Eric Appleman wrote:
> Is the fact that out-of-the-box Ubuntu lacks anti-aliasing for sites
> that use Tahoma also a separate issue?
>
Yes, please file a separate bug report, attach a screenshot and describe
how to reproduce the bug (e.g. which websites you visit). Thanks.
--
ttf-tahoma-replace
Paul Kishimoto wrote:
> @Arne: as you suggested in #29, I researched fontconfig configuration
> files. If I put the attached file in my home directory (as
> ~/.fonts.conf), then Firefox no longer tries to use the Wine Tahoma
> replacement when websites request it. I copied the syntax from an
> exa
Eric "Starks" Appleman wrote:
> I'd file a new bug if I knew exactly which packages to file against and
> how to best describe the bug in useful and technical manner.
Please don't do that! It's not a bug, it's your personal preference in
combination with your personal environment (display hardware
I'm not sure bitmaps are such a bad thing, provided they are only used
without scaling. For the same reason png icons look better than svg
ones at native size.
2009/9/22, bobince :
> I agree with Eric, it's nothing to do with Tahoma as such: Karmic simply
> renders all fonts using embedded bitmaps
Eric "Starks" Appleman wrote:
> I think the problem goes beyond wine1.2
>
> I'm noticing the crappy fonts on a fresh Karmic install even after the
> restricted Microsoft and Liberation fonts were installed. It wasn't like
> this in Jaunty.
>
> The 20-tahoma.conf file is the only thing that fixes
Eric Appleman wrote:
> I was referring to your snippet.
>
> It doesn't fix the issue. It sidesteps it.
>
> Facebook and other sites look a lot worse with that snippet.
>
Can you please attach a screenshot?
The snippet does not disable the Tahoma font. It disabled the embedded
bitmaps within tha
