Arch fonts

Install Gentoo

Learn how to use config files.

>>59621052
do you really think yout problem deservers it's own thread?

Windows 10 doesn't have this problem.

>>59621341
>yout
>deservers
>it's

Ha, what a retard.

>>59621052
use a sensible linux distribution

File: garbage.png (23KB, 710x217px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 710x217px

>>59621304
I've used them many times to do some shitty rices, but fonts are all sorts of fucked up
>>59621341
Just highlighting some problems with arch, it's not as great and perfect as everyone makes it out to be.
>>59621370
That's why I've got a dual boot with Arch and Windows 10 on it.


Look at this garbage after I installed wps-office from the AUR

>>59621052
Install Windows

>>59621428
What would you recommend? I only went for Arch because it seemed like the only distro that didn't give me a fuckton of stuff I didn't need, and I wanted to build my system from the ground up to learn about Linux. Arch seems to be the only major, usable distro that lets a user build their system, rather than dumping everything they could possibly need on them.

>>59621487
Install Ubuntu minimal

File: assssssss.jpg (25KB, 426x240px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 426x240px

>noticing fonts

>>59621487
Sorry, but you are an idiot falling for memes.

Arch IS NOT minimal, even the arch devs say so. If you wish to use a well supported system with minimal "bloat" just go with Debian.

are you gay my man?

learn 2 fonts.conf

File: DSC001093.jpg (46KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 604x453px

>install wine
>suddenly every program uses times new roman

ARCH IS SHIT

File: better.png (28KB, 635x242px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 635x242px

>>59621518
Nice b8 I'm taking it, look at the one I posted earlier and this one after I uninstalled wps-office and tell me you see no difference.

>>59621547
I much prefer the rolling-release rather than one massive update, and I like using the AUR. Other than that I would swap to Debian in a heartbeat.

>>59621561
I've been fucking around with it for ages now and it's not making things any better. If you can prove that there's a simple way to decide what fonts are used where I'm all ears but fonts.conf is fucked

>>59621600
It already looks great, faggot.

>>59621611
I had to straight up uninstall my office suite that I was using just to get it back to this. If you're telling me that's normal and/or intentional design then you're nuts. I don't want to have to uninstall every package I need that comes with extra fonts, that's fucking atrocious.

>>59621428
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

>>59621634
Just override the fonts you dislike in fonts.conf. It's annoying but gets the job done.

Which font is giving you trouble?

>>59621649
It's not just one particular font, it's every font, that's the problem. As soon as a new font is installed with a package, it's used by default everywhere. Look at image posted here: >>59621459
That font was needed for wps-office, and was used system-wide, on every application. I'm gunna attempt to tinker with fonts.conf but it seems likely I'll break something. It's just an ugly fix and I'd rather find a better way of doing it.

>>59621600
Go install Poppins from AUR

>>59621721
I don't see anything in the PKGBUILD that would cause that, but maybe you can nuke /usr/share/fonts/wps-office and see what happens?

I don't think Arch is at fault here, it seems that wps-office was packaged by a retard.

>>59621871
But it is Arch at fault, at least as far as I can see. This has happened to so many packages that I've installed which I've had to remove as I can't get my normal fonts to be used system-wide. It always uses the most recently installed one.

>>59621052
The only distro that solves font problem in Linux is unfortunately Ubuntu. No joke.
Arch devs prefer to pretend everything is fine and infinality doesn't exist. Wonder how big is the bribe.

>>59621949
Overriding Sans, Sans Serif and Monospace in fonts.conf should fix it I think. What's the output of fc-match sans?

>>59621052
You will never get decent font rendering on Arch. Have you seen the garbage these idiots post in desktop threads?

>>59621487
Just install Ubuntu minimal. Learning "how to install Arch" is a complete waste of time. Nobody uses Arch in production and 99% of what you're doing by building Arch from the ground up is useless knowledge that won't be applicable in non-NEET scenarios.

Install ttf-vista-fonts and use meiryo for everything.

>>59622019
I only get one match:
fc-match sans
NotoSans-Regular.ttc: "Noto Sans" "Regular"

The problem I'm seeing with using a local fonts.conf in ~/.config/fontconfig (which I had to make myself, not sure if that's normal) is that it's used in 50-user.conf, meaning 60-latin.conf overrides it in /etc/fonts/conf.d

The wiki says that if you try to renumber 50-user.conf to override any other commands (i.e. make it 99-user.conf) that fontconfig creates its own 50-user.conf as it sees that it is missing.

Cheers for the help, always nice to see one helpful guy in a sea of shitposting.

