Font sources

Font sources

[Dave Pawson]

After messing with applications most of the day, I rebooted.

On calling up emacs, I'm missing the fonts.
I can't find anywhere where it tells me how emacs links
through to the (presumably X ) font selections.


I can run Open office and all the fonts are there.

Emacs tells me
Warning: no fonts matching
`-*-fixed-medium-r-normal-*-16-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-1' available [2
times]
Warning: no fonts matching
`-*-*-medium-r-normal-*-16-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-1' available
Warning: no fonts matching `-*-*-*-r-normal-*-16-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-1' available
Warning: no fonts matching `-*-*-*-*-normal-*-16-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-1' available
Warning: no fonts matching `-*-*-*-*-*-*-16-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-1'
available [2 times]


How does Emacs link out to the fonts available on the system?
Is it configured at build time?
I rebuilt in case anything had changed. No difference.




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

Re: Font sources

[Mathias Megyei]

On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 18:48 +0100, Dave Pawson wrote:
> After messing with applications most of the day, I rebooted.
> 
> On calling up emacs, I'm missing the fonts.
> I can't find anywhere where it tells me how emacs links
> through to the (presumably X ) font selections.
> 
> 
> I can run Open office and all the fonts are there.
> 
> Emacs tells me
> Warning: no fonts matching
> `-*-fixed-medium-r-normal-*-16-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-1' available [2
> times]
> Warning: no fonts matching
> `-*-*-medium-r-normal-*-16-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-1' available
> Warning: no fonts matching `-*-*-*-r-normal-*-16-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-1' available
> Warning: no fonts matching `-*-*-*-*-normal-*-16-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-1' available
> Warning: no fonts matching `-*-*-*-*-*-*-16-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-1'
> available [2 times]
> 
> 
> How does Emacs link out to the fonts available on the system?
> Is it configured at build time?
> I rebuilt in case anything had changed. No difference.

You can list of the available fonts with

xlsfonts

Write one of them into the file ~/.Xresources. 
Eg.
Emacs.Font: -adobe-courier-medium-r-normal--18-180-75-75-m-110-iso8859-1

Reload this file

xrdb -load ~/.Xresources

After starting a new Emacs it should use that font.

Regards,

Mathias

Re: Font sources

[Tim X]

"Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com> writes:

> After messing with applications most of the day, I rebooted.
>
> On calling up emacs, I'm missing the fonts.
> I can't find anywhere where it tells me how emacs links
> through to the (presumably X ) font selections.
>
>
> I can run Open office and all the fonts are there.
>
> Emacs tells me
> Warning: no fonts matching
> `-*-fixed-medium-r-normal-*-16-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-1' available [2
> times]
> Warning: no fonts matching
> `-*-*-medium-r-normal-*-16-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-1' available
> Warning: no fonts matching `-*-*-*-r-normal-*-16-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-1' available
> Warning: no fonts matching `-*-*-*-*-normal-*-16-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-1' available
> Warning: no fonts matching `-*-*-*-*-*-*-16-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-1'
> available [2 times]
>
>
> How does Emacs link out to the fonts available on the system?
> Is it configured at build time?
> I rebuilt in case anything had changed. No difference.
>
>
Dave,

when running under X, emacs gets its fonts from the X server. Sometimes
these are defined as FontPaths within the xorg.conf file. In some setups,
you have a font server instead or in addition to hard coded font paths. In
this case, you will have something like 
FontPath          "unix/:71000"

There are some restrictions on the types of fonts emacs can use. For
example, I don't think emacs handles font scaling and aliased fonts (though
I think some of the work in the latest CVS version is trying to address
some of these limitations). I should admit that fonts is not an area I know
a lot about - just what I've needed to get what I want. 

The approach I follow to get a font for emacs is as follows -

1. Run xfontsel and select a font that looks about right.

2. Hit the select button to copy the font.

3. run emacs with the -font "-......", using the mouse to paste the font
selected from xfontsel. Don't forget to quote the font string to prevent
your shell from trying to expand the '*' etc. 

4. If I like the font, I then put it into my .Xresources file i.e.
Emacs.font: -........

5. Exit emacs and run xrdb merge .Xresources so that the new emacs font
entry is added to the xrdb database. 

When you next run emacs, it should use that font. 

I also tend to put other settings in the .Xresources file, such as
Emacs.geometry, the default foreground/background colours, pointer colour
and cursor colour. I also tend to turn off the toolbar, tooltips etc. 

You can find a full list of the options in the emacs info manual under the
section on X resources. Also note that you can select from a range of
miscellaneous and fixed fonts (as well as font sets) while running emacs by
holding down shift and hitting the left mouse button. 

Also note that if you find when running xfontsel that you have no fonts
showing up or only a very few fonts, it is an indicator that your X server
is having trouble getting font information. If your running a font server,
it generally indicates the font server is either not working or cannot be
reached (one of the reasons to run a font server is that it can be on a
different host - some places will set up a special font server with all the
necessary fonts to save everybody from having to maintain their own fonts
and to save disk space etc). The xrdb utility can be very useful in
tracking down problems. For example, you can use it to see what X believes
your font path is. Another useful place to check for clues to resolve
issues is the /var/log/Xorg.log file (its name may vary a little depending
ond distro and setup).

