Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Linux Desktop Distros with Quality Fonts?

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the out-of-box-experience dept.

GUI 178

occamboy writes "I'm trying to make a case for switching to Linux desktops, and would like to demonstrate how advantageous Linux is. While the advantages of Linux are more obvious for us techies, I'm finding that many non-technical types are immediately negatively biased by the look of Linux desktops. The problem boils down to screen fonts. It seems that, in the distributions that I've demonstrated, the screen fonts are either all aliased, or are aliased in some places and antialiased in others, which I've been told resembles a ransom note with letters cut from different magazines. I can understand where these critics are coming from; after all, they are staring at fonts on a monitor all day long. Are there any distributions that I can demonstrate which provide smooth and consistent screen fonts without requiring a lot of messing around?"

cancel ×

178 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

here (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10223985)

try bitstream vera sans and use kde control center to set antialias settings. gnome has a tool too for font stuff. oh and btw stop demoing cli ok?

Re:here (1)

TheWanderingHermit (513872) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224120)

So what does he do, work with only one font?

I was using a few Bitstream fonts yesterday, putting graphics together for a web page, and couldn't believe how crappy some of the text looked in Gimp.

One font does not a solution make.

Really? (2, Interesting)

Medieval_Gnome (250212) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224190)

This has been the absolute opposite of my experiance. I've found the fonts on WinXP are either antialiased with colored edges or aliased, and that linux tends to get everything right with the exception of capital letter "o"

I would be really interested in seeing a screenshot or detailed description of what you notice as being craptacular about the fonts.

Re:Really? (1)

TheWanderingHermit (513872) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224265)

If I had it, I'd be glad to get it to you, but when it didn't work, I created a graphic, put it in as bg for a table, and did the text as regular text. I figured that way, if there were a problem, I could always blame the user's browser. (I love blaming the user's browser -- especially if it's IE!)

Re:Really? (1)

Satertek (708058) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224791)

I thought the same thing. I've always had better looking font in Linux than windows especiallly non-English language fonts.

Re:here (2, Informative)

BladeMelbourne (518866) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224242)

I love the Bitstream fonts - on Windows and Linux.

It's 3 fonts really...
Bitstram Vera Sans
Bitstram Vera Sans Mono
Bitstream Vera Serif

Bitstream Vera Sans is very readable in web pages - IMHO more so than Verdana. And the mono font is ideal for when I write SQL/XHTML/etc at home/work.

http://www.gnome.org/fonts/ [gnome.org]

I dont have any problems with fonts on Fedora Core 2. The fonts look pretty decent in Knoppix 3.6 too.

PS: Bitstream fonts look great in Macromedia Fireworks, but the gimp still rocks. ;-)

Re:here (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 10 years ago | (#10228534)

From a quick search in my debian unstable:

# apt-cache search ttf-

ttf-arabeyes - Arabeyes GPL TrueType Arabic fonts
ttf-arhangai - A TrueType font with Mongolian Cyrillic letters
ttf-arphic-bkai00mp - "AR PL KaitiM Big5" Chinese TrueType font by Arphic Technology
ttf-arphic-bsmi00lp - "AR PL Mingti2L Big5" Chinese TrueType font by Arphic Technology
ttf-arphic-gbsn00lp - "AR PL SungtiL GB" Chinese TrueType font by Arphic Technology
ttf-arphic-gkai00mp - "AR PL KaitiM GB" Chinese TrueType font by Arphic Technology
ttf-baekmuk - Baekmuk series TrueType fonts
*ttf-bitstream-vera - The Bitstream Vera family of free TrueType fonts
*ttf-dustin - Various TrueType fonts from dustismo.com
*ttf-freefont - Freefont Serif, Sans and Mono Truetype fonts
*ttf-isabella - The Isabella free TrueType font
ttf-kacst - KACST free TrueType Arabic fonts
ttf-kochi-gothic - Kochi Subst Gothic Japanese TrueType font without naga10
ttf-kochi-mincho - Kochi Subst Mincho Japanese TrueType font without naga10
ttf-malayalam-fonts - Free TrueType fonts for the Malayalam language
*ttf-opensymbol - The OpenSymbol TrueType font
ttf-sazanami-gothic - Sazanami Gothic Japanese TrueType font
ttf-sazanami-mincho - Sazanami Mincho Japanese TrueType font
*ttf-staypuft - The Stay-Puft free TrueType font
ttf-tamil-fonts - Free TrueType fonts for the Tamil language
*ttf-thryomanes - A Unicode font covering Latin, Greek, Cyrillic and IPA
ttf-unfonts - Un series Korean TrueType fonts
gs-cjk-resource - Resource files for gs-cjk, ghostscript CJK-TrueType extension
t1-xfree86-nonfree - non-free Postscript Type 1 fonts from XFree86
ttf-kochi-gothic-naga10 - Kochi Subst Gothic Japanese TrueType font with naga10 (non-free)
ttf-kochi-mincho-naga10 - Kochi Subst Mincho Japanese TrueType font with naga10 (non-free)
*ttf-larabie-deco - Decorative fonts from www.larabiefonts.com
*ttf-larabie-straight - Straight fonts from www.larabiefonts.com
*ttf-larabie-uncommon - Special decorative fonts from www.larabiefonts.com
ttf-mikachan - handwritten Japanese Truetype font
ttf-xfree86-nonfree - non-free TrueType fonts from XFree86
ttf-xfree86-nonfree-syriac - non-free syriac OpenType fonts from XFree86
ttf-alee - A Lee's GPL'd Hangul truetype fonts
ttf-bangla-fonts - Free TrueType fonts for the Bengali language
ttf-indic-fonts - A collection of OpenType Unicode Indic fonts
ttf-uralic - Truetype fonts for Cyrillic-based Uralic languages

I assume all ttf fonts can be antialiased (that's the case for those i tried out).
I prefixed with an asterisk the fonts who might be interesting. Some others I might have overlooked. Some of these packages contains lots of font families, BTW.
Finally, my installation of GIMP treats bitstream fonts quite well.

