View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
grumblebear Apprentice
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 Posts: 202
|
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
The 70-no-bitmaps.conf trick cannot be called a fix, because it disables all fixed size fonts. And those include ones I have explicitly chosen for my terminals and Emacs for example. I have also worked around it by replacing Helvetica with Arial with the help of the Stylish extension, which does essentially the same thing as lrbb's solution.
I still think this is a bug in Chromium. Until version 32 it worked right and Firefox still gets it right. It is not fixed in Chromium 34. Has anybody reported that upstream? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mikegpitt Advocate
Joined: 22 May 2004 Posts: 3224
|
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pistos wrote: | One thing has been clear to me for years: On Windows and OSX, fonts Just Work. On Linux, we have to painstakingly set things up "just right", and re-set things up now and again due to "new" problems like this one. | Honestly, it's been maybe 10 years since I've had problems with Linux fonts. This is due to a bug in Chrome, and is affecting multiple OS's.
grumblebear wrote: | The 70-no-bitmaps.conf trick cannot be called a fix, because it disables all fixed size fonts. And those include ones I have explicitly chosen for my terminals and Emacs for example. I have also worked around it by replacing Helvetica with Arial with the help of the Stylish extension, which does essentially the same thing as lrbb's solution.
I still think this is a bug in Chromium. Until version 32 it worked right and Firefox still gets it right. It is not fixed in Chromium 34. Has anybody reported that upstream? | Yes, this changed my Firefox fonts to look different... not terrible, but not how I want them. We need to wait until Google fixes this. It has been reported upstream as far as I can tell, with a bunch of people grumbling about fonts in Chrome since version 32. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
heheman3000 n00b
Joined: 22 Oct 2006 Posts: 33
|
Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2014 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lrbb wrote: | I have no idea what's causing this, but the Helvetica font seems to be the only problem for me. Here's a little hack extension to load Arial instead of Helvetica, via CSS.
- make the following files in some empty directory
- go to chrome://extensions
- check the developer mode box
- Load unpacked extension
- point to the new directory
manifest.json
Code: | {
"name": "Fix Helvetica",
"description": "Fix Helvetica",
"version": "0.1",
"content_scripts": [ {
"css": [ "Custom.css" ],
"matches": [ "http://*/*", "https://*/*" ]
} ],
"manifest_version": 2
}
|
Custom.css
Code: | @font-face { font-family: 'Helvetica'; src: local('Arial')} |
Effects should take place immediately. Worked for me. Maybe some simpler way to do this, but this is the way it turned out. |
This removes the ugliness, but makes fonts look differently than they did before. Also, someone posted your answer here: http://superuser.com/q/726132/32370
It's strange, but if on sites like GitHub (where this problem presents itself) I just uncheck the `font` declaration in Developer tools, the font shows up as normal. On inspection, the computed font is `Arial`, and it looks like the site before the bug (and as rendered on other computers.) However, this doesn't display in the same way as using `Arial` in the override. Super weird.
Additionally, on my computer, `Courier` fonts look blocky as well (such as the ones in this thread), and they would require additional tweaking. It seems like this is probably not the right way to solve the problem.
Moreover, I'm using ati-drivers and chrome (not chromium), so this definitely seems unrelated to video card drivers or a Gentoo-specific build. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hkmaly n00b
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 45
|
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:26 pm Post subject: Application-specific solution |
|
|
grumblebear wrote: | The 70-no-bitmaps.conf trick cannot be called a fix, because it disables all fixed size fonts. And those include ones I have explicitly chosen for my terminals and Emacs for example. I have also worked around it by replacing Helvetica with Arial with the help of the Stylish extension, which does essentially the same thing as lrbb's solution.
