Linux Desktop Distros with Quality Fonts? 178
occamboy writes "I'm trying to make a case for switching to Linux desktops, and would like to demonstrate how advantageous Linux is. While the advantages of Linux are more obvious for us techies, I'm finding that many non-technical types are immediately negatively biased by the look of Linux desktops. The problem boils down to screen fonts. It seems that, in the distributions that I've demonstrated, the screen fonts are either all aliased, or are aliased in some places and antialiased in others, which I've been told resembles a ransom note with letters cut from different magazines. I can understand where these critics are coming from; after all, they are staring at fonts on a monitor all day long. Are there any distributions that I can demonstrate which provide smooth and consistent screen fonts without requiring a lot of messing around?"
here (Score:2, Informative)
Re:here (Score:2)
I was using a few Bitstream fonts yesterday, putting graphics together for a web page, and couldn't believe how crappy some of the text looked in Gimp.
One font does not a solution make.
Really? (Score:2, Interesting)
I would be really interested in seeing a screenshot or detailed description of what you notice as being craptacular about the fonts.
Re:Really? (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:2, Informative)
You know, you can turn Windows XP's ClearType off, which will give you antialiasing with gray edges, the same way it was on Windows 98 and 2000. The colored edges are there to make it show up better on LCD panels.
Re:Really? (Score:2, Interesting)
I updated my system yesterday and the fonts are so crisp it's not even funny. Most distros use freetype, and a couple of them turn on the hinting illegally, but Desktop/LX apparently has licensed font hinting and antialiasing that even surpasses Windows and Mac.
Just one screenshot here [lycoris.com].
Re:here (Score:3, Informative)
It's 3 fonts really...
Bitstram Vera Sans
Bitstram Vera Sans Mono
Bitstream Vera Serif
Bitstream Vera Sans is very readable in web pages - IMHO more so than Verdana. And the mono font is ideal for when I write SQL/XHTML/etc at home/work.
http://www.gnome.org/fonts/ [gnome.org]
I dont have any problems with fonts on Fedora Core 2. The fonts look pretty decent in Knoppix 3.6 too.
PS: Bitstream fonts look great in Macromedia Fireworks, but the gimp still rocks. ;-)
Re:here (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:here (Score:2)
# apt-cache search ttf-
ttf-arabeyes - Arabeyes GPL TrueType Arabic fonts
ttf-arhangai - A TrueType font with Mongolian Cyrillic letters
ttf-arphic-bkai00mp - "AR PL KaitiM Big5" Chinese TrueType font by Arphic Technology
ttf-arphic-bsmi00lp - "AR PL Mingti2L Big5" Chinese TrueType font by Arphic Technology
ttf-arphic-gbsn00lp - "AR PL SungtiL GB" Chinese TrueType font by Arphic Technology
ttf-arphic-gkai00mp - "AR PL KaitiM GB" Chinese TrueType font by Arphic Technolog
SuSE 9.1 (Score:5, Interesting)
Mandrake 10.0 (Score:5, Interesting)
I was using my laptop (running Mandrake Linux) at a private function last week, and a 10yob I know came up, looked oddly at the screen for a few minutes, then asked "Which Windows are you using?" It took about 15 minutes and much repetition to mostly-convince him that it wasn't running MS-Windows at all, but rather KDE on Linux. This is the level of ignorance we face. This kid knows his own machine inside out, as well as a non-programmer possibly could, but had no clue that anything other than MS-Windows ever existed.
Both Mandrake and SuSE do the font thing well, including different aliasing at different sizes.
I haven't seriously tried other distros for a while but seem to remember some of the Debian-based distros (Gentoo, Knoppix) being happy out of the box nowadays, and probably Lin{spire,dows,insertsuffixhere} but that has other issues you don't want to have to deal with.
