Slashdot Mirror
Font HOWTO For Linux
big-dog writes "The Register is running a good HOWTO on getting fonts to look better in Linux." Making things look purty is always good.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Isn't it strange that this gets posted as I'm futzing with my fonts? I open konqueror to test them and I see this!! Just confirms my fears that THEY are watching my every move...
Does that mean they'll look like they were sprayed with Rust-Oleum? That's how my grandfather makes everything purdy.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
1. Install a distro that actually cares about fonts. Eg, Red Hat 8.
Congratulations, you're finished.
I know someone will get on here saying (or at least think it), can't we concentrate on making the 2.5 kernel as stable as 2.2.x. Fonts are just for making things look 'purdy' which doesn't help if you are crashing, blah blah blah
Fonts are very important.
Fonts are one of the last barriers to a linux migration. That is also one of the first (negative) differences people notice on my monitor.
Never underestimate the lure of a goodlooking UI on the average user!
--Joey
Maybe it's just me, but the after picture looks worse than the before picture. Or, maybe it's just a case of "Oops, I named the files wrong."
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
The author recommends you install the fonts in 2 or 3 different places. Whatever happened to installing them in one spot and symlinking to the others? Also removes the need to go thru the whole copy to the other directories rigamorale everytime you reinstall/upgrade.
Why not fork?
Licensing issues with apple
GTA3 is like the Sims to me - MC Hawking
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation /3876857.htm
Chicago2600.net more than a lifestyle, its a survival trait.
I want fonts to be antialiased on paper, not on the screen.
If you don't have ClearType or font smoothing, you can approximate the effect.
Just smear Vaseline evenly over your screen - voila! Antialiased fonts!
It worked for Cybil Shepard on 'Moonlighting'.
Well, personally, I prefer to read text without AA, because anti-aliased text is too blurry. Sure it looks pretty on screenshots and you can impress al your friends, but really, when I have to read large amounts of text from a pc screen my eyes get tired twice as wuickly with AA switched on. Sharp edges help.
Now, merely having TTFs or anti-aliasing isn't enough. Take a look at this screen shot of TTFs in an OpenOffice.org document. They're clunky and blocky and basically impossible to distinguish from each other. However, with a bit of tweaking we can make them look distinct, slick and refined, as you can see in this screen shot.
I think everyone agrees that the first one is horrible. And the second... well maybe it's just me, but I can't see a difference between their tweaked AA and my own no-tweaked non-AA...
Join the elite! Post at score:2! Ghostwheel is online.
Red Hat 8 appears to have most of this set up from the factory, with the exception of the MS fonts.
There is an unbelievably irritating aspect of anti-alised fonts I've found with RH8 (and in previous experiences with Gnome2): GTK+2 apps will insist on using Anti-alised fonts for EVERYTHING, and there seems to be no way to turn it off. While I think anti-aliased fonts are wonderful most of the time, I believe most developers will agree they are not so great in terminal windows or when viewing source code.
If you change your font preferences to "monochrome", you can then set source code editor/terminal fonts to non-anti-aliasable ones, like LucidaTypewriter. Then switch the font prefs back to your previous anti-aliased setting, and the modified programs will retain the non-antialiased font setting.
I don't know whose fault it is that this workaround is required (GTK, Red Hat, the apps themselves, etc), but it would be most appreciated if non-antialiasable fonts appeared in the font-selection dialogs even when antialiasing is enabled.
...can be found here. It's really easy to follow his instructions to get true type fonts working right.
That HOWTO seems to ignore the best option for getting pretty fonts on X, Xft.
I am currently running Redhat 8.0 with an XFT version of Mozilla, and I must may my screenies are much prettier.
With Xft, FreeType, and some good TrueType fonts, I finally have a Linux desktop with fonts prettier than WinXP.
With the recent sendmail trojan (which trojaned your system when you ran make), I would assume people would be more careful of this. The howto author compiles as root, just a warning...
I'm sorry to say that these people obviously haven't messed with the fonts stuff other than the top layer of complexity. I suggest if you are really interested in font antialiasing and configuration you look at Fontconfig and Xft2. Keith Packard has done an excellent job with these products along many other cool things within X (ie. Render Extension, RandR, the new XCursor system). Compiling everything with Fontconfig/Xft2 support is a little daunting at first, but when you're done it looks great.
