GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Hi. Why is everyone always talking about how Linux's fonts
don't look as good as microsoft's? they look alright to me. Is the fuss about the actual design of the font or the way it's pixelated in X?
thanks
Last edited by purpleburple; 12-19-2002 at 07:51 PM.
what ARE true type fonts really? and what does gnu/linux use? I know nothing about fonts (and im a graphics monkey, go figure) where are fonts in GNU/Linux installed?
I heard a while back about how fonts for GNU/Linux are crappy because they offer terrible anti alias support. my Gnome desktop looks sexxy...
I dont know about fonts But the Icons (.ico files) look better in Linux. If the Linux guys can make .ico files look better how come thay have probs with fonts.
besides I never felt Linux fonts dont look good.
Last edited by yadavankur; 12-20-2002 at 03:20 PM.
TrueType fonts are special because they look exactly the same on the screen as they print out on paper. It was developed by Apple, ages ago, and licensed to Microsoft.
The real problem people used to have with linux fonts was two-fold:
1. True Type wasn't supported. This meant that there were often subtle differences between screen-fonts and printer-fonts, which annoyed graphics buffs. But now, True Type seems to work fine out of the box with most major distros.
2. The fonts weren't as well designed as Microsoft and Apple Fonts. Little dots and tics and burrs appeared where they shouldn't. Round edges had lumps on them. It takes alot of time an effort to design a font which scales well without looking bad.
So people wanted to use their nice windows fonts under linux. But TrueType wasn't supported, so an almighty fuss was kicked up, and a project to make True Type work (called FreeType) was started. Now some distros have special utilities specifically for extracting fonts from Windows and using them.
Of course nowadays both KDE and GNOME antialiase their fonts. This gets rid of the dots, ticks and burrs without needing a new font.
What about fonts in OpenOffice? I get Word doc's with TT fonts referenced (in styles etc) that don't show up. Sometimes the text is there but invisible until I manually change the font or add a OO specific font to the style.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.