Quoting Gunnar Hjalmarsson (2023-09-13 21:09:00) > Should fonts-noto-core be installed by default? > ----------------------------------------------- > Personally I think it should. The primary reason is that fonts-noto-core > offers a broad coverage of Unicode characters, and the quality is in > many cases superior to the free alternatives. Ask for instance an Arabic > or Sinhala speaking user. > > To really make use of a Noto font, the font configuration may need to be > tweaked. But having it installed is the basic prerequisite, and I think > it makes sense that Debian as an internationally spread OS provides > fonts of good quality for most languages. > > There is a problem with fonts-noto-core, though, as several people have > mentioned already: For non-LCG scripts it provides one font per script. > And there are quite a few of those. So for a user, who wants to actively > and often select font in a font picker, the list of font options gets > horribly long. > > Personally I see that as a shortcoming in the font pickers. They ought > to offer some "favorites" functionality, in the same manner as it works > with keyboard layouts. Unfortunately they don't, at least as far as I know.
Perhaps it is then immature to switch to using fonts-noto by default, for the above reason alone (but see also further comments below). > So we have a conflict of goals here. The good news is that a user who > speaks some latin language, and who thinks it's important to be able to > easily select font directly in various applications, can do: > > apt purge fonts-noto-core Just as easily as those disliking a font can remove it, those appreciating a font can install it. Difference is if we want to bloat all systems by default or not. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
