2006: Linux still can't render fonts worth a hoot
DFS
For instance, Web surfing on Konqueror is nearly useless. Most pages look
ugly, the letters are spaced wrong, lots of things are misaligned.
And this is the OS that's going to unseat Windows? I think not.
Peter Köhlmann
You mean, you deliberately selected different fonts/fontsizes?
And deselected Anti-aliasing too for KDE?
Figures, after all you are one of the most dishonest widiots around here
--
Warning: You have moved the mouse.
Windows will reboot now to make the change permanent
Bobbie
> DFS wrote:
>
>> Some around here say the Linux font problem has been fixed. It hasn't.
>>
>> For instance, Web surfing on Konqueror is nearly useless. Most pages look
>> ugly, the letters are spaced wrong, lots of things are misaligned.
>>
>> And this is the OS that's going to unseat Windows? I think not.
>>
>>
>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_Konqueror.jpg
>>
>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_IE.PNG
>
> You mean, you deliberately selected different fonts/fontsizes?
> And deselected Anti-aliasing too for KDE?
> Figures, after all you are one of the most dishonest widiots around here
He seems to assume that there's only one browser available
for Linux
--
Bobbie the Triple Killer
http://members.shaw.ca/bobbie4/index.htm
email Bobbie @ bobbie4R...@shaw.ca
remember to 'remove this'
Bobbie recently switched to Ubuntu 6.
Why? Cause he can, that's why.
DFS
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:29:54 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Some around here say the Linux font problem has been fixed. It
>>> hasn't.
>>>
>>> For instance, Web surfing on Konqueror is nearly useless. Most
>>> pages look ugly, the letters are spaced wrong, lots of things are
>>> misaligned.
>>>
>>> And this is the OS that's going to unseat Windows? I think not.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_Konqueror.jpg
>>>
>>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_IE.PNG
>>
>> You mean, you deliberately selected different fonts/fontsizes?
>> And deselected Anti-aliasing too for KDE?
>> Figures, after all you are one of the most dishonest widiots around
>> here
Of course not. I didn't deliberately do anything to "sabotage" the look. I
booted up a Live CD (Mandriva One I believe - which set the screen at
800x600 and didn't offer higher res). Then loaded Konqueror and logged to
CNN.
In Windows, I set the screen res to 800x600.
I didn't touch font faces or sizes or anti-aliasing options on either
system. And that's the result.
I assume CNN looks the same on your Konqueror screen.
> He seems to assume that there's only one browser available
> for Linux
Why can't I use Konqueror? (after looking at it, it's why should I use
Konqueror?)
Peter Köhlmann
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:29:54 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Some around here say the Linux font problem has been fixed. It hasn't.
>>>
>>> For instance, Web surfing on Konqueror is nearly useless. Most pages
>>> look ugly, the letters are spaced wrong, lots of things are misaligned.
>>>
>>> And this is the OS that's going to unseat Windows? I think not.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_Konqueror.jpg
>>>
>>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_IE.PNG
>>
>> You mean, you deliberately selected different fonts/fontsizes?
>> And deselected Anti-aliasing too for KDE?
>> Figures, after all you are one of the most dishonest widiots around here
>
> He seems to assume that there's only one browser available
> for Linux
>
That is of no interest here
What is interesting though is that DumbFullShit tries to deceive
He knows fully well that he has no point and that he is a blatant liar
--
Howe's Law: Everyone has a scheme that will not work.
Linonut
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/31/iran.nuclear/index.html looks good on
firefox.
Fix your settings. You can choose fonts, you know, or install the font
the web page requires. Or use Firefox.
--
Free software is a matter of liberty not price. You should think of
"free" as in "free speech".
-- The Free Software Foundation http://www.fsf.org/
Linonut
>> He seems to assume that there's only one browser available
>> for Linux
>
> Why can't I use Konqueror? (after looking at it, it's why should I use
> Konqueror?)
Browser-standards compliance and safety, not some font corner case
you're deliberately whining about.
--
"Spock, you're nothing but a damn computer!"
"Why, thank you, Doctor!"
DFS
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Some around here say the Linux font problem has been fixed. It
>> hasn't.
>>
>> For instance, Web surfing on Konqueror is nearly useless. Most
>> pages look ugly, the letters are spaced wrong, lots of things are
>> misaligned.
>>
>> And this is the OS that's going to unseat Windows? I think not.
>>
>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_Konqueror.jpg
>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_IE.PNG
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/31/iran.nuclear/index.html looks good on
> firefox.
>
> Fix your settings. You can choose fonts, you know, or install the
> font the web page requires. Or use Firefox.
Why do I have to fix anything? What's wrong with the default browser? Why
is Linux so much trouble?
The default settings for IE, Netscape, Opera and Firefox on Windows are
fine. Web pages look normal and are readable. Only Konqueror on Linux
looks stupid (though I haven't tried Galeon or others in a while).
Linux/Konqueror: blurry
Windows/IE: hurry
B Gruff
> Bobbie wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:29:54 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some around here say the Linux font problem has been fixed. It
>>>> hasn't.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, Web surfing on Konqueror is nearly useless. Most
>>>> pages look ugly, the letters are spaced wrong, lots of things are
>>>> misaligned.
>>>>
>>>> And this is the OS that's going to unseat Windows? I think not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_Konqueror.jpg
>>>>
>>>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_IE.PNG
>>>
>>> You mean, you deliberately selected different fonts/fontsizes?
>>> And deselected Anti-aliasing too for KDE?
>>> Figures, after all you are one of the most dishonest widiots around
>>> here
>
>
> Of course not. I didn't deliberately do anything to "sabotage" the look.
> I booted up a Live CD (Mandriva One I believe - which set the screen at
> 800x600 and didn't offer higher res). Then loaded Konqueror and logged to
> CNN.
>
> In Windows, I set the screen res to 800x600.
>
> I didn't touch font faces or sizes or anti-aliasing options on either
> system. And that's the result.
Hmmm.. it would appear that your Konq fonts are considerably smaller than
your I.E. ones? Did you try a Ctrl+ at all?
DFS
I didn't then, but I know Ctrl+/- increases/decreases font size. But it
does nothing for the bogus Konqueror rendering, where letters are crammed up
against each other. Many webpages are close to being unreadable under
Konqueror.
