4 ms·

I found Mac and OS X very appealing as a development platform. For me the most important think would be that I have a *nix system without any hardware support i

by riobard 18y ago

I found Mac and OS X very appealing as a development platform. For me the most important think would be that I have a *nix system without any hardware support issue -- yes, "it just works". Got really really tired of dealing with various driver issues on Linux as I would usually spend tens of hours trying to configure some devices and then they just became unusable again when I did an upgrade. Oh, and the font rendering on Mac is so nice esp. when one has to face codes more than half of the day!! ClearType on Windows looks so so. Linux fonts ... well, not so many great free fonts :( This is just personal preference though ...

unalone 18y ago
Oh, and the font rendering on Mac is so nice esp. when one has to face codes more than half of the day!! People who like typography need to use Macs. The design for Cirqueti is a font-only design, and a long time was spent making fonts look good on various operating systems. Even at its best, there's a huge difference: Mac fonts look beautiful.
windsurfer 18y ago
I'm an Ubuntu 8.10 user, and I have to say that the font smoothing is much better than XP, and almost on par with macintosh computers. If you are looking for graphic design fonts for Ubuntu, I would highly reccomend the Aenigma fonts package: http://crunchbang.org/archives/2008/06/14/aenigma-fonts-for-ubuntu/ http://crunchbang.org/archives/2008/06/14/aenigma-fonts-for-...
- unalone 18y ago
  They're better than XP, yes. On par with Macs? No. There's still a lot of ground to cover. I'm glad to see they're making an effort, though.
- riobard 18y ago
  I've been using Ubuntu since 7.04 and I'm still using it in virtual machine now. I agree that esp. for 8.x Ubuntu really beats XP on font rendering (well, except for OpenOffice and occasionally Firefox). However both Windows and Linux still have very far way to go to beat Apple's font rendering engine. Apple just needs to get the font right because otherwise it cannot sell so many Macs to designers. And they did. I remembered I was seduced by the Ruby guys' screenshot of Monaco font in TextMate. In my opinion Monaco is probably the best ever designed monospace font for programmers. Well, of coz it must be rendered by Apple's font engine to get the right look -- tried Monaco both on XP and Ubuntu and it sucked big. I have to face code more than half of the day, and thus a good Monospace font is very important to me. On Ubuntu I think Bitstream/Dejavu Mono is the best, and on Windows I prefer Consolas, but both look kinda unpolished compared to Monaco on Mac. No, I'm not talking about those cool design fonts. I'm talking about the basic typefaces like Times, Helvetica, etc. I think probably fonts are the area where commercial companies do better than open source --- fine-tuning a font requires so much time and energy of artists which I think is a very very scarce resource in the open source community. It also explains why a good set of typefaces costs big bucks. Sad, but true ...

by riobard 18y ago

unalone 18y ago

Oh, and the font rendering on Mac is so nice esp. when one has to face codes more than half of the day!! People who like typography need to use Macs. The design for Cirqueti is a font-only design, and a long time was spent making fonts look good on various operating systems. Even at its best, there's a huge difference: Mac fonts look beautiful.

windsurfer 18y ago

I'm an Ubuntu 8.10 user, and I have to say that the font smoothing is much better than XP, and almost on par with macintosh computers. If you are looking for graphic design fonts for Ubuntu, I would highly reccomend the Aenigma fonts package: http://crunchbang.org/archives/2008/06/14/aenigma-fonts-for-ubuntu/ http://crunchbang.org/archives/2008/06/14/aenigma-fonts-for-...

unalone 18y ago
They're better than XP, yes. On par with Macs? No. There's still a lot of ground to cover. I'm glad to see they're making an effort, though.
riobard 18y ago
I've been using Ubuntu since 7.04 and I'm still using it in virtual machine now. I agree that esp. for 8.x Ubuntu really beats XP on font rendering (well, except for OpenOffice and occasionally Firefox). However both Windows and Linux still have very far way to go to beat Apple's font rendering engine. Apple just needs to get the font right because otherwise it cannot sell so many Macs to designers. And they did. I remembered I was seduced by the Ruby guys' screenshot of Monaco font in TextMate. In my opinion Monaco is probably the best ever designed monospace font for programmers. Well, of coz it must be rendered by Apple's font engine to get the right look -- tried Monaco both on XP and Ubuntu and it sucked big. I have to face code more than half of the day, and thus a good Monospace font is very important to me. On Ubuntu I think Bitstream/Dejavu Mono is the best, and on Windows I prefer Consolas, but both look kinda unpolished compared to Monaco on Mac. No, I'm not talking about those cool design fonts. I'm talking about the basic typefaces like Times, Helvetica, etc. I think probably fonts are the area where commercial companies do better than open source --- fine-tuning a font requires so much time and energy of artists which I think is a very very scarce resource in the open source community. It also explains why a good set of typefaces costs big bucks. Sad, but true ...