at the time Linux got started so the devs jumped on that bandwagon so FreeBSD got left behind.
 
userxbw said:
Linux/GNU OS system the use of the word Linux is just nowdays used in most cases for the enter system put together by two basic entities GNU (software) Linux (Kernel) then 3rd party whatever other software someone can get to run in it.
Click to expand...

GNU/Linux FAQ - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation

www.gnu.org www.gnu.org

userxbw said:
it me it is just petty nip picking over who is better.
Click to expand...
I didn't say one was 'better' than the other.

userxbw said:
Even FreeBSD uses GNU/Linux software retooled to work on FreeBSD from what little I've read about it. even for its system to work.
Click to expand...
 
userxbw said:
where the so called argument here is the file system structure not the software of same said systems that make up an entire OS to get it to boot and run but the FILE system
Click to expand...
You're missing the point I was trying to make. On FreeBSD there's a clear and distinct separation of the base OS and third party software (ports/packages). On Linux that distinction is as clear as mud. The Linux kernel and GNU are separately developed projects. You could make some distinction between Linux (the kernel), GNU software and everything else. But GNU would still be considered a 'third party'. Therefor there's no clear distinction between what is considered part of the "Linux OS" and third party software.
 
SirDice said:
You're missing the point I was trying to make. On FreeBSD there's a clear and distinct separation of the base OS and third party software (ports/packages). On Linux that distinction is as clear as mud. The Linux kernel and GNU are separately developed projects. You could make some distinction between Linux (the kernel), GNU software and everything else. But GNU would still be considered a 'third party'. Therefor there's no clear distinction between what is considered part of the "Linux OS" and third party software.
Click to expand...
where one in the Linux user world says Linux they are actually referring to the entire system whereas a dev might be using the word Linux as pertaining to Only the Kernel . what to call 3rd party software in the usage of the word Linux to indicate an entire OS being what the basic off the street user is looking at when using it.

The kernel being 1st party, GNU being 2nd party because that provides a layer over top of the kernel then 3rd party is whatever extended software a user uses to do anything outside of getting a system booted and gui outside of some basic command line tools needed in both arenas. again this is nit picking.


the actual REAL nit picking point here is the file structure being the same but its usage decidedly different mostly pertaining to /usr and /usr/local which started on the placemt of Xorgs X11 config files in FreeBSD as apposed to where a diso Linux puts them being that they use the same file structure. which if FreeBSD is forked then this too can be completely changed to some other naming scheme on the devs options.

I can be the rebel and still compile and install to either one of these /usr or /usr/local on freeBSD and it will still work. I am not bind to use either one specifically either in Linux or FreeBSD. I'd have to slap in a xorg.conf of some sort into /etc/X11/... to see if that goes across the board though.

where even here FreeBSD sperates the pkg and ports from /usr/local it states that /usr/local is for ports so /usr should be for pkg (packages)?? it looks like they get tossed in together into /usr/local ??

in reaility one could just get rid of /usr/local and use only /usr
freeBSD

/usr/The majority of user utilities and applications.
/usr/local/Local executables and libraries. Also used as the default destination for the FreeBSD ports framework. Within /usr/local, the general layout sketched out by hier(7) for /usr should be used. Exceptions are the man directory, which is directly under /usr/local rather than under /usr/local/share, and the ports documentation is in share/doc/port.

Linux
/usrSecondary hierarchy for read-only user data; contains the majority of (multi-)user utilities and applications. Should be shareable and read-only.[9][10]
/usr/localTertiary hierarchy for local data, specific to this host. Typically has further subdirectories (e.g., bin, lib, share).[NB 1]
 
Jose said:
Any idea what the directory /usr/local/etc/X11/fontpath.d is for?
Click to expand...
Honestly, no. This whole FontPath thing is from the 'old' way of configuring fonts. It shouldn't be needed anymore but I never managed to figure out how to get those fonts to load properly without setting FontPath.
 
userxbw said:
Linux
/usrSecondary hierarchy for read-only user data; contains the majority of (multi-)user utilities and applications. Should be shareable and read-only.[9][10]
/usr/localTertiary hierarchy for local data, specific to this host. Typically has further subdirectories (e.g., bin, lib, share).[NB 1]
Click to expand...
The FHS hasn't had an update since 2015, was largely ignored by most distros anyway, and then Lennart showed up
unix.stackexchange.com

What's the difference between 'hier(7)' and 'file-hierarchy(7)' man pages?