Peter Kai Jensen
Hash: SHA1
DFS wrote:
> Of course not. I didn't deliberately do anything to "sabotage" the
> look. I booted up a Live CD (Mandriva One I believe - which set the
> screen at 800x600 and didn't offer higher res). Then loaded Konqueror
> and logged to CNN.
>
> In Windows, I set the screen res to 800x600.
OK, so the sabotage was perhaps less than deliberate. Remember that
Live CDs have limited space, and I wouldn't be surprised if they had
made compromises with regards to the number of fonts and the rendering
technology. At least I know that Knoppix used to (haven't updated mine
in a while).
> I didn't touch font faces or sizes or anti-aliasing options on either
> system. And that's the result.
>
> I assume CNN looks the same on your Konqueror screen.
You assume incorrectly. Looks virtually identical to the FF rendition
and your IE version on my system. No font rendering artifacts here.
I'm heading out the door in a minute, so a screenshot will have to wait.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFE+E/Id1ZThqotgfgRAv0mAJ4hwZMa6dpIe/n42kuAahs5P4LJNgCfZIE6
5JynFN9ufDVTjrHyImoANSM=
=UqYW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
BOFH Excuse #429:
Temporal anomaly
ray
On my Gentoo system using mozilla, it looks just fine - no problems like
the items you have circled.
William Poaster
09:52:39 -0500, Linonut wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Some around here say the Linux font problem has been fixed. It hasn't.
It has. Dufu$ lying again.
>> For instance, Web surfing on Konqueror is nearly useless. Most pages
>> look ugly, the letters are spaced wrong, lots of things are misaligned.
Not in my konqueror they aren't.
>> And this is the OS that's going to unseat Windows? I think not.
Yeah, we know he doesn't think.
>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_Konqueror.jpg
>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_IE.PNG
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/31/iran.nuclear/index.html looks good on
> firefox.
Looks fine, & on my konqueror too.
I normally only use konqueror as a file manager, & use Firefox as a web
browser. Your URL (above) looks equally good on both.
> Fix your settings. You can choose fonts, you know, or install the font
> the web page requires. Or use Firefox.
Nah, he'd sooner whine.
--
Linux is not a desktop OS for people
whose VCRs are still flashing "12:00".
That eliminates a lot of wintrolls then.
cr00zng
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>
> > Some around here say the Linux font problem has been fixed. It hasn't.
> >
> > For instance, Web surfing on Konqueror is nearly useless. Most pages look
> > ugly, the letters are spaced wrong, lots of things are misaligned.
> >
> > And this is the OS that's going to unseat Windows? I think not.
> >
> >
> > http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_Konqueror.jpg
> >
> > http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_IE.PNG
>
> You mean, you deliberately selected different fonts/fontsizes?
> And deselected Anti-aliasing too for KDE?
> Figures, after all you are one of the most dishonest widiots around here
You can blame him all you want or question his mental capability; it
doesn't make you look good. Well, maybe in COLA :).
He does have a valid point, which is that the default configuration of
the browser font isn't that good to say it mildly. Yes, you can change
the fonts, adjust, video settings, or even run IE 6.0 on Linux;
however, that wasn't his point. Interestingly, the IE 6.0 for Linux
does not have problems with the font.
Another application with "screwy" font is in the "xpdf" reader, which
is the default PDF reader for most Linux distros; using this
application does make the PDF document look like crap. And yes,
installing Adobe's PDF reader does render the PDF file the same as it
looks under Windows.
The current default installation/configuration of the Linux desktops
can be a turn-off for most newbies. They just pop-in a CD, install
whatever, and expect the same quality of the GUI, including fonts, as
Windows has. And that's not the case as of yet.
Cr00zng...
Jim
concerning DFS:
This could be why it doesn't look right:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F
It won't validate using ANY scheme. Try it for yourself.
--
I hereby testify that the above statement is an accurate recollection of the
events mentioned therein.
http://dotware.co.uk
Registered Linux user #426308 -*- http://counter.li.org
Cr00zng
> This message was posted on Usenet, NOT JLAforums, & on Fri, 01 Sep 2006
> 09:52:39 -0500, Linonut wrote:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Some around here say the Linux font problem has been fixed. It hasn't.
>
> It has. Dufu$ lying again.
Are you Dufu$ :)?
Cr00zng...
Peter Köhlmann
>
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>> > Some around here say the Linux font problem has been fixed. It hasn't.
>> >
>> > For instance, Web surfing on Konqueror is nearly useless. Most pages
>> > look ugly, the letters are spaced wrong, lots of things are misaligned.
>> >
>> > And this is the OS that's going to unseat Windows? I think not.
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_Konqueror.jpg
>> >
>> > http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_IE.PNG
>>
>> You mean, you deliberately selected different fonts/fontsizes?
>> And deselected Anti-aliasing too for KDE?
>> Figures, after all you are one of the most dishonest widiots around here
>
> You can blame him all you want or question his mental capability; it
> doesn't make you look good. Well, maybe in COLA :).
>
> He does have a valid point, which is that the default configuration of
> the browser font isn't that good to say it mildly.
You mean DumbFullShit uses a LiveCD linux version with limited installed
fonts? And then dishonestly whines about differences in the looks of a
webpage where even slightly retarded bacteria can see that the fonts on
Konqueror are *way* smaller and not anti-aliased? Because of exactly that
reason, DumbFullShit is not smart enough to install linux and uses a
non-changed live-CD?
Yup, this describes DumbFullShit to the point. He *is* that dishonest
< snip >
--
You're not my type. For that matter, you're not even my species
The Ghost In The Machine
<peter.k...@t-online.de>
wrote
on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:29:54 +0200
<ed9cf7$d7i$00$1...@news.t-online.com>:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> Some around here say the Linux font problem has been fixed. It hasn't.
>>
>> For instance, Web surfing on Konqueror is nearly useless. Most pages look
>> ugly, the letters are spaced wrong, lots of things are misaligned.
>>
>> And this is the OS that's going to unseat Windows? I think not.
>>
>>
>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_Konqueror.jpg
>>
>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_IE.PNG
>
> You mean, you deliberately selected different fonts/fontsizes?
> And deselected Anti-aliasing too for KDE?
> Figures, after all you are one of the most dishonest widiots around here
Fonts might be an issue for *raw* X -- certainly,
that's the issue I saw the other day when I posted in
another thread. The Pango toolkit, however, appears to
take care of the issue nicely for Gnome -- certainly,
I've seen nothing lately within Gnome offerings. (I wish
I knew how it did it, specifically.)