>>59621993
>>59622092
I don't want to have to quit this distro just because of an irritating font problem, but if stuff like this keeps cropping up I might have to swap, which I really don't want to as I've spent so long adjusting and tweaking this set-up to be exactly how I want it to be.

I have my system auto-select arch at GRUB and auto-login to i3 with polybar. Booting (kernel + userspace) takes 2.1 seconds.

If you're telling me this is possible in ubuntu minimal, I'm swapping right now.

head over to bohomil's infinality repo on github for some font confs

put them in ~/.config/fontconfig/conf.aval/
cd to ~/.config/fontconfig/conf.d/
ls -s ../conf.avail/your-chosen-fonts.conf .

maybe a safe start would be to copy the metric-aliases.conf and the 5 /free/ confs
you don't need ~/.Xresourses

overall this works

thank you infinality and bohomil

>>59622179
All of that is possible with Ubuntu or Debian or any of their derivatives. There's basically no point in running any distribution that isn't based on Debian or Redhat.

>>59622179
>I have my system auto-select arch at GRUB and auto-login to i3 with polybar. Booting (kernel + userspace) takes 2.1 seconds.
>If you're telling me this is possible in ubuntu minimal, I'm swapping right now.
Of course it's possible. Duh.

>>59622103
Only one match is how it should be. I'm curious about the output when you install wps-office for instance. If it remains as Noto Sans then there is something else going on.

Try this as your fonts.conf replacing Droid Sans with the fonts you want:

<?xml version='1.0'?>
<!DOCTYPE fontconfig SYSTEM 'fonts.dtd'>
<fontconfig>
<alias>
  <family>serif</family>
  <prefer><family>Droid Sans</family></prefer>
</alias>
<alias>
  <family>sans-serif</family>
  <prefer><family>Droid Sans</family></prefer>
</alias>
<alias>
  <family>sans</family>
  <prefer><family>Droid Sans</family></prefer>
</alias>
<alias>
  <family>monospace</family>
  <prefer><family>Droid Sans Mono</family></prefer>
</alias>
</fontconfig>

No problem mate, I've spent more time dealing with fonts bullshit on Linux than I'd like to admit. Hint: it sucks on almost every distribution.

>dont update anything cause i want to keep infinality and the ~20 fonts i have that look amazing with it
>justify using one program over the better one because the better one is broken w/o harfbuzz
>get drunk one day and half-follow the instructions on the github or whatevs
>Looks the same as infinality maybe 1-2 fonts have wierd kerning issues, have to reinstall artwiz but i hardly ever use them

Oh wow its fucking nothing. Was a dumb faggot for waiting

Yes, this is my thread i didnt read a single post except for the subject

>>59622281
I don't get it.

>>59622213
Do NOT do this. Infinality is no longer supported and the author is MIA. You're going to get gtk issues if you use Infinality today.

>>59622179
yes ubuntu minimal is a valid answer
the net install or mini.iso whatever you call it

you are free to choose what to aptget after the base install
https://rbt.asia/g/thread/S55472222#p55477683

It's amusing that people still use infinality when the main infinality repos have been hacked multiple times over the past few years. How desperate are you fucking Arch and Fedora retards for decent font rendering?

>>59622329
read my post again

>>59622329
Arch fags just kept telling us that.
It may not be supported anymore.
But the last release is not far long ago.
It will work fine for now.

Infinality looks better. Just fact.

>>59622357
I don't get why they can't just use Ubuntu solution.
Font rendering is best in Ubuntu. Is it pride?

>>59622260
I reinstalled wps-office just to test this, and it's now: fc-match
FZSongS_20100603.TTF: "FZSongS-Extended" "Regular"

and

fc-match sans
FZSongS_20100603.TTF: "FZSongS-Extended" "Regular"

It looks horrendous again, as expected. The strange thing is I couldn't find where it was being used in /etc/fonts/conf.d. It wasn't specified anywhere in 50-user.conf, 51-local.conf, 60-latin.conf, or 69-unifont.conf, which is where I'd expect it to be.

I might try this >>59622213 solution though, sounds promising. That being said, I might just skip the bullshit and swap to ubuntu anyway. I've learnt a lot through Arch and it wouldn't be too painful to let it go, I'd only be losing rolling-release and the AUR which is a small price to pay for much fewer bullshit problems.

>>59622389
They think that using obscure distros made by unemployed NEETs makes them elite. It's quite sad.

>not using lxappearance

>>59622389
ubuntu's font settings are taken from infinality-bundle
at least thats what i saw on the 1404 net install i checked
that may not be the case anymore

>>59622422
Manjaro is a thing

>>59622442
Reminds me that they remove the beginner's guide.
Arch devs are delusional.

