| Re: instructions
Feb 6 2016 on content Digits Big Tiny Font Collection 2 |
thanks for reporting that.
i dont recall ever having to do any of "mkfontdir inside each directory, xset +fp <path> for each directory, and fc-cache -f". i guess i'm just one of the lucky ones for whome simply placing them in ~/.fonts is sufficient.
did my attempt to split them up into different directories just muck it up?
trying to reproduce here (yeah, my trisquel on the netbook does it the same). [edit: see possible fix at bottom of reply]
are you sure you have the necessities for displaying otb format bitmap fonts? [edit: see possible fix at bottom of reply]
does wastage not show up either? ~ it's not otb format. [edit : oops, did i not include wastage in dbtfc2... i think i meant to]
what os/distro are you on?
iirc, debian(-based) recently(ish) made a change requiring user intervention to restore .otb xwindow bitmap font capability. (i have failed to find the wiki page on that in a timely manner though) [edit: see possible fix at bottom of reply]
now up on https://notabug.org/Digit/dbtfc if that's of any help.
~ ah! 30 tabs and a lot of searching later, and i find this possible fix in the waybackmachine, hope this is what solves it: https://web.archive.org/web/20130917180917/http://crunchbanglinux.org/wiki/howto/font_rendering
see the bit about bitmap fonts? seems some folks have a real aversion to bitmap fonts that they've been getting disabled upstream by default. tsk tsk. |
|  | | Re: want an bold font in your font style
Apr 6 2015 on content Digit's Big Tiny Font Collection |
i'm not entirely clear about what you mean, but some fonts are wide, most are as narrow as i could make. these are otb format, bitmap fonts, and as such, wont scale well, if at all.
in slackware, they scale, in all other distros i've tried, they are fixed at the size they are, pixel perfect. i've yet to determine what slackware has set different to perhaps have access to toggle scalability of bitmap fonts. |
| | | thnx vast1
Jul 4 2012 on content smplgut-q |
it sufficed at getting me sorted with a scrot again. ;)
what a horrible link, cant seem to access the .png (or jpg/whatever)... and it didnt really show it off as much as i hoped for. but thnx for playing. :) you win the competition. ;D |
| | | screenshot
Jul 3 2012 on content smplgut-q |
i find myself once again between screenshot facilities ( i change my wm and other components so often), and so, i put out to you folks a "competition" (of sorts), where u are challenged to present in this comment section, a link to a screenshot of smplgut-q (ideally showing it off in as many parts (scroll bars, trees, buttons, selections, etc) as possible), before i get around to it.
your challenge:
post a link to a screenshot of this theme |
| | | screenshot
Jul 3 2012 on content smplgut-q |
i find myself once again between screenshot facilities ( i change my wm and other components so often), and so, i put out to you folks a "competition" (of sorts), where u are challenged to present in this comment section, a link to a screenshot of smplgut-q (ideally showing it off in as many parts (scroll bars, trees, buttons, selections, etc) as possible), before i get around to it.
your challenge:
post a link to a screenshot of this theme |
| | | Re: Re: nice group idea. it has gotten a little o
Feb 8 2012 on group We don't like Ubuntu-only stuff |
---"i've used over 400 distinct .iso of gnu operating systems (or bsd, and a few others dotted around)."
--There isn't over 400 distributions of HURD operating system... Only a few and they don't even work well as HURD isn't working operating system.
--GNU would have their own operating system working if Linus would not have started Linux what gathered OS developers around it.
--Even that GNU project maintains/develops great system programs, system utilities and many application programs and libraries, they just have failed with HURD operating system and good luck is that we have Linux to take its place.
i cant tell if you're trying to be funny, or if you really do have such a wacko take of the situation. that^s probably just trolling, but incase it's not, i shall respond.
linus made a kernel, he and some others might call it an opperating system, but i think the majority of us call an opperating system the combination of all the parts of the... operating system. not just the kernel.
it is the GNU opperating system. and the Linux Kernel. and the HURD kernel ~ which itself is broken up into smaller components, including a micro kernel. ... and you get the BSD opperating system, and it uses the BSD kernel.
Linux, or whatever kernel you use, is almost certainly only a very small portion of your complete opperating system.
~ on a side note about the hurd... HURD development continues, and is actually quite useable, though not yet recommended for mission critical or production environment yet. i recently heard they're looking around for a new microkernel to replace mach with. i think i heard someone mention reviving old L4 sources. It's really powerful technology, i can see why it's worth continuing to develop.
just because we so often use the word "linux" as shorthand for GNU|Linux, doesnt really mean the opperating system is called linux, in a strict sense.
to further clarify the point, about gnu or bsd being the name of the opperating system and the words linux and hurd being the kernels, my favorite main distro is gentoo. i could go for gentoo with a hurd, bsd, or linux kernel. or even some others (but lets not confuse things further).
i could do so with all the same stuff to interface with, just a different kernel (and a few compatibility changes). same opperating system install, different kernels.
kernel != opperating system.
they're not synonymous.