I don't know about KDE/Qt but presume it either uses Pango
or has something similar.
As for "wrong spacing"...there are several issues there.
The most obvious one is that the font is misdesigned --
not all fonts, after all, look identical, so one might have
issues with the aesthetics, even were the resolution of the
display device virtually infinite. (Times in particular
was designed to increase words per column inch; the width
of the characters 'i' and 'l' is very narrow.)
You might ask DFS about some of the issues regarding IE
violations of CSS2: :-)
http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/
then click on "Take the Acid2 Test". Opera's rendition
thereof is well-nigh perfect; the nose also works.
Firefox's nose also works but it looks like the yellow
guy is wearing orange shades, an extra digit, and part of
his head sliced off (which might explain the small pool
of blood to the neck's left). IE leaves him bleeding all
over the lower part of the page; the nose is ... where?
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Peter Hayes
(in article <ypWJg.2624$IM1....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>):
> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_IE.PNG
Geez - that looks terrible.
Here's what it should look like,
http://www.seahaze.demon.co.uk/CNN_on_Safari.jpg
--
Peter
Peter Köhlmann
It is looking nearly the same on Konqueror.
Not at all like that botched and made up "example" of DumbFullShit
--
Only two things are infinite,
the Universe and Stupidity.
And I'm not quite sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein
High Plains Thumper
> Linonut wrote:
>> DFS belched:
I am not sure what the hubbub is about. Konqueror fonts on my SuSE 10.1
Open system looks fine. Sometimes when I stumble across a Microsoft coded
HTML page, I get formatting weird out. <ctrl>+ and <ctrl>- change font
sizes on the fly, which is convenient.
--
HPT
Gubo Dangle
Is the text supposed to be as blurry as that?
Gubo Dangle
For reference, here is it in XP:
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l249/junk_account/ie_on_XP.png
Note though that's with XP set for LCD font smoothing - it'll probably
look awful on a CRT
Rick
So, are you bitching about Konqueror or Linux?
JEDIDIAH
> Linonut wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Some around here say the Linux font problem has been fixed. It
>>> hasn't.
>>>
>>> For instance, Web surfing on Konqueror is nearly useless. Most
>>> pages look ugly, the letters are spaced wrong, lots of things are
>>> misaligned.
>>>
>>> And this is the OS that's going to unseat Windows? I think not.
>>>
>>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_Konqueror.jpg
>>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_IE.PNG
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/31/iran.nuclear/index.html looks good on
>> firefox.
>>
>> Fix your settings. You can choose fonts, you know, or install the
>> font the web page requires. Or use Firefox.
>
> Why do I have to fix anything? What's wrong with the default browser? Why
> is Linux so much trouble?
You're lying.
Courtesy of Occams Razor.
--
Truth is irrelevant as long as the predictions are good. |||
/ | \
JEDIDIAH
I had no problems on Ubuntu using Konqueror either.
I never use Konq so it's certainly still in it's default condition.
Linonut
> Why do I have to fix anything? What's wrong with the default browser? Why
> is Linux so much trouble?
This only highlights your ignorance of Web standards. Tim Berners-Lee
never meant HTML to control the exact appearance of web sites. That is
up to the individual renderer, and that is precisely the effect you see.
> The default settings for IE, Netscape, Opera and Firefox on Windows are
> fine. Web pages look normal and are readable. Only Konqueror on Linux
> looks stupid (though I haven't tried Galeon or others in a while).
Whenever I start Opera, it looks "wrong" to me, and I have to tweak it.
And whenever I've done web pages, they always look different between
different browsers.
I wouldn't worry so much about such minor differences.
> Windows/IE: hurry
Before it crashes!
--
I love the smell of source code compiling in the morning.
It smells like... freedom.
Linonut
> Another application with "screwy" font is in the "xpdf" reader, which
> is the default PDF reader for most Linux distros; using this
> application does make the PDF document look like crap.
No, it doesn't.
> And yes,
> installing Adobe's PDF reader does render the PDF file the same as it
> looks under Windows.
So does xpdf (with most documents). And it loads much much faster than
Adobe (acroread on Linux).
> The current default installation/configuration of the Linux desktops
> can be a turn-off for most newbies. They just pop-in a CD, install
> whatever, and expect the same quality of the GUI, including fonts, as
> Windows has. And that's not the case as of yet.
--
Real programmers don't use Visual Basic.
Peter Köhlmann
> Gubo Dangle formulated on Friday :
>> Peter Hayes laid this down on his screen :
>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 14:19:36 +0100, DFS wrote
>>> (in article <ypWJg.2624$IM1....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>):
>>>
>>>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_IE.PNG
>>>
>>> Geez - that looks terrible.
>>>
>>> Here's what it should look like,
>>>
>>> http://www.seahaze.demon.co.uk/CNN_on_Safari.jpg
>>
>> Is the text supposed to be as blurry as that?
>
> For reference, here is it in XP:
>
> http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l249/junk_account/ie_on_XP.png
>
Good. And what does that tell us?
> Note though that's with XP set for LCD font smoothing - it'll probably
> look awful on a CRT
Well, at least *that* tells us something. Namely that you have not the
slightest idea that a screen-shot does *not* make any difference between
LCD or CRT. Only the type of capture file makes a difference (lossy like
jpeg for example is less than stellar)
If you do a screen-shot, those "half-pixels" are not captured at all,
because those are a part of the video-driver rendering an image
--
My other computer is your windows box
Peter Köhlmann
Both, naturally. Because he is a dishonest lying prick
--
The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them
to choose from. -- Andrew S. Tanenbaum
cr00zng
He's been comparing the default fonts in Windows to Konqueror; live-CD
or not. Is there any reason why the Konqueror uses lousy default fonts?
It shouldn't make the enduser change it, just use the one that is
easily readable.
> Yup, this describes DumbFullShit to the point. He *is* that dishonest
Nope, just accurate...
> You're not my type. For that matter, you're not even my species
Judging by your posts, that's not necessarily a bad thing :)
Cr00zng...
GreyCloud
Not at all. Matter of fact, the fonts are a lot sharper on Safari than
on IE. Not sure if it is because XP doesn't have all their stuff turned
on. Last I tried XP I had to turn on a few things to get the text
looking good.
