http://ubuntusite.com/not-satisfied-...ra-for-ubuntu/

So what is it about Fonts that Linux just can't seem to get right?
How long has Linux been around and still it can't manage to look decent?

And before you Linux freaks and unwashed bearded masses start whining that
firefox isn't Linux, or Linux is the kernel, average desktop Joe doesn't
care because most of his time will be using browsers and firefox is the
best one out there for Linux.
Except for the Linux cultist's favorite browser, dildo.

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:18:40 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> [..]
>
> So what is it about Fonts that Linux just can't seem to get right? How
> long has Linux been around and still it can't manage to look decent?

Read up on how truetype works and you'll know what they just "can't seem
to get right". The problem is not that nobody can't get it right, getting
it right is the easy part. The problem is a legal issue.

Here is a rough description of the problem:

The problem is that Truetype uses special glyph program (part of each
font) for the hinting process. Many of these instructions in that program
can be used without an issue.

SOME of these instructions however are patented and *cannot legally* be
used by someone without a license to those patents. Linux for instance
does not have such a license.

Unfortunately, it's these patented instructions that matter the most.

Here is some more detail on the issue:

http://freetype.sourceforge.net/patents.html

Now the latest version of the freetype font rendering library does come
with it's own auto-hinting mechanism to circumvent the patent issue which
does seem to do an excellent job.

Ubuntu 6.04 fonts were decent but could use improvement.

Ubuntu 7.10 I honestly can't complain about quality, and that includes
Japanese fonts. I'm looking at my text here right now on a 1980x1200 LCD
and the font is perfectly clear and sharp.

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:54:41 -0600, Stephan Rose <nospam> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:18:40 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

>> [..]
>>
>> So what is it about Fonts that Linux just can't seem to get right? How
>> long has Linux been around and still it can't manage to look decent?

>Read up on how truetype works and you'll know what they just "can't seem
>to get right". The problem is not that nobody can't get it right, getting
>it right is the easy part. The problem is a legal issue.

A bigger issue is that truetype is designed to look pretty on low resolution
screens. What you see is not what you get.

I'd rather have accurate screen fonts and I don't mind the cost of a system
less than fifteen years old. Getting 1024x768 or 1280-1024 isn't
that much of a deal any more. Unless of course you're a moron windows
advocate.

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 04:05:19 -0000, AZ Nomad wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:54:41 -0600, Stephan Rose <nospam> wrote:
>>On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:18:40 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>
>>> [..]
>>>
>>> So what is it about Fonts that Linux just can't seem to get right? How
>>> long has Linux been around and still it can't manage to look decent?
>
>>Read up on how truetype works and you'll know what they just "can't seem
>>to get right". The problem is not that nobody can't get it right, getting
>>it right is the easy part. The problem is a legal issue.
>
> A bigger issue is that truetype is designed to look pretty on low resolution
> screens. What you see is not what you get.

Switch the discussion to Windows tactic noted.


> I'd rather have accurate screen fonts and I don't mind the cost of a system
> less than fifteen years old. Getting 1024x768 or 1280-1024 isn't
> that much of a deal any more. Unless of course you're a moron windows
> advocate.

Attacking Windows users noted.
For the record, fonts look fine on Windows.
Linux?
Well it depends on what you are willing to settle for and how low your
standards are.
From what I can tell, AZ Nomad, your's are pretty low.

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:15:42 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 04:05:19 -0000, AZ Nomad wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:54:41 -0600, Stephan Rose <nospam>
>> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:18:40 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>
>>>> [..]
ubuntu/
>
> Switch the discussion to Windows tactic noted.
>>
> Attacking Windows users noted.
> For the record, fonts look fine on Windows. Linux?
> Well it depends on what you are willing to settle for and how low your
> standards are.

[url down]

Now please tell me what's sub-standard about those fonts.

That screenshot was taken 5 minutes ago, running Ubuntu 7.10

No modifications ever made to anything regarding font rendering. Nothing
special installed, no additional fonts and no windows fonts installed.

Now please do tell me what's so wrong with the font rendering on that
screenshot...

