Fontconfig 2.0 Released 163
david_g writes "Keith Packard released version 2.0 of Fontconfig. Fontconfig is "a library for configuring and customizing font access". It can "discover new fonts when installed automatically, removing a common source of configuration problems", among other nifty functionalities. It comes with Xft2, and there are patches for GTK, Mozilla, and QT3 being readied. Another small step towards world domination..."
Now all we need is.... (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:1)
Complete M$ Office ? Nearly there www.openoffice.org
Better Add Hardware System ? Any ideas?
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
And OpenOffice.org is almost there, but there is no Exchange client, and the imports are just a little bit off. No biggie on the imports, but I am a very big proponent of Exchange in the enterprise, and I am not alone (althouh for the internet, Exchange is a whore!).
My vision of Linux is a drop in replacement for many NT services, both server and desktop, as well as have the ability to interoperate with existing infrastructure. Microsoft is attempting to pull users to their servers with their Unix services for Windows package, Let's keep them here by giving administrators the flexibility that they need to provide a complete solution for business needs. This means opportunity to choose the OS that they feel is best for the job, without having to change over the whole camp!
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
But in a pinch...
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
Ghostscript is also very slow loading TrueType fonts. Since it looks like TrueType fonts are going to continue to dominate desktop computing, Ghostscript needs to handle them better. Your printouts will never look the same as what's on your screen if Ghostscript can't render all of the fonts that X can.
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
I was a die hard lpd user for many years, but last week I tried out pdq and had my printer working perfectly (both text and Postscript) in less than 5 minutes. Use xpdq to do the configuration.
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
You mean aside from CUPS and Crossover Office?
CUPS [freshmeat.net]has a number of front-ends to it that are *very* easy to use, and provides an easy, GUI-oriented way to deal with printers - as its freshmeat writeup says, "it has been developed to promote a standard printing solution for all UNIX vendors and users."
Crossover Office [codeweavers.com] isn't Free (and I don't run it for precisely that reason), but if the only thing tieing you or your company to Windows is the need for complete Office support, it's the most promising option out there. General word processing is better served by AbiWord [abisource.com], in my opinion, but this is not a sticking point of any note anymore.
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:1)
http://localhost:631
This works by default on Gentoo, I would hope that this is the same for any distro using cups.
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
I'm considering trying to switch to Linux and CUPS [cups.org] sounds interesting. I also happen to be in need of a new printer (I currently have an HP 5L [buyldw.com], but it jams if I insert more than one sheet at a time).
So, can anyone recommend a laser printer with high (or perfect) compatibility with Linux? I'm looking for one that can do at least 10 ppm and 600 dpi (though 1200 dpi would be preferable). Price is not so much a concern, though I would prefer one < $400.
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:1)
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:1)
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
Yes, gravity-fed do usually suck. However, the one I bought real cheap ("broken") was fixed with a cheap separator pad. Shortly after I bought the pad, HP offered me one for free. Shortly after that I got notice of a class action lawsuit against HP regarding the problem the original owner had experienced. :-) That was an 1100.
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:1)
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:1)
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Then there's _one_ unified sound standard (I think Linux has four or five now), because a sound card cannot serve two masters. Single standards for the clipboard, adding/removing menu items from the desktop "Start" menu, mime type associations, adding of control panels, event sounds, display of notification icons in the desktop toolbar, registration of keyboard shortcuts that cut across all applications (e.g. Ctrl+Shift+I means "get the next instant message" and it will get back to the right program no matter if I'm in OpenOffice right now or Mozilla). And all of those standards have to be agreed upon and fully supported by both KDE and Gnome so I can know that all my applications will cooperate nicely with one another and my choice of desktop doesn't equal choice of application interoperability.
Desktop success for Linux is not impossible, far from it, but few people are paying attention to the mounds of things that are _really_ important to giving a typical end user a choice other than Windows vs. Mac OS X (a battle that we already know who wins 95% of the time).
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:4, Interesting)
There are a handful, yes, but ALSA is going to be the new kernel standard in 2.6 and will allieviate the need for oss (current kernel code), esd, artsd, etc - at least as far as "many people writing to
Your choice of desktop never determines your application compatibility - I'm running Galeon right now under KDE3. What's the problem?
