3 ms·

Are we supposed to be upset by this? That we're all slaves to Big Font? It happens that many of the free fonts are crap, and part of the reason Linux on the de

Are we supposed to be upset by this? That we're all slaves to Big Font? It happens that many of the free fonts are crap, and part of the reason Linux on the desktop never took hold was lack of good bundled fonts. As it turns out, good fonts cost money.

Sunspark 3y ago
There are plenty of good free fonts. What was part of the problem was patent-encumbered rendering engines for a long time. Fonts weren't what held the desktop back, what held it back was that it just didn't have the resources that commercial enterprises were and are able to pour into their own efforts. With commercial, you have a manager in the boardroom that says here are the whiteboards of how it should look, now go make it and have it done by next week so marketing can tell everyone this is what they wanted. With open, you have a bunch of introverts who have to agree to talk to each other and not hate the other guy's idea too much.
klodolph 3y ago
Yeah. Although I think part of the problem is just how much of a nightmare Fontconfig is. I dealt with fonts on Windows and macOS, and there were a ton of hoops you have to jump through if you want tight control over how you display text on-screen. But Linux was in a whole other realm altogether—you used Fontconfig to select your font, and Fontconfig is truly, truly awful. Yeah, I know what its capabilities are. But the best software which uses fonts on Linux tends to do so bypassing Fontconfig. It was slow, slow, slow getting good font rendering on Linux.
pupppet 3y ago
Whenever I consider Linux, I notice the shitty fonts and wonder what are its other glaring omissions. Probably an ignorant thought, but I can’t be alone.
- adrian_b 3y ago
  Especially in the past, but even also today, most Linux distributions have indeed installed by default shitty free fonts, which were the main reason why the GUI of a default Linux installation looked much uglier than that of a default Windows installation or of a default Mac OS installation. Nevertheless, the default fonts can be deleted and replaced with nice fonts, which can make any Linux look better than Windows or Mac OS. I have been using for the last 20 years only Linux on all my desktops and laptops, but since the very beginning I have never used the default Linux fonts, but I have always replaced them immediately with beautiful fonts. When I have started using Linux, it was much more difficult than today to find good free fonts, so I have bought many good typefaces from companies like Linotype, which no longer exists, because as mentioned in this article it has been bought by Monotype, or from Adobe, which appears to be the last big commercial vendor of typefaces which has not been bought yet by Monotype. Nowadays, it is much easier to find good free fonts. Especially for programming and CLI windows there are a lot of very good free fonts from which to choose. For proportional typefaces, it can be a little more difficult to find good free fonts, though there is always the solution to grab some fonts from Windows or Mac OS. I have stopped using Mac OS more than a decade ago, but I have still kept from it a Japanese typeface that I have liked and then I have continued to use on Linux, while from my last Windows I have kept Palatino Linotype for polytonic Greek. So if some people use shitty fonts on Linux, that is their fault, not of Linux, because it cannot be expected for a free product to include good licensed typefaces, like those whose price is included in that of a Windows license or Mac OS license.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
  Huh, well that's a new one. I use linux all the time, so I guess I don't know what non-shitty fonts look like?
  - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
    The Ubuntu font for example is definitely not shitty -- it was designed at Dalton Maag and it is a considered piece of work that a lot of typographers rather like. It's definitely rather idiosyncratic, mind you. So I don't personally use it on Linux. I use Google's Roboto, which is close enough to Apple's later San Francisco (which shares some common heritage and some common modern touches) that I don't go insane when switching between the two! Roboto is again a considered bit of work by a highly competent designer. I don't have problems with either. If I did, I could use the Fira suite, which is lovely.
- II2II 3y ago
  Personally, my use of fonts are more utilitarian. In that context, the fonts shipped with a typical Linux distribution are perfectly usable and far from shitty. While I would expect someone who has more of an eye for design to have more discerning tastes, I would be surprised if many people shared an opinion as extreme as yours or mine. (I suspect that they would be more inclined to notice the quality of font rendering or missing favorite fonts than anything else.)
  - JJMcJ 3y ago
    > far from shitty In a world where Arial Illegible is the standard, I don't think we can complain too much. FOSS doesn't as a whole pay much attention to visual aspects, one reason so much of the software just doesn't look nice. E.g., GIMP.
- serf 3y ago
  my experience migrating from win98/2k to linux was totally the opposite. linux distros were some of the first to use proper LCD hinting and anti-aliasing on the fonts, so they always looked buttery smooth and polished when compared to the Microsoft offering at the time. Funny how things shift around.
benzin 3y ago
This is actually on my current todo list - replacing textedit with Helvetica to make notes on MacOS, with Featherpad and ??? font on Debian. Didn’t seem important but the default is so damn ugly.