I still think this is a bug in Chromium. Until version 32 it worked right and Firefox still gets it right. It is not fixed in Chromium 34. Has anybody reported that upstream? |
If you are worried about fixed fonts in other applications, then install fontconfig 2.10.something (50?60? ... 92 works for sure) and install following fontconfig configuration file (under name 70-no-bitmaps-chrome.conf, for example):
Code: |
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE fontconfig SYSTEM "fonts.dtd">
<fontconfig>
<match>
<test name="prgname" compare="eq">
<string>chrome</string>
</test>
<!-- Reject bitmap fonts -->
<selectfont>
<rejectfont>
<pattern>
<patelt name="scalable"><bool>false</bool></patelt>
</pattern>
</rejectfont>
</selectfont>
</match>
</fontconfig>
|
... yup, exactly, fontconfig can have per-application configuration ...
EDIT: Sorry. Seems that this configuration is still applied to all applications, because the "match" only limits "edit" ... but "edit" seems to be unable to reject font ... and patelt doesn't accept prgname ... any idea? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
feiticeir0 Apprentice
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 288 Location: Castelo Branco, Portugal
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lrbb wrote: | I have no idea what's causing this, but the Helvetica font seems to be the only problem for me. Here's a little hack extension to load Arial instead of Helvetica, via CSS.
- make the following files in some empty directory
- go to chrome://extensions
- check the developer mode box
- Load unpacked extension
- point to the new directory
manifest.json
Code: | {
"name": "Fix Helvetica",
"description": "Fix Helvetica",
"version": "0.1",
"content_scripts": [ {
"css": [ "Custom.css" ],
"matches": [ "http://*/*", "https://*/*" ]
} ],
"manifest_version": 2
}
|
Custom.css
Code: | @font-face { font-family: 'Helvetica'; src: local('Arial')} |
Effects should take place immediately. Worked for me. Maybe some simpler way to do this, but this is the way it turned out. |
That did the trick ! Thank you so much ! I was getting crazy because of this !
I'm using Chomium Version 33.0.1750.146 (254388) _________________ Do It With Rhythm |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tipped n00b
Joined: 16 Jan 2010 Posts: 3
|
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
dehpeh wrote: | Same font-problem here with Chromium 33.0.1750.117 (Gnome 2.32.1)
Solved, solution:
Code: | eselect fontconfig enable 70-no-bitmaps.conf |
and if enabled:
Code: | eselect fontconfig disable 70-yes-bitmaps.conf |
|
This solution (appears) to have worked for me. The solution involving the chrome extension worked on some sites, but not all (http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Udev) for me. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Physhi n00b
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Posts: 27 Location: TX
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Speaking of weird fonts. My tabs, address bar/search bar, and visible bookmarks aren't able print any CJK. I'm using the current stable version of Chromium -- 34.0.1847.116.
Anyone else having this problem? I haven't found a fix for it yet. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nickel Apprentice
Joined: 21 Oct 2005 Posts: 192 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Tue May 20, 2014 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
dehpeh wrote: | Same font-problem here with Chromium 33.0.1750.117 (Gnome 2.32.1)
Solved, solution:
Code: | eselect fontconfig enable 70-no-bitmaps.conf |
|
It worked for me ,even in chhromium 34. Thx! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jserink Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2004 Posts: 1008
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 6:20 am Post subject: Cannot load unpacked extensions? |
|
|
Hi Everyone:
Tried unmasking chromium-38.0.2101.0 but she would not build so went to chromium-38.0.2096.0 and it built fine.
The fonts were fugly so tried the Fix Helvetica hack mentioned above b ut this time cromium does not allow me to load the extension.
All files are greyed out.
Any hints.
Fonts are SUPER fugly.
Cheers,
john |
|
Back to top |
|
|
katfish Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 14 Nov 2011 Posts: 147
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Switch back to firefox. SCNR.
With v33 they also introduced the new "new tab" page which loads an additional google search bar from google.com before displaying anything else.
That takes up to 2-3 seconds on older hardware or slow connections. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jserink Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2004 Posts: 1008
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
katfish wrote: | Switch back to firefox. SCNR.
With v33 they also introduced the new "new tab" page which loads an additional google search bar from google.com before displaying anything else.
That takes up to 2-3 seconds on older hardware or slow connections. |
I would but.....
Mozilla fires people depending upon which political party they contribute to, which is supposed to be a felony in CA but hey, the laws are only for one side now in America.