Who the fuck cares.
For those saying that ClearType style subpixel hinting is "too blurry", you should be aware that it only really works on TFT screens as the way it works requires a set pixel layout, which traditional CRTs don't have. Steve Gibson has a fairly good explanation of how it works on his website (if you can put up with his infuriating self-congratulatory writing style).
:D
So yes - regular antialiasing should be all that's needed on a CRT.
And... I'm currently typing this from Konqueror 3, which renders subpixel antialiased Truetype and Type1 fonts absolutely beautifully, along with the rest of KDE 3, in fact I would say it looks a lot nicer than Cleartype. Especially on a 1600x1200 TFT. Mmm, shiny
He goes through all the hassle of rebuilding Freetype, and then the screenshots at the end aren't even antialiased...
So what was the point of this article again?
There are XFT builds of Mozilla 1.2b already, here.
Q.
First off: if you're basing your choice of operaing system on a windowing program's ability to render fonts, then something is seriously wrong. IMHO.
Second: I don't like anti-aliased fonts. I'd rather look at code/text in a non-AA, monospaced font. It gives me fewer headaches. Text in a magazine or on a newpaper is one thing, but when I'm looking at a monitor, I don't want anti-aliasing. "Linux" (those with a clue, just assume that X is Linux for a minute here for the sake of discussion; some people don't know that the GUI and the OS are two different things) displays fonts just fine for me. If I wanted AA fonts, I can have them. If I don't want them, I don't have to get them; nobody has made my choice for me. Being forced to put up with someone else's choices is really what is pathetic. (Although trolling with old Windows bigotry comes close.)
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
Mostly the same stuff, possibly?
The flag that this article suggests turning on is off by default because the hinting algorithm in question may violate Microsoft and Apple patents. Not the average user really cares about this, but it was irresponsible of The Register to not explain this in the article. On the other hand, this is The Reg we're talking about here...
More info: http://freetype.sourceforge.net/patents.html
I've got to point out this site for improving fonts even more. The difference it made to my fonts was amazing - and I was already using sub-pixel rendering and a laptop display with freetype2-2.1.2 (with the bytecode interpreter compiled in).
I STRONGLY recommend you try it out - he even includes a pre-compiled libfreetype (built for Red Hat, I think, but works great on Mandrake 9.0). You'll need to put it in the right directory, and create the right symbolic links to it.
I don't know how much of the improvement is due to this guy's improvements, and how many are due to the upcoming freetype2-2.1.3, but whatever - Linux fonts are no longer inferior to look at.
listen here.
you're preaching to the choir.
but your an asshat. take a deep breath and think before you speak.
and whether your OS is gui driven or cli driven is irrelevant. it's the use you make of it that is (or isn't) "mindless".
i for one am sick of typing everything, and sick of the tendonitis i've developed from years of doing so.
only do-nothing IT guys and admins brag about using a command line.
i do however have a problem with linux becoming windows, because noone seems to be able to think of anything better.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Well to start. Why shouldn't admins have a nice screen to look at? I use to work with a very very nice monitor (commercial OS) that had such a beautiful screen. Shame I couldn't take it home with me. Now I can have the same experience with my home OS. Two by unified userbase you wouldn't be forgetting all the different varieties of Unix out there would you? Three it is a myth that you have to give up control while having ease of learning as well as use. However the present problem I see with what's coming out is that an interface that "grows" with you as you transit from newbie to power-user is hard to do. Most interfaces commercial or otherwise hit either end, while being weak in the middle. Can an interface be for everyone? Yes, but it may mean more work and looking very hard at what we presently assume.
From the last time I did this:
1-an interface needs to be free of unnecessary elements at all time. In other words (does this contribute to the goal(s) being achieved?).
2-An interface needs to keep it's audiance in mind. Professional? Amateur? Artist? Blue-blood?
3-Organizing devices must leverage common elements while going from general to specific.
4-Make the interface playable by making the consequences of actions as reversable as possible.
