Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TrueType Fonts in Linux Distributions?

Posted by Cliff on from the looking-for-reasons dept.

Kypeli asks: "I just got the TrueType fonts working on my X (finally!!). Now that I can use these wonderful TrueType fonts, I have been wondering why can't TrueType fonts be included as default in the Linux distributions? At least in my opinion Postscript fonts suck deeply." A large number of TrueType fonts are not free, but I'm sure there are some out there. Why /aren't/ TrueType fonts included in distributions these days, especially now that Linux has support for them?

13 of 16 comments (clear)

  1. Maybe a Mini-HOWTO? by Daniel+Serodio · · Score: 1

    You really got TrueType fonts working? Maybe you could write a mini-HOWTO or something, I still haven't got it to work.

    1. Re:Maybe a Mini-HOWTO? by Pudding+Yeti · · Score: 1
      If you're talking Linux, and I guess it's silly of me to assume anyone on Slashdot would be running anything else*, it sort of depends on your distro.

      If you're running Red Hat 6.0 or 5.2, this page gives instructions on how to use the truetype support that was rolled into the X font server in 6.0, or using Herbert Duerr's xfstt for Red Hat 5.2.

      Debian 2.1, which I run, comes with xfstt, as well, and is available as a .deb on their site.

      I understand that the other implementations of truetype support are better, but I've been using xfstt for well over a year now with little trouble. I think earlier memory problems have been handled. It is very easy to use and set up, and I can't imagine why any of the current distros wouldn't work with it.

      Finally, if you are curious about the alternatives I skipped, there's already a HOWTO available at http://pobox.com/~brion/linux/Tru eType-HOWTO.html.


      *sarcasm, it's only sarcasm.
      ----------
      mphall@cstone.nospam.net

      --
      ----------
      mphall@cstone.nospam.net
      "A horse laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms"
  2. TTFonts and Linux Mandrake by smeat · · Score: 1

    The True Type Fonts in Mandrake 6.0 work great. Set up by default and everything.

    If you can get a copy I highly recomend it.

    Bret



    --
    "Let's not bicker about who killed who." Monty Python
  3. cos they suck. by Zurk · · Score: 1

    truetype fonts have worse quality than postscript fonts when printing at high res. theyre only good for display.

    1. Re:cos they suck. by Einsturz · · Score: 1

      Isn't everything about display these days? I don't know about you but I use a printer maybe once every 6 months.

      --
      boo
    2. Re:cos they suck. by IntlHarvester · · Score: 2


      So, is there an equivalant of "Adobe Type Manager" for XFree ? I've got a gazillion PS fonts on an old Mac (which would need to be converted to Windows/Unix format somehow, I guess.)

      (I mean, besides Ghostscript..)
      --

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    3. Re:cos they suck. by Zurk · · Score: 1

      xfree can display ps fonts by default. no equivalent of atm needed. Xfree does it directly.

  4. Microsoft TrueType Fonts by Tsu · · Score: 1
    Agreed. I would gladly trade off beautiful printing and ugly displays for fonts that I could look at for more than a few hours without getting fed up.

    I predict that when XFree86 4 is released, TrueType fonts will completely take over.

    Actually, if you want free TrueType fonts that are semi-standard, I'd reccomend a visit to the microsoft font-pack site. They even come with a fairly `free' licence (I don't see any reason why a Linux or *BSD distributor couldn't include these fonts in a distribution.)

    Still waiting patiently for XFree86 4. ]=)

    --
    Wow, I wrote this a long time ago.
    1. Re:Microsoft TrueType Fonts by IntlHarvester · · Score: 2


      Yes, MS wisely designed certain fonts (Verdana, Anadale Mono) primarily for display. Wise move, because most TT/PS fonts don't look very good at low point resolutions, and are really designed for the printer.

      Also, is there a way to convert Macintosh bitmap fonts for display on XFree? Chicago, Geneva, New York may be old skool, but they do look very good for display only purposes (webpages).
      --

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
  5. converting Mac bitmap fonts by rillian · · Score: 1

    Also, is there a way to convert Macintosh bitmap fonts for display on XFree?

    Cut and paste from a screenshot?

    I don't know of any tools, but it should be fairly simple to write a converter. The font format is described in Inside Macintosh: Text, specifically here.

    There are also so free tools available at fonts.apple.com.

  6. Solution? by fireproof · · Score: 1

    If TrueType fonts display better than postscript, and postscript fonts print better than TrueType, then why could one not implement a system where in a situation where both a TrueType and postscript version of a given font were available, the TrueType would be displayed by default while the postscript would be used for printing?

    --

    /* "A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind." */

    1. Re:Solution? by Ramses0 · · Score: 1

      You've got to be really careful about the differences between displaying a font and printing a font- for some applications (like desktop publishing/advertising) designers want to what shows up on the screen to be *EXACTLY* what appears on the printed page.

      This doesn't mean "look good" or "anti-aliased", but rather "oh, I hope that the last word of the second sentence in the third paragraph really *does* show up where it is on the screen and not on the next line"

      Silly stuff, but hey- if you write source code, you can appreciate the concern if you've ever used "helpful translators." ;^)=

  7. http://www.larabiefonts.com/ by Naikrovek · · Score: 1

    free fonts, that are free for distrobution:
    http://www.larabiefonts.com/