On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 3:17 PM, kario tay <[email protected]> wrote: >> Actually, the font support in urxvt is excellent. > > No, it's not. That's why I felt compelled to write > this message to the list.
Your opinion is noted. It is in opposition to observed reality though. >> What exactly do you have problems with? > > Fonts don't display properly. That is blatantly false. I use fonts in urxvt and they display properly. > I'm using a font that > looks fine in KDE/Gnome, but shows up with massive > letterspacing (gaps between letters) in urxvt. > > So a passage that looks like this normally > s u d d e n l y l o o k s l i k e t h i s . "A font" is quite vague. Which font is this, and how have you selected it in urxvt? > It's practically unreadable. Yes, well, if the font is broken, that is the expected and correct result. The same if the setting is improper. You're not giving us much to work with here! > And when I change the letterspacing in my config file, > urxvt magically replaces several letters with > characters that are not in the font. This leaves > the screen looking like a kidnapper's ransom note > of letters from different fonts. I've been putting > up with it until now, but it's a mild annoyance > that I have to look at all the time. It works fine > in KDE/Gnome, but everything else about urxvt is > better so I was wondering why fixing urxvt's > broken font support is such a verboten issue here. Well, the first step is to figure out what exactly is wrong. Barging in and self righteously roaring about urxvt being broken without even stating what font, what settings and what compile flags were used - or for that matter even what OS your urxvt is running in - is, while not "a verboten issue", quite inflammatory behaviour and typical of trolls, not of people actually wanting help with dealing with their problem. Again, you're not providing much to work with, except a venomous attitude. > Yes, of course. urxvt is logically perfect, therefore > it has no need to cope with the messy imperfections > of the real world. Fonts that don't display properly > are "part of the reason urxvt is great"? Actually, what I stated was the opposite. That urxvt *properly* displays fonts is part of what makes it great. > That doesn't > make any sense. I already addressed this way of thinking > in my previous message, anyway. It's the same line > that everyone repeats when the problem is brought up, > instead of looking at the real problem -- which is that > urxvt's font support doesn't work as well as that of > KDE or Gnome. I anticipated your perspective because > it's become a sort of strange dogma here. No, it's not becoming anything. It is a starting premise. Make the software act correctly, and the world becomes a better place. One font at the time. > It doesn't matter if what's displaying is "in practice garbage". > In practice, urxvt should be able to handle imperfect fonts > like every other reasonably functional terminal emulator. No. > If Gnome is so bad, why is it so much better at font > support than urxvt? Is font support really going to destroy > the breathtaking elegance of urxvt and disgust its user base > to the extent that everyone says, "my imperfect font actually > works? Well, I shouldn't use this terminal emulator at all!" If you think the attitude on this list is tough you've evidently never tried to make the Gnome team change something. ;) > That sounds completely backward to me. Why not enable urxvt > to work _better_ in practice, rather than clinging to its > theoretical perfection at the expense (at to the added frustration) > of its users? Because that is not what people who use and maintain urxvt want it to do. Besides, usually it's a configuration problem. In the rare cases it actually is a broken font, then the correct response *is* fixing the font. And let me reiterate; that is actually rare. It's almost always a broken configuration. And no, it makes no sense at all to change urxvt to work better with broken configurations. Jesper _______________________________________________ rxvt-unicode mailing list [email protected] http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rxvt-unicode
