SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
So this patch is all you need to fix the application problem? I thought I read that you had to compile a whole bunch of gnome stuff to get that working? Also where did you add the patch, before or after compile?
Let me assure you that compiling a bunch of GNOME stuff will NOT fix the applications problem. I have GSlacky installed. Without the patch, I get a blank applications panel even when I specifically build Firefox with gnomeui and gnomevfs support. These are the only configure flags dealing with GNOME. On the other hand, I can apply the patch, compile gnomeui and gnomevfs support out of Firefox, and still get a working Applications panel.
No, I haven't tested it on a GNOME-free Slackware system. I suspect that the presence of GNOME isn't actually a factor here.
You apply it before compile. Use "patch -p1 < /path/to/patch", then run configure.
Click here to see the post LQ members have rated as the most helpful post in this thread.
I can see what your saying, but without the subpixel rendering they just look to soft to me. I prefer subpixel rendering, but I also like the old bytecode nonAA rendering too, I didn't include that into my howto because it seems so few have CRTs now, most people have switched to LCD.
I keep a 'CRT' in my shop. Loads of people still use a 'CRT'.
Hmm, now that I think about it, it will look even worse on a CRT. Meaning I've been using LCDs for many years now. Perhaps it needs tuning for my current monitor, like the color order in a pixel, but I've played with that before, and none of the combinations produced a result I would be happy with. I definitely have to have AA on text at all times though, I even went the length of doing a GTK+ 1 hack, although I don't use that many of GTK+ 1 apps anymore.
NonAA renderings have their purpose... But not in a browser.
Matter of taste I guess. It didn't seem like a biggie back in Win 98 days where I had a choice of nonAA and nonAA.
Yes Subpixel rendering is only for LCD's or CRT's with a triniton tube, if the CRT is Shadow Mask it will look awful. Also have you tried switching the RGB geometry in the .fonts.conf file? It's rare but not all LCD's are RGB. These are my settings, my geometry is RGB (Red,Green,Blue), but you can try a different setting. Here are the available settings if I remember correctly.
I keep a 'CRT' in my shop. Loads of people still use a 'CRT'.
Yeah, I think I will add a section for CRT's, you can make the fonts look really good with proper configuration and the bytecode interpreter enabled. Check out this Screen http://webpages.charter.net/daedra/BCI+NO-AA.png
Let me assure you that compiling a bunch of GNOME stuff will NOT fix the applications problem. I have GSlacky installed. Without the patch, I get a blank applications panel even when I specifically build Firefox with gnomeui and gnomevfs support. These are the only configure flags dealing with GNOME. On the other hand, I can apply the patch, compile gnomeui and gnomevfs support out of Firefox, and still get a working Applications panel.
No, I haven't tested it on a GNOME-free Slackware system. I suspect that the presence of GNOME isn't actually a factor here.
You apply it before compile. Use "patch -p1 < /path/to/patch", then run configure.
ok dugan what am I doing wrong? I am trying to apply the patch and it keeps looking for the file to patch. I extracted firefox went to the mozilla directory and did the ususal patch -p1 < /path/to/patch... what am I missing here, lol? I am familiar with applying patches just don't know what I am doing wrong here, lol
I know "works for me" isn't helpful, but it's the best I can do. I downloaded the Firefox 3 source, untarred it to create a "mozilla" directory, then typed "cd mozilla ; patch -p1 < /path/to/proposed.diff", where "proposed.diff" is the file I linked to earlier. To downloaded "proposed.diff", I opened it in a web browser and then saved it.
Let me assure you that compiling a bunch of GNOME stuff will NOT fix the applications problem. I have GSlacky installed. Without the patch, I get a blank applications panel even when I specifically build Firefox with gnomeui and gnomevfs support. These are the only configure flags dealing with GNOME. On the other hand, I can apply the patch, compile gnomeui and gnomevfs support out of Firefox, and still get a working Applications panel.
No, I haven't tested it on a GNOME-free Slackware system. I suspect that the presence of GNOME isn't actually a factor here.
You apply it before compile. Use "patch -p1 < /path/to/patch", then run configure.
I too have re-compiled Firefox with the source patched and the 'Applications' panel in 'Preferences' is now correctly populated. I do not have Gnome installed.
Hey Su-Shee, I am experimenting with somethings over here and I got firefox 3.0 compiled and working fine, but a quick questions I tried taking turners original patch and just editing the dirname like you did, but not all of the hunks succeeded 4 out of 10 failed, how did you get the old patch to work with cairo-1.6.4? There is a guy over at arch linux who is maintaining the patch now, but in order for it to work you also have to patch fontconfig or use fontconfig-2.6.0. I am basically just testing to see that this is really necessary of if the old patch can still work without patching fontconfig or using fontconfig-2.6.0. Not a huge deal just curious
(Sorry, I had to work and therefore a strict no-forums policy enabled. )
First: I'm still on Slack 12.0 - no 12.1.
Pkg-config says, I'm using fontconfig 2.4.2 and I have no specific fontconfig patch lying around right now. For freetype and Xft, I'm using your already patched Slackware packages.
For recent Cairo versions, I use the patch you can check out here.
I just re-did it on a clean cairo (with changed filename and dirname) - with this result:
Your patch works also fine, I see no difference visually. I can't set the fontconfig settings though, too old of a version it seems.
Nevertheless, the more recent cairo patch seems to work.
And now I don't see anything at all anymore thanks to intensively staring on single pixels.
Oh, and by the way: gtkrc font settings override FF3 specific font settings coming from "userChrome.css" (at least when I tested it..), so if STILL something seem really strange, tweak there.
I'm still not sure if I'm going to like gtk theme obedience or not...
I know "works for me" isn't helpful, but it's the best I can do. I downloaded the Firefox 3 source, untarred it to create a "mozilla" directory, then typed "cd mozilla ; patch -p1 < /path/to/proposed.diff", where "proposed.diff" is the file I linked to earlier. To downloaded "proposed.diff", I opened it in a web browser and then saved it.
Thanks Dugan, I got it. It was late and I wasn't paying attention I was passing the wrong -p option, lol. I have updated the buildscript with your suggestions.
Yes Subpixel rendering is only for LCD's or CRT's with a triniton tube, if the CRT is Shadow Mask it will look awful. Also have you tried switching the RGB geometry in the .fonts.conf file? It's rare but not all LCD's are RGB. These are my settings, my geometry is RGB (Red,Green,Blue), but you can try a different setting. Here are the available settings if I remember correctly.
I like text configurations as well but for folks that want it easy theres a tool to do just that. http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/3651/uikp3.png
Personally I think that if you don't tell people they won't even notice the difference, its more of a thrill of fixing something thats not broken. I do see a problem with colored pixels however.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.