SuSE 9.1 (4, Interesting)

cymen (8178) | more than 10 years ago | (#10223997)

I recently installed SuSE Professional 9.1 and the fonts look really good. I use Firefox on both Windows and Linux and I even forgot which OS I was using the other day when only the browser was open.

Mandrake 10.0 (4, Interesting)

leonbrooks (8043) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224144)

I've had people walk up to Mandrake machines, use them for a day, and walk away not realising that it wasn't MS-Windows. If I switched those boxes to XPDE instead of KDE and did a little tweaking, I'm sure it would be easy to fool ten times as many people - if that was my aim.

I was using my laptop (running Mandrake Linux) at a private function last week, and a 10yob I know came up, looked oddly at the screen for a few minutes, then asked "Which Windows are you using?" It took about 15 minutes and much repetition to mostly-convince him that it wasn't running MS-Windows at all, but rather KDE on Linux. This is the level of ignorance we face. This kid knows his own machine inside out, as well as a non-programmer possibly could, but had no clue that anything other than MS-Windows ever existed.

Both Mandrake and SuSE do the font thing well, including different aliasing at different sizes.

I haven't seriously tried other distros for a while but seem to remember some of the Debian-based distros (Gentoo, Knoppix) being happy out of the box nowadays, and probably Lin{spire,dows,insertsuffixhere} but that has other issues you don't want to have to deal with.

If you use the download edition of Mandrake, set it up with the Contribs as a URPMI source, and manually pull down a few things (Flash player, Win32 CoDecs and the like) from the Penguin Liberation Front sites [zarb.org] . Using PLF wide throttle is a bit risky, but cherry-picking only extras instead of replacing standard packages as well seems to work well. I've also tacked together a few extras of my own here [cyberknights.com.au] , but that's a skinny DSL line; please don't melt it down.

Oh, and use good fonts (3, Informative)

leonbrooks (8043) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224239)

Probably preaching to the choir on this one, but if you only use crappy fonts, you will not ever get good results.

There are plenty of good, free TTFs kicking around, starting with the Microsoft ones [sourceforge.net] (yes Rheba, before they realised [microsoft.com] that competitors could use them too, the Evil Empire released some of the good things they make, for free. It's difficult to make insecure fonts, but I'm sure they tried :-).

Re:Oh, and use good fonts (3, Informative)

Trepalium (109107) | more than 10 years ago | (#10226644)

Microsoft didn't make most of those fonts, but rather just licensed them from Monotype and B&H. Comic Sans MS, Georgia, Tahoma, Trebuchet MS, Verdana and Wingdings are the only ones that MS created (presumably). Arial [fonts.com] , Times New Roman [fonts.com] , and the other very well known ones are Monotype [monotype.com] fonts.

Verdana and Tahoma are the ones I see most used (2, Interesting)

leonbrooks (8043) | more than 10 years ago | (#10227351)

If you have a look at MS' history, they wrote precious little of their own stuff. People keep lists, but even lots of stuff not on the lists 'coz it's no longer current (e.g. MultiPlan) was not written by them, so I'd be totally unsurprised if they'd got someone else to craft those as well.

Re:Mandrake 10.0 (4, Informative)

boredMDer (640516) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224536)

' some of the Debian-based distros (Gentoo, Knoppix)'

Gentoo is not a Debian based distro.

Gentoo (1)

cbr2702 (750255) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224814)

The default fonts look nice, though.

Gentoo.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10226107)

Gentoo is not Debian-based. It's an independent Distribution.

It's all the same (1)

jpmkm (160526) | more than 10 years ago | (#10223998)

Isn't it pretty much all the same regardless of distribution? It's all the same X. It's all the same KDE and Gnome. Do distribution maintainers really do this much stuff?

Re:It's all the same (2, Informative)

rincebrain (776480) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224002)

Yes. Yes they do.

Go compare RedHat to Gentoo to Knoppix to Mandrake.

Re:It's all the same (2, Informative)

thegrassyknowl (762218) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224234)

But some make it easier than others; We run RH9 at work and I think it (mostly) looks great. It's also quite easy to install true-type fonts on RedHat.

There are RPMS available here [sourceforge.net] to allow installing the MS core fonts (Arial, Comic, etc).

Most Windows users seem to miss a few of the MS fonts, and are infinitely happier when they are available and configured for use.

Nearly all of the applications use the KDE font settings and anti-aliassed fonts. It's only the few older apps that don't get used anyway that seem to screw it up.

Re:It's all the same (2, Informative)

Paul d'Aoust (679461) | more than 10 years ago | (#10225028)

I kinda tend to side with you: although distro maintainers do put a lot of work into making sure Freetype is working properly across the board (this involves checking the Big Two toolkits, Qt and GTK+, and their companion desktop environments, KDE, GNOME, and XFCE, as well as OpenOffice and Mozilla, who dance to the beat of their own drums as far as fonts are concerned), every distro provides pretty darn similar software, and as long as you know what you're doing, you can get software from whatever distro working okay.

On that note, I would recommend just going with one desktop environment and one toolkit for the most part; this will make changing font settings for (almost) all programs a one-step task. I believe KDE was the pioneer in bringing things like antialiasing and subpixel decimation (for LCD monitors) to the desktop in an easy-to-control, one-step way, but GNOME is just as easily customiseable now (if not more so -- but I have no idea; I haven't used KDE for a while). From my experience (in Gentoo, at least) the GNOME control panel also changes font default and aliasing settings for Firefox, but OpenOffice is a hit-and-miss affair. Anyway, I stick with GTK+ programs for the most part, so one change in the GNOME control panel and all my programs have a fresh font.

For a really lovely serif font, try Gentium [sil.org] . It has almost every glyph under the sun, in one attractive style. Unfortunately, this comprehensiveness also has a drawback -- they haven't managed to design bold and italic alternates yet. But if you want to show off the international support of Linux to all your Russian, Greek, and Jewish friends, Gentium is the font for you.

Sorry, I get a little starry-eyed about fonts. It's the graphic designer in me.

