Re: Font sources

[Dave Pawson]

On 15/09/2007, Tim X <timx@nospam.dev.null> wrote:

> > xfs dead but pid file exists
> > [dpawson@marge ~]$ service xfs start
> > Starting xfs: rm: cannot remove directory `/tmp/.font-unix': Operation
> > not permitted

No Tim. Yet again it was my lack of knowledge. This time it was selinux.
I'd messed with the contexts in /tmp and selinux was blocking all
writes to there.
Another lesson I guess, but it totally stopped xfs running.
Now I can run the font commands as you say, except that FC7 seems not
to have a .Xresources in my home directory. I've a feeling this is another
one that uses /tmp again.
Further one, using xfontsel, I was unable to copy the eventual string over
the the shell window. Possibly another X messup due to selinux.
A further install necessary to clean up. The selinux documentation is two
versions out of date.

Seemed no matter what I did xfs wouldn't run.
On the new running system all the fonts are there as you say.



>

> > Seems like xfs is going out of fashion on Fedora.
> > Wonder if other OS's will follow this direction.
> >
>
> It is possible font servers will decline in use. Actually, I didn't run a
> font server until it became a sort of default configuration (which I think
> was back when I was running Red Hat). Before then, I hust had font paths
> hard coded into my X config file. At some levels a font server is overkill
> for a stand alone Linux box.

The comments indicate that emacs is a last big user of xfs?
I wondered if emacs is considering moving to another method of obtaining them.
As was said on this thread, it's tidy for a multi-user system, to have a single
suite of fonts for all users. Less so for single users such as myself. It would
appear that Fedora/Redhat jump more when the big buyers say, so perhaps
it will remain.
 Also noted that emacs isn't installed by default any more.




> I think many of the issues
> here relate to historical and legacy concerns combined with portability and
> cross platform objectives.

snip.

> Given the fact Emacs has now adopted the GTK+ widget set and given
> the fact that the latest developments have been improving font support so
> that Emacs supports antialiased, multibyte etc fonts, I think the quoted
> comment just shows ignorance of what is going on.

Not sure it's ignorance, but maybe a biassed perspective.


 The printing integration
> has never been an issue for me (though I would have to say I don't feel
> CUPS has made it that much easier than 'lpr' and in fact hate the way it
> tries to 'guess' what I want and usually gets it wrong. The comments also
> totally overlook all the other spects of Emacs and fails to suggest
> anything else that covers the same level of functionality we already have
> an which does fit with his criteria (re fonts, desktop widgets, printing
> and i18n).

Yes. I did note the sarcasm. I don't want to install another operating system.
Clearly non emacs users.

>
> I'm not at all interested in religious wars over editors, but would argue
> emacs is no closer to going the way of the Dodo than VI (and all its
> clones) and that while things like GNOME have certainly created desktop
> environments closer to what Windows uses are familiar with, I've not seen
> any GNOME based editor that has any more functionality than 'notepad'. When
> there is an editor that has all the flashy desktop widgets, full
> integration with font services, full integration with the printing
> infrastructure etc and has the extensibility of emacs and support for all
> the programming modes Emacs already has, I'll reconsider the argument, but
> until then.....

Trouble is, its not a free ride Tim.
I know my children are impatient, far more than I.
Perhaps the time investment is simply too much for todays generation?

regards
(and back using emacs non-condensed)


-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk