You are not logged in.

#1 2014-10-12 07:45:39

Carl Karl
Member
Registered: 2013-06-12
Posts: 226

Why do Fonts need to be patched to look good?

Don't get me wrong, this should really not be a rant or so. I'm just curious: Obviously, there are some font configurations which look good and some which don't look so nice. For example, many users don't like default configurations (aliasing problems...) but do like alternative ones like infinality.
So why aren't the good-looking configurations set by default in many distributions? What is the advantage in the default configurations used instead?

Offline

#2 2014-10-12 09:56:26

brebs
Member
Registered: 2007-04-03
Posts: 3,644

Re: Why do Fonts need to be patched to look good?

There's not enough programmers working on the font improvements sad

The default freetype is most likely to work. Even though it's pathetically ugly, compared to Infinality.

Freetype with Ubuntu's patches looks reasonable out-of-the-box.

Freetype with Infinality's patches looks best, after its settings have been customized for the user's preferences, and the screen the user is using.

So why aren't the good-looking configurations set by default in many distributions?

Laziness?

Offline

#3 2014-10-12 11:17:34

Spider.007
Member
Registered: 2004-06-20
Posts: 1,160

Re: Why do Fonts need to be patched to look good?

I'm guessing personal preference is also an issue; I just tried the infinality from aur; and I didn't really like it...

Offline

#4 2014-10-12 17:20:00

dunc
Member
From: Glasgow, UK
Registered: 2007-06-18
Posts: 557

Re: Why do Fonts need to be patched to look good?

It's very much about personal preference, and your monitor. I like the Infinality-patched freetype, but not so much what it does with fontconfig. IMO, it actually seems to spoil the improvements you get from the patches. On this monitor. On my netbook, I'm using freetype-ubuntu (I think, without actually checking). It just seems to look better on that than Infinality, for whatever reason. It certainly doesn't here. And my HTPC is stock. (It actually never even occurred to me to change it. So it must be okay. smile )

The stock system is improving though, I think. When I try out other distros' live environments, they don't all look as bad as they used to. They could be using their own patches, mind you.


0 Ok, 0:1

Offline

#5 2014-10-12 18:03:37

Carl Karl
Member
Registered: 2013-06-12
Posts: 226

Re: Why do Fonts need to be patched to look good?

Thanks for your answers so far!
Of course, personal preference and personal hardware make it hard to find a good setting for all, however, I got the impression, the actual defaults are still a bit too much connected to CRT monitors from the past...

Offline

#6 2014-10-12 19:21:45

ratcheer
Member
Registered: 2011-10-09
Posts: 589

Re: Why do Fonts need to be patched to look good?

Talk about lazy. I really like Infinality, but I have given up trying to install it on everything.

Tim

Offline

#7 2014-10-12 23:55:17

karol
Archivist
Registered: 2009-05-06
Posts: 25,440

Re: Why do Fonts need to be patched to look good?

ratcheer wrote:

Talk about lazy. I really like Infinality, but I have given up trying to install it on everything.

Tim

What exactly do you mean?
I doubt there are infinality patches for http://www.knightos.org/ ;P

Offline

#8 2014-10-13 19:24:35

flannelhead
Member
From: Finland
Registered: 2014-03-30
Posts: 54
Website

Re: Why do Fonts need to be patched to look good?

Last year Adobe contributed their CFF rasterizer to FreeType. I took a look at it, when I had a try at gathering a usable but minimal set of packages for my daily use on Arch. Without any patches to the stock packages the fonts now look pretty good, as long as the appropriate FontConfig settings are made (subpixel rendering, hinting on, possibly LCD filter), actually so good that I didn't feel the need to install any patched packages. I was using the DejaVu font family as defaults. So there is actually hope! If I understood correctly, the Adobe rasterizer only works with CFF fonts (which TrueType fonts are not), so proper choice of fonts is necessary. If someone can further elaborate on this, I'll be glad.

Offline

#9 2014-10-13 19:47:57

ratcheer
Member
Registered: 2011-10-09
Posts: 589

Re: Why do Fonts need to be patched to look good?

karol wrote:
ratcheer wrote:

Talk about lazy. I really like Infinality, but I have given up trying to install it on everything.

Tim

What exactly do you mean?
I doubt there are infinality patches for http://www.knightos.org/ ;P

I guess what I mean is, I had it on Arch, LinuxBBQ, and openSUSE. But I completely trashed my system a month or so ago and had to reinstall everything. I just decided not to go through the hassle of reinstalling Infinality on any of them.

Tim

Offline

#10 2014-10-13 20:52:51

brebs
Member
Registered: 2007-04-03
Posts: 3,644

Re: Why do Fonts need to be patched to look good?

flannelhead wrote:

the Adobe rasterizer only works with CFF fonts (which TrueType fonts are not)

Yup, that's why it's of little interest sad

I didn't really like it...

look better on that than Infinality

You guys are forgetting, or never bothered to check in the first place, that Infinality is not just what bohoomil pre-packaged for you. It's got a ton of tweakability, so EXPERIMENT with it to see what you like, e.g.:

export INFINALITY_FT_FILTER_PARAMS="14 20 32 20 14"
export INFINALITY_FT_FRINGE_FILTER_STRENGTH="30"
export INFINALITY_FT_AUTOHINT_VERTICAL_STEM_DARKEN_STRENGTH="20"

Offline

#11 2014-10-13 21:33:51

Rasi
Member
From: Germany
Registered: 2007-08-14
Posts: 1,884
Website

Re: Why do Fonts need to be patched to look good?

just get http://pkgbuild.com/~heftig/packages/freetype2-git/

has the patches without the bloat of infinality. it just works


He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.

Douglas Adams

Offline

#12 2014-10-13 21:43:06

clfarron4
Member
From: London, UK
Registered: 2013-06-28
Posts: 2,162
Website

Re: Why do Fonts need to be patched to look good?

dunc wrote:

On my netbook, I'm using freetype-ubuntu (I think, without actually checking). It just seems to look better on that than Infinality, for whatever reason.

Ooh my package!

Before ArchLinux, I was a user of Ubuntu and then Mint, so the freetype-ubuntu package gives me what I'm used to smile

Last edited by clfarron4 (2014-10-13 21:43:18)


Claire is fine.
Problems? I have dysgraphia, so clear and concise please.
My public GPG key for package signing
My x86_64 package repository

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB