Fontconfig recognized the sheldon4.fon file, but when I tried to use the font, it just showed blank space -- no letters, not even substitutions from another font. I tried to convert it using FontForge and produced a variety of non-working versions. Eventually I found the key is to change the encoding in the Font Info dialog to Unicode, with that I created this working version. (This is the first time I've used FontForge, so I might have been doing stupid things.)
I guess this mess shows people just don't care for bitmap fonts anymore:) BDF/PCF is pretty much deprecated and it's not really a surprise Windows-specific formats like.FON are poorly supported. (Bitmap-only TrueType fonts should still work fine, however.)
As for diagnostics, the only thing I know about is fc-list, which is fontconfig's version of xlsfonts. You could try asking the fontconfig mailing list, it seems to be the most likely place to reach people who know more.
There basically two font subsystems on X, the old X core fonts and the new fontconfig.
X core fonts are the old standard X11 stuff, with FonthPaths, fonts.dir and fonts.scale files, and lots of other nastiness. It has trouble with scalable fonts, it can't deal at all with complex scripts (such as Syriac or Indic scripts), and it can't do anti-aliasing or sub-pixel rendering ("ClearType"). Also it's completely useless if you want to print something.
The new way, with fontconfig, is completely seperate (and in fact independent from X) and basically fixes all these flaws (but it introduces the nastiness of XML config files). By now the only interesting application that hasn't been converted yet is Emacs.
(I say "with fontconfig", but it actually consists of three parts: fontconfig, which keeps a database of fonts; freetype, which renders them; and xft, which connects it all with X.)
Now defoma. Defoma is something Debian specific. It's used by Debian font packages to register themselves with every font-using thing installed. As you look at the list of limitations of X core fonts, you can imagine quite a lot of programs have grown their own font systems. I don't think anybody really understands how defoma works, and you can safely ignore it.
To get a bit more concrete: you have successfully configured the X core fonts system to use your font, and discoverd pretty much nothing uses it anymore:)
To install a font, the modern Linux way, drop it in the ~/.fonts directory (create the directory if it doesn't exist yet). Or, alternatively, add the directory where you put the font to/etc/fonts/local.xml.
BTW, I think Windows.fon files are supported, so you don't even need to convert them.
License has changed to the BitTorrent Open Source License
I hate people who invent their own licenses. And this one is completely unintelligible, even the preamble is written in lawyerspeak.
This pretty much guarantees I won't ever touch the code: I don't have a clue what I'm allowed, not allowed, and required to do. The GPL and BSD-like licenses are at least understandable for a non-lawyer.
LGPL is what lets me use things like libPNG or ZLib in my commercial application
Neither libpng nor zlib is LGPL-licensed. Both use a unique, BSD-like license. Seeing you claim to develop commercial application, I would have hoped you were more careful with licenses.
It seems every other day a new live-cd is announced, and I don't get it. What's so interesting about them?
I can see a few uses: it's nice to check out a distribution before installing it, to check if your hardware is supported, as a technology demo or to fix some borked system.
So it makes sense there would exist a few different ones for each task. But it doesn't seem to be things you'd use regularly. So why are there so damn many?
There already is freenode. For those who are annoyed by freenode's begging for money, there's OFTC. Gnome people have GIMPnet. What's the use of yet another network?
cutting out what they consider unnecessary eye candy, but leaving in the tools essential for effective GUI. 'Some new package highlights such as [...] superkaramba
/me wonders what is considered unnecessary eye candy...
* All my development right now is on a Windows box. What's the best way to go about ensuring Linux/POSIX compatibility over the web? Compile farms? Recruiting a Linux maintainer?
Don't worry too much about it. Just make sure you're software doesn't use too much that's obviously Windows-specific, and advertise that you're looking for somebody to port it. If your software is useful enough, somebody will do it sooner or later.
Somebody's submitted a patch. What's the protocol for crediting them for the work?
Mention them at least in the changelog: "Rewrite the frobnication code. Patch from J. Random Hacker". If some effect of the patch is mentioned in the announcement of the new version, mention them there too: "Much faster frobnication, thanks to J. Random Hacker". I think everybody would be happy with this.
What are the criteria for determining whether or not something is "pre-alpha", "alpha", "beta", etc. Is there a set standard, or do I get to determine this on my own?
I think it's best to forget about those labels. Everybody interprets them differently. Just say whether it is likely to crash or eat all my data (is it stable or unstable?), which features are expected to work, and, in case of a library, whether the API is expected to change.