Thanks. (1)

GCP (122438) | more than 10 years ago | (#10226075)

Thanks for the great tip. The Latin-1 glyphs repertoire is obsolete--even popular English-language print publications such as Time and Newsweek have NEVER limited themselves to such a pitiful set of characters.

The full text of a 1980s Time Magazine article ought to be completely and correctly displayable anywhere text is displayed on a 21st Century computer, including the command line. For this, we need fonts such as this Gentium as standard. (Of course, we need UTF-8-based shells as standard, too, among other things, and it's starting to happen....)

I don't think so. (3, Informative)

login.pl (799344) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224007)

I'm not trying to troll but of all the users that I've encounterd none of them would give a second thought to crappy fonts. You don't know how many times I've sat in front of a user's nice LCD monitor set to a non-optimal resolution with antialiasing OFF!

Re:I don't think so. (1)

TheWanderingHermit (513872) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224129)

Why is it that people on /. can't ever seem to get the point that there are many users who need things like good fonts, a usable GUI, and other features besides JUST a command prompt?

Re:I don't think so. (2, Insightful)

Enrico Pulatzo (536675) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224334)

It's because /. is a community site filled with differing opinions. Why people insist on posting in such a thread a "why care" response to a question is a mystery to me.

Re:I don't think so. (1)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224366)

Because too many times I've seen users use a monitor at 60hz ? :)

Re:I don't think so. (4, Funny)

magefile (776388) | more than 10 years ago | (#10225478)

Last time I was in a school lab, the babysitter (she doesn't know squat, so that's all she is, really) chastised me for changing the monitor to 75Hz (the max it would do). Apparently, it "uses less electricity" at lower Hz. Thank goodness it only goes as low as 60!

Re:I don't think so. (1)

jjshoe (410772) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224150)

Not to mention the picture is badly adjusted and fuzy. All they need to do is hit the auto adjust button. Some wont care about the lack of picture quality or they will request a new monitor. Nothing like walking in, hitting auto, and saying no to their reuqest for a new monitor!

Re:I don't think so. (1)

madstork2000 (143169) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224565)

It is a nice feeling, I have had the priveledge of doing that on several occassions. . . .

As a side note, if I see one more 17" LCD running at 800x600 "because my eyes are not as good as they used to be" I will scream. I think the shitty look large icons, and fuzzy fonts are hurting the eyes a lot more than crisp clean sharp, yet smaller icons and fonts . . .

oh well. . . .

Re:I don't think so. (2, Interesting)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 10 years ago | (#10225233)

It's because software very rarely (really, never) scales well. Windows allows you to set the font zoom, but most software packages can't cope with this and text will run off the side of windows. MacOS X doesn't allow the user to tweak the font size at all (that I can determine, at least.)

If Longhorn's display technology ever makes it, it'll fix all this. Or if Apple beats them to the punch. It'll be nice to run a monitor at 1600x1200 and not have to press my nose against the glass to read text... I have poor eyesight, too.

Another solution would be to come up with a technology that makes software *think* it's running on an 800x600 screen, but actually be running at 1600x1200... all the scaling up could be done by code that intercepts the drawing commands given to the OS, which would keep fonts and GUI elements smooth. Someone develop this.

Font sizes on high-res monitor (2, Informative)

greppling (601175) | more than 10 years ago | (#10226570)

My laptop has a 1920x1200 LCD monitor, and so I know too well about the problem you are describing...

Interesting enough, this seems to be solved much better in X than in Windows. All my KDE apps etc. have just normally sized fonts out of the box; whereas in Windows I have to manually adjust many font sizes, and many apps cannot be adjusted at all.

The only problem in X are programs that assume to know how many pixels their text messages use up, with the result of having text boxes etc. in which the text just doesn't fit in at all...

Re:I don't think so. (1)

bob65 (590395) | more than 10 years ago | (#10228782)

If Longhorn's display technology ever makes it, it'll fix all this. Or if Apple beats them to the punch. It'll be nice to run a monitor at 1600x1200 and not have to press my nose against the glass to read text... I have poor eyesight, too.

We need this more than just for those with poor eyesight, though. Monitor resolution is quite low when compared to print resolution, so it would be nice to one day have 300dpi-equivalent monitors. Font anti-aliasing is (IMO) just a band-aid solution in the mean time. We really shouldn't need antialiasing at all. If we prepare for these types of monitors (by ensuring software supports high pixel density), then it will make adoption and availability of these monitors much easier.

Re:I don't think so. (2, Funny)

T-Ranger (10520) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224627)

Comic Sans

It should be legal to kill anyone who uses Comic Sans.

Even in the stores! (2, Interesting)

quintessent (197518) | more than 10 years ago | (#10225272)

You don't know how many times I've sat in front of a user's nice LCD monitor set to a non-optimal resolution with antialiasing OFF!

It frightens me when I go places like Best Buy and the machines are set to weird resolutions. Shouldn't you know how to make a product look good if you're trying to sell it to people?

Re:Even in the stores! (1)

login.pl (799344) | more than 10 years ago | (#10225364)

Maybe if the average store clerk had a clue.

Re:Even in the stores! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10225793)

Maybe if the average store clerk was paid a living wage.

all-antialiased just as bad/worse (0)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224060)

Linux fonts seem to come in two flavours: All aliased(ugly for huge fonts) and All anti-aliased(ugly and unreadable for everything except huge fonts)
They also tend to be rendered in Too Fucking Huge mode a lot (not so huge that anti-aliasing doesnt look like crap, mind you, I just mean "So huge you can't possibly multitask"

I am of the opinion that linux is ugly, and fonts are the primary problem. It's hard to convince me of benifits when things look like crap. People seem not to know that when you've anti-aliased correctly, nobody knows it's there. If I see another dialog box with text that's half-transparent from over-anti-aliased text, I'll scream. I do that a lot.

Re:all-antialiased just as bad/worse (3, Funny)

Sandmann (182819) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224166)

> I am of the opinion that linux is ugly, ...

Try 2.6.9-pre1. It is much prettier.

