better fonts

darut · 2005-05-11 15:02:32

http://fairylinux.zapto.org/FairyServle … NTS&PAGE=1

phrakture · 2005-05-11 15:12:47

seems it's just an article about using the bytecode interpreter with freetype - the arch version of freetype enables the interpreter by default...
all the configuration information is here:
http://wiki2.archlinux.org/index.php/XO … figuration

FUBAR · 2005-05-11 15:30:49

Thank God. I was wondering if this article was applicable to Arch. So if I install every font package pacman has to offer, I'm safe, right?

phrakture · 2005-05-11 15:51:10

FUBAR wrote:

Thank God. I was wondering if this article was applicable to Arch. So if I install every font package pacman has to offer, I'm safe, right?

Try the wiki - I really have never had font problems (if you do in firefox, just switch freetype on in about:config)

lanrat · 2005-05-11 19:17:29

FUBAR wrote:

So if I install every font package pacman has to offer, I'm safe, right?

It's not about fonts but about type of hinter really (hinter vs antialiasing vs autohinter etc.). You should at least install ms-ttf-fonts and the rest depends on your needs.

If you still have bad looking fonts do what phrakture described and/or remap some fonts to others (it's in the wiki too and some good /etc/fonts/local.conf examples on the forums).

ozar · 2005-05-11 21:08:00

Fonts (and printing) have always been somewhat problematic under Linux, at least for me. I've tried all the "fonts fix-its" over the years and don't really want fool with them anymore. I just accept whatever the distro puts out these days.

What's really weird is how the same fonts look different under all the various distros. Slackware has been producing the best fonts for me, with Arch coming in second. Oh, and I've installed the MS fonts a number of times and that always introduces new fonts issues, so I don't install them anymore... don't really want any MS crap on my boxes, anyway.

Maybe it all has to do with the hinting as suggested by lanrat.

kmaster · 2005-05-12 06:32:39

Slackware comes with the autohinter on by default.

phrakture · 2005-05-12 07:01:55

check this closed bug for some screenshots (they're non-AA)
http://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?do= … ments#tabs

rose · 2005-05-12 07:20:39

I wonder why this guy calls aliased fonts "beautiful". If you have a hi- or truecolor display, disabling antialiasing is plain stupid. I'm using greyscale antialiasing, with medium hinting and with bytecode interpreter enabled. Fonts look much better on my display than on his screens.

sweiss · 2005-05-12 07:32:14

I also prefer the aliased fonts. To each his own, I guess.

EDIT: I meant anti-aliased, sorry.

FUBAR · 2005-05-12 09:41:19

I guess my fonts look fine. I have no idea what "features" I'm using tho. I'll just stick to my motto: "If it's not broken, don't fix it."

pixel · 2005-05-12 12:52:40

I only use antialiasing with bigger fonts by tweaking /etc/fonts/local.conf. Everywhere else i'm using no antialiasing, only just full hinting and they look beautiful, very sharp and clear.
Oh and did i mention i use MS TrueType Verdana everywhere and Terminus in terminal? Those fonts definetly rocks.

shadowhand · 2005-05-12 20:11:25

I've never understood by people like aliased fonts either, but apperantly some people don't like things that are smooth.

Personally, I perfer small (6pt) bytecode enabled, full hinted, anti-aliased fonts.

pixel · 2005-05-13 11:46:01

shadowhand wrote:

I've never understood by people like aliased fonts either, but apperantly some people don't like things that are smooth.

It doesnt have nothing to do with things that are smooth as you can't really
notice any jagging at small sizes with good quality fonts like verdana. (of course you got to have bytecode enabled and full hinting).
IMHO standard size fonts (10-12) look MUCH better without antialiasing enabled, otherwise they are too "wide" and blurry (at least for me). Enabling antialiasing only for bigger sizes has more advantages though, as those fonts are too jagged and you can notice it. That's how Ms Windows and Mac OS X handles fonts, they only enable antialiasing for bigger fonts and you can't tell those OSes look horrible from the fonts point of view.

