Re: [Security-Discuss] more on libfreetype6 update on LE2005 with mozilla family

--ZVOC9e0LfXEId8h2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Simon Oosthoek <[email protected]> [2006-06-21 00:12:22 +020=
0]:

> >I just had a chance to look here and I hit a few websites in firefox and
> >I don't see any odd font rendering whatsoever.  It looks just like it
> >did a few weeks ago.  As far as I can see, there are absolutely no font
> >rendering changes to be seen.
>=20
> it's not the rendering of pages, but especially the display of mailbox=20
> folders containing unread messages in thunderbird.

Which, according to your screenshot, looks perfectly normal to me.  It's
supposed to be bolder, and fatter, than the normal text.  This how it
looks in OS X, and I'll bet this is how it looks in Windows.  Oh, it
looks this way in linux too.  =3D)

> >I'm also suspicious that you're pinning this on the patch... the patch
> >should not have changed anything to do with how fonts are rendered.
>=20
> I got the complaints of a colleague of mine, not myself, but since I'm=20
> responsible for installing the OS on his machine he complains to me. I=20
> try to be a good admin and forward his complaints. I didn't even find=20
> his current font rendering awkward in any way (though I agree it was a=20
> bit fat looking). Personally I'm "experimenting" with 2006.0 on my own=20
> desktop, I've just been a bit lazy to extend the experiment ;-)

So he got the complaint, sent it to you, and you just assumed it was the
freetype update?

> >Oh, and as an aside, I'd like to see some of these complaints.  Besides
> >you, on this list, I haven't heard a *single* complaint or seen a single
> >bug filed.
>=20
> I know, I was kinda fishing for others to check if this is a unique case=
=20
> or a general problem. If it's just our typical setup or my colleagues=20
> brain, I'll shut up. I'll try to see if I can get a screenshot or=20
> something, but I'll have to look hard for an unpatched machine to=20
> compare it to.

I don't think this is a problem with the update.

> Anyway, just to get it off my chest, I don't really think I'm doing=20
> anything wrong posting my findings and searching for confirmation. If I=
=20
> get no confirmation, I don't have a reason to file a bug. That's why you=
=20
> see only me posting about it (so far?). No need to emphasise it, making=
=20
> me appear like a whining luser :-(

Fair enough.

--=20
{FEE30AD4 : 7F6C A60C 06C2 4811 FA1C  A2BC 2EBC 5E32 FEE3 0AD4}
mysql> SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0;
Empty set (0.00sec)

--ZVOC9e0LfXEId8h2
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFEmWQvLrxeMv7jCtQRAukgAJ9dwS1w8LUBYKwJG8RlY9bIEBZ78wCfbmKe
s5VdIWNfTLS2k3pfvO1T1uo=
=jNJS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ZVOC9e0LfXEId8h2--