4 ms·

I think you misunderstood me. I've actually worked in print. I've written and typeset more books than I can count using professional DTP software (and LaTeX t

I think you misunderstood me. I've actually worked in print. I've written and typeset more books than I can count using professional DTP software (and LaTeX too). I know a thing or two about fonts. I do not expect a non-retina display to display fonts as beautifully as a retina display, just to make things clear. What I'm saying is that fonts under Linux aren't bad to the point of being uncomfortable. And just to make it clear: I've got Windows and Linux, on non-retina displays, showing the same sites. Linux ain't worse. There's a big difference between saying: "Retina displays are better than non retina ones" and saying: "Linux font sucks". Yup: not everyone is on 4K / retina display. We know that. It doesn't make font rendering on Linux broken.

Terretta 4y ago
Since you bring it up, my second sysadmin gig was head of systems for a printing company, late 80s - early 90s, where I brought them into the digital typesetting era. So I also know more than a thing or two about fonts. But I suspect you bringing it up, and me responding to it, doesn’t make either position more authoritative. And given “I’ve written more books than I can count” it could be your discernment of numbers or bar for objectively counting things is lower. ;-) About retina vs. non retina, I’d argue font rendering algos matter more the less resolution they’re working with, so are even more important on non-retina displays. I’d further argue MacOS regressed on this by killing off sub-pixel rendering in Mojave, effectively dropping support for non-retina. On low quality displays, Windows and Linux could/should look better than MacOS. When they don’t, they’re “doing it wrong”.