phrakture · 2005-05-13 14:58:32

Yeah, in terminals, I used fixed or terminus fonts... they're not AA and they look good when smaller.... my personal font preference has nothing to do with AA or not, I just care if they're monospaced

slackhack · 2005-05-13 16:18:19

that guy's after fonts look worse than the befores! :eek:

i had really crappy fonts in linux (with LCD) until i started using antialiasing AND autohinting with sub-pixel rendering disabled in a ~/.fonts.conf directory. here are two shots without and with:

without:
http://datadump.homelinux.com/~sero/gif … ithout.jpg

with:
http://datadump.homelinux.com/~sero/gifs/eth_with.jpg

i think the second one looks much better! the font is different, but you get the idea (need to make some new shots one of these days). the bytecode interpreter built in to freetype doesn't work on my LCD (or laptop lcd) in some distros (slack, arch) without the .fonts.conf tweaks in the home directory. weird!

pixel · 2005-05-13 19:34:23

I'm sorry slackhack, but for me definetly screen 1 looks better.. fonts there are sharper and cleaner.

ozar · 2005-05-13 21:03:39

slackhack wrote:

i had really crappy fonts in linux (with LCD) until i started using antialiasing AND autohinting with sub-pixel rendering disabled in a ~/.fonts.conf directory. here are two shots without and with:
without:
http://datadump.homelinux.com/~sero/gif … ithout.jpg
with:
http://datadump.homelinux.com/~sero/gifs/eth_with.jpg

The first screen looks best to me - the second screen looks like everything is in bold print. Guess we all have our own opinions...

iphitus · 2005-05-13 21:05:10

It's kind of ridiculous posting screenshots of our fonts to everyone.

I mean, my fonts look awesome on this screen but if I go and plug a CRT in, they look hideously blurred.

people like it differently too, so what you think is 'fixed' and 'goood' is another person's horribe.

slackhack · 2005-05-13 21:24:31

iphitus wrote:

It's kind of ridiculous posting screenshots of our fonts to everyone.
I mean, my fonts look awesome on this screen but if I go and plug a CRT in, they look hideously blurred.
people like it differently too, so what you think is 'fixed' and 'goood' is another person's horribe.

i think there's a difference between seeing fonts rendered on your own computer, and seeing a "picture" of them, like in a jpg or e.g. desktop screenshot. or are you saying that the fonts in a picture someone takes of a newspaper, for example, and scans in will look different on every computer? :?: i don't think so.

the example shots are probably not the best, as the program there is using fixed with mono fonts instead of variable. and the settings still aren't 100% like they were automatically in the older freetypes (those were the days ). it's as close as i can get, though. believe me, it's overall better. maybe i'll try to get some better shots this weekend to highlight the difference better.

ozar · 2005-05-20 18:13:03

Hmm... forgot about this thread but I did finally get around to turning on the auto-hinter in Arch, but it made most fonts look overly bold and too dark for my tastes. Had to turn it back off.

Arch Linux

#1 2005-05-11 15:02:32

better fonts

#2 2005-05-11 15:12:47

Re: better fonts

#3 2005-05-11 15:30:49

Re: better fonts

#4 2005-05-11 15:51:10

Re: better fonts

#5 2005-05-11 19:17:29

Re: better fonts

#6 2005-05-11 21:08:00

Re: better fonts

#7 2005-05-12 06:32:39

Re: better fonts

#8 2005-05-12 07:01:55

Re: better fonts

#9 2005-05-12 07:20:39

Re: better fonts

#10 2005-05-12 07:32:14

Re: better fonts

#11 2005-05-12 09:41:19

Re: better fonts

#12 2005-05-12 12:52:40

Re: better fonts

#13 2005-05-12 20:11:25

Re: better fonts

#14 2005-05-13 11:46:01

Re: better fonts

#15 2005-05-13 14:58:32

Re: better fonts

#16 2005-05-13 16:18:19

Re: better fonts

#17 2005-05-13 19:34:23

Re: better fonts

#18 2005-05-13 21:03:39

Re: better fonts

#19 2005-05-13 21:05:10

Re: better fonts

#20 2005-05-13 21:24:31

Re: better fonts

#21 2005-05-20 18:13:03

Re: better fonts

Board footer