If you use the download edition of Mandrake, set it up with the Contribs as a URPMI source, and manually pull down a few things (Flash player, Win32 CoDecs and the like) from the Penguin Liberation Front sites [zarb.org]. Using PLF wide throttle is a bit risky, but cherry-picking only extras instead of replacing standard packages as well seems to work well. I've also tacked together a few extras of my own here [cyberknights.com.au], but that's a skinny DSL line; please don't melt it down.
Oh, and use good fonts (Score:4, Informative)
There are plenty of good, free TTFs kicking around, starting with the Microsoft ones [sourceforge.net] (yes Rheba, before they realised [microsoft.com] that competitors could use them too, the Evil Empire released some of the good things they make, for free. It's difficult to make insecure fonts, but I'm sure they tried
Re:Oh, and use good fonts (Score:3, Informative)
Verdana and Tahoma are the ones I see most used (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah? How long did they take to compile? (Score:2)
Re:Mandrake 10.0 (Score:5, Informative)
Gentoo is not a Debian based distro.
Re:Mandrake 10.0 (Score:2)
Re:Mandrake 10.0 (Score:2, Funny)
It's all the same (Score:2)
Re:It's all the same (Score:2, Informative)
Go compare RedHat to Gentoo to Knoppix to Mandrake.
Re:It's all the same (Score:2, Informative)
But some make it easier than others; We run RH9 at work and I think it (mostly) looks great. It's also quite easy to install true-type fonts on RedHat.
There are RPMS available here [sourceforge.net] to allow installing the MS core fonts (Arial, Comic, etc).
Most Windows users seem to miss a few of the MS fonts, and are infinitely happier when they are available and configured for use.
Nearly all of the applications use the KDE font settings and anti-aliassed fonts. It's only the few older apps that don't get used anywa
Re:It's all the same (Score:3, Informative)
I kinda tend to side with you: although distro maintainers do put a lot of work into making sure Freetype is working properly across the board (this involves checking the Big Two toolkits, Qt and GTK+, and their companion desktop environments, KDE, GNOME, and XFCE, as well as OpenOffice and Mozilla, who dance to the beat of their own drums as far as fonts are concerned), every distro provides pretty darn similar software, and as long as you know what you're doing, you can get software from whatever distro w
Thanks. (Score:2)
The full text of a 1980s Time Magazine article ought to be completely and correctly displayable anywhere text is displayed on a 21st Century computer, including the command line. For this, we need fonts such as this Gentium as standard. (Of course, we need UTF-8-based shells as standard, too, among o
I don't think so. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
As a side note, if I see one more 17" LCD running at 800x600 "because my eyes are not as good as they used to be" I will scream. I think the shitty look large icons, and fuzzy fonts are hurting the eyes a lot more than crisp clean sharp, yet smaller icons and fonts . .
oh well. . .
Re:I don't think so. (Score:3, Interesting)
If Longhorn's display technology ever makes it, it'll fix all this. Or if Apple beats them to the punch. It'll be nice to run a monitor at 1600x1200 and not have to press my nose against the glass to read text... I hav
Font sizes on high-res monitor (Score:3, Informative)
Interesting enough, this seems to be solved much better in X than in Windows. All my KDE apps etc. have just normally sized fonts out of the box; whereas in Windows I have to manually adjust many font sizes, and many apps cannot be adjusted at all.
The only problem in X are programs that assume to know how many pixels their text messages use up, with the result of having text boxes etc. in which the text
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
We need this more than just for those with poor eyesight, though. Monitor resolution is quite low when compared to print resolution, so it would be nice to one day have 300dpi-equivalent monitors. Font anti-aliasing is (IMO) just a band-aid solution in the mean time.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:3, Funny)
It should be legal to kill anyone who uses Comic Sans.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Ill get back to you.
Even in the stores! (Score:3, Interesting)
It frightens me when I go places like Best Buy and the machines are set to weird resolutions. Shouldn't you know how to make a product look good if you're trying to sell it to people?
Re:Even in the stores! (Score:2)
Another thing that bugs me now is that I just heard a really expensive home theater system playing a really shittily (is that a word) encoded WMA of R&B music, which would have normally had some nice highs to demonstrate, but it was all tinny articating instead. They're trying to sell these speaker systems, right?