Both hier(7) and file-hierarchy(7) man pages claim to describe the conventional file system hierarchy. However, there are some differences between them. For example, hier(7) describes /opt and /var...
unix.stackexchange.com unix.stackexchange.com

Lennart has since moved on to some real advanced thinking:

Poettering: Fitting Everything Together [LWN.net]

lwn.net lwn.net

I'm rooting for injuries.
 
SirDice said:
Honestly, no. This whole FontPath thing is from the 'old' way of configuring fonts. It shouldn't be needed anymore but I never managed to figure out how to get those fonts to load properly without setting FontPath.
Click to expand...
I recently had to re-learn this whole mess to get Terminus font working on Urxvt. The problem is the xft fonts looked terrible, and the Urxvt doc says they're "slow". Is there a third alternative?
 
userxbw said:
where one in the Linux user world says Linux they are actually referring to the entire system whereas a dev might be using the word Linux as pertaining to Only the Kernel .
Click to expand...
Give me a clear definition of what is considered part of "the entire system" and what isn't.

userxbw said:
kernal being 1st part, GNU being 2nd party because that provides a layer over top of the kernel then 3rd party is whatever extended software a user uses to do anything outside of getting a system booted and gui outside of some basic command line tools needed in both arenas.
Click to expand...
Actually, several Linux distributions use very little from the GNU project. How much has to be included to be able to call it a Linux OS? See how muddy this distinction is?

userxbw said:
the actual REAL nit picking point here is the file structure being the same but its usage decidedly different mostly pertaining to /usr and /usr/local which started on the placemt of Xorgs X11 config files in FreeBSD as apposed to where a diso Linux puts them being that they use the same file structure.
Click to expand...
X used to be installed in /usr/X11R6 (X11BASE), X applications got installed to /usr/X11R6/bin (well, most, definitely not all, some did end up in /usr/local/bin). And it didn't start with the placement of X11 configuration files in /usr/local/etc/, LOCALBASE (/usr/local/) has existed since the early days of FreeBSD. I had my XFree86 configuration files in /usr/local/etc/X11/ and it worked just fine.
 
SirDice said:
Honestly, no. This whole FontPath thing is from the 'old' way of configuring fonts. It shouldn't be needed anymore but I never managed to figure out how to get those fonts to load properly without setting FontPath.
Click to expand...
that is why i asked is this needed maybe I didn't word it properly enough then it became of that is where they put them files on the /usr/local side and not the /usr side then you went into the fbsd is an OS linux is a kernel removing the syplity of using the word linux to mean more then the kernel when taling about the system as a whole thing which seems to be the only argument that FreeBSD has to say who is better which FreeBSD uses in its defence to et people to use them over a linix distro .. for a server I cannot say I don't use either for a server, but for a laptop / desktop -- FreeBSD is lacking in many areas wifi and especially bluetooth for two plug and play USB ports - though I don't rely on that much anymore I just use my HDD/SDD medium. etc.
 
userxbw said:
that is why i asked is this needed maybe I didn't word it properly enough then it became of that is where they put them files on the /usr/local side and not the /usr side then you went into the fbsd is an OS linux
Click to expand...
All I gave you was an easy to understand way to figure out where to look.
userxbw said:
which seems to be the only argument that FreeBSD has to say who is better FreeBSD uses in its defence to et people to use them over a linix distro
Click to expand...
Again, I never mentioned one was better than the other. All I did was point out an obvious difference between Linux and FreeBSD. If you installed a port or package, look for its configuration files in /usr/local/etc/, not /etc.
userxbw said:
for a server I cannot say I don't use either for a server
Click to expand...
Well, I do. And a lot of it too. Both Linux and FreeBSD servers. I wrote a lot of puppet code to maintain RHEL servers, you don't want to know the hoops I had to jump through to make the code work on different RHEL versions. That's even on the same distribution. But there are some very notable differences between RHEL 5, 6, 7, 8 and now 9. And my code had to work on all of them.
userxbw said:
FreeBSD is lacking in many areas wifi and especially bluetooth
Click to expand...
And I agree, there's definitely a lot of room for improvement in this area. But this has nothing to do with the distinction of the base OS and third party software.
 