>>59622462
Pretty sure Ubuntu use their own solution that includes Infinality improvements.

>>59621459
>literally broke an Arch install and can't fix it
Anon, you're dumb as shit
>dualboots windows 10
oh, that expains it

>>59622389
I don't get it. Why don't they just fix the default config so people stop complaining?

>>59622422
That's strange, from the PKGBUILD I see that the fonts get installed to /usr/share/fonts/wps-office but that shouldn't cause your whole system to switch to chink fonts.

However, I see that wps-office comes with its own fontconfig file named 40-wps-office.conf. Can you try to find it?

File: IMG_7171.jpg (79KB, 727x1024px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 727x1024px

Honestly I just use the manjaro font config as a baseline somewhere on their wiki. Since tt was updated, fonts look really good without any fancy configuration now.

I think a HUGE part about fonts isn't just the config itself, but the font you use. Until I started using noto sans, I would spend hours fucking with the config to make it look right. Now I just throw in a file and call it a day.

FYI it's not an arch issue. Last I checked arch doesn't do anything differently with fonts, so everyone in this thread bitching about arch is being autistic.

>>59622559
>not using Terminus

>Arch has shit font rendering
>not Arch's fault
wat.jpg

>>59622462
>ubuntu's font settings are taken from infinality-bundle

No they aren't. Shuttleworth paid typographers to come in and help Ubuntu developers fix the font rendering and create the Ubuntu font. I doubt these people even know Infinality exists.

>>59622587
Debian has shit font rendering too. That's what I'm getting at. It's more of a Linux thing in general. The only distro that comes with good fonts oob I'm aware of is Ubuntu, but to be frank I am fine with how mine look. I haven't used an Ubuntu distro in years.

>>59622626
Ubuntu fonts are available on AUR, so you can use those on Arch if someone wants

>>59622624
If anything, Infinality stole from Ubuntu.

>>59622655
Is it just the Ubuntu fonts that make people like them, or is it the font rendering itself?

I was under the impression Ubuntu used a generic font

>>59622655

Installing just the fonts is not enough, you also need their freetype and fontconfig files.

>>59622655
Ubuntu has heavily patched freetype to improve font rendering. Having the font alone won't help. Most distros won't include similar changes because of "muh patents" and other nonsense.

>>59622706
I thought this is FOSS.

>>59622736
It is FOSS. That doesn't change the fact that a lot of the best font rendering techniques are patented by Adobe, Apple, Microsoft etc. If you're based in the US you open yourself up to a lot of potential legal action if you include a freetype renderer that infringes on those patents.

Ubuntu doesn't give a fuck since they're based in a country that doesn't give a fuck about software patents.

>>59622706
Huh. I installed it, and it looked nice, but slightly different than I was expecting. Still was better than stock fonts tho. This explains a lot.

>>59622809
Wait, you literally installed Ubuntu because of this thread?
My sides.

>>59622869
No, the Ubuntu font package.

>>59621052
If you can't figure this out then GNU/Linux isn't really for you. Let's face it, you are better off using Ubuntu or Windows then you are with Arch. Let the big boys use the grown up toy while you settle with a baby OS. Sorry. That's the way things are in the GNU/Linux community.

>>59622981

font configuration on linux is a mess desu

i don't think anybody fully grasps it

>>59622995
What are you on about? It's easy to figure out if you know what you are doing.

>>59622513
I ran find / 40-wps-office.conf and it found no such file. It's such a strange and frustrating problem.

>>59622559
It's very difficult to tell what is Arch's fault and what isn't, and even more difficult to tell who here has a valid point and who is just shitting on whatever distro they're talking about for no reason. I'm still having a hard time deciding whether to switch to debian/ubuntu minimal or not and this place is definitely not making it easier to decide. I do appreciate the people trying to help, though.

>>59623008
>It's easy to figure out if you know what you are doing.
non-sequitur

>>59623022
Are you running a DE or something like xfsettingsd?

>>59623022
>to switch to debian/ubuntu minimal
You should just try them and see for yourself which causes you less hassle, compare to your experience with arch

>>59621052
i have problem with japanese and arabic letters
it wont render them

File: gnulag.jpg (317KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 1920x1080px

>>59621052
>he does not use bitmap fonts
what a fag

>>59623106
>i have problem with japanese and arabic letters
Download noto cjk fonts? Probably will solve 90% of your problems. The last 10% may need you to generate the locale, etc.

