On Sat, 2023-09-09 at 23:08 +0200, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote: > My personal view is that it is a change in the right direction, and I > have taken a couple of follow-up steps in Debian. There are still loose > ends and more work to be done to achieve a consistent configuration in > this respect. However, before taking further steps, I feel there is a > need to reach out to a broader audience about the change. Hence this > message. Basically I'm asking if this move towards Noto is desirable > and, if so, I plea for relevant input for the completion of the transition. Personally, I found Noto Mono to be very ugly in comparison to the DejaVu fonts that I was used to, so my knee-jerk reaction was to override the fontconfig settings to avoid all of the Noto fonts. I haven't yet evaluated the non-monospace Noto fonts though. Related discussion on the various IRC channels suggested that: Noto is meant to be a fallback font (something like unifont but not using bitmaps) not the default font for all or any languages. Noto makes the font selector useless because each alphabet shows up. Apparently fixing this requires changing the OpenType file format. Apparently the Noto meta package installs 700+ MB of font data, which seems a bit excessive to some folks. Some folks are setting explicit fonts in applications they use to avoid relying on system defaults and also seeing changes to those defaults. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part