Now, that said, I hope KDE and GNOME both drop their VFS layers and encourage the use of something like LUFS that's much more general and will result in less code duplication. We've already seen GNOME and KDE work out a lot, together - like say the XDnD system. These days it seems like the only "war" between the two is in the minds of the non-developers.
--Knots;
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
Not true... Alsa only supports multiple access to
Dinivin
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:1)
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
ALSA itself does not do software mixing in the drivers.. A 3rd party app (such as esd, arts, or even an alsa specific one) would be needed to do this and audio applications would have to be written to support it.
Only hardware mixing would be truly transparent (or, possibly, software mixing in the drivers).
Dinivin
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
As it happens I'm using commercial OSS anyway, but that's not the point
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
Plus, SDL is cross-platform and does most of what DirectX does, using open standards and OpenGL for 3D accelleration.
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Plus, by using SDL your app is portable to Windows, BeOS, MacOS, etc. (in theory)
I've done some DirectX programming a while ago and a good bit of SDL programming recently. The SDL and OpenGL APIs are much cleaner and easier to use than DirectX.
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
Damn, you kids gotta learn how to troll. Come up with something harder to refute, man!
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
A) Doesn't suck.
B) Isn't loaded with cruft. Thanks to COM interface versioning, the newest DirectX interfaces are comparitively clean. It just seems much junkier than it is due to MSs way of naming fields and methods and its insistance on using structures to pass API parameters.
C) It isn't controlled by a single interest. Its the result of a lot of back and forth between MS, hardware manufacturers, and software developers.
I despise Windows as much as the next guy, but lying about its strenghts doesn't help.
DirectX & clipboard (Score:3, Insightful)
How about OpenGL + SDL? Easier and just as powerful as DirectX. SDL handles everything from video to threads to sound to CD-ROMs.
"Then there's _one_ unified sound standard (I think Linux has four or five now),"
Check reality! There are TWO standards: OSS and ALSA.
If you want compatibility with other Unix platforms, use OSS and forget about it. ALSA has OSS emulation. If you want power, use ALSA, which is only available on Linux.
Again: if you want compatibility, use OSS. Or if you're creating a game, use the sound API in SDL! Then you doesn't have to worry about the underlying sound system at all.
"Single standards for the clipboard,"
Has been there for ages. http://www.freedesktop.org/standards/clipboards.t
Why do people keep mentioning this? Clipboard support has been fixed since KDE 3.0!!!
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
I don't know anything about it, but it sure sounds like SDL and ADSL is the agreed on thing for games and sound. I would dearly love to see Linux do better than Windows and actually make an interface that is usable for *both* games and regular programs, but it looks like that ain't going to happen.
Single standard for the clipboard: it exists now. The problem is older programs that don't know about CLIPBOARD. There is no way to fix this. Windows would have the exact same problem if somebody decided to make drag-less drag & drop, which is really what the middle-mouse cut & paste is.
Adding/removing menu items from the Start menu. I believe there is a standard that KDE and Gnome follow. But good luck trying to find it described anywhere. There is a serious need for this to be documented in a simple and obvious way with explicit "it is in this file and here is an example", without the need for Qt or any library to read it (the library is also a fatal problem on Windows). Without this other window managers and other programs will not use it.
Mime type associations. This could also be done with more config files, but I would really like to see a more Unix solution, which is the addition of a simple "open" command-line program. Any GUI that wants to "open" a file just runs this program. It can do anything it wants. There should also be simple "mail" and "print" programs that take the data in stdin and do the right thing, it is quite annoying that Mozilla knows how to mail on my machine but the "mail" program does not. In a similar vein, I would like to see the prefixes like smb: and html: on files be handled by the glibc library level so that *ALL* programs can read/write these without linking in Qt libraries.
By "adding control panels" I think you mean adding stuff to the "configuration" application. One idea is to make a tiny extension to the Start menu, so that if you have a program lying around that "configures" something, it can appear where the user will look for it, in the list of stuff in the configuration program. It does not really matter if this opens another window. I would avoid any complexity about describing the questions or imbedding panels and other than this "run some other program" leave the design and implementation of configuration up to the programmers. Windows and Mac have fallen into the trap of making a seperate app for each part of configuration, this artificially seperates concepts into program packages, which does not necessarily agree with how users catagorize concepts.
I don't think event sounds are a big deal. Looking at Windows you can see that virtually all event sounds are specific to each application. I would consider this part of the application's configuration and as a beginning user would expect to find it there.