Munjoy Linux (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Munjoy Linux (Score:2)
Re:Munjoy Linux (Score:4, Informative)
As for apt, it handles a dist-upgrade with no problems. Although it is KDE centric, I've installed and used Gnome with no problems appearing.
The current release can't handle Nvidia's proprietary driver. So, if 3D is a big deal for you, wait for the next release. (FWIW, installing dbus on a stock Debian unstable machine seems to keep X from finding the Nvidia driver.)
How to (Score:5, Informative)
I reccoment Bitstream Vera Sans. It is very nice and simple.
Re:How to (Score:2)
And if I want to change the default fonts (say, because I'm sick of I1|, '`, and {([ looking far too similar), what then? Do I get to hunt around in a dozen different places and change them all over again? Can I ever expect my users/customers to be able to do this by themselves?
At this point, why would I ever recommend any flavor of Linux in an enviroment where fonts were a concern? Why wouldn't I just sell them one of the two popul
Re:How to (Score:2)
Install desktop distribution X.
Set font preferences in desktop's font preferences applet. (You can even skip this step if the defaults are pl
That's The Biggest Problem With Linux Fonts (Score:2)
That's the biggest problem with fonts in Linux: Lack of an integrated and unified approach to font and display management. Too many developer egos and way too much NIH syndrome. Everyone does their own thing.
Regardless of the desktop or the window manager you use, you ought to able able to select and manage all your fonts from one single location. Any changes made there should be reflected across your system, in all areas and in all applications.
Today
Re:That's The Biggest Problem With Linux Fonts (Score:2)
So, the notion that the "user is the developer" is false. By definition, all Linux developers are Linux users, but only a small minority of Linux users are Linux developers.
It is those users who should have the greatest voice in determining what they like or dislike about Linux and what course they want to see it take. It is arrogant and presumpti
Re:That's The Biggest Problem With Linux Fonts (Score:2)
Why is this a moral issue? You can do whatever you wish and remain free of comment so long as you don't release it for the public's use. But, as soon as any developer releases any code for public use, they become liable for criticism. At that point, it is no longer "our software". Why should software developers be treated any different than authors, musicians or artists?
Linux and open source have l
Re:That's The Biggest Problem With Linux Fonts (Score:2)
I'm not asserting that I have a right to dictate how you spend your time. I am asserting that software is developed to be used, that users are the ultimate judge of any code's usefulness, and, as such, any developer interested in garnering wider acceptance of his code will pay attention to his users.
If a developer is content to write code only for himself, then he should consider not releasing it.
Re:That's The Biggest Problem With Linux Fonts (Score:2)
Linux and open source has clearly been positioned by its advocates and its corporate funders as an alternative to proprietary closed-source software. That cannot be reconciled with the concept of open source as a collection of hardy independent coders all
Re:That's The Biggest Problem With Linux Fonts (Score:2)
You're looking at open source from your point of view as a developer. But developers wouldn't use FOSS unless it met their needs and unless FOSS responded to their criticisms. The developer community, like the broader user community, represents a collection of consumers using a product. (It's a product whether or not you need to pay for it.)
The broader user community has expect
Re:That's The Biggest Problem With Linux Fonts (Score:2)
Nor am I talking about you and your employer. If you aren't in the business of creating Linux distributions, then you, obviously, have no reason to be concerned about user reaction to a product you don't make. Presumably, your employer is, however, in the business of selling some type of product of service, and pays attentio
95 distros - only one good font (Score:4, Informative)
Don't leave home without it.
Re:95 distros - only one good font (Score:2)
Re:95 distros - only one good font (Score:2)
Re:95 distros - only one good font (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't a distro issue, AFAIK (Score:2)
Definitely need effort to get *the* fonts (Score:2, Interesting)
The biggest turnoff with linux for me till a few years ago, was the non-availability of good looking fonts, which made IE look like a god-send. But with the bitstream-vera and msttcorefonts, anything in X looks just
Mandrake + PLF + MSFonts (Score:4, Informative)
Done.