HTH

Tim


-- 
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au

Re: Font sources

[Dave Pawson]

Not often he's wrong, but he's right again.

On 14/09/2007, Tim X <timx@nospam.dev.null> wrote:

> when running under X, emacs gets its fonts from the X server.

$ service status-all
...
xfs dead but pid file exists

etc.

[dpawson@marge ~]$ service xfs start
Starting xfs: rm: cannot remove directory `/tmp/.font-unix': Operation
not permitted
mkdir: cannot create directory `/tmp/.font-unix': File exists
chown: changing ownership of `/tmp/.font-unix': Operation not permitted
chmod: changing permissions of `/tmp/.font-unix': Operation not permitted
touch: cannot touch `/var/lock/subsys/xfs': Permission denied OK  ]

I guess it's a permissions thing again.

Interesting.
From (warning, long url)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FWN/Issue91#head-19ec5321d5ef52030bdd6910bd5b9a3bf97d5cb3

quote.

Olivier's comment and bravely plunged on[5], arguing that Emacs was
"going the way of the dodo because it targets 1995-ish desktops". A
swarm of questioners including AndrewHaley sought clarification from
Nicolas, to which he responded[6] that Emacs didn't use the desktop
font infrastructure, i18n, a11y, one of the main GUI toolkits, or
integrate with the printing infrastructure.


Seems like xfs is going out of fashion on Fedora.
Wonder if other OS's will follow this direction.

regards


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

Re: Font sources

[Peter Dyballa]

Am 14.09.2007 um 14:37 schrieb Dave Pawson:

> Seems like xfs is going out of fashion on Fedora.
> Wonder if other OS's will follow this direction.

Xfs was always meant for a different environment than that of Linux PC.

Imagine a situation in some company with some corporate look, which  
is based on commercial fonts. Instead of installing that on dozens of  
desktop systems one X Font Server can provide the font for dozens of  
clients. Or imagine on the desktop thin clients with little memory.

--
Greetings

   Pete

People say that  if you play Microsoft CD's  backwards, you hear satanic
things,  but that's  nothing, because  if you  play them  forwards, they
install Windows.

Re: Font sources

[Tim X]

"Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com> writes:

> On 14/09/2007, Tim X <timx@nospam.dev.null> wrote:
>
>> when running under X, emacs gets its fonts from the X server.
>
> $ service status-all
> ...
> xfs dead but pid file exists
>
> etc.
>
> [dpawson@marge ~]$ service xfs start
> Starting xfs: rm: cannot remove directory `/tmp/.font-unix': Operation
> not permitted
> mkdir: cannot create directory `/tmp/.font-unix': File exists
> chown: changing ownership of `/tmp/.font-unix': Operation not permitted
> chmod: changing permissions of `/tmp/.font-unix': Operation not permitted
> touch: cannot touch `/var/lock/subsys/xfs': Permission denied OK  ]
>

Generally, services that are run from /etc/init.d need to be
started/stopped as root. Try starting that service again as root and see
what happens. Note however that this still may not be your main
problem. sometimes font servers are installed, but never used by the X
server - it all depends if the X server is configured to use the font
server. The fact you have a pid file indicates that at least it was running
at some point. Also, this service should have started when you booted - you
may have to look into how ubuntu manages runlevels. The basic scheme is
pretty straight forward, but many distros have added scripts and gui tools
to make managing runlevels and controling what services are started
'easier'. Personally, I don't bother which those tools and prefer to manage
it myself, but that can bite me in the ass from time to time as the distros
expect it is being managed by whatever mechanism they have implemented.

The services which are started at boot time are controlled by 'rc'
scripts. Depending on your runlevel (probably rnlevel 3). For example, if
you have a look in /etc, you will see directories like rc1.d, rc2.d, rc3.d
and so on. These directories contain symbolic links to files in
/etc/init.d, which are the start/stop scripts for various services. The
symbolic links have names starting with s or k (start or kill) and numbers
at the start. When your system changes runlevels, it first looks in the
directory corresponding to the current runlevel for scripts starting with k
and executes them with an argument of 'stop'. The order of execution is
determined by the numbers in the name. then it goes to the rc directory
corresponding to the runlevel you are changing to and executes all the
scripts starting with an s (start). You can find out more about runlevels
in the /etc/inittab file and the init and inittab man pages.


>
> Interesting.
> From (warning, long url)
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FWN/Issue91#head-19ec5321d5ef52030bdd6910bd5b9a3bf97d5cb3
>
> quote.
>
> Olivier's comment and bravely plunged on[5], arguing that Emacs was
> "going the way of the dodo because it targets 1995-ish desktops". A
> swarm of questioners including AndrewHaley sought clarification from
> Nicolas, to which he responded[6] that Emacs didn't use the desktop
> font infrastructure, i18n, a11y, one of the main GUI toolkits, or
> integrate with the printing infrastructure.
>
>
> 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. 