Display of notification icons in the desktop toolbar: here I would disagree. One thing I would like to see is the ability to change GUI ideas. If applications can assumme a toolbar it is bad news, we will never be rid of it. I think the ultimate interface will someday get rid of all things on the screen other than the data being worked on, but stupid stuff like this is what is keeping us frozen with ideas from 1985...
Registration of keyboard shortcuts is exactly the same as the "Start" menu stuff, and should be stored in the same place. One big help is that there be no difference between "applications" and "actions" so that either can be on a start menu or on a shortcut. Windows also blows in this area. "Getting back to the right program" is a window manager issue and is true whether a shortcut of a menu item or typing a command brought up the new program. Windows also screws up here, worse than most X window managers, if you have ever closed two nested modal control panels you know what I mean.
So we need a "start menu configuration" which in my opinion should be the union of a directory in your home and a system-wide directory. Each file and subdirectory describes a single "item" or a submenu. There are special names to make menu items appear in different places such as the configuration application or in the popup, or as a shortcut key. The files should be trivial to parse without using a library. It should be trivial to locate documentation describing every detail of these files without going off into unrelated areas of the desktops.
We also need command-line tools that appliations can use in place of libraries. We need "open", "mail", "print", etc. We also need a unified file interface where "http:" and other prefixes work for every program like cat and the shells.
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
Okay, so if you want to write audio apps, there's OSS. Okay, if you want to get down to it, GNOME and KDE have their own sound *servers* which communicate with OSS/ALSA/whatever. Doing it that way just makes *sense* because KDE and GNOME run on more than one platform, not just Linux. Linux ain't the only game in town, and neither is Windows. MS forgets that and foists Windows-only, x86-only crapola like DirectX on us.
And if you want to target Windows, MacOS, Linux, etc. DirectX is a poor choice. Heck, if you want to target something other than Windows DirectX is a stupid choice. SDL targets a number of platforms and will even work with OpenGL (which is an open standard, and even has MS as part of its steering committee.)
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:2)
>>>>>>>
DirectX might be Windows only and x86 only, but it isn't crapola. Give good technology the respect that it deserves.
Re:Now all we need is.... (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong Site... (Score:2, Funny)
D
good grief (Score:1)
With Debian... (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft web fonts (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft web fonts (Score:1)
Re:Microsoft web fonts (Score:4, Informative)
No need for Keith Packard to distribute them? Or no need for Microsoft to pull them?
The move on Microsoft's part was good strategy -- they've effectively broken all those font installers that previously used www.microsoft.com as their download site. Of course, it won't be long before they're updated, but they've made installers released before that date break.
Keith Packard's distribution of them is also a good thing. The EULA permits it, so why not mirror it all over the place?
I guess I don't understand what you're getting at.
Re:Microsoft web fonts (Score:2)
Hmm, the fontconfig page [fontconfig.org] has the withdrawn Microsoft web fonts [slashdot.org].
Obviously, this is an untrue statement.
The EULA permits it, so why not mirror it all over the place?
This is the point I was making - that according to the EULA, this is legal.
Re:Microsoft web fonts (Score:1)
"X has the withdrawn Y" means that entity Y, which was withdrawn, is available from X.
You are thinking that he wrote "X has withdrawn the Y" - moving 'the' makes it completely different.
Re:Microsoft web fonts (Score:2)
English is not a problem - I speak it quite fluently, along with German and Spanish. Friday mornings, on the other hand, aren't quite so easy to cope with.
Smack me with the cluestick. I deserve it.
Re:Microsoft web fonts (Score:1)
Note the word order: that does not say "the fontconfig page has withdrawn the Microsoft web fonts".
Re:Microsoft web fonts (Score:1, Informative)
[I] The Fontconfig page has the withdrawn Microsoft web fonts
is very different to what was NOT said
[II] The Fontconfig page has withdrawn the Microsoft web fonts
[I] is talking about "withdrawn web fonts", with withdrawn as an adjective describing a vague status of the web fonts - and yes, they were withdrawn by Microsoft. Just because they're still available and licensed for redistribution does not mean MS did not withdraw them from their original well-known URL location.
[II] if it had been said (which it wasn't), would have meant that the fontconfig page had withdrawn the fonts - withdrawn being used as a verb.
