Liberation Fonts Increase Interoperability For Linux Users

hweimer writes "Most problems when opening Word documents under GNU/Linux are due to missing fonts. Therefore, Red Hat published a set of fonts metric-compatible with the Windows core fonts last year. However, there were some concerns regarding the licensing that prevented many other distros to ship them. We finally managed to settle these problems, leading to better document interoperability for all GNU/Linux users."

Comments

Used to be known as...

[rishistar]

..French fonts!

I fixed it for you

[seanonymous]

Most problems with opening Word documents are that they were created with Word.

Re:I fixed it for you

[ConceptJunkie]

From what I've heard you can sometimes get better results opening Word documents with OpenOffice.

Word can only be explained as a plot to sap the productivity of computer users, towards what end I cannot say.

Re:I fixed it for you

[plover]

No, Word is a cruel developer-led plot to sap the output of the business analysts. By keeping their conflicting requirements tangled up in Word, and by shifting their focus to fonts and colors, it keeps them from ever actually finishing them and so inflicting them upon the hapless developers.

By one estimation*, developers would have almost twice as many annoying requirements if business analysts were to switch to open-source word-smithing tools.

*In his defense, the estimator was both drunk and bitter at the set of requirements he had just been handed.

Re:I fixed it for you

[ConceptJunkie]

Well, the developers need better targetting because millions of people and billions of man-hours are wasted by Word. I bet Word causes more pain and wasted time than the U.S. tax code.

Re:I fixed it for you

[deniable]

We had Word documents get so screwed up that Word wouldn't open them. The best fix was to open them in OpenOffice and re-save them. It messed up the formatting, but it was better than losing a days work. I keep it around as a repair tool even in an all MS shop.

If you think Word is evil, stay away from Publisher.

Linux Liberation Font?

[Kell Bengal]

Sounds like a open-source typography terrorist organisation.

Re:Linux Liberation Font?

[Chris Mattern]

Correct kerning derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!

Re:Linux Liberation Font?

[HTH NE1]

Sounds like a open-source typography terrorist organisation. No, that's the Liberation Font of Linux. Forkers!

Re:Linux Liberation Font?

[plover]

Long live the Font for the Liberation of Linux! Down with the heretics of the LFL!!

Do I need/want these?

[whoever57]

If I already have corefonts installed, do I need or want these?

Re:Do I need/want these?

[pshuke]

Probably not. The appeal with these fonts, as I understand it, is that they can be distributed along with the rest of the operating system. Corefonts have some slight copyright issues. From the licence:

Reproduction and Distribution. You may reproduce and distribute an unlimited number of copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; provided that each copy shall be a true and complete copy, including all copyright and trademark notices, and shall be accompanied by a copy of this EULA. Copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be distributed for profit either on a standalone basis or included as part of your own product.

Note in particular the "Copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be distributed for profit either on a standalone basis or included as part of your own product." part.

Re:Do I need/want these?

[Anonymous Coward]

corefonts are on dodgy legal ground since microsoft decided they weren't really interested in the improving the internet experience for all people, and their removal of them. If these new fonts are good enough, corefonts will be removed from the distros over time.

Re:Do I need/want these?

[Jherek Carnelian]

FWIW, the copy of those fonts that HP distributed with some versions of HPUX 11.11 did not have that same EULA.

The version of that paragraph included in the README file of /usr/lib/X11/fonts/ms.st/typefaces/README says:

Reproduction and Distribution. You may reproduce and distribute
an unlimited number of copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; provided
that each copy shall be a true and complete copy, including all
copyright and trademark notices, and shall be accompanied by a
copy of this EULA. Copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may be
distributed as a standalone product or included with your own
product. Copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be sold or
distributed for any kind of fee. The difference being that the version of this EULA says you can include them "with your own product" which appears to mean you can charge a fee for your product and include the fonts "for free." It sure seems like that's what HP actually did given that they came with the copy of HPUX that they did charge a fee for.

Re:Do I need/want these?

[cbart387]

I find the liberation fonts more visually appealing. Fedora has a lush look to it without any tweaking, in my opinion ... and part of that is the font choice. If you're curious what it looks like, just do a search for Fedora screenshots.

Re:Do I need/want these?

[alexgieg]

If I already have corefonts installed, do I need or want these? I've tried the Liberation fonts some months ago, but went back to mscorefonts.

My reason was that, while Liberation seem to look as "good" as MS' ones with font blurring enabled (that subpixel-something I hate, also the reason I put "good" between quotes), once you disable the blurring they become a set of disconnected lines and dots that only slightly resemble the alphabet. MS fonts, on the other hand, look beautifully, sharp and crisp, on blurless mode. Now, I don't know whether Liberation has improved its blurless support since then, but I doubt it. It seems nowadays everything is designed for blur-only operation.