Re:all-antialiased just as bad/worse (0, Troll)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 10 years ago | (#10225425)

"The combined total and each individual component which makes up what is often described as a 'Linux-based system'" is ugly. Happy now?
Fucking fucker

Re:all-antialiased just as bad/worse (0, Offtopic)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 10 years ago | (#10226416)

I hate moderators.
I have 3 moderator points.

Re:all-antialiased just as bad/worse (2, Interesting)

tzanger (1575) | more than 10 years ago | (#10227505)

Unfortunately for the most part you are right. People who antialias everything should be shot.

One of the first things I do on any fresh install is alter the fonts.conf to only antialias below 8 and above 14pt, and to always antialias italic or bold text. Everything else is not. Then I grab the standard MS fontpack and use those fonts, although bitstream is slowling coming over. A lot of work was put into the MS fontpack (I think it was monotype who did it actually) to make the hinting right.

OH yes, and then I spend an hour screwing around with the latest freetype to turn ON the bytecode interpreter and disable autohinting because, no matter what they say, I think that the autohinter's output looks like pure ass.

Re:all-antialiased just as bad/worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10227770)

I am of the opinion that linux is ugly

I am of the opinion you have no clue what you are doing. Linux has some of the nicest rendered fonts of any major operating system, in my opinion. You don't need to antialias small fonts if you don't want too. You could also decrease you font size if you think it's too large. Or change the DPI your display server is running at.

OT- Simple guide to Linux? (0, Offtopic)

Lazyhound (542184) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224070)

I'm looking for something that would give me a very general understanding of what's involved in setting up and maintaining a Linux system (I'm thinking Mandrake at the moment). Basically, I want just enough information to decide whether it's worth the bother to give it a try.

Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224093)

That's a question I would also like to get an answer to, but I've kept from asking it around here because I fear a distro flame-war.

Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (2, Interesting)

FlipmodePlaya (719010) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224127)

Why not just try a live CD for a few days? Slax, Knoppix, PCLinuxOS, MandrakeMove, etc. will all give you an idea of what it will be like.

Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (1)

Lazyhound (542184) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224171)

I don't have a CD burner, for one. I mean, I could find someone to do it for me, but I'd still like to know what I was getting into before even going that far.

Incidentally, I didn't know there was a CD-bootable version of Mandrake, thanks for pointing that out.

Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (1)

FlipmodePlaya (719010) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224241)

There are lots of places to order live CDs online. I've seen some free promotional ones, but I'm sure you'd only pay a few bucks at most. A little article or tutorial would be nice for you, but jumping right into it with a LCD would tell you *so* much more. Particularly because no article will tell you how well Linux will work with your hardware setup out of the box (nor will one LiveCD, but better than nothing), compatability lists aside. I can't imagine anything that would confound a Mac or Windows user booting into Linux for the first time, no need to worry about that.

Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224651)

Dunno. I got a fairly experienced Mac user slightly confused when I showed him an iMac running Debian last week....

Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (1)

TheWanderingHermit (513872) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224248)

1) see my other post [slashdot.org] , so you won't think I'm just trolling.

2) You can buy or order many different distros. Last time I got a distro, I got Libranet for $30 in mail order. You can order or buy a number of distros for under $50.

3) Go to a local LUG (Linux Users Group). To find one, try a Google search. Ask if someone can burn a distro for you.

4) but I'd still like to know what I was getting into before even going that far. -- If you're really that squeamish, then you might not want to get into it at all. The best way is to just dive in. (Sorry, not trolling, but Linux is still about learning and exploring, not about popping a CD and playing games or browsing -- while you can do that with a live CD, if you want to learn, it isn't a walk in the park.)

Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10225998)

cheapbytes.com still sells really cheap distro CDs

Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (3, Insightful)

nathanh (1214) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224186)

I'm looking for something that would give me a very general understanding of what's involved in setting up and maintaining a Linux system (I'm thinking Mandrake at the moment). Basically, I want just enough information to decide whether it's worth the bother to give it a try.

Ask yourself two questions:

  • What do I use my computer for?
  • What benefits do I expect from Linux?

If you're happy with your current software then don't bother. If you're unhappy with your current software then tell us what you dislike and we can tell you if Linux is better or worse.

Also bear in mind that Linux was weak areas (eg, games, off-the-shelf software). If any of those weak areas are relevant to you then don't bother.

If you're simply curious then try one of the many Live CDs (eg, Suse, Knoppix). Minimal fuss and you get a roughly accurate Linux experience.

Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (1)

Lazyhound (542184) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224592)

Ask yourself two questions:

* What do I use my computer for?
* What benefits do I expect from Linux?
My main motivation is to gain some degree of familiarity with Linux/UNIX. The reason I'm looking for a guide is that I want to compare the effort required to my degree of interest before I actually dive in. That being said, I will probably play around with a LiveCD, at least.

Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (1)

Lazyhound (542184) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224676)

The other reason I was asking, come to think of it, is that none of the guides I've found have answered some of my specific questions, like:

*What sort of firewalls/antivirus programs are available for Linux? Are these integrated into the OS, or even necessary?

And, well, that's all I can I recall at the moment, but's it's almost 1am, so go figure.

Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (1)

Zork the Almighty (599344) | more than 10 years ago | (#10225066)

For the most part, you don't need a firewall or an antivirus program for a Linux desktop computer. When you install a Linux distribution you should be aware of what (if any) network services are installed. Don't install things like web servers and FTP servers because you won't use them. A lot of Windows' security problems are due to unneccesary things which run by default. You need a firewall because Windows exposes a lot of its functionality to the network. Worse still, some of it (like RPC) is required for normal operation of the computer. With Linux you generally shouldn't have this problem. There won't be any stuff running unless you asked for it.

One thing that you should look out for is remote vulnerabilities in the Linux kernel. These do happen, and you should find about how to update your kernel just in case it does. If you read Slashdot then you'll at least hear about any vulnerability, and you can also ask for help.

Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (1)

nathanh (1214) | more than 10 years ago | (#10225688)

What sort of firewalls/antivirus programs are available for Linux? Are these integrated into the OS, or even necessary?

Some distributions integrate a firewall. For example, Fedora Core (new name for Red Hat) has an integrated firewall with GUI manager. All of the good distributions should do the same.

I'm not aware of any Linux distribution that integrates an antivirus program. There are free antivirus programs but they're aimed at people building mail servers and the like. Nothing for home users as far as I know. There aren't too many viruses for Linux though.

Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (1, Offtopic)

Quantum Jim (610382) | more than 10 years ago | (#10228857)

Also bear in mind that Linux was weak areas (eg, games, off-the-shelf software).

I'd actually say that Linux is weak in supporting off-the-shelf games; however, there are numerous fun, high-quality games available Free [c2.com] and/or for free [c2.com] . KDE provides many addictive games and edutainment applications [kde.org] that I can't live without (speaking as a GNOME lover, when using Linux). GNOME also has many high-quality games [gnome.org] (my favorites are Mahjongg and Robots). Then there many other favorites like Tux Racer [tuxracer.com] , Frozen Bubble [happypenguin.org] (like Snood), and GL Tron [happypenguin.org] (you have to play this one) among others. Another really cool diversion is Celestia [happypenguin.org] , which allows you to zoom around the galaxy and visit planets, moons, comets, astroids, spacecraft (like Hubble, the ISS, or even Friendship 1). And despite my premise, there are also quite a few commercial games for Linux [wikipedia.org] . There are many fun games that run on Linux - some aren't even available for Windows or non-unix platforms! Check your favorite Linux Distribution for more examples.

Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (1)

the_greywolf (311406) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224204)

from my personal experience (and my personal tastes), i'm of the opinion that Mandrake is a good starting distro (i think it's a good choice). installation is easy and everything is generally set up pretty well automatically.

but if you want to learn more about the way linux works, i think Gentoo is a better option, since you basically have to set up and configure all the system services and software yourself, mostly manually. (but i love not having to touch the rc scripts.)

the reason i suggest Gentoo is because of the simple fact that the Gentoo Handbook [gentoo.org] goes into all the detail you need, holding your hand each step of the way in setting it up, and bringing it to a workable level.

what brought me to Gentoo was that i heard about the fact that you can custom-compile all the software you use. that's even what everyone assosciates with Gentoo. but what people seem to forget (or humorously omit - or maybe just not even know) is that so much of Gentoo's setup is automated. you type "emerge" and the name of your program, and it configures and compiles the program for you. you don't even have to think about it.

and with such wide choices [gentoo.org] in software, including ebuilds for some commercial [gentoo.org] games [gentoo.org] , it's really not that difficult to get started using.

and with the "compile it yourself" mantra that pervades the community, people forget that there are quite often precompiled binaries available for most software and a generic kernel configurator that makes it quick and easy to get started.

if you're interested with playing with linux now, but don't want to format any hard drives, don't forget there are several live CD distros, suck as Knoppix [knopper.net] that will let you "test the waters," so-to-speak.

give it a whirl. you won't be sorry.

Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (2, Funny)

the_greywolf (311406) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224212)

don't forget there are several live CD distros, suck as Knoppix

freudian slip, i'm afraid. i didn't mean it. really. :P

Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (1)

magefile (776388) | more than 10 years ago | (#10225610)

Doesn't "freudian slip" mean that you *did* mean it?

Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (1)

salesgeek (263995) | more than 10 years ago | (#10227135)

Gentoo's installation process is not bad if you have six hours (three to install, three to fix if you have a hardware issue). For those who are looking for a distro that at least gets the fonts right try Mepis.

Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (1)

stevey (64018) | more than 10 years ago | (#10228097)

This is what I don't understand about Gentoo, (I'm a Debian user unlikely to change any time soon).

If most of the setup is automated, to the extent that compiling and installing a package is just 'emerge foo' - how do you learn so much more about the system?

Is it the installation that allows you to learn that? My understanding was that this was also scripted? And not so manual.

Linux-From-Scratch seems to be the most lowlevel of the distros out there, but I've never tried either that or Gentoo, I'd love a comparision from somebody who has installed/maintained/used both for a significant amount of time.

Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (1)

bob65 (590395) | more than 10 years ago | (#10228880)

Gentoo is a good starting distro, probably the best one to start with. However, for day-to-day use, it is a pain to have to wait 3 hours for some application to emerge when you need it *now*. Keeping it up to date is quite time-consuming as well, if you can't leave your system on during the night.

So that said, the only disadvantage of Gentoo is compile time. Otherwise, it is the most consistent, clearly layed-out, well-documented, and generally user friendly distro out there right now. However that one disadvantage is a big one. Any speed increases gained by custom compiling for your system are usually offset by the fact that you are emerging something in the background while you work anyways.

Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (1)

TheWanderingHermit (513872) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224215)

Get yourself a hard drive rack (it's a rack you can mount in a 5 1/4" bay with a case for the drive, then you can easily take the drive out of the system and swap with another), and an old hard drive (or order a new, small one from someone on pricewatch.com -- you'd be surprised how cheap you can get a drive). You can then start the computer with a Windows hard drive, or a Linux hard drive. For Linux, you can fit a good working system in under 2G -- less, depending on how many extras you install.

That way you don't have to worry about a dual boot, you don't have to touch the original hard drive, and you can download and burn a distro. It also means you can keep all your data safe (?) on your Windows drive (I'm assuming you've got enough firewalling and AV software to actually make a Windows partition safe), so when you put Linux on a disk, you don't have to worry about making sure your Internet connection is safe.

Mandrake is probably the easiest to get started (I have a system like described above, with 4-8 drives I use for testing software and it was easier to install Mandrake 10.0 than Windows XP!). Now that you have a blank drive, get going and try it.

