Here's a concrete example of the linux font problem

Richmond Mathewson richmondmathewson at
Mon Feb 22 06:24:44 EST 2010

On 22/02/2010 13:01, Peter Alcibiades wrote:
> Its a nice idea, not sure whether it is correct, its getting more confusing
> all the time.
> If we try in OO, we have no avantgarde, and we don't have a simple bookman.
> Instead we have a bunch of URW bookmans, and also a plain bookman old style.
> Rev seems to have a plain old avantgarde, and also an avantgarde gothic.
> Then, in OO again, there is also a URW gothic L.  Maybe this is related to
> the avantgarde gothic?
> Also, the real thing that makes one dubious, this account doesn't explain
> why Rev cannot see the idautomation3of9 font.  This one I am quite sure of,
> it is nowhere to be found in the Rev choices, under any variant of its name.
> Why not?
> Rev does find the urw bookmans, in addition to the itc bookmans.  Or are
> these maybe the same thing and its finding them twice?
> Peter
I put my 'special' font (a TTF) in just about every possible place a font
could go in Ubuntu (i.e. cutesified Debian) with drag-n-drop and the
KDE font manager and something called Font installer I dug out of
the apt-get search thingy; re-set my font cache via command-line
and so forth.

RunRev did not see the font.

So any explanation that tells me that OO sees one set of names for fonts
and RunRev sees another doesn't wash.

[Peter: the dog's bottom may not have charmed you - but it did work
like a charm insofar as it stimulated the first half-decent debate about
this problem for ages.]

More information about the Use-livecode mailing list