... unless you're the unique breed of "kernel developer". ;p
if you want to put this to the test further, try running your "opperating system" without everything but the kernel, and see how well the system opperatates. :P XD ;D
so anyways, when i said gnu, i didnt mean hurd, as you seemed to interpret it. i meant gnu. as in GNU|Linux, *AND* GNU|HURD, and whatever else is on the go too. it was a conscious decision to use the word gnu alone, because not all distros i had used, used the linux kernel. some used hurd, some used xen, and i think there were even a few that used other stuff too... after about 300 you kinda start to loose track of it all.
i hope that makes sense to you now, you probable jester you. ^_^
p.s.
amen for the freedom to interchange ALL components of our free software opperating systems. ... on that note, oh for more alternatives to gcc and xorg. ;D |
| | | Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: must?
Oct 28 2011 on group Free Desktop Environment |
"In the end I would like to kindly ask Digit to explain more about what he thinks and to talk more about his opinion and stands for. And if you are a programmer developer, please let us know you are, because we are moreover looking developers and coders. If you are not a coder just implement your ideas in our group - we welcome."
i suppose i qualify as a developer, having worked on several distro projects, though my coding skills are still somewhat lacking. i spend a considerable amount of time surfing software to know what's out there, which lego bricks exist for us to play with, so to speak. among my many diverse interests, i also spend some of my time constructing my own "desktop environments" (of a sort) from various existing components, inspired in part at least, by the openbox version of crunchbang.
programming-wise, it's mostly just bash skills, and just barely touched on a handful of other programming/scripting languages. still would love to learn more about constructing guis and using toolkits (gtk foremost, but others too). so hard to find the time for it all though.
as for what i stand for, as i mention in my other response today, freedom. ;)
sensible defaults are of course of obvious importance, but if you cant change them to suit your own needs/preferences (because lets face it, everyone's needs and preferences are different) then it's a big fail imo.
similar story for how well integrated and cohesive a whole the DE is. i felt the old KDE (pre4) did this exceptionally well. i imagine it's a difficult thing to get right, creating a well integrated cohesive whole desktop experience that can handle a user changing the occasional component for alternatives, with minimal impact on that cohesive integrated experience.
i'm also strongly in favour of lightness, and responsiveness. like has been used as a mantra of sorts for google "every millisecond counts". |
| | | Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: must?
Oct 28 2011 on group Free Desktop Environment |
"In the end I would like to kindly ask Digit to explain more about what he thinks and to talk more about his opinion and stands for. And if you are a programmer developer, please let us know you are, because we are moreover looking developers and coders. If you are not a coder just implement your ideas in our group - we welcome."
i suppose i qualify as a developer, having worked on several distro projects, though my coding skills are still somewhat lacking. i spend a considerable amount of time surfing software to know what's out there, which lego bricks exist for us to play with, so to speak. among my many diverse interests, i also spend some of my time constructing my own "desktop environments" (of a sort) from various existing components, inspired in part at least, by the openbox version of crunchbang.
programming-wise, it's mostly just bash skills, and just barely touched on a handful of other programming/scripting languages. still would love to learn more about constructing guis and using toolkits (gtk foremost, but others too). so hard to find the time for it all though.
as for what i stand for, as i mention in my other response today, freedom. ;)
sensible defaults are of course of obvious importance, but if you cant change them to suit your own needs/preferences (because lets face it, everyone's needs and preferences are different) then it's a big fail imo.
similar story for how well integrated and cohesive a whole the DE is. i felt the old KDE (pre4) did this exceptionally well. i imagine it's a difficult thing to get right, creating a well integrated cohesive whole desktop experience that can handle a user changing the occasional component for alternatives, with minimal impact on that cohesive integrated experience.
i'm also strongly in favour of lightness, and responsiveness. like has been used as a mantra of sorts for google "every millisecond counts". |
| | | Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: must?
Oct 28 2011 on group Free Desktop Environment |
"Oddly enough Compiz is the only WM that doesn't already have a DE made specifically made for it. Kwin, Gnome WM, and all any other WM I can mention has a DE for it. Compiz does not."
Not really sure if you just aren't familiar with many window managers, or if you mean something i'm not getting. i can name dozens of window managers that do not have a whole desktop environment to accompany them (i'll spare you that exercise though).
"Can we make our DE work with other WMs? Absolutely but we need to start somewhere first and Compiz is a very logical choice."
oh good that alleviates my concerns. i had thought that by your "MUST", you meant it would be a central component without which you wouldn't be able to use this DE.
GNU's modularity and freedom to choose components is one of it's strongest advantages, would have been a shame to brush it aside. glad to see this doesn't seem any more to be the case. |
| | | Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: must?
Oct 28 2011 on group Free Desktop Environment |
"Oddly enough Compiz is the only WM that doesn't already have a DE made specifically made for it. Kwin, Gnome WM, and all any other WM I can mention has a DE for it. Compiz does not."
Not really sure if you just aren't familiar with many window managers, or if you mean something i'm not getting. i can name dozens of window managers that do not have a whole desktop environment to accompany them (i'll spare you that exercise though).
"Can we make our DE work with other WMs? Absolutely but we need to start somewhere first and Compiz is a very logical choice."
oh good that alleviates my concerns. i had thought that by your "MUST", you meant it would be a central component without which you wouldn't be able to use this DE.
GNU's modularity and freedom to choose components is one of it's strongest advantages, would have been a shame to brush it aside. glad to see this doesn't seem any more to be the case. |
| |
Search people
Current visitors
New users
Birthdays
Most active users
Back
|
|