That's all a bit too Goebbels for me.
So I live without firefox.
Cheers,
John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
katfish Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 14 Nov 2011 Posts: 147
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
jserink wrote: |
Mozilla fires people depending upon which political party they contribute to, which is supposed to be a felony in CA but hey, the laws are only for one side now in America... |
Do you have sources for that? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RazielFMX l33t
Joined: 23 Apr 2005 Posts: 835 Location: NY, USA
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've been battling this for some time, as only Chrome has the font issues (everything else looks pretty darn good at this point). I even installed all the fonts the Chromium ebuild says I should install.
What does enabling 70-no-bitmaps.conf actually do?
For reference, my fontconfig (in case there is something obviously wrong here):
Code: | # eselect fontconfig list
Available fontconfig .conf files (* is enabled):
[1] 10-autohint.conf
[2] 10-no-sub-pixel.conf
[3] 10-scale-bitmap-fonts.conf *
[4] 10-sub-pixel-bgr.conf
[5] 10-sub-pixel-rgb.conf *
[6] 10-sub-pixel-vbgr.conf
[7] 10-sub-pixel-vrgb.conf
[8] 10-unhinted.conf
[9] 11-lcdfilter-default.conf
[10] 11-lcdfilter-legacy.conf
[11] 11-lcdfilter-light.conf
[12] 20-unhint-small-dejavu-sans.conf *
[13] 20-unhint-small-dejavu-sans-mono.conf *
[14] 20-unhint-small-dejavu-serif.conf *
[15] 20-unhint-small-vera.conf *
[16] 25-ttf-arphic-ukai-render.conf
[17] 25-ttf-arphic-uming-bitmaps.conf
[18] 25-ttf-arphic-uming-render.conf
[19] 25-unhint-nonlatin.conf
[20] 30-metric-aliases.conf *
[21] 30-urw-aliases.conf *
[22] 35-ttf-arphic-ukai-aliases.conf
[23] 35-ttf-arphic-uming-aliases.conf
[24] 40-nonlatin.conf *
[25] 41-ttf-arphic-ukai.conf
[26] 41-ttf-arphic-uming.conf
[27] 42-luxi-mono.conf *
[28] 44-wqy-zenhei.conf
[29] 45-latin.conf *
[30] 49-sansserif.conf *
[31] 50-user.conf *
[32] 51-local.conf *
[33] 57-dejavu-sans.conf *
[34] 57-dejavu-sans-mono.conf *
[35] 57-dejavu-serif.conf *
[36] 59-google-droid-sans.conf
[37] 59-google-droid-sans-mono.conf
[38] 59-google-droid-serif.conf
[39] 60-latin.conf *
[40] 60-liberation.conf
[41] 64-ttf-arphic-uming.conf
[42] 65-fonts-persian.conf *
[43] 65-khmer.conf
[44] 65-nonlatin.conf *
[45] 66-ja-ipafonts.conf
[46] 66-takao-fonts.conf
[47] 66-wqy-zenhei-sharp.conf
[48] 66-wqy-zenhei-sharp-no13px.conf
[49] 69-unifont.conf *
[50] 70-no-bitmaps.conf
[51] 70-yes-bitmaps.conf
[52] 75-ttf-arphic-ukai-select.conf
[53] 80-delicious.conf *
[54] 90-synthetic.conf *
[55] 90-ttf-arphic-ukai-embolden.conf
[56] 90-ttf-arphic-uming-embolden.conf
[57] 99pdftoopvp.conf |
These are the fonts I have specifically installed:
Code: | # grep -i font /var/lib/portage/world
media-fonts/arphicfonts
media-fonts/bitstream-cyberbit
media-fonts/dejavu
media-fonts/droid
media-fonts/ipamonafont
media-fonts/ja-ipafonts
media-fonts/liberation-fonts
media-fonts/oxygen-fonts
media-fonts/takao-fonts
media-fonts/wqy-microhei
media-fonts/wqy-zenhei |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
jserink Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2004 Posts: 1008
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
jserink Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2004 Posts: 1008
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 2:16 pm Post subject: Re: Cannot load unpacked extensions?[SOLVED] |
|
|
jserink wrote: | Hi Everyone:
Tried unmasking chromium-38.0.2101.0 but she would not build so went to chromium-38.0.2096.0 and it built fine.