5-If an action is unreversable let the user know in a non-threatening, non-insulting way.
6-Choose intelligent defaults.
7-Keep the perception as much as possible that the user is in control of the situation.
8-If control is needed in a situation (a certain sequence needs to be followed) guide the user as gently as possible.
9-As part of transiting from newbie to power-user. Have the interface show you some of the alternative ways to accomplich the same task.
10-User control of variable preferences is one way to accomplish gradual disclosure of the power that lies beneath without intimidating the user.
Anyone else want to add anything?
Much as the work on getting fonts to work on X is to be commended, I don't think we're ready to start showing off just yet.
Get back to me in a few years when something approaching a workable standard is around.
I don't get it. The two screenshots he shows to compare (923.png and 930.png) look identical to me, except that one has anti-aliasing and one doesn't. He claims the second one looks better, but I don't see it.
In fact, I think his screenshots look pretty ugly in general. He's managed to duplicate the blocky, hard-edged look of Windows 9x quite well, but I hardly consider this attractive. Red Hat 8.0's fonts look significantly better than his screenshots.
Mac OS X still has a wide lead on best look fonts, but IMO a modern Linux box has superior fonts to any version of Windows.
Cleartype only really works if you are using an LCD, btw... and it depends on how the LCD screen is constructed.
Also, have you gone to the proper MS site and tuned your cleartype settings?
Tune Cleartype
IF you have a 1600x1200 laptop, I recommend setting XP to 120dpi instead. Yes, the fonts get larger, and some things are a bit out of whack due to bad programming.. but I assure you the increased resolution combined with cleartype makes things look sweeeeeet. Also, if you use Acrobat Reader (which uses it's own font rendering engine), make sure you go into the settings and turn on CoolType to get similar results.
I am posting the same thing here as I posted over at the dot 10 minutes ago. Just a glace at his two Openoffice screenshots showed me this guy is seriously whacked. The second screenshot, which he claimed is "more refined" is clearly much more jagged than the first. A simple look with Xmag sees the only difference between the two is that the second has anti-aliasing turned off. Same with the"results" screenshots at the end.... they look like crap compared to my fonts in KDE, and I did nothing speccial. Just apt-get install msttcorefonts in Debian. There is no anti-aliasing going on at all in these screenshots, they look horrible.
Now, I totally respect people who don;t like anti-aliased fonts. but in KDE (which this article seems to be mainly about) or OpenOffice, disbling anti-aliasing is as easy as unchecking a menu option... if you don't want it, don't use it. What is the point of the whole long process in this article exactly?
I guess stealing fonts from Microsoft so that you can have a decent-looking OS is heroic.
And please don't give me the stupid "M$ is evil" spiel. It's as tired as a hooker at a GeekWorld convention.
I cannot comprehend what is so hard about making fonts work. TrueType is a known format. The OS loads it up and the programs use the OS to interact with the fonts, right? Windows and Mac handle it fine, what exactly is the cause of the difficulty under Linux?
If you're running a high-res screen (currently this would be one of those 133 or 140 DPI LCDs) or if you like your fonts on the softer side, the TrueType hinting algorithm will tend to make your fonts too thin. I'm running a 1600x1200 LCD and the bytecode interpreter, which tends to snap fonts to integral numbers of pixels, distorts the shape and makes fonts too thin to read. A wonderful fix for this is to download and compile the FreeType2-current from FreeType's FTP site (under the unstable directory). Then, get some nice Type1 fonts (currently, a lot of fixes are in the pshinter) and make sure to disable the TrueType bytecode interpreter (it's disabled by default). Turn on AA, and you're treated to some wonderfully rendered fonts. Anti-aliased enough to be smooth, but still sharp enough to be easily readable. I've got a screenshot at: http://home.mindspring.com/~heliosc/fonts.png
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The point of TrueType is not to give you more readable fonts than good manually designed ones, it is to give you complete families of decent fonts at many screen resolutions and sizes; that's needed because it would be way too much work to design all those font instances by hand. Still, if you did, you'd only improve the TrueType output.