Also depends on how well you clean your glasses and your screen.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
Cr00zng
> After takin' a swig o' grog, cr00zng belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Another application with "screwy" font is in the "xpdf" reader, which
>> is the default PDF reader for most Linux distros; using this
>> application does make the PDF document look like crap.
>
> No, it doesn't.
Oh yes it does; even you admit it below...
>
>> And yes,
>> installing Adobe's PDF reader does render the PDF file the same as it
>> looks under Windows.
>
> So does xpdf (with most documents). And it loads much much faster than
> Adobe (acroread on Linux).
The operative word is "with most document" the xpdf might look the same
as it does under Windows. The first one I opened looked like crap,
haven't used it ever since. There might be some adjustment that makes
xpdf work correctly, but I am not inclined to fix sloppy programming. It
is a lot easier to install Adobe, even it is a hog on Linux platform. At
least you know it works right...
Cr00zng...
DFS
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Why do I have to fix anything? What's wrong with the default
>> browser? Why is Linux so much trouble?
>
> This only highlights your ignorance of Web standards.
Font rendering is not a Web standard.
> Tim Berners-Lee
> never meant HTML to control the exact appearance of web sites. That
> is up to the individual renderer, and that is precisely the effect
> you see.
Yes. I know each browser has its own HTML rendering engine. Why is
Konqueror's (OSS) so bad.
> And whenever I've done web pages, they always look different between
> different browsers.
>
> I wouldn't worry so much about such minor differences.
If it was IE you would be worrying. And it is worrisome - it makes web
surfing very unpleasant.
>> Windows/IE: hurry
>
> Before it crashes!
This only highlights your ignorance of modern Windows.
Peter Hayes
(in article <mn.0d2c7d699...@gmail.com>):
> Gubo Dangle formulated on Friday :
>> Peter Hayes laid this down on his screen :
>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 14:19:36 +0100, DFS wrote
>>> (in article <ypWJg.2624$IM1....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>):
>>>
>>>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_IE.PNG
>>>
>>> Geez - that looks terrible.
>>>
>>> Here's what it should look like,
>>>
>>> http://www.seahaze.demon.co.uk/CNN_on_Safari.jpg
>>
>> Is the text supposed to be as blurry as that?
>
> For reference, here is it in XP:
>
> http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l249/junk_account/ie_on_XP.png
The rendering is very harsh. I wouldn't like to read text rendered like that
for very long. Safari's render is more rounded and easier on the eye.
This is one of those little details that over time helps determine your long
term experience of your platform.
> Note though that's with XP set for LCD font smoothing - it'll probably
> look awful on a CRT
Hmmmm...
--
Peter
Dangling Gubbo
At 2x zoom you can see that the fonts are blurry compared to Windows:
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l249/junk_account/snapshot2.png
(260k file)
Your screenshot on the left, XP on the right.
Linux is simply drawing the black parts of the characters then applying
color fringes in an attempt to make it look smoother, whereas XP is
actually using colors to draw the font character strokes, which definitely
looks better on a LCD at small point sizes.
William Poaster
00:55:30 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> Rick wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 11:18:35 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> B Gruff wrote:
>>>> On Friday 01 September 2006 14:48 DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I didn't touch font faces or sizes or anti-aliasing options on either
>>>>> system. And that's the result.
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm.. it would appear that your Konq fonts are considerably smaller
>>>> than your I.E. ones? Did you try a Ctrl+ at all?
>>>
>>> I didn't then, but I know Ctrl+/- increases/decreases font size. But
>>> it does nothing for the bogus Konqueror rendering, where letters are
>>> crammed up against each other. Many webpages are close to being
>>> unreadable under Konqueror.
>>
>> So, are you bitching about Konqueror or Linux?
>>
> Both, naturally. Because he is a dishonest lying prick
He goes in cycles.
1] Bitches about fonts being bad in linux, which they're not.
2] Bitches about linux being slower to boot than XP (WTF do you need to
keep booting linux machines for anyway, leave 'em running)
Break for a few weeks, then [1] & [2] again
One would never know that he'd had a lobotomy, he wears a wig to
hide to the scars & but has not quite learnt to control the slobbering.
Dangling Gubbo
> Gubo Dangle wrote:
>
>> Gubo Dangle formulated on Friday :
>>> Peter Hayes laid this down on his screen :
>>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 14:19:36 +0100, DFS wrote
>>>> (in article <ypWJg.2624$IM1....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>):
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_IE.PNG
>>>>
>>>> Geez - that looks terrible.
>>>>
>>>> Here's what it should look like,
>>>>
>>>> http://www.seahaze.demon.co.uk/CNN_on_Safari.jpg
>>>
>>> Is the text supposed to be as blurry as that?
>>
>> For reference, here is it in XP:
>>
>> http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l249/junk_account/ie_on_XP.png
>>
>
> Good. And what does that tell us?
>
>> Note though that's with XP set for LCD font smoothing - it'll probably
>> look awful on a CRT
>
> Well, at least *that* tells us something. Namely that you have not the
> slightest idea that a screen-shot does *not* make any difference between
> LCD or CRT.
Open mouth, insert foot.
> Only the type of capture file makes a difference (lossy like
> jpeg for example is less than stellar)
Which is why the examples given is a .png file...
> If you do a screen-shot, those "half-pixels" are not captured at all,
> because those are a part of the video-driver rendering an image
So- they are magically created by the hardware are they? Damn clever that
would be.. if it were true.
Get back to be when you know what you are talking about.
Peter Hayes
(in article <Uk2Kg.1428$Mh2...@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>):
To evaluate your .png file we need more information.
What was the original screen resolution of the two screen grabs?
Have you just 2x zoomed someone's .jpg posting, and if so how did you
eliminate the .jpg errors?
--
Peter
Peter Köhlmann
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Gubo Dangle wrote:
>>
>>> Gubo Dangle formulated on Friday :
>>>> Peter Hayes laid this down on his screen :
>>>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 14:19:36 +0100, DFS wrote
>>>>> (in article <ypWJg.2624$IM1....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>):
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_IE.PNG
>>>>>
>>>>> Geez - that looks terrible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's what it should look like,
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.seahaze.demon.co.uk/CNN_on_Safari.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Is the text supposed to be as blurry as that?
>>>
>>> For reference, here is it in XP:
>>>
>>> http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l249/junk_account/ie_on_XP.png
>>>
>>
>> Good. And what does that tell us?