Oh, and use a CRT for demo's: LCD + NVidia + XFree can take a bit of tweaking to get right.
John.
Re:Mandrake + PLF + MSFonts (Score:2)
It took me some time after I added the PLF source to figure out why all my fonts suddenly looked terrible.
I find the default Bitstream with the default freetype2 looks just fine. Good enough for demos, and probably less hassle.
Why fonts look bad in free distros: HINTING (Score:5, Informative)
TrueType font hinting is patented by Apple. To legally use TrueType hinting, you must pay royalties to Apple. This is why fonts look crappy in the free distros. (And no, antialiasing is not a substitute for proper hinting.)
However, I don't know which (if any) pay-ware Linux distros have TrueType font hinting enabled.
Re:Why fonts look bad in free distros: HINTING (Score:2)
The patent prevents developers from stealing somone else's invention, not from orginal thought.
Re:Why fonts look bad in free distros: HINTING (Score:2)
The patent prevents developers from stealing somone else's invention, not from orginal thought.
1. That is not true, if I independently come up with a way of doing font hinting that is similar to the patented one, the patent could prevent me from using it.
2. That said, the freetype autohinter is a better approach that basically works--look at a modern distro and you'll see font support better than what Windows has.
Re:Why fonts look bad in free distros: HINTING (Score:2)
Mind boggling. When was the last time any of you people have actually tried a Linux distro? Pretty much every recent desktop-oriented distribution has placed a high priority on getting really high quality font support.
They use the font engine Freetype to do the rendering, which uses a non-hint-based (and thus non-patent-infringing) algorithm to acheive much better antialiasing than is possible in even the most recent versions of Windows; it is reasonably equivalent to the quality in MacOS X.
They also
Cyrillic fonts (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask Slashdot: Moon on a stick? (Score:2)
Nice Font (Score:3, Informative)
Fontconfig manipulation (Score:2, Informative)
Java fonts (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Java fonts (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe not for you, but it's easy in gentoo (Score:2)
The fonts on my system look very nice. Since I have a 15 inch laptop screen at 1600x1200 fonts can sometimes be a pain. They looked horrible in Win
Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (Score:2)
Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (Score:2)
Incidentally, I didn't know there was a CD-bootable version of Mandrake, thanks for pointing that out.
Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (Score:2)
Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (Score:2)
Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (Score:2)
2) You can buy or order many different distros. Last time I got a distro, I got Libranet for $30 in mail order. You can order or buy a number of distros for under $50.
3) Go to a local LUG (Linux Users Group). To find one, try a Google search. Ask if someone can burn a distro for you.
4) but I'd still like to know what I was getting into before even going that far. -- If you're really that squeamish, then you might not want to get into it at al
Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ask yourself two questions:
If you're happy with your current software then don't bother. If you're unhappy with your current software then tell us what you dislike and we can tell you if Linux is better or worse.
Also bear in mind that Linux was weak areas (eg, games, off-the-shelf software). If any of those weak areas are relevant to you then don't bother.
If you're simply curious then try one of the many Live CDs (eg, Suse, Knoppix). Minimal fuss and you get a roughly accurate Linux experience.
Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (Score:1)
Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (Score:2)
Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (Score:2)
Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (Score:2)
Some distributions integrate a firewall. For example, Fedora Core (new name for Red Hat) has an integrated firewall with GUI manager. All of the good distributions should do the same.
