Linked by AdamW on Tue 23rd Aug 2011 22:10 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 486573
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-02-10
I highly doubt that it is _extremely_ subjective area.
The font rendering is important(consider moving from XP to Fedora) and you will see the font difference.
What people missed about font rendering is not about BEAUTY where subjectivity applies, as you've said. It is about how the system properly displays the font without overlapping characters, the system must handle this properly so that it is easier for the user to read regardless of the beauty, and Linux desktop failed to address this. Yes the default font is readable enough, but it is still fall short of what fonts should be.
Try to replace your fonts via appearance and look at the characters on your desktop especially terminal, and you will see the ugly fonts.
Ubuntu at least have tried to address this, and I like their ubuntu fonts more than the liberation fonts or anything Fedora provides.