>>
>>> Note though that's with XP set for LCD font smoothing - it'll probably
>>> look awful on a CRT
>>
>> Well, at least *that* tells us something. Namely that you have not the
>> slightest idea that a screen-shot does *not* make any difference between
>> LCD or CRT.
>
> Open mouth, insert foot.
>
Please do so. Because you are obviously clueless
>> Only the type of capture file makes a difference (lossy like
>> jpeg for example is less than stellar)
>
> Which is why the examples given is a .png file...
>
What part of "Only the type of capture file makes a difference" neeeds to be
explained in detail to you?
>> If you do a screen-shot, those "half-pixels" are not captured at all,
>> because those are a part of the video-driver rendering an image
>
> So- they are magically created by the hardware are they? Damn clever that
> would be.. if it were true.
>
Since when is a "video-driver" suddenly hardware?
Are you really that stupid or are you just in training mode?
> Get back to be when you know what you are talking about.
Well, you know certainly nothing at all about it.
A screen-shot (or that of a window) will always grab the memory of the
screen/window involved.
That memory knows nothing at all about "half-pixels" or how the video-driver
renders.
Come on, show us in even more detail how utterly clueless windows users
are...
--
Warning: 10 days have passed since your last Windows reinstall.
DFS
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> He does have a valid point, which is that the default configuration
>>> of the browser font isn't that good to say it mildly.
>>
>> You mean DumbFullShit uses a LiveCD linux version with limited
>> installed fonts? And then dishonestly whines about differences in
>> the looks of a webpage where even slightly retarded bacteria can see
>> that the fonts on Konqueror are *way* smaller and not anti-aliased?
I told you before, moron; that's the default look exactly as it first
loaded, both in Konqueror and IE with 800x600 screen res.
And since I told you before, and you continue to whine, only you are
dishonest.
>> Because of exactly that reason, DumbFullShit is not smart enough to
>> install linux and uses a non-changed live-CD?
Another wishful-thinking Linux moron. You think installing the distro will
magically make Konqueror use a different, now-beautifully-proportioned,
font?
I don't think so. I think default webpages on Konqueror will look
identically bad after I install the distro (which I'm not going to).
Dangling Gubbo
...
> Have you just 2x zoomed someone's .jpg posting, and if so how did you
> eliminate the .jpg errors?
>
I didn't - but the OP said it was how it was /supposed/ to look...
Here's a slightly fairer test, here's the page in XP:
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l249/junk_account/ie_on_XP.png
and in Konqueror:
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l249/junk_account/snapshot3.png
and Firefox in Linux:
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l249/junk_account/snapshot4.png
Zoom into them for yourself and see the difference.
Dangling Gubbo
The part where you missed that I posted a link to a .png file.
>
>>> If you do a screen-shot, those "half-pixels" are not captured at all,
>>> because those are a part of the video-driver rendering an image
>>
>> So- they are magically created by the hardware are they? Damn clever that
>> would be.. if it were true.
>>
>
> Since when is a "video-driver" suddenly hardware?
> Are you really that stupid or are you just in training mode?
>
>> Get back to be when you know what you are talking about.
>
> Well, you know certainly nothing at all about it.
> A screen-shot (or that of a window) will always grab the memory of the
> screen/window involved.
True. And if that memory contains fonts rendered using anti-aliasing then
that's what you get. Or, do you think that font smoothing is somehow a
function of the video driver that...
> That memory knows nothing at all about "half-pixels" or how the
> video-driver renders.
Hmmmmm, you do. Ah well. Some people just like to prove their stupidity now
and then...
Peter Köhlmann
Right. It is
BTW, it is so simple to test for yourself.
Do a screen-shot of a text. Now disable anti-aliasing
Do again screen-shot of same text.
Compare both. They are exactly the same
>> That memory knows nothing at all about "half-pixels" or how the
>> video-driver renders.
>
> Hmmmmm, you do. Ah well. Some people just like to prove their stupidity
> now and then...
Well, you in your total cluelessness have just proven that you are not ready
for linux. Not are you wanted. Stay on windows, by all means
--
Warning: You have moved the mouse.
Windows will reboot now to make the change permanent
Dangling Gubbo
> Right. It is
> BTW, it is so simple to test for yourself.
> Do a screen-shot of a text. Now disable anti-aliasing
> Do again screen-shot of same text.
> Compare both. They are exactly the same
>
Here's a test for you. Try it yourself.
Post your results so you can prove your statement.
Peter Hayes
(in article <OM2Kg.1432$Mh2...@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>):
None stand up to zooming in.
Look at this and tell me which you prefer.
http://www.seahaze.demon.co.uk/render.tiff
--
Peter
Tim Smith
Linonut <lin...@bone.com> wrote:
> > Why do I have to fix anything? What's wrong with the default browser? Why
> > is Linux so much trouble?
>
> This only highlights your ignorance of Web standards. Tim Berners-Lee
> never meant HTML to control the exact appearance of web sites. That is
> up to the individual renderer, and that is precisely the effect you see.
You remind me of the lawyer whose client was being sued for damages for
borrowing and damaging a friend's car, who offered all of the following
defenses at the same time:
(1) my client did not borrow the car,
(2) the car is not broken,
(3) the car was already broken when my client borrowed it.
--
--Tim Smith
flatfish+++
>> True. And if that memory contains fonts rendered using anti-aliasing then
>> that's what you get.
>> Or, do you think that font smoothing is somehow a
>> function of the video driver that...
>>
>
> Right. It is
> BTW, it is so simple to test for yourself.
> Do a screen-shot of a text. Now disable anti-aliasing
> Do again screen-shot of same text.
> Compare both. They are exactly the same
Above you claim that disabling anti-aliasing has no effect...
But yet over here, you blame DFS for sabotaging the screen shot by
disabling anti-aliasing and thus making the screen shot look bad.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/82e012c465a663cf
"You mean, you deliberately selected different fonts/fontsizes?
And deselected Anti-aliasing too for KDE?
Figures, after all you are one of the most dishonest widiots around here"
So which one is it Peter?
> Well, you in your total cluelessness have just proven that you are not ready
> for linux. Not are you wanted. Stay on windows, by all means
Actually based upon your utterings above, it looks like YOU are the one
that is not ready for Linux
flatfish+++
> You remind me of the lawyer whose client was being sued for damages for
> borrowing and damaging a friend's car, who offered all of the following
> defenses at the same time:
>
> (1) my client did not borrow the car,
>
> (2) the car is not broken,
>
> (3) the car was already broken when my client borrowed it.