The fonts were fugly so tried the Fix Helvetica hack mentioned above b ut this time cromium does not allow me to load the extension.
All files are greyed out.
Any hints.
Fonts are SUPER fugly.
Cheers,
john |
Ok, I feel dumb....
the extension was already installed, which is why it was greyed out.
I un-ticked it then re-ticked it and it cleaned up most of the font issues.
Cheers,
john |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jserink Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2004 Posts: 1008
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:57 pm Post subject: Ok, not quite solved.... |
|
|
Hey Lads:
Ok, Chromium V38 just could not sort out the fugly fonts....lets move it beyond fugly and state the broswer was almost unuseable th efonts were so bad.
After fighting with it for a few hours I went back and unmasked:
www-client/chromium-37.0.2062.35
Also uunmasked
www-plugins/chrome-binary-plugins-37.0.2062.44_beta1
Built these and chrome looks fine again.
Steer clear of the V38 for the moment until this is fixed. V37 is looking good.
Cheers,
John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
apetrov87 n00b
Joined: 21 Sep 2014 Posts: 1
|
Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2014 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
grumblebear wrote: | The 70-no-bitmaps.conf trick cannot be called a fix, because it disables all fixed size fonts. And those include ones I have explicitly chosen for my terminals and Emacs for example. I have also worked around it by replacing Helvetica with Arial with the help of the Stylish extension, which does essentially the same thing as lrbb's solution.
|
This problem is actually specific to the Helvetica font, which is becoming more popular on the internet. Linux lacks a TrueType version of Helvetica because it's proprietary, but it does include a bitmap version, which Chrome doesn't render well.
I managed to disable only the bitmap version of Helvetica, while allowing all other bitmaps.
Create a new file /etc/fonts/conf.avail/77-no-helvetica-bitmap.conf and paste the following:
Code: |
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE fontconfig SYSTEM "fonts.dtd">
<fontconfig>
<!-- Reject the bitmap version of Helvetica, which Chrome can't render. -->
<selectfont>
<rejectfont>
<pattern>
<patelt name="scalable"><bool>false</bool></patelt>
<patelt name="family"><string>Helvetica</string></patelt>
</pattern>
</rejectfont>
</selectfont>
</fontconfig>
|
Make sure this new file is readable by all users (permissions 644), then enable it and also disable both 70-no-bitmaps and 70-yes-bitmaps:
Code: |
eselect fontconfig disable 70-no-bitmaps.conf
eselect fontconfig disable 70-yes-bitmaps.conf
eselect fontconfig enable 77-no-helvetica-bitmap.conf
|
Now, because the Helvetica font is no longer available in any form, Chrome will substitute it with Arial or something, and everything looks fine. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pistos Apprentice
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 Posts: 175 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
apetrov87 wrote: | I managed to disable only the bitmap version of Helvetica, while allowing all other bitmaps.
Create a new file /etc/fonts/conf.avail/77-no-helvetica-bitmap.conf and paste the following:
(snip)
Now, because the Helvetica font is no longer available in any form, Chrome will substitute it with Arial or something, and everything looks fine. | Wow, thank you!!
For months I have been suffering with this, with my only workaround being disabling and enabling 70-no-bitmaps and 70-yes-bitmaps before and after starting Chromium, because with one setting, Chromium would be busted, and with the other Konsole would not render a bitmap font.
Now I can finally have Terminus in Konsole and a non-crusty substitute for Helvetica (e.g. on github) WITHOUT having to mess with fontconfig again and again, on every reboot or every launch of Chromium.
Thanks again! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
grumblebear Apprentice
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 Posts: 202
|
Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2015 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Funny that you post this NOW. My observation is that Chromium 41 (or even 40) does not need that workaround any more. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|