[KLUG Members] Mozilla font madness

[Adam Williams]

> As for the legality of the MS fonts: so far as I know, though MS no
> longer distributes them, they are redistibutable by third parties. And
> though I have the Bitstream Vera fonts, the new RENDER technology makes
> even the old Type 1 fonts look pretty good.

Much of the wackiness is due to the fact that the M$ font sets contain
glyphs that just aren't in the X font packs.  Bitstream Vero contains a
point-by-point replica of every-single-glyph.  [ I'm ***SO*** glad I
wasn't the guy who had that job, talk about boring. ]

> So go ahead and remove those files you copied to /usr/lib. They're fine
> living in /usr/local/mozilla and they'll only cause you grief later on
> when you try and update.
> >   libgtk-1.2.so.0 => /opt/gnome/lib/libgtk-1.2.so.0 (0x4013b000)
> >   libgdk-1.2.so.0 => /opt/gnome/lib/libgdk-1.2.so.0 (0x4027c000)
> >   libgmodule-1.2.so.0 => /opt/gnome/lib/libgmodule-1.2.so.0 (0x402b5000)
> >   libglib-1.2.so.0 => /opt/gnome/lib/libglib-1.2.so.0 (0x402b8000)
> > What package is wrong here? What packages do I need to install??
> > I use a mozilla.-1.6 downloaded from mozilla.org.
> Ah, so.

You want your distributions build of Mozilla.  Rolling your own (and
getting something that works well is very NON-trivial).

> Note the tar.gz has gtk2 and xft right there in the name. I do not know
> why Mozilla proper doesn't have this as a download option.
> http://www.mozilla.org/releases/ lists a couple ways to install Mozilla,
> a tar.gz file you just unpack, and an installer. Perhaps the installer
> has GTK 2 support. Perhaps Mozilla just doesn't have that support at
> all. Does anyone else use straight Mozilla with GTK 2?
> Also note that if you're running a distro, you may be better off with
> their package of Mozilla. YMMV.

Yep, building Mozilla is a dreadful process.  Your almost certainly
better off using a distributions package, or you can get the Ximian
build (and install just the Mozilla components out of the XD2 channel).