>>59623115
First thing I did was delete all the bitmap crap.

im doing it, hope it works

File: Избор_112.png (96KB, 1913x1079px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1913x1079px

>>59623201
done,tnx anon

>>59623206
This.

>>59623331
CJK stands for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. How the hell can it solve your Arabic font problem?
Linux font is retarded.

>>59623331

fontconfig is retarded lmao

>>59623089
No DE, only i3 as WM, but I've got lxappearance. However, this problem was happening well before I installed lxappearance, and lxappearance doesn't have any font options for actually choosing which font to use, only stuff like anti-aliasing and hinting.

>>59623103
On a VM you mean? This doesn't really seem like a fair trial anyway, as it normally takes weeks/months for all the problems to appear and ruin your week, but I might test it out anyway.

>>59623106
I've been having this one, but it seems like a very easy fix as >>59623201 says, it just hasn't been top of my priorities list

>>59623206
It's a real shame that there's no ideal OS. Windows and OS X have this sort of stuff nailed - stuff the user doesn't really want to care about - but are worse in most other aspects, so I don't use them (much) any more.

Manjaro seems promising, but I'd read some things about the only difference being having their own delayed repo, and no real other differences other than an easier install which obviously doesn't affect me now and some extra packages that come as standard.

It's odd you say that about Debian as I'd only heard good things about apt, especially the number of packages available. Seems strange that you'd have to use 3rd party repos if theirs is so large already.

I really do want to stick with Arch, as it's pretty comfy and I've made so many personal tweaks to it already, but it's timesinks like this that get me down.

I'm going to be trying the fix described in >>59622213 soon, hopefully that works. I'm not planning on going to Mint any time soon, and desu I stayed away from Fedora mainly because of the name, glad to hear it's not worth my time.

Cheers for the support.

>>59623352
I guess since all the Manjaro fags are coming out of the closet, I will too. Ubuntu is made for the lowest common denominator, like your grandma, just like Windows. It complicates everything in its quest for user-friendly system. The software store is s fucking joke, and I couldn't easily find any of the many, many .deb packages available using the other package manager thing. PPA's? Another shitty joke. Even xubuntu is all fucked up and buggy compared to "stock" xfce. Manjaro is just a friendly, pre-configured Arch with sane defaults. As a total new Linux user, Ubuntu was just too confusing compared to mj.

>>59622624
they are
go read contents of /etc/fonts/conf.*

i was talking about the rules not the ubuntu font family which is strikingly similar to gnomes cantarell

>>59623469
Security updates are pushed asap, and have been for over a year in Manjaro. Yes, you get your packages @2 weeks later, after Arch users have tested the stability out for you. Memers only have a few valid criticisms about Manjaro, the update issue not being one of them.

>>59623469
Manjaro has a few minor tweaks other than that, but yes the key difference is that packages are held back and aren't pushed if they are a tad buggy. So you get waves up packages updates compared to updating your packages daily. I don't always remember to update my packages, so I sorta like the extra security since it's hard to pinpoint where something went wrong when you mass update a bleeding edge system. I definitely prefer arch/manjaro bases because there was never a single time I did an apt-get dist upgrade and something DIDN'T break.

Also, /g/ has been shitposting about arch vs debian for a long time. Since people who use arch have all become pretentious and misinformed, the pendulum has swung around and now wtf i love debian. I have nothing against debian, but I went from ubuntu -> arch -> debian and to me it just felt like a step back. But the sustained hate boner /g/ has for arch isn't all for nothing, but to me it seems like a lot of the complaints are looking for pebbles because they hate pretentious arch fags.

Debian is a LOT more stable than arch allegedly, but my only arch instability comes from some not regularly updated packages in the AUR. At the end of the day it's all the same shit.

>>59623619
Manjaro is not as polished as Ubuntu, but it's still pretty polished. Fonts look pretty shitty out of box and it still misses out on a few drivers/packages but I'm just nitpicking

>>59623705

this guy gets it

>>59623206
>tl dr
manjaro

you're better of with ubuntu mini
unless you want to use a hobbyist project and i don't mean arch

>>59623817
Ubuntu MATE is the best ubuntu experience anon

Honestly the only hobbyist OS I would claim would be something like kali or LFS. I can't call gentoo hobbyist because everyone I know claims it's super stable and easy past the initial setup but I'm too much of a brainlet for Gentoo :(

>>59623705
I'll agree with the fonts, I was super pissed when infinality disappeared. I'm the Poppins fag, I just set it system wide. Fonts look better now than on Windows.
The amount of bullshit to get Mesa 17 and a new kernel on buntu was just not worth it for me. I know pacman and the arch way, and it just seems simpler than the debian way.