* How useful are wikis for OS projects?
They can be as useful as any form of documentation. But before starting one, please make sure you that you have something to put on it (content won't magically appear), and that you have a few people who are dedicated to editing and maintaining it. There are too many empty (or spam-filled) wiki's out there.
* If I have legal questions regarding licenses or IP, who should I talk to?
This is rather vague... Do you have any specific worries?
The code was finished (at least from our perspective, we couldn't think of any way to improve upon it) and now it looks like a failed project, even though it's finished, stable and documented.
But on Sourceforge you list it as "Status: Alpha/Beta", your last release was 0.2 half a year ago and the mailing list is inactive. You web site has no documentation, no references to projects using your code, and, again, no mailing lists. It has all the tell-tale signs of a failed project.
So my recommendations:
Put the documentation online.
Given that there's a second developer, communicate over the mailing list. Don't use private mail or IM. That way other people can comment too, and, well, participate in development. Or just see that the developers are still active.
Even if there are no other developers, even if you know nobody is subscribed, still send at least announcements of new versions to the list.
Put your own mailing list archive online, or use GMane. SF's mailing list archives suck.
If you believe your code is stable, don't advertise it as "alpha". Just go ahead and call it 1.0. If it turns out you want to make some large changes, call it 2.0.
Back to your website. Get rid of that stupid contact form. Who even uses those things? Advertise your mailing list instead.
Get rid of PHP. Your site is slow and has ugly URL's. It's much easier to refer somebody to http://pobs.sf.net/download.html than to http://pobs.sf.net/index.php?section=9&page=25.
Microsoft's policy is that all downloadable documents and specifications etc. should be signed, so you can verify that the document hasn't been tampered with. Usually they implement that by embedding a word document in an (signed) Windows executable. MHT seems to be an improvement.
What perplexes me is why the/. folks with the necessary skills haven't fixed this problem yet!
People with the necessary skills are too busy to read Slashdot.
For the people not familiar with Debian, in the official release, the CD's will be organised so that the most popular packages will be placed on the first CD's, so you don't have to download all of them.
If you're using Debian now and want to help decide what's popular, please install Popularity Contest.
Slashdot Mirror
Fontconfig recognized the sheldon4.fon file, but when I tried to use the font, it just showed blank space -- no letters, not even substitutions from another font. I tried to convert it using FontForge and produced a variety of non-working versions. Eventually I found the key is to change the encoding in the Font Info dialog to Unicode, with that I created this working version. (This is the first time I've used FontForge, so I might have been doing stupid things.)
I guess this mess shows people just don't care for bitmap fonts anymore :) BDF/PCF is pretty much deprecated and it's not really a surprise Windows-specific formats like .FON are poorly supported. (Bitmap-only TrueType fonts should still work fine, however.)
As for diagnostics, the only thing I know about is fc-list, which is fontconfig's version of xlsfonts. You could try asking the fontconfig mailing list, it seems to be the most likely place to reach people who know more.
There basically two font subsystems on X, the old X core fonts and the new fontconfig.
:)
/etc/fonts/local.xml.
.fon files are supported, so you don't even need to convert them.
X core fonts are the old standard X11 stuff, with FonthPaths, fonts.dir and fonts.scale files, and lots of other nastiness. It has trouble with scalable fonts, it can't deal at all with complex scripts (such as Syriac or Indic scripts), and it can't do anti-aliasing or sub-pixel rendering ("ClearType"). Also it's completely useless if you want to print something.
The new way, with fontconfig, is completely seperate (and in fact independent from X) and basically fixes all these flaws (but it introduces the nastiness of XML config files). By now the only interesting application that hasn't been converted yet is Emacs.
(I say "with fontconfig", but it actually consists of three parts: fontconfig, which keeps a database of fonts; freetype, which renders them; and xft, which connects it all with X.)
Now defoma. Defoma is something Debian specific. It's used by Debian font packages to register themselves with every font-using thing installed. As you look at the list of limitations of X core fonts, you can imagine quite a lot of programs have grown their own font systems. I don't think anybody really understands how defoma works, and you can safely ignore it.
To get a bit more concrete: you have successfully configured the X core fonts system to use your font, and discoverd pretty much nothing uses it anymore
To install a font, the modern Linux way, drop it in the ~/.fonts directory (create the directory if it doesn't exist yet). Or, alternatively, add the directory where you put the font to
BTW, I think Windows
when [...] 64-bit Linux comes out
64 bit Linux came out about a decade ago, when it was ported to the Alpha (and, unlike Windows NT for Alpha, it was a true 64 bit port).