Actually that sounds more like a jedi post....
DFS
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 14:19:36 +0100, DFS wrote
> (in article <ypWJg.2624$IM1....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>):
>
>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_IE.PNG
>
> Geez - that looks terrible.
>
> Here's what it should look like,
>
> http://www.seahaze.demon.co.uk/CNN_on_Safari.jpg
Try again, with your screen res set to 800x600.
Bobbie
How about 320 X 240 in glorious 4 bit gray scale?
--
Bobbie the Triple Killer
http://members.shaw.ca/bobbie4/index.htm
email Bobbie @ bobbie4R...@shaw.ca
remember to 'remove this'
Bobbie recently switched to Ubuntu 6.
Why? Cause he can, that's why.
Mark Kent
GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> espoused:
Gary/flatty seems to go through periods where the fonts go bad for him,
has done for years. Perhaps he should seen an optician, or perhaps
consume fewer recreational drugs, or get more sleep, or deal with
whatever it is which seems to cause him all these problems...
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
I hate babies. They're so human.
-- H.H. Munro
Tim Smith
flatfish+++ <flat...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 02:25:09 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> >> True. And if that memory contains fonts rendered using anti-aliasing then
> >> that's what you get.
> >> Or, do you think that font smoothing is somehow a
> >> function of the video driver that...
> >>
> >
> > Right. It is
> > BTW, it is so simple to test for yourself.
> > Do a screen-shot of a text. Now disable anti-aliasing
> > Do again screen-shot of same text.
> > Compare both. They are exactly the same
Using Ubuntu:
On: <http://www.tzs.net/aa/on.png>
Off: <http://www.tzs.net/aa/off.png>
Result: they are different.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
Peter Hayes <not_i...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Look at this and tell me which you prefer.
>
> http://www.seahaze.demon.co.uk/render.tiff
The fourth. Whose is that (Mac, Linux, Windows)?
The first has spacing problems that are jarring.
The second has too many visible jaggies.
Spacing problem in the third, like the first. (Is this the same as the
first? I'm having trouble noticing any difference).
--
--Tim Smith
High Plains Thumper
> Some around here say the Linux font problem has been fixed. It hasn't.
>
> For instance, Web surfing on Konqueror is nearly useless. Most pages look
> ugly, the letters are spaced wrong, lots of things are misaligned.
>
> And this is the OS that's going to unseat Windows? I think not.
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_Konqueror.jpg
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_IE.PNG
Oh, really? My Konqueror 3.5.1 using KDE 3.5.1 Level "a" SUSE 10.1 looks
normal, see:
http://www.geocities.com/highplainsthumper/KonquerorFontClipping.JPG
--
HPT
William Poaster
Yup, that's just like mine is. SuSE 10.1, KDE 3.5.4 Level "a", konqueror
3.5.4
DFS
Indeed. Last night I booted up SimplyMEPIS, and websites on Konqueror 3.5.3
looked fine and dandy.
Linonut
Why don't either of you find a link about the issue. I tend to believe
Peter on this one, otherwise a CRT and LCD image viewed live would look
the same, and, in my experience, I believe they don't.
--
"The reason (for) new versions is not to fix bugs. ... It's the stupidest
reason to buy a new version I ever heard. When we do a new version we put in
lots of new things that people (ask) for. And so, in no sense, is stability
a reason to move to a new version. It's never a reason." -- Bill Gates
Linonut
Now we have a possible third situation: the rendering to memory
provides intermediate pixel colors, but the driver can provide further
tweaking (a la interlacing).
--
Speak softly and carry a cellular phone.
Linonut
> Linonut wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Why do I have to fix anything? What's wrong with the default
>>> browser? Why is Linux so much trouble?
>>
>> This only highlights your ignorance of Web standards.
>
> Font rendering is not a Web standard.
Now you get my point.
>> Tim Berners-Lee
>> never meant HTML to control the exact appearance of web sites. That
>> is up to the individual renderer, and that is precisely the effect
>> you see.
>
> Yes. I know each browser has its own HTML rendering engine. Why is
> Konqueror's (OSS) so bad.
Based on what others have said, its the configuration of the LiveCD.
> If it was IE you would be worrying. And it is worrisome - it makes web
> surfing very unpleasant.
I don't give two shits about IE. I use it only when I absolutely have
to, and lately I haven't had to.
>>> Windows/IE: hurry
>>
>> Before it crashes!
>
> This only highlights your ignorance of modern Windows.
<foghorn leghorn>
Ah say, that's a joke, son.
</foghorn leghorn>
You don't have a monopoly on juvenile japes. <grin>
--
"We ... come ... in ... ... ... peace!"
Linonut
Nah, you're barking up the wrong tree, Tim. I'm merely noting that
there will be differences in rendering.
A completely separate issue from a particular rendering of a particular
page by a particular browser running from the confines of a LiveCD.
Yet DFS wants to overgeneralize the situation, claiming that what he's
showing is "the default Linux browser", and using that as a springboard
to whine about "why is Linux so much trouble"?
Finally, even if the font rendering is off in this situation, who cares?
The point of HTML is to present information. The rest is eye candy.
Linonut
> Linonut wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, cr00zng belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Another application with "screwy" font is in the "xpdf" reader, which
>>> is the default PDF reader for most Linux distros; using this
>>> application does make the PDF document look like crap.
>>
>> No, it doesn't.
>
> Oh yes it does; even you admit it below...
Dude, admitting a few bad cases (usually where someone has created the PDF
with the assumption that Windows-installed fonts will be present) is
hardly the same as saying that xpdf has screwy fonts.
> The operative word is "with most document" the xpdf might look the same
> as it does under Windows. The first one I opened looked like crap,
> haven't used it ever since. There might be some adjustment that makes
> xpdf work correctly, but I am not inclined to fix sloppy programming. It
> is a lot easier to install Adobe, even it is a hog on Linux platform. At
> least you know it works right...
I seriously doubt it is "sloppy programming". If you're curious, try
running xdpf with various documents, from the command line. Especially
the ones provided by Windows-using friends. You may see some
interesting messages on the console.
The only time I use acroread is when the document is truly problematic
(a rarity), or when our corp sends us these fucking PDF forms to fill
out and print (without saving, of course -- fuck you very much, Adobe,
for being so considerate, just so you can wrangle a few more bucks out
of the end user.)
