Posted Jun 10, 2004 21:33 UTC (Thu) by pimlott
In reply to: Font
Parent article: The Grumpy Editor's guide to terminal emulators
Ok, can anyone tell me why Jon's font,
-adobe-courier-medium-r-normal--12-120-75-75-m-70-iso8859-1 looks like hell (screenshot of
xterm -fn -adobe-courier-medium-r-normal--12-120-75-75-m-70-iso8859-1) on my Debian testing system? These are bitmap fonts, so there's no reason they should vary at all, right? I even restarted X with different -dpi resolutions, with no difference.
I've always wondered why many of the bitmap fonts were so ugly, but maybe I'm doing something wrong? Finding a terminal font for X is a torturous process for me. I used the venerable
-misc-fixed-medium-r-semicondensed--13-120-75-75-c-60-iso8859-1 for many years, but when I got a high-res laptop (133 dpi), that was too small. I don't even care what the font face is called, I just want a nice, clean bitmap font (a well-hinted truetype font would be fine, but the hinting patents seem to rule that out) at a readable pixel size. After much trial and error, I found
-xos4-terminus-medium-r-normal--16-160-72-72-c-80-iso10646-1 from the xfonts-terminus package in Debian. But I don't understand why there isn't a font picker that can just show me all 8x16 bitmap fonts available, and why there are so many unusably-ugly bitmap fonts.
to post comments)