5 ms·

Its all well and good for Ubuntu to push further ahead but they would do a real big favor to the push of Linux on the Desktop if they could solve 1 major issue

• daleharvey 17y ago
  I replied to someone else with the same issue, font rendering has always been by far the best with ubuntu for me than anything else http://junk.arandomurl.com/type.jpg http://junk.arandomurl.com/type.jpg all default installs, ill reply in 10 minutes or something confirming which is which
  • aarongough 17y ago
    1) OS X 2) Windows (XP I think...) 3) Ubuntu I may have transposed OS X and Ubuntu though...
  • rms 17y ago
    I personally greatly prefer Windows style font rendering (presumably #2). Fortunately Ubuntu is flexible enough that I can configure it for Windows style font smoothing.
  • f00 17y ago
    1) OS X. A tad fuzzy, but everything is rendered _accurately_. Consistent thickness and character tracking (spacing). 2) Windows. Everything is slammed into pixel boundaries, making it look clean. Verdana is optimized for this style of rendering, so it doesn't look terrible.. but it's definitely not accurate. 3) Ubuntu. Worst of both worlds. Fuzzy and inaccurate.
    • daleharvey 17y ago
      I am honestly having a hard time believing someone with decent eyesite can say ubuntu(3) is fuzzy while osx(1) is not, ubuntu obviously chooses sharpness over balance (H and E), however osx has virtually every lowercase character heavily aliased, its blurry to the point where its almost 2 shades lighter than its supposed to be and there are individual characters A, u, B, a where it is almost a joke
      • f00 17y ago
        I absolutely admit that OS X has a somewhat fuzzy appearance, particularly at small point sizes. This gets exaggerated with the MS Core/Web fonts, which were designed for the screen (stems that line up with pixel boundaries, etc), and have hinting that is specifically designed to be compatible with MS ClearType. Ubuntu has similar (but not exactly the same) levels of fuzziness, but the rendering is inaccurate. Character tracking/spacing is the biggest issue, but there are others. If you look at traditional fonts that are designed for print or general purpose use (e.g. Helvetica, Frutiger, Univers, Myriad, etc.), the accuracy and quality of OS X rendering stands out considerably. There is simply no comparison.. and once you get used to it, the small amount of "fuzziness" that you observe in small point sizes just doesn't bother you anymore.
        • daleharvey 17y ago
          its kerning not tracking, and its only off in a few minor places (for the same reason the midline is off in H E), in those paragraphs I can find around the same mistakes from both the renders around the kerning (both make pretty identical errors) I use osx every day, I am very used to it, I just prefer ubuntus rendering by quite a long way
      • cma 17y ago
        OS X has the glyphs clipped to an imaginary sub-screen-resolution grid. The same letter may in some instances take up one black pixel and in others take up two (and be greyish in both). That's what he meant by accuracy. On linux every identical glyph is rendered identically, no matter where it is positioned.
    • rms 17y ago
      That's funny, I didn't know Verdana was optimized for that type of rendering. I use Ubuntu configured to use Windows style hinting without sub-pixel smoothing, and I have absolutely every font forced to Verdana. I'm glad that there is accidentally a little bit of logic behind my choice.
  • bd 17y ago
    For better comparison, here is Windows with ClearType switched on (#2): http://alteredqualia.com/visualization/hn/font-cleartype.png http://alteredqualia.com/visualization/hn/font-cleartype.png
• rufugee 17y ago
  How long has it been since you looked at Ubuntu's fonts? I use both OS X and Ubuntu, and Ubuntu is at least equal to OS X these days IMO.
  • jsz0 17y ago
    I dunno... http://i641.photobucket.com/albums/uu139/jsz0/fonttest.png http://i641.photobucket.com/albums/uu139/jsz0/fonttest.png
    • nuclear_eclipse 17y ago
      Just tell Ubuntu/Gnome to use the DejaVu fonts by default. They are much nicer looking than the "standard" fonts. Also, `aptitude install ttf-mscorefonts-installer` goes a long way towards making the web look nicer, as does changing Firefox's default font selections. And yes, I wish Ubuntu would at least make DejaVu the defaults for everything out of the box.
    • grandalf 17y ago
      I'm using Ubuntu and my screen looks like the OSX screen in the picture. The default ubuntu install comes with only free fonts, and clearly HN has been designed to look best with non free. All that is required to make both look the same is to type: sudo aptitude install ttf-mscorefonts-installer
      • ZeroGravitas 17y ago
        I don't install the microsoft fonts and still HN looks like much more like the Mac OS X example for me on Ubuntu 9.10 with Chromium and Firefox.
    • f00 17y ago
      Being fair to the parent, you don't seem to have the MS web fonts installed on Ubuntu, so the two OSes are rendering different fonts. Still.. even if you do install the right fonts, the results will be the same.
    • pbhjpbhj 17y ago
• spamizbad 17y ago
  Basically, here's what's going on: 1) There aren't many free typefaces for daily use that are beautiful, so you have to buy (or commission) several and "open source" them. 2) Techniques for AA font rendering that maximize aesthetics and readability are protected by numerous software patents. Years ago there was a short-lived patch in Xorg that had a modern font-AA algorithm that held its own against the competition, but it turned out to step on several patents so it was axed out of fear of litigation. That fear is very real, as typography-related tech patents are one of the most aggressively guarded elements of tech-IP. As a result, the Linux developers have been forced to re-invent the wheel from the ground up when it comes to typography in Linux distributions.
  • rms 17y ago
    Is there source code out there for a patent infringing Ubuntu font fix?
    • deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    • blasdel 17y ago
      Yes, it's a part of Freetype, Ubuntu just doesn't enable it at compile-time. In include/freetype/config/ftoption.h: enable FT_CONFIG_OPTION_SUBPIXEL_RENDERING enable TT_CONFIG_OPTION_BYTECODE_INTERPRETER disable TT_CONFIG_OPTION_UNPATENTED_HINTING Even under the most anal-retentive freetard fealty to Intellectual Property Law, distribution of C source code cannot infringe upon patents, only distribution of compiled binaries. It's the difference between promulgating plans for the machine (the original point of patents) and capitalizing on said plans. Gentoo is the only distro I know of that has it turned on by default.
  • ivenkys 17y ago
    All true. Ubuntu's avowed mission is to bring Linux to the Masses. For the masses, a computer still "looks" like Windows. Ubuntu being a Funded initiative unlike Arch(my choice), Gentoo, Crunchbang et all needs to fund the development of typography on Linux. Yes, its possible to download msttcorefonts (with some creativity you could also get the Consolas set of fonts) and get Cleartype or Os X type smoothing - but as long as its not the default , i am afraid there is no pushing Linux onto the masses.
• chanux 17y ago
  Well.. Ubuntu Font rendering was way better than XP (for me). I never used any windows version after that. But now I'm pretty sure that no operating system can beat my Ubuntu system in font rendering. maybe after this little hack. http://rewind.themasterplan.in/2007/07/15/sexy-smooth-fonts-on-kubuntu/ http://rewind.themasterplan.in/2007/07/15/sexy-smooth-fonts-...