Oddly enough, I have no trouble with PDFs provided by open-source
projects (e.g. Doxygen). Therefore, since xpdf is much faster, I use it
first.
Anyway, no harm meant, Cr00zng. I aim for clarity (sometimes being
side-tracked, of course.)
--
Boot your Windows operating system in a virtual machine on Linux
It's safer.
-- http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/
Linonut
> Another wishful-thinking Linux moron. You think installing the distro will
> magically make Konqueror use a different, now-beautifully-proportioned,
> font?
>
> I don't think so. I think default webpages on Konqueror will look
> identically bad after I install the distro (which I'm not going to).
I wouldn't, either, from a LiveCD that gave those results. Why?
Because something might be missing. But, if a friend could show me his
good install, I'd note that it was a LiveCD problem, and install it from
true install disks.
In any case, there are so many site and browser issues over the whole
spectrum of sites and software that you're cavilling about a Konq
problem seems over the top.
--
Don't flip the Bozo Bit.
Linonut
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
And there you have it.
Thanks for the (hopefully) final word. <grin>
--
"I'm going to f'in *kill* Google!"
-- Steve Ballmer, CEO Microsoft
DFS
ha! I can usually count on Linonut for a pleasant, no-hostility repartee.
Thanks for evening out my mood swings when I'm itching for another [useless]
cola fight.
DFS
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Another wishful-thinking Linux moron. You think installing the
>> distro will magically make Konqueror use a different,
>> now-beautifully-proportioned, font?
>>
>> I don't think so. I think default webpages on Konqueror will look
>> identically bad after I install the distro (which I'm not going to).
>
> I wouldn't, either, from a LiveCD that gave those results. Why?
> Because something might be missing. But, if a friend could show me
> his good install, I'd note that it was a LiveCD problem, and install
> it from true install disks.
It (Mandriva Live) didn't give a good impression: only 3 video modes
(800x600 the highest), and nearly useless web browsing.
SimplyMEPIS live CD was much better.
KNOPPIX live CD is a trip, with dozens and dozens of apps. The install is
kind of rough, but I've gotten it to work.
> In any case, there are so many site and browser issues over the whole
> spectrum of sites and software that you're cavilling about a Konq
> problem seems over the top.
Hey, any tiny Linux problem I can get a toehold in is good enough for me.
It can turn into a multi-day cola bash-fest if you feed it well enough :)
John A. Bailo
> ha! I can usually count on Linonut for a pleasant, no-hostility repartee.
> Thanks for evening out my mood swings when I'm itching for another
> [useless] cola fight.
Better this then sniper activities on the hill overlooking the local
community center.
--
Texeme Construct
Cr00zng
Most certainly one can work around PDF display issues under Linux and
fix it to your liking; there are plenty of options available on the
Linux platform. My version of workaround is just as good as any other;
even if Adobe is slow and it has its mind of its own at times. I find it
ironic that on the Windows platform I don't use Adobe, opted for Foxit
reader; the Foxit PDF reader is similar to "xpdf", it's small and fast
and in addition it has no issues on font rendering.
I called xpdf "sloppy programming" since it should select a better font
and/or come with one, which is easily readable by default like Adobe
does. Most people use a computer as a tool, with little or no knowledge
of how to fix it when it doesn't work right. Especially when the fix
does not include "click-click". I tend to do the same, maybe a little
more if I must; just a question of preference. Calling applications
names comes from this laziness...
PDF is a cross-platform file format; I don't see the relevance on what
platform it has been created on. If anything, the PDF file created on
the Windows platform highlights the lack of similar font support on the
Linux platform. Let me rephrase that, similar font support by default.
No harm done, just exchanging opinions...
Cr00zng...
Cr00zng
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Another wishful-thinking Linux moron. You think installing the distro will
>> magically make Konqueror use a different, now-beautifully-proportioned,
>> font?
>>
>> I don't think so. I think default webpages on Konqueror will look
>> identically bad after I install the distro (which I'm not going to).
>
> I wouldn't, either, from a LiveCD that gave those results. Why?
> Because something might be missing. But, if a friend could show me his
> good install, I'd note that it was a LiveCD problem, and install it from
> true install disks.
Interestingly, you could run an XP LiveCD with no issues with the fonts:
The XP LiveCD is similar to Knoppix; you could boot to it on broken
Windows system and fix it. Well, if one knows what he or she is doing
that is :)
>
> In any case, there are so many site and browser issues over the whole
> spectrum of sites and software that you're cavilling about a Konq
> problem seems over the top.
>
The issues that you've listed are true, but not related to the font
rendering. The only thing is that DFS complained about was font
rendering, which is local on the machine and not browser and/or site
dependent for the most part.
Cr00zng...
flatfish+++
It looks fine under PCLinuxOS .93a as well, although I don't like
konqueror.
Ray Ingles
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_IE.PNG
Wait, why is the Linux image stored in a lossy format, and the Windows
image stored in a lossless one? He doesn't miss a dishonest trick, does
he?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles sorce...@hotmail.com
"These modern kids don't know the simple joy of saving four bytes of
page-0 memory on a 6502 box." - isomeme
GreyCloud
The one thing that I haven't seen anywhere else is the ability to adjust
the font spacing with a particular font. I've been able to adjust my
font setting to get a very pleasing look.
I've seen the very early posts of how jagged the fonts used to look and
now how things have been sweetened up dramatically. It seems that some
of these people are now quibbling over every jot and tittle to discredit
Linux.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
Mark Kent
It's a bit like buying a house because you like the colour of the walls,
even though the foundations are rotten. Linux has excellent
foundations, and the OSS culture has grown a fantastic set of apps, each
of which are publicly developed, bugs and all, so any user can see at a
glance the level of maturity. Security is worked on consistently and
effectively, and a quick glance at the number of viruses for different
platforms does illustrate rather well that some softare suppliers spend
too much time messing with pixels when they should be messing with
trying to write good code. Give me linux any day...
tjb
> Some around here say the Linux font problem has been fixed. It hasn't.
<...>
My new Ubuntu installation:
http://imagesocket.com/view/ubuntu94b.png
:)
Peter Hayes
(in article <reply-in-group-EC3...@news.supernews.com>):
The first is Firefox on Linux.
Second is IE on WinXP
Third is Konqueror on Linux
All as previously posted.
The fourth is Safari.
As you say, the first three suffer from various rendering errors and I
wouldn't like to read web pages presented like that for very long. I'd soon
lose interest and move on.
