4 ms·
It took me some time to get Linux fonts looking the way I want, and the conclusion I came to appears to be the same as yours: hinting off, subpixel on. Fairly s
by Legion 17y ago
It took me some time to get Linux fonts looking the way I want, and the conclusion I came to appears to be the same as yours: hinting off, subpixel on. Fairly simple compared to some of the funky paths I went down in the past.
I look at that "sharp fonts" page you linked to and I can not react more negatively to the awful stick-thin fonts they seem to like. Awful, awful.
- Flow 17y agoI thought a friend joked when he talked about Sharp Fonts. I saw their home-page and thought it was a joke too. Apparently not. Why would anyone prefer text rendered using only 1/3 of the possible pixel-information?
- thristian 17y agoAs another Linux-using refugee from OS X, I use GNOME's "Subpixel" setting (which as far as I can tell means "snap to nearest pixel vertically, subpixel smoothing horizontally") and I'm quite a fan. I must admit, some of my more conservative Linux-using friends use the old bitmap fonts like lucidasanstypewriter-9 and Helvetica, and those hand-pixelled fonts have a crispness and... professionalism that you just can't easily get from soft, comfortable hintless antialiasing. I'll grant that the "sharp fonts" screenshot posted up-thread is pretty horrible, though.
- Flow 17y agoCheck out Monaco or Inconsolata using Mac OS X font renderer. I think it's very comfortable and clear to look at: http://www.hashref.com/images/inconsolata.png http://www.hashref.com/images/inconsolata.png