Installing and running Linux involves a LOT of different things. There are some guide on the Internet (try Googling with something like +linux +tutorial +beginner or variations on those terms, like guide for tutorial and you should find MANY websites), but your best bet is to hoof it to your local bookstore with a LARGE selection of computer books (Barnes and Noble carries the top 40 and is heavily slanted to Windows, with a generally poor selection on things that aren't strongly associated with .NOT and Windows -- if you've got a Borders nearby, the one near us has literally 4 times the selection than B&N on ANY computer topic), and spend some time browsing through all the books that explain setting up Linux for a beginner.

But, no matter what you do, you won't know anything until you try an install. I strongly suggest a drive rack (about $15.00), since you can abuse a Linux system all you want, and just shut down, swap drives, and your Win box is ready and unchanged. This is one of the many cases where you can only really learn by doing.

On another note, I am a former teacher and really like to help people learn, and love to see people ask questions and explore on their own. Linux has come a long way in ease-of-use (especially in installation) in the 4 years I've been using it, but it is still "off the beaten path." (It still reminds me of the early days, on my Apple ][e, where the programmers and users were all learning, one program at a time, how to work with micro computers.) It is still for the bold and those willing to not just ask questions, but who are willing to LOOK for the answers. It's great your asking here, but if you aren't able to take the extra step and use Google and figure out a few terms to find the many HOWTOs and other guides online, you might not want to try Linux (except maybe Linspire or Xandros). It is still not the place where you'll find the easy answers for everything unless you're willing to work.

Oh, and learn how to use Usenet. There are many newsgroups on there where you can get a LOT of help.

Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (1)

Lazyhound (542184) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224534)

If you're really that squeamish, then you might not want to get into it at all. The best way is to just dive in. (Sorry, not trolling, but Linux is still about learning and exploring, not about popping a CD and playing games or browsing -- while you can do that with a live CD, if you want to learn, it isn't a walk in the park.)
It's not so much that I'm squeamish as I'm trying to weigh the effort required against my level of interest in the subject. Fiddling with software is usually pretty low on my priority list, but I'd like to at least get a feel for what everyone is talking about (don't get me wrong, I'm about as proficient as possible in a DOS/Windows/Mac environment without actually being an IT professional/serious hobbyist, just clueless when it comes to UNIX).
It's great your asking here, but if you aren't able to take the extra step and use Google and figure out a few terms to find the many HOWTOs and other guides online, you might not want to try Linux
I have poked around a bit, but I also wanted to see if I had missed any sort of Definitive Guide.
Get yourself a hard drive rack (it's a rack you can mount in a 5 1/4" bay with a case for the drive, then you can easily take the drive out of the system and swap with another), and an old hard drive (or order a new, small one from someone on pricewatch.com -- you'd be surprised how cheap you can get a drive). You can then start the computer with a Windows hard drive, or a Linux hard drive
Not really an option for me, as my only PC is a notebook. I could always get a FireWire enclosure, but money is rather tight, given that I'm a student (concurrent B.Ed. program, coincidentally).

For now, I think I'll probably track down a Mandrake LiveCD and give that a shot.

Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (1)

Lazyhound (542184) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224551)

Also, thanks for the reply.

Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (1)

TheWanderingHermit (513872) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224739)

Fiddling with software is usually pretty low on my priority list, but I'd like to at least get a feel for what everyone is talking about

Then I'd stick with a live CD for now, which will let you poke around and decide later if you want to do more. You may not get much of an idea, though, by just booting a CD and trying a few programs. After a while you'll decide they all have a different look'n'feel, but that a lot of it, without digging deeper, is just a different way of doing the same thing.

I can give you one simple example of one of the MANY things I like about Linux that isn't part of Windows. I use KDE, and it includes a panel (like the task bar). GNOME and other desktop environments use the same thing. There are many applets I can install on the panel (such as a pager, so I can have 4 or more virtual desktops, so I can keep one clean or with only a few windows on it). It's not the same as having an icon in the system tray. It's much more customizable. It might even be a flaw, but since Linux is open, MANY extra options often get added to even the smalles thing because a programmer wants to add something and simply can, instead of having to wait for the company that wrote it to add it.

Re:OT- Simple guide to Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10228547)

For as much time as you've spent reading and replying to posts, you could have worked enough at any decent-paying job to buy yourself a CD burner.

Stop whining and just fscking do it already.

As one member's sig says:

do() || do_not(); //try()

i dont mean to brag but... (1)

OklaKid (552472) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224122)

slackware-10 my fonts are great! look at my homepage for a screenshot... not just the fonts but the desktop capabilitys of Linux and the choices of desktops too, even something as light as xfce4 and multiple virtual desktops as many as you want, switching just by sliding the curser to the edge of the screen, IMHO compared to windows linux is light years ahead...

Re:i dont mean to brag but... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10224191)

You're showing a fucking browser window, idiot.
Why not a shot with multiple windows open? I mean, Mozilla has clean fonts...big fucking deal.

And I'm a Slack fan, but you're not showing shit.

Re:i dont mean to brag but... (1)

OklaKid (552472) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224232)

mostly a browser window, look at the titlebar and addressbar, besides what do you want? word processor/spreadsheet? menus & widgets? terminal? CLI? they all still look just as great... me thinks thou protest too much...

Re:i dont mean to brag but... (1)

Zork the Almighty (599344) | more than 10 years ago | (#10225251)

How about this [cecm.sfu.ca] ?

Re:i dont mean to brag but... (3, Insightful)

mapinguari (110030) | more than 10 years ago | (#10226038)

And you consider that to be good font rendering?

You even commented on some of the problems.

In Luxi Sans, the w, c, and d all have some unevenness; the e's crossbar is too high.
Trebuchet has dropouts in its e's, and its w is uneven.
Times isn't antialiased at all. Verdana is too thin for its size (and the V is about to fall apart).
The g in Impact is blocky and has some strange lumps.
Georgia almost looks aliased.

Here's a screenshot comparison [mac.com] between your original and the same fonts rendered by MacOS X. (I have most, but not all of the fonts). IMHO, the righthand (MacOS) side looks superior - more like actual typeset text. So what's up? Does freetype suck that badly? Are you using the non-hinted version of freetype? Is this a screen gamma difference? I used Linux/X11/freetype2 daily for a couple of years, and I never got the fonts to look the way I wanted them to. It's almost like the contrast setting is wrong, not to mention the subpixel precision of the glyph control points is out of whack (what's with the V in Verdana, anyway?).