--
Peter
Linonut
> even if Adobe is slow and it has its mind of its own at times. I find it
> ironic that on the Windows platform I don't use Adobe, opted for Foxit
> reader; the Foxit PDF reader is similar to "xpdf", it's small and fast
> and in addition it has no issues on font rendering.
Thanks for the tip! Foxit.
>
> I called xpdf "sloppy programming" since it should select a better font
> and/or come with one, which is easily readable by default like Adobe
> does.
I think I agree here. I've had PDFs that come up with mostly blank
pages! Maybe not sloppy programming, but definitely not robust.
> PDF is a cross-platform file format; I don't see the relevance on what
> platform it has been created on. If anything, the PDF file created on
> the Windows platform highlights the lack of similar font support on the
> Linux platform. Let me rephrase that, similar font support by default.
Actually, it's potentially an issue of Microsoft hoarding their fonts so
that other platforms perforce have problems rendering some documents.
Their fonts used to be available. They still, just not from Microsoft.
> No harm done, just exchanging opinions...
And, hell, a little ribald name-calling is de rigeur (sp?) here.
> Cr00zng...
B00zng!
--
It's not a bug, it's a feature!
Linonut
> ha! I can usually count on Linonut for a pleasant, no-hostility repartee.
> Thanks for evening out my mood swings when I'm itching for another [useless]
> cola fight.
I used to be pretty bad about it. Now I try to rag on only the most
rotten posters or the most unbelievable or egregious posts.
So if you say something baaaaaad, I'll be there with flamethrower (if I
see the post, I've been skipping a lot lately, writing a lot of
unit tests for my library.)
--
Intel: where Quality is job number 0.9998782345!
Linonut
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 09:52:39 -0500, Linonut <lin...@bone.com> wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_Konqueror.jpg
>>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_IE.PNG
>
> Wait, why is the Linux image stored in a lossy format, and the Windows
> image stored in a lossless one? He doesn't miss a dishonest trick, does
> he?
I didn't notice that. However, I think most of us can see jpeg
artifacts pretty well when they are there.
Good catch, though.
--
The three Rs of Microsoft support: Retry, Reboot, Reinstall.
Gubo Dangle
Well, on my monitor, the second looks clearer. The forth looks blurry
(although darker), and the first and third look OK, but small and
incorrectly spaced.
Try moving back from your monitor and see which remains readable from a
further distance away. I can still read the second paragraph from about
6 foot away.
DFS
Stupid "catch". Here's the .png file - looks identically bad: letters are
jammed together or spaced too far apart.
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_Konqueror.png
It's plenty easy to confirm for yourself: just boot up the Mandrake LiveCD
and load Konqueror w/ defaults. Web pages are nearly unreadable.
Peter Hayes
(in article <mn.14d47d698...@gmail.com>):
Two and four become unreadable last, but I still find four easiest on the
eye.
I suspect the others didn't have any anti-aliasing which led to their
harshness.
--
Peter
Linonut
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 18:21:00 -0400, DFS wrote:
> Of course it didn't really matter because at the time, Linux fonts were so
> bad an 8 bit bmp would show it.
I will admit that anti-aliasing can improve some fonts tremendously.
However, now, and in the past, there have always been eminently
good-looking and readable fonts in Linux.
In fact, I have an old laptop running Gnome 1.4 on Debian. I noticed
the other day how clean and crisp the fonts were, and how good the
overall look of Linux was back then, at least on that old laptop.
(I have fond memories of my wife driving the family to Tennessee while I
sat in the back, figuring out for the first time how to install Debian
on a low-end no-name laptop -- actually a Mitac laptop under the Enpower
label.)
--
If Bill Gates had a dime for every time a Windows box crashed...
...Oh, wait a minute, he already does.
Jim
concerning Linonut:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, flatfish+++ belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 18:21:00 -0400, DFS wrote:
>> Of course it didn't really matter because at the time, Linux fonts were
>> so bad an 8 bit bmp would show it.
>
> I will admit that anti-aliasing can improve some fonts tremendously.
>
> However, now, and in the past, there have always been eminently
> good-looking and readable fonts in Linux.
>
> In fact, I have an old laptop running Gnome 1.4 on Debian. I noticed
> the other day how clean and crisp the fonts were, and how good the
> overall look of Linux was back then, at least on that old laptop.
>
> (I have fond memories of my wife driving the family to Tennessee while I
> sat in the back, figuring out for the first time how to install Debian
> on a low-end no-name laptop -- actually a Mitac laptop under the Enpower
> label.)
>
http://www.fotothing.com/DotWare/
Only one pic on there, and that's my current desktop: 15" XGA panel, and the
aggressively antialiased fonts with BGR filtering are quite readable at
7pt, tyvm. :)
--
I hereby testify that the above statement is an accurate recollection of the
events mentioned therein.
http://dotware.co.uk
Registered Linux user #426308 -*- http://counter.li.org
Cr00zng
> Thanks for the tip! Foxit.
Some sites require Adobe, like my paycheck online; that's where Linux
with Adobe comes handy.
> And, hell, a little ribald name-calling is de rigeur (sp?) here.
Now you're starting, you winonut :)?
> B00zng!
Among other "zings", well, yes!.
Cr00zng...
Cr00zng
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 14:19:36 +0100, DFS wrote
> (in article <ypWJg.2624$IM1....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>):
>
>> http://www.angelfire.com/planet/dfs0/CNN_on_IE.PNG
>
> Geez - that looks terrible.
>
> Here's what it should look like,
>
> http://www.seahaze.demon.co.uk/CNN_on_Safari.jpg
>
Linux on my XP laptop, IBM T43p 2 GBs memory, runs under WMWare with
interesting results as far as the display with anti-aliasing enabled is
concerned.
Your image and web browsing in general look the same as yours; it is
quite readable and looks good.
Switching out from full screen mode changes the the display in Linux
also; the XP's clear-type fonts takes over. The result is noticeably
better on XP, which is sort of strange. So much for WMWare OS being
totally separate from the host OS. I'm not really complaining since the
clear-type fonts are nice.
Cr00zng...
Cr00zng
Well, duh....
In XP the resolution is 1600x1200 and under Linux it was set to
1280x1024. Changed the resolution for Linux to 1600x1200 and what do you
know? Anti-aliasing does look the same as clear-type in full screen or
windows mode. Nice!
Cr00zng...