English is complicated. It is the antithesis of Latin, in that in English word order is extremely important, but words change little, if at all, for different verb tenses, cases, etc.
World Domination?! (Score:5, Funny)
X font problems... (Score:5, Insightful)
if you forced everyone to put fonts in
Linux and X suffer from the fact that too many people are allowed to do it their way... it's time to start forcing things to make simple things like fonts easier.
Re:X font problems... (Score:1)
completely wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
No, the reason fonts are so messed up right now is that there has never been a good standard way of rendering fonts, forcing people to come up with their own solutions. So now, we've got tons of old programs using GTK This is all being solved now, but unfortuneately it is being solved woefully late in the game! This should have been addressed at least 5 years ago, and then now we would have this mess and every program/gui toolkit would render fonts in the same, sane manner.
Hopefully Fontconfig will help with straightening this mess out.
nope, you're wrong (Score:2)
The current problems are exactly what I stated, myriads of programs rendering fonts in myriads of different, incompatible, non-extensible manners.
So now we have tons of applications that can't take advantage of the new TT, AA, etc. rendering features.
Currently, there are thousands of programs written in GTK 1.x, Qt 1/2.x, Motif, etc., all of which render fonts in different manners, using different font configurations of their own, etc.
Plus the lack of good, standard, open source fonts included with distibutions.
Now we just need fonts! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Now we just need fonts! (Score:1)
Making a font is extremely hard work, especially if it's a good one, which is why fonts are such well guarded property.
However, that doesn't mean they can't make it easy for users to find and include decent fonts. If all distros can agree on a single directory within which they will keep all fonts then it becomes the job of the various font servers and fontconfig to track and maintain the font lists.
Actually, I think the time has come for font servers to die - they make the job a million times more complicated than just using the font support already in XFree (which of course now includes TTF support). Even if you go by the argument that a font server is useful for serving the same fonts to lots of client machines over a network, the same would be true of a public ro nfs share of the fonts directory.
It would then be really easy to have a button somewhere that says "Get me more fonts" and takes the user to, say, fonts.themes.org and offers them a bunch of fonts to download in a consistent archive format which can be automagically whisked away into the font directory and fontconfig called to automatically update it all.
Re:Now we just need fonts! (Score:1)
In answer to your point, someone from Debian is trying to get permission [debian.org] to use some of these fonts.
Re:Now we just need fonts! (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, there aren't thousands of free "quality fonts" on the web:
1) Most of them are decorative or banner fonts which are not suitable for longer documents or any kind of high end postscript.
Try it - take a doc with some of these fonts and then try to output either clean postscript or send it to a RIP. Do not be surprised when it pukes..
2) Many of them are made by well meaning designers, who sometimes lack important technical skills in font making. They rely on the abilities of fontographer to compile everything correctly. So, quality is a mixed bag.
3) Many of these fonts have incomplete glyph sets and can be difficult to use in non iso-88591-1 encodings.
Making good fonts is really really hard and time consuming. (The guy who created Verdana for Microsoft spent more than a year just on that one font.) The new Luxi TTfonts which come with the more recent XFree86 packages is the right direction - well constructed, professionsally designed fonts. Luxi Sans is a good screen font if freetype is setup correctly.
The "problem" with the latest ghostscript fonts is they are not really great screen fonts, but most of them are excellent printer fonts.
Anti-aliasing is not the long term solution either. It just covers for the lack of hinting in a font. Freetype is getting much better though..
A font is in a sense a mini program and they have bugs. Just like other code - debugging them is not for kids.
Re:Now we just need fonts! (Score:2)
Re:Now we just need fonts! (Score:2)
Re:Now we just need fonts! (Score:2)
Then, your fonts can look like this [rr.com].
KDE's standard fonts look good with MS's Arial. Times New Roman is good for web browsing. Opera works well with the same fonts as used in the Windows version, but you need to tweak the font sizes a bit.
It's a bit of trouble, but works nicely on the Linux desktop. Until we can come up with some great GPLed TTFs, then this is the best that we've got.
Make sure it is Windows 98 though. I think that new EULA tells you that you can't do this stuff with newer Windows releases.
Re:Now we just need fonts! (Score:2)
It sounds like a pain, but really isn't that difficult. It is a lot faster than it sounds, really.
Re:Now we just need fonts! (Score:2)
It is too blurry for some people, which has also been a complaint about OS X, but it really doesn't take too long to adapt to it.