Of course, the flipside is to say that the freetype-rendered text looks crisper, less blurry - especially Impact. I appreciate that distinction - but for me, the consistency of shape and the evenness of the glyph weighting is more important than the apparent focus.

maybe I should have changed the title (1)

Zork the Almighty (599344) | more than 10 years ago | (#10226510)

No, I consider it crap font rendering. I've only really use three fonts : Arial, Bitstream Vera Sans, and Courier. You'll notice they look ok :) Anyway I checked and subpixel hinting was off. I turned it on, and Trebuchet and Verdana have improved a bit, but Luxi Sans still has that problem (only at 14pt though, odd).

Anyway, I'm envious of how Georgia looks on OSX (though not for long, I'm getting an iBook), but I don't like the blurriness of Andale Mono. Personally I would like to see screens running at much higher dpi. I tried running my desktop at 1920x1440 once, but there was too much hassle with programs not scaling up. Maybe with all the LCD screens going to 1600x1200 we will see the situation improve.

Munjoy Linux (5, Informative)

degreesK (88693) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224318)

Good looking fonts is one of the goals of Munjoy Linux [munjoylinux.org] .

Re:Munjoy Linux (1)

sirmikester (634831) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224668)

Looks good, but does using APT break any of its good looks?

Re:Munjoy Linux (3, Informative)

reallocate (142797) | more than 10 years ago | (#10228146)

Munjoy looks good because it defaults to the equally good fonts produced by its creator, who also also tweaked KDE's Asteroid theme to good purpose. Toss in dbus, udev and a few other goodies and it is an excellent Debian-unstable derivative.

As for apt, it handles a dist-upgrade with no problems. Although it is KDE centric, I've installed and used Gnome with no problems appearing.

The current release can't handle Nvidia's proprietary driver. So, if 3D is a big deal for you, wait for the next release. (FWIW, installing dbus on a stock Debian unstable machine seems to keep X from finding the Nvidia driver.)

How to (5, Informative)

Apreche (239272) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224400)

Set your fonts in X. Use freetype. You have to set fonts in many many places. GTK theme. Qt theme. Xdefaults. Application specific font settings. You have to go through all these places to set the font. Some distros like Fedora Core 2 and the newer Mandrakes I know use a similar font consistently by default in all these places. But if you want consistent fonting your only real option is to go through all these places and change the fonts. It's just a fact of life. If you want the power to have different fonts in different places you have to go to all these places to change the font if you want it to be the same in all places.

I reccoment Bitstream Vera Sans. It is very nice and simple.

Re:How to (1)

adolf (21054) | more than 10 years ago | (#10226515)

That seems like a lot of work. No, scratch that - is is a lot of work.

And if I want to change the default fonts (say, because I'm sick of I1|, '`, and {([ looking far too similar), what then? Do I get to hunt around in a dozen different places and change them all over again? Can I ever expect my users/customers to be able to do this by themselves?

At this point, why would I ever recommend any flavor of Linux in an enviroment where fonts were a concern? Why wouldn't I just sell them one of the two popular commercial operating systems that include good, easy-to-use font support out of the box (OS X, XP)?

Is the a reason why these settings don't exist solely in the form of X screen resources?

Bueler? Bueler? Anyone?
[rustling papers]

Re:How to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10227352)

Feel free to get off your ass and work on it - then it will get done. Or you could continue complaining about something you got FOR FREE - and it will get done when someone who WILL WORK on it decides to put their free time to it.

That's The Biggest Problem With Linux Fonts (1)

reallocate (142797) | more than 10 years ago | (#10228208)

>> You have to set fonts in many many places.

That's the biggest problem with fonts in Linux: Lack of an integrated and unified approach to font and display management. Too many developer egos and way too much NIH syndrome. Everyone does their own thing.

Regardless of the desktop or the window manager you use, you ought to able able to select and manage all your fonts from one single location. Any changes made there should be reflected across your system, in all areas and in all applications.

Today, KDE goes one way, Gnome goes another, openoffice a third way, and almost every other individual application goes its own way. These applications should allow individual customization, but should know and default to the choices you make for the system.

For example, Gnome allows me to select an "application" font. But my selection there isn't reflected in most of the applications I use. KDE takes a similar approach with equally mixed results.

The second biggest problem, not just regarding fonts, is whiney and arrogant developers and wanna-be developers who think Linux is their exclusive property and tell any user who ventures to make a suggestion or raise a criticism to "shut up and start coding". Someone needs to lock these guys in a room.

95 distros - only one good font (3, Informative)

ArmorFiend (151674) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224514)

Its funny, but there's really only one quality AA font for Linux right now: Bitstream Vera. Sure you can buy others, or loot them from your windows partition, but regardless of your disto the only good free one is Bitstream Vera.

Don't leave home without it.

Re:95 distros - only one good font (1)

ratsnapple tea (686697) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224822)

And that is why Linux sucks for the desktop. Sorry, but it's true.

Re:95 distros - only one good font (1)

angrykeyboarder (791722) | more than 10 years ago | (#10225303)

I was more or less inclined to say the same thing. This is one of my biggest peeves about Linux. Why can't it (or X, rather) get something as basic as font rendering right. Windows can (So can the Mac). I thought Windows was supposed to be inferior.....

Re:95 distros - only one good font (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10225554)

Why can't it (or X, rather) get something as basic as font rendering right.

It can. I was confused by the Ask Slashdot question, as I haven't had crappy fonts in Linux for years.

And, to the grandparent: fonts aren't "for" a particular operating system, the Bitstream fonts work on Windows, and "Windows" fonts work on Linux. Microsoft released some very high-quality fonts a while back that are installed by default in most popular distributions. It is categorically untrue to state that Linux/X only has one decent font, since Linux/X can use TrueType fonts just as well as any other operating system.