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:43:02 -0600, Stephan Rose wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:15:42 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>
> ubuntu/
>
> [..]
>
> Now please tell me what's sub-standard about those fonts.
>
> That screenshot was taken 5 minutes ago, running Ubuntu 7.10
>
> No modifications ever made to anything regarding font rendering. Nothing
> special installed, no additional fonts and no windows fonts installed.
>
> Now please do tell me what's so wrong with the font rendering on that
> screenshot...

A little thin, but not bad.
Unfortunately that's Pan, not firefox.

Read the link.

Moshe Goldfarb <brick.n.straw> writes:

> On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 04:05:19 -0000, AZ Nomad wrote:
>> Switch the discussion to Windows tactic noted.
>>
> Attacking Windows users noted.
> For the record, fonts look fine on Windows.
> Linux?
> Well it depends on what you are willing to settle for and how low your
> standards are.
> From what I can tell, AZ Nomad, your's are pretty low.

Fonts look fine on my Debian Gnome desktop too. In fact much better than
XP.

Don't ask me what I did to get it so - I simply can't remember. It
seemed that I was going nuts at one point with font caches and Xorg
files and drivers and kerning parameters.

How long it will last is anyones guess.

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:48:03 +0100, Hadron wrote:

> Moshe Goldfarb <brick.n.straw> writes:
>> Fonts look fine on my Debian Gnome desktop too. In fact much better than
> XP.
>
> Don't ask me what I did to get it so - I simply can't remember. It
> seemed that I was going nuts at one point with font caches and Xorg
> files and drivers and kerning parameters.
>
> How long it will last is anyones guess.

It depends upon the application and the distribution which is my point.
IOW there is no consistency with Linux.

PCLinuxOS looks great in default mode.
Ubuntu IMHO looks terrible depending upon the application.
Firefox in particular looks awful which was the point of the OP.

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:18:40 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> [..]
>
> So what is it about Fonts that Linux just can't seem to get right? How
> long has Linux been around and still it can't manage to look decent?
>
> And before you Linux freaks and unwashed bearded masses start whining
> that firefox isn't Linux, or Linux is the kernel, average desktop Joe
> doesn't care because most of his time will be using browsers and firefox
> is the best one out there for Linux.
> Except for the Linux cultist's favorite browser, dildo.

go away troll

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:43:02 -0600, Stephan Rose wrote:

> Now please do tell me what's so wrong with the font rendering on
> that screenshot...

They look blurry...?

Chris Game wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:43:02 -0600, Stephan Rose wrote:
>
>> Now please do tell me what's so wrong with the font rendering on
>> that screenshot...
>
> They look blurry...?

Actually, no, they don't.

View it at 100%, not in that small window

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:43:02 -0600, Stephan Rose <nospam> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:15:42 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

>ubuntu/

>[..]

>Now please tell me what's sub-standard about those fonts.

>That screenshot was taken 5 minutes ago, running Ubuntu 7.10

>No modifications ever made to anything regarding font rendering. Nothing
>special installed, no additional fonts and no windows fonts installed.

>Now please do tell me what's so wrong with the font rendering on that
>screenshot...

How about using a decent screenshot, one that gets every single pixel
without compression or resizing?

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:51:08 +0000, AZ Nomad wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:43:02 -0600, Stephan Rose <nospam>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>
> How about using a decent screenshot, one that gets every single pixel
> without compression or resizing?

I can't tell what resolution you or someone else is using. If I use a
smaller screenshot it may still be too large for you to fit.

Internet explorer though does have the ability to display a screenshot at
1:1 resolution with scrollbars if necessary.

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:59:48 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:43:02 -0600, Stephan Rose wrote:
>> A little thin, but not bad.
> Unfortunately that's Pan, not firefox.
>
> Read the link.

Font rendering is generally global to the operating system so it normally
doesn't really matter what application. Though fair enough, here is a
firefox screenshot on msn.com

[url down]

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:19:57 +0000, Chris Game wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:43:02 -0600, Stephan Rose wrote:
>
>> Now please do tell me what's so wrong with the font rendering on that
>> screenshot...
>
> They look blurry...?

Check your zoom, it's a 1920x1200 screenshot so you may be zoomed out by
default when viewing it.