Furthermore, anti-aliasing, font smoothing, and similar tricks do make pages appear prettier, but they generally don't enhance readability, and may even degrade it. That's why, among other things, many systems let you turn off font smoothing below a certain size. Cleartype and its equivalents, however, may help with readability, since they really do increase spatial resolution (at the cost of color fidelity).
Ok so here I am with my first moderator points in who knows how
long[0] and I wanted to use them so badly on this thread because I am
really new to this whole X font thing having spent so much time in a
self imposed exile to the command line for two years[1]. So I am back
to using X and this font HOWTO sounded like a great idea. Until I
started reading it. To paraphrase "Just unpack the src RPM". Well
hell I thought HOWTOs were supposed to be distro independent because
the HOWTO might outlive the distro and because not every one uses
Uber_Distro_GNU/Linux. I fit in to that latter category. I run
Slackware and some people run Debian. Now it is possible to unpack
that RPM and futs with it for a little while and hope that it works
no matter what distro you are on but the HOWTOs are supposed to "speak
in a language that everyone can comprehend."[2]
One of the tricks to Linux's success is that is very portable to any
arch. Shouldn't the HOWTOs be written with the same idea?
I really did want to use those mod points here. Oh well better luck
next thread.
[0] remember that 1000 mod pointed post? Well apparently I have
served my time.
[1] to better learn this thing called Linux better than a GUI will
ever allow.
[2] no thats not a Living Color song.
Ascii artist &
Windows 2000/XP: Install a font by dragging it to the fonts folder.
Mac OS X: Install a font by dragging it to the fonts folder.
Linux: Some convoluted thing that involves downloading the Microsoft (!) fonts and putting them in several different places.
Windows XP: Turn antialiasing or ClearType on by checking a box in the display properties. (Note: ClearType is only recommended for digital flat panels.)
Mac OS X: Turn antialiasing/sub-pixel rendering on by checking a box in the display properties.
Linux: Recompile this thing, and oh yeah you have to edit a header file, and then do this, and then it will work, except not in Mozilla, because then you have to do this and the other thing. (A three-page description follows.)
I agree with the first post here. Getting Linux to look good on the desktop is possible. Getting Windows XP or Mac OS X to look good on the desktop is easy. Thanks, but I don't want to f*ck with my computer just to make it look good.
No problem.
// TrueType
// if libfreetype was built without hinting compiled in
// it is best to leave hinting off
// below a certian pixel size anti-aliased fonts produce poor results
// sample prefs for TrueType font dirs
Find your unix.js file under the mozilla directory, then make sure your TrueType Section looks like this:
pref("font.FreeType2.enable", true);
pref("font.freetype2.shared-library", "libfreetype.so.6");
pref("font.FreeType2.autohinted", true);
pref("font.FreeType2.unhinted", true);
pref("font.antialias.min", 6);
pref("font.embedded_bitmaps.max", 1000000);
pref("font.scale.tt_bitmap.dark_text.min", 64);
pref("font.scale.tt_bitmap.dark_text.gain", "0.1");
pref("font.directory.truetype.1", "/usr/share/fonts/truetype");
pref("font.directory.truetype.2", "/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/TTF");
pref("font.directory.truetype.3", "/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/truetype");
Just remember to change the path to your TT font directories.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
I can guarantee you that if you saw my Linux desktop with fonts anti-aliased with David Chester's Xft hack, you'd instantly want to switch. Frankly, I have yet to see TTF fonts this beautiful on any system, Mac OSX included, especially in 1600x1200. I mean, look at this screenshot! Sorry, but I work on a Windows machine all day, with anti-aliased turned on, and it doesn't even come close to this.
The font battle has been won, and the winner is Xft+freetype+Chester's font hack.
Reminder: find a new sig
Actually, your fonts will look better if you set unhinted to false (but leave autohinted to true)
Bart
This is far funnier than my post. hehehehe
Honestly, I do NOT see nice fonts displayed any time there is an article about fixing fonts in linux.
There is one place and one place only that I have ever seen a screen loaded with nicely antialiased fonts...my KDE desktop using the longtime antialiasing support from QT. The fonts I have are SMOOTH. Let me reiterate that, they are smooth. No jaggy lines, no stairstep angles, just smooth antialiasing. Beautiful.
