Solved Why FreeBSD doesn't include the necessary fonts when install meta package mate?

badbrain

Active Member

Reaction score: 18
Messages: 121

No Mate subforum so I post here. Mate also Gnome to some extent :)

The fact is. It's too ugly.

6692


Look at the font. My font setting from Appearance already be Subpixel LCD. On Linux font like liberation already included. On some other BSDs it's not installed by default so I have to install it myself. After that a fc-cache -f -v is enough to make it looks fine. On FreeBSD, I installed liberation-font-ttf and run fc-cache -f -v but it's no affect. It's still ugly. Note: I closed Firefox and open again during the process, not let Firefox still running.

Liberation font is a must have thing. I don't understand why FreeBSD and other BSDs just not included it by default when install meta DE package like mate?
 

Sevendogsbsd

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 248
Messages: 527

Well, keep in mind FreeBSD was originally intended to be used for servers where fonts are irrelevant. Probably not a case of careless/lazy, probably just a legacy setting/configuration that isn't a terribly high priority. FreeBSD desktop usage is very low, even compared to Linux, on a global scale.
 
OP
OP
B

badbrain

Active Member

Reaction score: 18
Messages: 121

Well, keep in mind FreeBSD was originally intended to be used for servers where fonts are irrelevant. Probably not a case of careless/lazy, probably just a legacy setting/configuration that isn't a terribly high priority. FreeBSD desktop usage is very low, even compared to Linux, on a global scale.
So I think desktop FreeBSD users here should stop complain and said Linux sucks. They're not even serious to make FreeBSD a real alternative to Linux, which I think FreeBSD already the best non-Linux alternative desktop system and has the most potential, left Linux the only choice for immigrants from Windows :)
 

rigoletto@

Daemon
Developer

Reaction score: 940
Messages: 1,926

The FreeBSD policy is to follow upstream, if upstream doesn't include fonts or anything this is very unlikely to be included in the port. There are some very few exceptions, usually when the port is completely unusable without additions.
 

drhowarddrfine

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 1,217
Messages: 3,235

badbrain In no way does FreeBSD want to be an alternative to Linux. That would be a disgrace and is an insult.
The reason you don't get such things by default is FreeBSD gives you the ability to choose what you want and doesn't force feed anything to you. Linux choice of fonts may not be your choice of font and you'd have to add, change or install something to change that.
FreeBSD is a professional operating system for professionals and serious enthusiasts. Not a Microsoft Windows alternative that Linux has turned into.
 
OP
OP
B

badbrain

Active Member

Reaction score: 18
Messages: 121

I don't ever have either Noto or Liberation installed.
OK so you must have use the old free fonts which Linux distro also used on the past: dejavu and free serif, free mono... and could be bitstream vera. Isn't it?
 

drhowarddrfine

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 1,217
Messages: 3,235

They're standard.
There is no standard. In fact, Noto fonts were only relatively recently release by Google Fonts. As a web dev, I don't even consider them a standard for the web though they are somewhat popular because Google uses them. Perhaps that is why you think they are a standard. The other fonts you mention are also relatively new fonts and are in no way, shape or form what one would ever consider "standard".

If you want to talk standard, let's talk about Times New Roman, DejaVu and Georgia.

Why just want to be different?
It's not about being different. Using the default fonts is about not imposing anything on the user. Using Noto or Liberation is imposing a font on the user and, if they don't like it, they'll have to change it still.

I will go for a more forgivable system.
Apparently you mean Linux which also means it tells you what to do, what you will use and how to think. Just like Microsoft does. FreeBSD does none of that so your statement makes no sense but
I'm not professional or enthusiast.
you don't belong here anyway.
 

SirDice

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator

Reaction score: 7,672
Messages: 30,574

They're standard. I stress it standard.
Where exactly is this standard defined?

You don't seem to understand the difference between "installed by default on OS XYZ" and something that's defined as a standard.
 
OP
OP
B

badbrain

Active Member

Reaction score: 18
Messages: 121

Where exactly is this standard defined?

You don't seem to understand the difference between "installed by default on OS XYZ" and something that's defined as a standard.
My mind is simple. I considered what top 10 linux distro on distrowatch use as default being standard. Turn out I'm wrong. I installed Debian Stretch using the text installer and let it install mate for me. You know, it's as bad as freebsd. The default and not customized version always looks not good. What I see on linux distro A using mate or linux distro B using mate is indeed linux distro A using a very customized version of mate to suite distro A's needs and linux distro B using a very customized version of mate to suite distro B's needs. Sometimes it's both mate under the hood but looks very different. I deleted the post I thing cause confusing and spread false ideas. When comparing, FreeBSD must be compared to Debian or Arch, not Ubuntu or Manjaro.
 

SirDice

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator

Reaction score: 7,672
Messages: 30,574

My mind is simple. I considered what top 10 linux distro on distrowatch use as default being standard. Turn out I'm wrong.
By that same definition Windows would be "standard" too because 90% of the desktops run Windows. See how wrong that assumption is?

When comparing, FreeBSD must be compared to Debian or Arch, not Ubuntu or Manjaro.
FreeBSD is not Linux. Stop comparing apples and oranges. You can't even compare oranges in this case as every single Linux distribution does things differently. If they weren't different there wouldn't be a need for a new distribution.


On FreeBSD things are simple. Nothing is installed by default and everything needs to be configured.
 

ucomp

Active Member

Reaction score: 32
Messages: 186

... comparing apples and oranges...
in direct comparison i would choose Apple 😁 , specially for font-management, graphics designers used Suitcase a very long time until fonts-management was integrated into the system. but afaik Suitcase is still on the market
 

Sevendogsbsd

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 248
Messages: 527

Gah! No walled garden where I must be lobotomized and drink some purple koolaide...
 

drhowarddrfine

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 1,217
Messages: 3,235

Apple is a "walled garden" because they give you guarantees. They guarantee and warrant their hardware and software will all work together. They warrant the hardware. They give you a store to bring these to for repair. No other operating system does this. Microsoft gives you no guarantees their software runs on anything. FreeBSD and Linux don't either.

In order to provide such things, Apple must tie things down to one stable state. There is no other way to do it. And that's a good thing.
 

drhowarddrfine

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 1,217
Messages: 3,235

But it comes with a price. Apple Inc. has a history of being not complatible
Not compatible with what? They only need to be compatible with themselves. That's why they can make the guarantees I mentioned earlier.
avoiding taxes everywhere and exploiting employees producing their nice toys.
Their overall ecological balance is poor while generating huge profits.
That has nothing to do with being a walled garden.
 
Top