Re:95 distros - only one good font (1)

magefile (776388) | more than 10 years ago | (#10225504)

Times looks fine on my FC2 box. Although it may have cannibalized it from the Word documents I open (are the TTF fonts packaged with the docs?). BV is my favorite, though.

Re:95 distros - only one good font (2, Interesting)

salesgeek (263995) | more than 10 years ago | (#10227125)

Free Sans is pretty good... agreed there is a lot of crap though. I did a print layout with free sans and had our ad agency going ga-ga over the font.

This isn't a distro issue, AFAIK (1)

Phleg (523632) | more than 10 years ago | (#10224521)

...it's a GUI toolkit one. Stick to programs from the same UI toolkit--QT4, GTK2, whatever, as long as it's consistent. All programs written with these toolkits will have AA fonts, and use fonts consistently across the entire platform. Also, users will be ever grateful (although they might not know it), since they'll only have to get used to one style of application. It shouldn't be hard to stick to only one toolkit, with a few very minor exceptions.

We all know the real question being asked (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10224575)

So I'll just go ahead and answer it. Use COURIER FONTS next time you fake old 1960's military documents, you fucking hippies. Yes, you can do it in linux.

I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 10 years ago | (#10225836)

I consider the fact that Courier fonts were not used to be pretty good evidence that the documents are not fake. Unless of course, the forgers are from Australia

Knoppix is a Great Demo CD (0, Redundant)

Linuxathome (242573) | more than 10 years ago | (#10225061)

If you just need to demonstrate how nice fonts can look in a linux desktop, then you have to most definitely demo Knoppix [knopper.net] . This is one of the reasons why Knoppix was developed -- to show off linux with minimal effort. I'm surprised no previous comments about knoppix have been moderated up.

Definitely need effort to get *the* fonts (2, Interesting)

vijaya_chandra (618284) | more than 10 years ago | (#10225375)

I am not qualified to suggest any distro, as I am still glued to my windowmaker on RH8, while booting up knoppix now and then in vmware, but I can tell you that if you can take the pain of explaining people, the real eye-candy one can have with some effort, I am sure anyone would get convinced.

The biggest turnoff with linux for me till a few years ago, was the non-availability of good looking fonts, which made IE look like a god-send. But with the bitstream-vera and msttcorefonts, anything in X looks just cool. Actually the bitstream-vera fonts themselves'd be sufficient. Setting a single font for different styles might sound awful, but once you get used to the anti-aliasing, everything else'd look like garbage, including the venerable good looking fonts in Windows.
Opera + xterm with anti-aliasing should be sufficient for ppl like me who don't use many other apps, that use mouse a lot.

Damn, just a console with bootsplash [bootsplash.org] installed would be more than enough, to trick people that fonts in linux aren't bad :p

Mandrake + PLF + MSFonts (3, Informative)

Danious (202113) | more than 10 years ago | (#10225559)

Grab Mandrake 10, upgrade to the PLF version of freetype2 (extra patented goodness turned on), install the MSFonts and run KDE.

Done.

Oh, and use a CRT for demo's: LCD + NVidia + XFree can take a bit of tweaking to get right.

John.

Re:Mandrake + PLF + MSFonts (1)

lphuberdeau (774176) | more than 10 years ago | (#10228389)

An other thing, in Mozilla: Select your fonts wisely. Not all of them can be anti-aliases. I also check the option to disable websites from using fonts not in the list. This way, websites always look good.

Gnome 2 Apps (1)

Schlaegel (28073) | more than 10 years ago | (#10225619)

If you use a Gnome 2 based distro, almost everything will be nicely antialiased.

The distro should also provide OpenOfficeOrg and Mozilla that are compiled with xft.

I use Fedora Core 2, every program has nice fonts.

On a side note, try out Dustismo for a nice text font and Penguin Attack for a nice decorative font. I don't know why distros don't include them. GPL [dustismo.com]

Re:Gnome 2 Apps (2)

carrett (671802) | more than 10 years ago | (#10228863)

distros aren't based on a de. as far as i've seen, the things that define a distro are: 1. what it chooses to put in its base system 2. it's package management tools (or lack thereof) 3. the extent to which it autoconfigures software and devices for you no matter what, you should be able to install any program you want that's made for linux. the distributions are all the same at heart, they're all gnu programs + linux and whatever you want to put on top...you may never communicate with that core directly but they're all that if they can still claim to be a "linux distribution." this whole thread seems to be evidence of the recent insurgence of new linux users who know nothing of linux. but hey, we're beating microsoft!

Why fonts look bad in free distros: HINTING (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10225744)

It's because of patents [sourceforge.net] .

TrueType font hinting is patented by Apple. To legally use TrueType hinting, you must pay royalties to Apple. This is why fonts look crappy in the free distros. (And no, antialiasing is not a substitute for proper hinting.)

However, I don't know which (if any) pay-ware Linux distros have TrueType font hinting enabled.

ms fonts (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10225808)

You could try setting up ms truetype fonts on your linux distros, just be sure to enable the bytecode interpreter(patent encumbered [sourceforge.net] ) in freetype library.
By default(no bytecode) freetype does a very bad job at rendering truetype fonts IMHO.

anonymous

Cyrillic fonts (4, Insightful)

dimss (457848) | more than 10 years ago | (#10226103)

The _only_ way to get cyrillic letters right is to use MS TrueType fonts. There are very few free fonts but they are either low quality or incomplete (no serbian glyphs in particular). I have fonts.tgz which I untar on every Linux/*BSD computer that I use.

Ask Slashdot: Moon on a stick? (1)

fr0dicus (641320) | more than 10 years ago | (#10226641)

Even if you find good fonts, it still lays them out in massive menus because they haven't been explicitly designed with decent ones in mind.

Nice Font (2, Informative)

Goo.cc (687626) | more than 10 years ago | (#10227725)

I like Mark Simonson's Anonymous font, which is a very nice, fixed width truetype font. You can get it here [ms-studio.com] .

Who Cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10228532)

Just use a shell! Then you'll never have to deal with "fonts", or "graphics"!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?