I then read an article like that at the Register, look at the screen shots, and all I can do is say "What the fu*K are they talking about?! Those fonts are STILL jaggy and they are NOT aa.
I've recently read a few other articles about fonts, aa, and hinting. I look at the results in screenshots and the fonts are either STILL jaggy or they are horrifically smeared. If hinting means "smear the crap out of the font until it makes you think your glasses are greasy or you are developing cataracts" then that hinting crap is working great! Nice looking aa fonts do NOT have to be blurred out of recognition. AA means NO jaggy lines, just smooth, flowing, SLIGHTLY (EVER so slightly) blurred fonts.
So far, mozilla simply has ugly font rendering no matter how you slice it. Its fonts are jaggy/stairstepped. Period. Butt-ugly. Same with Gnome. I have tried to get fonts to look as nice in Gnome as they look in KDE but it just doesn't happen. I either get the greasy glasses effect or jaggy lines.
I have to come to the conclusion that when people SAY antialiasing, they really don't know what their are talking about. Or they are referring to a different antialiasing than I am aware of. If your fonts have jaggy lines, then you are NOT enjoying the fruit of aa. Sorry, but that is a fact.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
That's the only explanation. I was puzzled by it too! When I found the first, anti-aliased screen and he says he'll improve it a lot I thought "Wow, let me see the second screen now!".
:)
:)
The second screen shows non-AA fonts!
Weird!
You seem to think that because you have figured out how to have beautiful fonts in Linux then ergo, Windows sucks and is not necessary. That's kind of a stretch, mmm?
Also, the "well, if I want them or not blah blah blah" choice (and I use the term lightly since I can't imagine myself thinking "hey, I want my apps to look crappy!") is pretty fucking irrelevant to the topic. I don't give a shit if you can do something like '#fontometric -i -r00 -l -pr3 -tti -font' or some such weird incantation to reach anti-aliasing Nirvana. If it doesn't do it out of the god damn box then it's pretty much useless.
Being forced to put up with someone else's choices
Spare me the communist claptrap bud.
Trillian runs fine under wine, albiet without *any* alpha blending (not sure tho, it may work on a version of X that supports transparency)
(Just realised I'm using WineX 2.2 - may make a difference, but it works for me)
Two main reasons, both derive from IP issues.
The freetype bytecode interpreter is possibly infringing on an Adobe patent. MS and Apple both shell out big bucks in licensing fees to Adobe for rights to the patented aspects of TrueType rendering, and it shows in the quality of their screen font rendering. Second, the fonts that are available freely (GNU free, not $0 free) are utter shite. They would look bad on any system. Microsoft has great fonts, which are available for free (as in no money) but there are some restrictions on distributing them, so they are never included in a Linux distro.
0 1 - just my two bits
GNU/Linux does have good defaults, for a server.
However, for the most part, it has very poor defaults for the average home-user desktop-user. I'm speaking as a Debian user here.
Distributions should offer a "desktop" option during setup, which will set things up nicely for the average desktop user: that means anti-aliasing, maximum resolution possible, 16-bit color, a reasonable font-set, and a good default GUI-configuration (this does not mean a aqua-esque theme; this means that, for example, if the WM is WindowMaker, icons for the internet, e-mail, spreadsheets, word processors, etc should be on the dock).
All of the right stuff is there to make GNU/Linux. All that developers need to do is set up good defaults. This is simply a configuration issue; it is not something which is going to prevent you from devoting enough time to core technical issues.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I copied over MS TTF fonts and X acknowledged them but looking at a webpage in Moz with Verdana shows huge disproportionate characters. Is this a problem with Mozilla or just a problem with raw TTF/xfs?
Huh? Since when does CLI=Linux?
Fonts ARE a big deal. Getting them right is a hell of a lot more important than some grep switch. Futhermore one has nothing to do with another. Why are even comparing the two?
Why would Redhat stop distributing xterm?
What are your talking about?
Why was this modded up?
Huh?
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
It refers to the Microsoft-provided font package, and that's been removed from Debian ever since MS pulled the fonts. The msttcorefonts
Pity, too, because I run Debian, and I've never been able to get decent fonts under any flavor of Linux.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Somebody else told me that the MS fonts have been reposted somewhere on sourceforge, and that Debian now downloads them from there. That'd be neat.