The standard text is still Smashing The Stack For Fun And Profit, I think.
I hate people who invent their own licenses. And this one is completely unintelligible, even the preamble is written in lawyerspeak.
This pretty much guarantees I won't ever touch the code: I don't have a clue what I'm allowed, not allowed, and required to do. The GPL and BSD-like licenses are at least understandable for a non-lawyer.
More accurate would be: I let you profit of my code if you let me profit of your code.
It's a myth that is not possible to profit of GPL'ed code.
LGPL is what lets me use things like libPNG or ZLib in my commercial application
Neither libpng nor zlib is LGPL-licensed. Both use a unique, BSD-like license. Seeing you claim to develop commercial application, I would have hoped you were more careful with licenses.
says /me who is still using a Matrox G400 with 4MB RAM in his desktop.
I can see a few uses: it's nice to check out a distribution before installing it, to check if your hardware is supported, as a technology demo or to fix some borked system. So it makes sense there would exist a few different ones for each task. But it doesn't seem to be things you'd use regularly. So why are there so damn many?
There already is freenode. For those who are annoyed by freenode's begging for money, there's OFTC. Gnome people have GIMPnet. What's the use of yet another network?
/me wonders what is considered unnecessary eye candy...
* All my development right now is on a Windows box. What's the best way to go about ensuring Linux/POSIX compatibility over the web? Compile farms? Recruiting a Linux maintainer?
Don't worry too much about it. Just make sure you're software doesn't use too much that's obviously Windows-specific, and advertise that you're looking for somebody to port it. If your software is useful enough, somebody will do it sooner or later.
Somebody's submitted a patch. What's the protocol for crediting them for the work?
Mention them at least in the changelog: "Rewrite the frobnication code. Patch from J. Random Hacker". If some effect of the patch is mentioned in the announcement of the new version, mention them there too: "Much faster frobnication, thanks to J. Random Hacker". I think everybody would be happy with this.
What are the criteria for determining whether or not something is "pre-alpha", "alpha", "beta", etc. Is there a set standard, or do I get to determine this on my own?
I think it's best to forget about those labels. Everybody interprets them differently. Just say whether it is likely to crash or eat all my data (is it stable or unstable?), which features are expected to work, and, in case of a library, whether the API is expected to change.
* How useful are wikis for OS projects?
They can be as useful as any form of documentation. But before starting one, please make sure you that you have something to put on it (content won't magically appear), and that you have a few people who are dedicated to editing and maintaining it. There are too many empty (or spam-filled) wiki's out there.
* If I have legal questions regarding licenses or IP, who should I talk to?
This is rather vague... Do you have any specific worries?
The code was finished (at least from our perspective, we couldn't think of any way to improve upon it) and now it looks like a failed project, even though it's finished, stable and documented.
But on Sourceforge you list it as "Status: Alpha/Beta", your last release was 0.2 half a year ago and the mailing list is inactive. You web site has no documentation, no references to projects using your code, and, again, no mailing lists. It has all the tell-tale signs of a failed project.
So my recommendations:
Your description pretty much matches most registered slashdot users. Cut the paranoia.
Most applications manage being both unusable and insecure just fine.
Just to fight this stupid urban myth: The GPL doesn't say that. Please read at least the FAQ. kthx.
You say that as if Microsoft shipped PGP, GPG or a tool to calculate SHA1 digests :)
Microsoft's policy is that all downloadable documents and specifications etc. should be signed, so you can verify that the document hasn't been tampered with. Usually they implement that by embedding a word document in an (signed) Windows executable. MHT seems to be an improvement.
Yes, and a it's pretty much the fastest IPC mechanism unix has.
What perplexes me is why the /. folks with the necessary skills haven't fixed this problem yet!
People with the necessary skills are too busy to read Slashdot.
I'll be really interested to find out what the take of some Linux Distros will be on this.
Debian at least will never include anything that requires them to sign a patent license.
If you're using Debian now and want to help decide what's popular, please install Popularity Contest.
- gcc 3.4 with incompatible abi on some arches
- amd64 inclusion / multi-arch
- removal of gfdl-licensed documents and other controversial non-free stuff
anything more?Debian maintains a list of cd-vendors. Probably far from complete, but better than nothing.
Why would vi have any problem with long lines?