Sunspark 3y ago

There are plenty of good free fonts. What was part of the problem was patent-encumbered rendering engines for a long time. Fonts weren't what held the desktop back, what held it back was that it just didn't have the resources that commercial enterprises were and are able to pour into their own efforts. With commercial, you have a manager in the boardroom that says here are the whiteboards of how it should look, now go make it and have it done by next week so marketing can tell everyone this is what they wanted. With open, you have a bunch of introverts who have to agree to talk to each other and not hate the other guy's idea too much.

klodolph 3y ago

Yeah. Although I think part of the problem is just how much of a nightmare Fontconfig is. I dealt with fonts on Windows and macOS, and there were a ton of hoops you have to jump through if you want tight control over how you display text on-screen. But Linux was in a whole other realm altogether—you used Fontconfig to select your font, and Fontconfig is truly, truly awful. Yeah, I know what its capabilities are. But the best software which uses fonts on Linux tends to do so bypassing Fontconfig. It was slow, slow, slow getting good font rendering on Linux.

pupppet 3y ago

Whenever I consider Linux, I notice the shitty fonts and wonder what are its other glaring omissions. Probably an ignorant thought, but I can’t be alone.

adrian_b 3y ago
Especially in the past, but even also today, most Linux distributions have indeed installed by default shitty free fonts, which were the main reason why the GUI of a default Linux installation looked much uglier than that of a default Windows installation or of a default Mac OS installation. Nevertheless, the default fonts can be deleted and replaced with nice fonts, which can make any Linux look better than Windows or Mac OS. I have been using for the last 20 years only Linux on all my desktops and laptops, but since the very beginning I have never used the default Linux fonts, but I have always replaced them immediately with beautiful fonts. When I have started using Linux, it was much more difficult than today to find good free fonts, so I have bought many good typefaces from companies like Linotype, which no longer exists, because as mentioned in this article it has been bought by Monotype, or from Adobe, which appears to be the last big commercial vendor of typefaces which has not been bought yet by Monotype. Nowadays, it is much easier to find good free fonts. Especially for programming and CLI windows there are a lot of very good free fonts from which to choose. For proportional typefaces, it can be a little more difficult to find good free fonts, though there is always the solution to grab some fonts from Windows or Mac OS. I have stopped using Mac OS more than a decade ago, but I have still kept from it a Japanese typeface that I have liked and then I have continued to use on Linux, while from my last Windows I have kept Palatino Linotype for polytonic Greek. So if some people use shitty fonts on Linux, that is their fault, not of Linux, because it cannot be expected for a free product to include good licensed typefaces, like those whose price is included in that of a Windows license or Mac OS license.
__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
Huh, well that's a new one. I use linux all the time, so I guess I don't know what non-shitty fonts look like?
- bemusedthrow75 3y ago
  The Ubuntu font for example is definitely not shitty -- it was designed at Dalton Maag and it is a considered piece of work that a lot of typographers rather like. It's definitely rather idiosyncratic, mind you. So I don't personally use it on Linux. I use Google's Roboto, which is close enough to Apple's later San Francisco (which shares some common heritage and some common modern touches) that I don't go insane when switching between the two! Roboto is again a considered bit of work by a highly competent designer. I don't have problems with either. If I did, I could use the Fira suite, which is lovely.
II2II 3y ago
Personally, my use of fonts are more utilitarian. In that context, the fonts shipped with a typical Linux distribution are perfectly usable and far from shitty. While I would expect someone who has more of an eye for design to have more discerning tastes, I would be surprised if many people shared an opinion as extreme as yours or mine. (I suspect that they would be more inclined to notice the quality of font rendering or missing favorite fonts than anything else.)
- JJMcJ 3y ago
  > far from shitty In a world where Arial Illegible is the standard, I don't think we can complain too much. FOSS doesn't as a whole pay much attention to visual aspects, one reason so much of the software just doesn't look nice. E.g., GIMP.
serf 3y ago
my experience migrating from win98/2k to linux was totally the opposite. linux distros were some of the first to use proper LCD hinting and anti-aliasing on the fonts, so they always looked buttery smooth and polished when compared to the Microsoft offering at the time. Funny how things shift around.

benzin 3y ago

This is actually on my current todo list - replacing textedit with Helvetica to make notes on MacOS, with Featherpad and ??? font on Debian. Didn’t seem important but the default is so damn ugly.