I love typesetting, but I hate messing with fonts on my computer. Why the hell can't they look nice out of the box?
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Well if you look at the font fiascos in recent distributions and desktops (I am speaking of Mandrake 9.0 -- and from what I have heard RedHat), then you end up having about 5000 fonts and each application you run can use about 10 of them. So you end up with some applications able to use some fonts , and other applications able to see others. Depending on what type of app or window manager you are running -- you see a variety of "effects" that may or may not resemble AA. Gtk 1.x apps see some fonts, Gtk 2.x apps see others, QT sees others AND PLEASE don't even get me started on font sizes, most apps just asumme that size 12 is about all they want to use, and some gtk apps occasionally start up with a nice 72 point font staring back at you for some crazy reason or another -- Xfontsel can see a bunch of them but in itself does not do much. (to me it just looks like multiple levels of blur.)
I bet one could write a book with a chapter on each different method for displaying fonts in these new distributions. And if you want to get really confused you can look at the 7 or 8 different font configuration files used to put this clusterfuck together. Whatever happened to the good old days where I could just run XFSTT on a port and get all of my TT fonts pretty much the same as in Windows -- and this was even before XFree 4. With the advent of XFS and XFree 4 we got some primitive looking Jaggy things that "claimed" to be our TT fonts -- but at least where I was standing you could not pick them out from a lineup.
I still don't see how we are any better off in the "font world" than we were 4 years ago -- it seems that each toolkit has just decided to try to invent there own ways to render fonts.. Crazy -- Crazy -- Crazy.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Making things look purty is always good.
Unless it's the layout and color scheme of Slashdot.
The middle mind speaks!
Not a great screen, but reasonably priced: SyncMaster 955DF from Samsung (500$ canadian for 19"). It does the job!
I can always send you a screenshot (I don't have a digital camera...yet!). My email address at home can be found on my website, under the heading "Courriel" near the bottom of the right hand column (just above the "small type"). The link text is "m'écrire".
But if you say that your display is better than OSX, then I guess that our desktop are pretty close. I'm happy with calling it a draw (though I wouldn't mind a screenshot in any case). Your call.
Reminder: find a new sig
I do understand anti-aliasing, but the parent post is right -- on some screens, at some resolutions, AA'd screen fonts look fuzzy (worst case, they can be almost unreadable). So I think it's good, even necessary, to allow anti-aliasing to be turned off if the user so desires.
BTW, I frequently need to resize image files of various sorts, and have learned that sometimes (depending on content) they look better when I turn off anti-aliasing.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Please provide spacific examples of how my freedoms are being abridged and limited, and how Microsoft owns my computer(s). Please, be specific and don't rely on what you've "heard" here in Slashdot since that's about as balanced and valid as sexual guidance from the Vatican.
Breathlessly awaiting your insight.
I've been using this FreeType hack for a while now and Windows and MacOS look far worse in comparison. Just check out the screenshots on the page if you don't believe me!
Here's a diff of the default unix.js file against my customised one - note that there's a size for minimum aa'ing (which I have set at 1, but you could set at 16 if that's what you want), and that you can change the "bluriness" via dark_text.gain/light_text.gain settings.
Also note that this mod works with any version of mozilla - 1.0 or 1.1, you don't need to get 1.2b and you don't need to recompile - and all you have to do is edit this file. (And yes, I was cursing when I found out just how easy it was to enable aa'ing!)
70,74d69
231c226
---
> pref("font.FreeType2.enable", true);
235c230
---
>
238c233
---
> pref("font.antialias.min", 1);
241c236
---
> pref("font.scale.tt_bitmap.dark_text.gain", "0");
245a241
> pref("font.directory.truetype.1", "/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/drakfont");
250,251c246,247
---
> pref("font.scale.aa_bitmap.always", true);
> pref("font.scale.aa_bitmap.min", 1);
255c251
---
> pref("font.scale.aa_bitmap.dark_text.gain", "0");
so i don't need no font antialiasing! :)
matula
That is correct. Fonts (the files) themselves can be copyrighted but I not know if the ones that ship with the OS are. Just as an example, Adobe charges about $30 - $50 for recently released decorative fonts when purchased in individual packs. They get $8,999 (yes, that's right) for 2,750 ($3.27 per) fonts if you buy them in bulk. Imangine what the printing houses that publishers use to print their stuff have to pay for all of those fonts. Adobe is not the only one people use and the printing house has to have their own copy for their presses.