So, if you're also an anti-blur old timer like me, I'd say no, you don't need or want these, quite the opposite, you'll want as much distance from them as possible.

If, on the other hand, you do like blurred fonts, then they're a good replacement, I guess.

This is good, but

[dfaulken]

What is really needed to help Linux stand out is a set of F/LOSS-licensed fonts that are of even better quality than the default MS stuff--I mean it's essential to be able to show Times New Roman correctly, but what would make Linux (and other free operating systems) stand out is a selection of superb fonts.

Look to Firefox for an example--people didn't choose it (solely) because it was free; they chose it because it works better (for them). I suspect at least some users could be swayed by better default fonts.

Re:This is good, but

[larry bagina]

Computer Modern. It's been better than the default MS stuff for 25 years or so.

Re:This is good, but

[RiotingPacifist]

Define better.
Also font making doesnt lend it self to collaboration, basically you need 100 font making drones to try their hardest and then you tell 99 of them to go home. Companies don't mind doing this but if you didn't even get paid to make your font, youd be pretty pissed when it hours of your work are ditched in favor of something with a few more curly bits.

Re:This is good, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Gentium. It's released under the Open Font License, which I believe is "free" (by the FSF's definition).

It was also designed with many extended Latin characters, allowing ethnic groups across the world to produce documents typeset in Gentium. (I mean, just look at all these diacritics!)

Say what you want about the organization that produced these (SIL International), but this is a good-looking, high-quality typeface, which fits your criteria perfectly.

Re:This is good, but

[westlake]

What is really needed to help Linux stand out is a set of F/LOSS-licensed fonts that are of even better quality than the default MS stuff--I mean it's essential to be able to show Times New Roman correctly, but what would make Linux...stand out is a selection of superb fonts.

Times New Roman was introduced in 1932. Baskerville in 1757.

Type design at the highest level is an extraordinarily rare art and craft.

Assuming you have that problem solved, how do limit their distribution of your new font set to the "free" operating systems - without having the pragmatists and the ideologues of F/OSS coming at you with pitchforks from every side?

Linux has about a 0.68% share of the desktop. Sun with OpenOffice.org and the Mozilla Foundation with Firefox have set their sights a little higher.

You think you're funny

[argent]

Well you are, OK, that was funny.

But it's also serious.

GOD DAMN the Word document structure sucks like something that sucks a lot.

Re:You think you're funny

[deniable]

Word sucks so hard, it could suck start OpenOffice.

And similar enough to be a good substitute

[Lonewolf666]

Like Arial is rather similar to Helvetica. Some people claim that Microsoft did this to avoid paying royalties, see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arial#Criticism.2FSimilar_fonts.
Now this may be true or not, but after they almost copied Helvetica with Arial, turnabout's fair play.

Is Word worse than Excel?

[mysticgoat]

Does Word have a greater Gross National Productivity Cost than Excel? It seems like they are about the same, except Excel might be worse since it is more likely to cause collateral damage (bad business decisions because the numbers were crunched wrong).

But there is software that has an even higher GNPC than either of these two: PowerPoint.

MS Office: the corporate equivalent of multiple sclerosis. Gets your business into the wheelchair races real quick.

Re:What's wrong with IBM Courier?

[Waffle Iron]

What's wrong with IBM Courier, which has been included with every distribution of X11 since X11R5?

The problem is that LCD monitors happened. Personally, I had been stuffing LucidaTypwriter (specifically, lutRS14) into every text editor in every OS I used for over 15 years. However, I finally gave up on it a couple of years ago because LCDs accentuate the jagginess of bitmap fonts. They overcome the problem (and surpass CRTs) with subpixel rendering, but that only works with scalable fonts.

So I recompiled my distro's FreeType package with the "good stuff" enabled and set my text editors to Bitstream Vera Sans Mono 10. Now I enjoy the smooth crisp text that looks almost as good as a paper printout, while trying to not get too nostalgic about my old favorite font.

Try terminus - Re:What's wrong with IBM Courier?

[jchandra]

Terminus fonts (xfonts-terminus on ubuntu) looks good on LCD.

I've switched to that after using lucidasanstypewriter for about 12 yrs.

Re:Thats what keeps them free.

[The Warlock]

Sometimes people want to install Linux on a computer without Internet access. Crazy, I know. MSTTCorefonts can't be distributed on the distro CD, so that computer wouldn't have a way to get them.