From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Display of undisplayable characters: \U01F3A8 instead of diamond Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2022 13:13:14 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87edx28cl1.fsf@disroot.org> <83y1v7w6eu.fsf@gnu.org> <2f302d1c3966849477b3@heytings.org> <2f302d1c3933a5091b66@heytings.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="28601"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Richard Stallman , eliz@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Gregory Heytings Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 02 15:14:37 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oU6VI-0007HW-VD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2022 15:14:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35862 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oU6VH-0006BA-Mh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2022 09:14:35 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47152) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oU6U7-0004lI-8F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2022 09:13:23 -0400 Original-Received: from mx3.muc.de ([193.149.48.5]:25022) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oU6U2-0001ho-Vz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2022 09:13:21 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 68088 invoked by uid 3782); 2 Sep 2022 15:13:14 +0200 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p2e5d5e67.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [46.93.94.103]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Sep 2022 15:13:14 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 8621 invoked by uid 1000); 2 Sep 2022 13:13:14 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2f302d1c3933a5091b66@heytings.org> X-Submission-Agent: TMDA/1.3.x (Ph3nix) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.149.48.5; envelope-from=acm@muc.de; helo=mx3.muc.de X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:294550 Archived-At: Hello, Gregory. On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 11:39:04 +0000, Gregory Heytings wrote: > > Well, actually instead of 16, since all the colours come in a normal and > > a bright version. > Are these "bright" versions used by Emacs? I don't think so. Yes they are, by activating the bold weight in the face customisation. On XEmacs, there were 16 distinct colours. > > But these 256 colours will be getting used, and that means work > > configuring faces that are not satisfactory to the user in the 256 > > colour version. > What do you mean? It's not more necessary to configure faces in a > terminal than to configure faces under X. If you don't like the defaults, > you can configure them, that's all. Nobody likes all the defaults, and it's a continual annoyance coming across faces you don't like, and having to change them one by one. That's my experience, anyway. > > Here's the rub. The "pixelated" fonts were designed to be used in, say, > > an 8x16 matrix, and work very well indeed. The "modern" fonts were > > designed to be used in X, and work less well in fbterm on a pixelated > > grid. > Not if you use monospaced fonts, which were designed to be used in > terminals. In my experience, they work less well than the fonts for the Linux console. > > All of the "modern" fonts available for fbterm on my machine are > > "spidery" single pixel thick fonts. On the lat1-16 font I've been using > > in consoles for decades, the lines are two pixels thick. I find this > > much more readable. > Well, install another font? I'd recommend DejaVu Sans Mono. That was the first one I tried this morning. I didn't like it. It's a "spidery" font like all the other ones I have available. [ .... ] > > There are all the problems with fonts. You've got to remember to hack > > the fbterm binary each time a new version of fbterm comes out (unless > > you've got a system like Gentoo, and arrange for this to happen > > automatically). > If you follow the instructions in the FAQ entry, you won't have to > remember any such hacks. Surely that depends on the package manager you use? What am I missing here? > > I will probably continue using the plain Linux console, for all these > > reasons. I just came across another problem. The GPM mouse utility won't transfer text between an fbterm console and another console, not even a second fbterm. > You are of course free to do what you want, but you should not discourage > others to try it. I think you were being too positive about the topic, and felt I should express the other side of the argument. By sharing my experience, I might be saving time for other people. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).