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
... or something damn close to it. For an old HP LJIIIp that looks a lot better than an LJII, even though both are 300 dpi. It's because the IIIp uses smaller dots where appropriate at the edges. Many ink jet printers do the same thing. Not sure if anything at 1200 dpi bothers with this trick, but the trick's good enough that the quality difference between the IIIp at 300 dpi and a 600 dpi printer is very hard to see.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
When this patch recently was included in Debian's freetype package, TrueType fonts became significantly more blurred on my 1024×768 LCD screen. Rebuilding with the patch disabled (and the bytecode interpreter turned on again) restored my fonts to normal.
My point is that what looks good on my LCD monitor may look totally different on a hi-res 1600×1200 LCD or a normal CRT monitor. These things should be configurable, since there are different compile-time settings which give the best results on different screens.
What we need is a very configurable freetype, with good configuration/preview tools; and a general understanding of the highly different effects on different displays.
This is good if you're using KDE = 2 or Gnome 1, but if you're using the latest versions, it's find of obsolete. Actually, KDE has had font smoothing since sometime in v2. What I'm saying is, if you want really nice fonts, download the newest version of Gnome or KDE, whichever you prefer. Michael
You're too funny, man... Right on.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
A screenshot would work fine for your screen. why not just stick it on your website? I'll do the same.
:-) I can't just put a screenshot up by itself, though, I have to put it inside a web page: my apache is set up so that you can't browse the contents of a folder...I'm sure I can change that for a specific folder, but I really don't feel like touching the configuration right now - my motto is: it works, leave it alone!
D'oh! Now, why didn't I think of that first...
Check the screenshot here.
The problem I see is that I'm using Cleartype on a 1600x1200 LCD.. and if I take a screenshot, you won't really see what I see unless you are using an LCD with the exact same physical structure as mine... it will actually look fuzzy on your screen.
Actually, considering that the screen shot should be seen on a LCD, I must admit it looks pretty good. I can mentally compensate for the visual artifacts, of which there aren't that much (they don't look "fuzzy" as much as discolored). Pretty slick...
Now, I don't how my screenshot (from a CRT) will look on your display...I've tried to include a couple of windows to show how the fonts behave under a variety of apps...mind you, KDE does a great job when it comes to font consistency (not to start a flame war...I haven't really tried Gnome2 yet).
Well, looks like a draw to me...
Reminder: find a new sig
3 pages of instructions to get decent fonts?
... That's not how to do it.
Download this, unpack that, login as root
Decent on-screen fonts in the default installation: that's the only way to do it. Linux fonts are seriously broken until it's done like that.
A few years back, I was on Babble, the Cure mailing list. One day someone posted that they were recently in a car accident, and had been listening to the Cure at the time: not on tape, but on the radio. Suddenly, out of the wood work came a bunch of "Me-too"'s: people that had been in auto accidents or similar, and had been listening to the Cure at the time. Some started to think that this was some kind of omen, mentioning how disconcerting it was and the like, until one guy posted a response along the lines of: "Everyone on this list is a Cure fan. Because of that, everyone will have a tendancy to either listen to Cure tapes in their car, or tune to radio stations that play the Cure." That shut everyone up fast.
The point here is that you're a Linux user. You read /. because it has a lot of stories about Linux and tweaking Linux. The fact that you were tweaking some aspect of your Linux system, went over to /. and saw a story about exactly what you were doing is not coincidential. It's a very basic statistical correlation.
Now then, had you gone over to MSN and found an artical about tweaking fonts in Linux while in the midst of doing such, I'd say it's time to pull out the tin-foil hats, pack up the kids and head for the hills.
-"Zow"
If you're doing this under redhat 8, I'd love to see your screenshots (both with an without). Can you post links?