Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 31st Jul 2005 11:45 UTC, submitted by GhePeU
Gnome GNOME 2.12 will be released to the world on September 7th, 2005, culminating 6 months of very exciting work by members of the project. A number of exciting technologies come together in GNOME 2.12 that will set the standard for free software desktops to come. Here is a sample of some of the outstanding work that has gone into GNOME thanks to its many contributors.
Thread beginning with comment 11941
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Not too bad
by sappyvcv on Mon 1st Aug 2005 02:39 UTC
sappyvcv
Member since:
2005-07-06

As someone who has never been a big fan of linux, I have to say I am actually impressed. All the changes I see there are things I think are little but important.

Hopefully the performance will improve too. I may end up giving linux a real shot again with GNOME. I tried Ubuntu Hoary, but still was left unimpressed overall (though impressed by Ubuntu as a linux distro).

Now if only MS was kind enough to make ClearType tech open, and linux was to implement it, I might finally try a switch (which would actually be me using linux and windows 50/50). And don't try to tell me existing linux font rendering technologies look the same as ClearType. You can argue they are better, fine, I don't care. But they do NOT come out being rendered the same as ClearType. That is fact. When that's possible, if it is, I will be very happy.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not too bad
by rayiner on Mon 1st Aug 2005 03:47 in reply to "Not too bad"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

That's a very interesting response. I haven't used Windows in a long time, but when I do, I generally don't like it. Windows fonts are too small and the shapes too forced (from excessive hinting) for my taste, and I can see blatent color fringing as a result of Cleartype. I like FreeType's more natural, if somewhat fuzzier rendering. To me, its a nice medium between Windows and OS X (which isn't hinted enough). I do wish the auto-hinter was better at handling italic fonts, though. On most text, it doesn't do a good job of keeping the tilted axis all the characters parallel to each other.

That said, you should be able to get results pretty close to ClearType. Turn on the bytecode interpreter (it's illegal in the USA, thanks to Apple), and turn on sub-pixel anti-aliasing. Then, grab the Tahoma font from your Windows partition, and set things to 8pt. That'll get you close.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Not too bad
by sappyvcv on Mon 1st Aug 2005 03:56 in reply to "RE: Not too bad"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

First of all, you have to generally use the ClearType tweak utility to get it to look right on your screen. Otherwise itll look too sharp or too blurry. Once you do, it looks GREAT, even on a decent CRT.

I did use the BCI with free-type. I followed guides that said how to emulate ClearType perfectly and it still didnt look the same. "close" is not good enough for me. I notice the different. With FreeType trying to emulate ClearType, I notice some really annoying things. Like 'w' and 's' and 'D' being too thick in parts. It really sticks out, as illustrated in this image:
http://weakmind.org/upload/files/osnews_ft.png
And clear type with the same stuff:
http://weakmind.org/upload/files/osnews_ct_mine.png

Yes, I used mscorefonts and even got Tahoma. It's simply not the same. You may think it's close enough or better, but it's still NOT the same. And for me, that's not good enough. It's about choice, isn't it? I want the choice.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Not too bad
by abraxas on Mon 1st Aug 2005 12:32 in reply to "Not too bad"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

And don't try to tell me existing linux font rendering technologies look the same as ClearType<p>

They don't at all. Fonts on Windows hurt my eyes. Fonts on Linux are softer and a lot less jagged. Personally I don't see the big deal with the fonts on Linux. They have looked better than Windows fonts to me for a while.

You can argue they are better, fine, I don't care. But they do NOT come out being rendered the same as ClearType.

You are right, they are not the same. I just don't get how anyone likes fonts on Windows better. They look horrible in comparison. I guess it is just a matter of opinion.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Not too bad
by on Mon 1st Aug 2005 16:07 in reply to "Not too bad"
Member since:

um i wont even attempt to say they look the same.

cause XP's fonts just flat out suck hard. what is with the psycholdelic multicolored AA system they use.

yuck.

Sorry a default gnome with some decent truetype fonts is FAR superior

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Not too bad
by Wrawrat on Mon 1st Aug 2005 19:51 in reply to "RE: Not too bad"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

I guess it depends on your display...

On my laptop, the fonts are FAR smoother in MS Windows than on X.org, even with the BCI and subpixel rendering. I'm using a 15.4" LCD at 1400x1050.

It's the opposite on my desktop with a 19" CRT... Have some issues with the kerning and some international characters (anything with acute/grave accents) at smaller sizes, but the fonts still look better.

Reply Parent Score: 1