SirDice said:
Give me a clear definition of what is considered part of "the entire system" and what isn't.


Actually, several Linux distributions use very little from the GNU project. How much has to be included to be able to call it a Linux OS? See how muddy this distinction is?


X used to be installed in /usr/X11R6 (X11BASE). And it didn't start with the placement of X11 configuration files in /usr/local/etc/, LOCALBASE (/usr/local/) has existed since the early days of FreeBSD. I had my XFree86 configuration files in /usr/local/etc/X11/ and it worked just fine.
Click to expand...

and in there lies the question as both need a kernel but what can be done with only a kernel?

the kernel It is the main layer between the OS and underlying computer hardware, and it helps with tasks such as process and memory management, file systems, device control and networking.
The operating system's job
The operating system (OS) manages all of the software and hardware on the computer. It performs basic tasks such as file, memory and process management, handling input and output, and controlling peripheral devices such as disk drives and printers.

adding that does not necessary mean a GUI. as far as Xrog used to be in a directory called X11R6 under /usr only proves my point in saying it does not matter where it is put its the part that tracks where everything is that counts using the PATH configuration. it is just a naming scheme for a file structure.

as I am not a student in the everything of or what makes up an OS but it looks like it is not a Kernel. again Had Linus Torvalds deiced to write more then a kernel then there would be none of this, FreeBSD is a full OS whereas Linux is just a kernel, argument to try and say we are the better one. pick us over a Linux (disto) polical defense that FreeBSD uses to try and sway the masses to try and keep them that develop FreeBSD alive as most of the forks from FreeBSD have died.
 
Jose said:
The FHS hasn't had an update since 2015, was largely ignored by most distros anyway, and then Lennart showed up
unix.stackexchange.com

What's the difference between 'hier(7)' and 'file-hierarchy(7)' man pages?

Both hier(7) and file-hierarchy(7) man pages claim to describe the conventional file system hierarchy. However, there are some differences between them. For example, hier(7) describes /opt and /var...
unix.stackexchange.com unix.stackexchange.com

Lennart has since moved on to some real advanced thinking:

Poettering: Fitting Everything Together [LWN.net]

lwn.net lwn.net

I'm rooting for injuries.
Click to expand...
like I stated earlier in a post it is just a Developers option on what the file structure is to be called and set up like to use whatever software in whichever dir or subdir. standareizaion is used to try get rid of ciaos out and establish order
 
SirDice said:
All I gave you was an easy to understand way to figure out where to look.

Again, I never mentioned one was better than the other. All I did was point out an obvious difference between Linux and FreeBSD. If you installed a port or package, look for its configuration files in /usr/local/etc/, not /etc.

Well, I do. And a lot of it too. Both Linux and FreeBSD servers. I wrote a lot of puppet code to maintain RHEL servers, you don't want to know the hoops I had to jump through to make the code work on different RHEL versions. That's even on the same distribution. But there are some very notable differences between RHEL 5, 6, 7, 8 and now 9. And my code had to work on all of them.

And I agree, there's definitely a lot of room for improvement in this area. But this has nothing to do with the distinction of the base OS and third party software.
Click to expand...
My usage of the wording of 3rd party is out of lack of fully understating the complete make up of Linux OS to make it a whole OS but then as I posted saying FREEBSD is an entire OS can be nit picked because the OS part does not constituent the kernel part that comes after the Kernel part and not even the user software what comes after it.

the OS is a "middle man" out of the entirety of it all.

as my limited knowleage of the difference between FreeBSD and Linux ( distro) is governed by not wanting and needing to know the nuts and bolts of everything that makes up an entire system. It is what do I need to know to get it and keep it running to how I need it run in order for the entire system to do what I need or want it to and not the entire history of who is what part and when that happed etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top