I'm not aware of any Linux distribution that integrates an antivirus program. There are free antivirus programs but they're aimed at people building mail servers and the like. Nothing for home users as
Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (Score:2)
From the origional How to Decide if Linux is for you [c2.com]:
Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (Score:2, Offtopic)
I'd actually say that Linux is weak in supporting off-the-shelf games; however, there are numerous fun, high-quality games available Free [c2.com] and/or for free [c2.com]. KDE provides many addictive games and edutainment applications [kde.org] that I can't live without (speaking as a GNOME lover, when using Linux). GNOME also has many high-quality games [gnome.org] (my favorites are Mahjongg and Robots). Then there many other favorites like Tux Racer [tuxracer.com], Froz [happypenguin.org]
Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (Score:2)
from my personal experience (and my personal tastes), i'm of the opinion that Mandrake is a good starting distro (i think it's a good choice). installation is easy and everything is generally set up pretty well automatically.
but if you want to learn more about the way linux works, i think Gentoo is a better option, since you basically have to set up and configure all the system services and software yourself, mostly manually. (but i love not having to touch the rc scripts.)
the reason i suggest Gentoo
Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (Score:3, Funny)
freudian slip, i'm afraid. i didn't mean it. really. :P
Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (Score:2)
Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (Score:2)
Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (Score:2)
So that said, the only disadvantage of Gentoo is compile time. Otherwise, it is the most consistent, clearly layed-out, well-documented, and generally user friendly distro out there right now. However that
Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (Score:2)
That way
Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (Score:1)
It's not so much that I'm squeamish as I'm trying to weigh the effort required against my level of interest in the subject. Fiddling with software is usually pretty low on my priorit
Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (Score:1)
Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (Score:2)
Then I'd stick with a live CD for now, which will let you poke around and decide later if you want to do more. You may not get much of an idea, though, by just booting a CD and trying a few programs. After a while you'll decide they all have a different look'n'feel, but that a lot of it, without digging deeper, is just a different way of doing the same thing.
I can give
Re:all-antialiased just as bad/worse (Score:4, Funny)
Try 2.6.9-pre1. It is much prettier.
Re:all-antialiased just as bad/worse (Score:2, Interesting)
Unfortunately for the most part you are right. People who antialias everything should be shot.
One of the first things I do on any fresh install is alter the fonts.conf to only antialias below 8 and above 14pt, and to always antialias italic or bold text. Everything else is not. Then I grab the standard MS fontpack and use those fonts, although bitstream is slowling coming over. A lot of work was put into the MS fontpack (I think it was monotype who did it actually) to make the hinting right.
OH yes,
Re:all-antialiased just as bad/worse (Score:2)
Do you use an LCD or CRT monitor?
Re:all-antialiased just as bad/worse (Score:2)
I find that sub-pixel antialiasing actually sort of works on LCD monitors - especially for fonts such as Verdana or Tahoma, not so well for Times New Roman. On CRTs, the text is already sort of fuzzy so any kind of antialiasing makes things worse.
Re:i dont mean to brag but... (Score:2)
Re:i dont mean to brag but... (Score:4, Insightful)
You even commented on some of the problems.
In Luxi Sans, the w, c, and d all have some unevenness; the e's crossbar is too high.
Trebuchet has dropouts in its e's, and its w is uneven.
Times isn't antialiased at all. Verdana is too thin for its size (and the V is about to fall apart).
The g in Impact is blocky and has some strange lumps.
Georgia almost looks aliased.
Here's a screenshot comparison [mac.com] between your original and the same fonts rendered by MacOS X. (I have most, but not all of the fonts). IMHO, the righthand (MacOS) side looks superior - more like actual typeset text. So what's up? Does freetype suck that badly? Are you using the non-hinted version of freetype? Is this a screen gamma difference? I used Linux/X11/freetype2 daily for a couple of years, and I never got the fonts to look the way I wanted them to. It's almost like the contrast setting is wrong, not to mention the subpixel precision of the glyph control points is out of whack (what's with the V in Verdana, anyway?).
Of course, the flipside is to say that the freetype-rendered text looks crisper, less blurry - especially Impact. I appreciate that distinction - but for me, the consistency of shape and the evenness of the glyph weighting is more important than the apparent focus.
maybe I should have changed the title (Score:2)
Anyway, I'm envious of how Georgia looks on OSX (though not for long, I'm getting an iBook), but I don't like the blurriness of Andale Mono. Personally I would like to see screens runnin
I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me (Score:2)