At one time, using a font server was the only way to get true type fonts to
work under X. In fact, I think you had to have a modified font server to do
this and its probably why some distros started installing and configuring a
font server as part of the X setup. I think some of those limitations with
the X server have been removed in later versions and you can use true type
fonts directly without the need of a font server, but I'm not ceratin about
that. Its not my area of expertise and I could be very wrong or only
partially correct (or is that partially wrong?)/ I think many of the issues
here relate to historical and legacy concerns combined with portability and
cross platform objectives. I think the X Windows architecture was very much
before its time and for years was a very powerful and reliable
architecture. I still remember using a windows environment on Unix when the
most graphical environment you could get from a PC running MS was Norton's
Midnigh Commander. The Apple was pretty good for its time, but it borrowed
most of its ideas from Unix and Xerox anyway. I still find X reliable and
still think that if you need to run a lab of thin client type machines, X
makes life much easier than the MS equivalent. At the same time, there have
been significant developments in user interfaces, widget libraries, etc.
The realisation that the whole planet doesn't use the same alphabet with
the same number of characters has exposed flaws in the early english
centric design of many programs and the underlying architecture it
uses. some software will catch up quickly, some has the 'green fields'
advantage of being new and not having legacy/backwards compatibility
concerns , while other packages will require considerable work and
resources to keep up with the evolving expectations of a wider user base.

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. 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).

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.....

Tim


-- 
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au

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

Re: Font sources

[Tim X]

"Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com> writes:

> 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.

I've not yet got around to using selinux, so know nothing about it
really. IMO people get a bit too paranoid about security. My rule of thumb
is that security needs to match the assets your protecting. For my personal
Linux desktop, I actually have very little that is worth anything from a
security perspective. I do just the standard things (disable
unwanted/uneeded services, basic firewall that prevents incomming
connections that are not associated with an outgoing session, what I
thought were reasonably strong passwords (until I read about rainbow tables
and fast cracking!), using ssh with reasonably long passphrases, ssh/vpn
connections to remote sites only  and a couple of files which are encrypted
that contain possibly sensitive information  and thats about it. My system
is backed up regularly, so if it gets hacked, I can just wipe it away and
start with a frresh install. 

Note that not all distros will create a .Xresources. sometimes it is called
.Xdefaults (there is/was a distinction between the two once upon a time,
but I don't think it matters anymore). Try just creating one and see if it
makes a difference. It is very nlikely it would be stored in /tmp. Note
also that some window managers (such as KDE) will ignore/override some
things, like geometry and colours). 

> Further one, using xfontsel, I was unable to copy the eventual string over
> the the shell window. Possibly another X messup due to selinux.

Seems odd. All I need to do to 'copy' it across is to hit the 'select'
button in xfontsel and then switch to the window I want to paste it into
and hit the middle mouse button.

> 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.

Just a minor conceptual correction.

Emacs doesn't know anything about font servers. All the font server stuff
happens in the background at the X server level. X applications get fonts
from the X server and don't caere/know where the X server gets them from - they may be
hard coded font paths from the config file (i.e. xorg.conf) or they may be
defaults built into the server at compile time or they may come from a font
server (or a mixture of all 3). 

A common setup is to have the font server specified first in the font path
setting within the X config file and then also include some font paths for
common/basic fonts. With this setup, if the font server fails, your not
totally stuffed - you will be able to get some fonts, but possibly not the
ones you are use to/want. 

On my old Debian box, I have fontpath settings in xorg.conf and there is a
font server as the first line. However, on my more recent Debian box
installed from etch, there are no fontpath entries at all in the xorg.conf
file. 

You can find out what your current font path is by useing the xset
utilitye.g. xset q

>
>> 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.
>

Yes, this is the 'standard' emacs criticism. 

>>
>> 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?
>

Possibly. However, I've seen quotes about the younger generation being
impatient going back to the romans and Greeks. It is probably just the way
of things. Younger users have grown up in an era where computers are seen
as a tool that should do what they want 'out of the box'. I don't think GNU
Linux is quite at that point yet. People who don't want to work at getting
the environment they want, but rather just want to use it are unlikely to
find GNU Linux much good. On the other hand, those who want to put in the
time and effort usually end up with an environment which is far better at
meeting their specific needs than an out of the box solution. 

to some extent, saying that Emacs is going the way of the Dodo because it
doesn't have the flash of newer editors, is too large and cumbersome etc is
a bit like arguing that manual shift cars would go the way of the Dodo once
automatic transmissions were introduced. While there are lots of people who
wold only buy an automatic (and can only drive one), there are still plenty
who like the control and additional power of a manual. 

BTW, I don't think emacs has been installed 'by default' under Red Hat for
a long time. Few distros install it by default. I wold guess that for
programmers, emacs and vi clones are the most popular editors under GNU
Linux. Not sure what percentage are moving to eclipse, but I suspect its
mainly the java developer crowd. Friends who have tried eclipse have
mentioned there are aspects they like, but they find it a bit
slow. Personally, I couldn't imagine working in any other editor unless it
had the power of something like elisp in the background that allowed me to
do some of those uncommon but time consuming tasks which don't have a
pre-built solution/feature. 

Tim


-- 
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au