It's a matter of preference, though.
Re:Now we just need fonts! (Score:2)
Nope. There are thousands of fonts out there, given away for free, but most of them don't allow distribution (at least not commerical, and many not at all), most of them aren't quality (tiny character sets, low quality glyphs, no hinting or kerning at all) or are very decritive and limited use. I can count the number of open source font makers on one hand.
Good work! (Score:2)
A real shame... (Score:2)
--Jon (watches karma burn)
Re:A real shame... (Score:2)
Since fontconfig itself doesn't deal with font rendering / displaying it doesn't make much sense to have screenshots there. You should check out the Pango / Qt / GTK+ / etc. websites for screenshots. Or do you also expect screenshots of linux on kernel.org?
-adnans
Did anyone succeed in compiling CVS pango with it? (Score:2)
One problem. (Score:2)
All I know is that two big barriers to the desktop are fonts and printing. So I'm glad that things are being developed to make it easier.
Re:One problem. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
Though there are lots of reasons to add new interfaces, I find it inexcusable that XFree86 has not been fixed so that the old font interface draws the text anti-aliased.
Lot's of people then say "You don't understand X, it is impossible". But I do understand X. Yes, it will only work on trueColor. Yes, it probably needs to clip the antialiasing off at the edges of the glyph bounding box (I would enlarge the bounding box so this is not a problem). Yes, antialiasing will need to be turned off if they set Xor bitblt mode (I would ignore this problem, actually, nobody xor's fonts). Yes, it won't work with existing font servers. None of these are real problems.
The truth is that the innards of XFree86 are such a mess that nobody could figure out how to remove the 1-bit/pixel limitation from the pipeline between the font renderer and the screen. This is very sad and also indicates that X is very slow and bloated and that nobody will ever be able to fix it. It is also true that there is an incredible paranoia about back-compatability that must be overcome, in fact Linux's ability to ignore back-compatability somewhat is a big advantage over Windows.
I also want to point out that MicroSoft successfully updated their interface to use antialiasing, and they had all the same issues as X did. In case you forgot, originally Windows did not do antialiasing. They changed it and all the old programs started using it *without* being rewritten! The fact that X could not do this same sort of fix is far worse than the delay it has taken to get antialiasing.
Re:One problem. (Score:3, Informative)
The original X graphics infrastructure was pretty badly broken, worse in some ways than the Windows API. X doesn't provide any color information about pixels, so it's actually not possible to know what colors different pixel values mean in different contexts. The only place you can be sure is when drawing to windows, and you can only generate intermediate color values for TrueColor windows.
The Windows API provides color information everywhere instead of pixel information; applications select the color for text, not the pixel values. Each pixmap contains information about what colors are represented by pixel values. This makes anti-aliasing quite possible and ensures that drawing in different contexts will generate consistent results.
If you're interested in bit-level pixel manipulation and complete control over the hardware colormap, then the core X rendering system is just the ticket. All of the limitations we're running into now were caused by compromises necessary to support commercially important applications in the era X was developed; now that hardware is 1000 times faster, we can emulate those tricks and still provide new capabilities.
However, it's even more important to realize that anti-aliased text is only a side-effect of the real benefits that Fontconfig and Xft bring to X. The core protocol font handling has never been sufficient to support sophisticated text display. Every sufficiently powerful text rendering engine based on X has had to give up on the core fonts and implement text entirely in software. From TeX previewers to commercial publication systems, none of them gain any benefit from the hardware acceleration and network bandwidth optimizations of the core text primitives.
Furthermore, the core protocol font support cannot handle Unicode encoded fonts -- character codes are limited to 16 bits and Unicode requires 24. Even if you limit applications to the Unicode basic multilingual plane, the metrics information cannot be compressed as it is delivered over the wire or stored in Xlib making applications consume huge amounts of memory storing arrays full of zeros.
It is possible to kludge in AA text support for applications using the core protocol, but the results would be inconsistent on the screen and such support would not do anything to fix the worst limitations of core fonts.
As Xft2 now supports legacy X servers (without Render support), it is now reasonable to consider jettisoning any support for the core protocol fonts and switch to only supporting client-side fonts. Servers with Render will get good performance while servers not yet fixed will still work reasonably well.
The last step to take is to make all of the core bitmap fonts available as Unicode bitmap fonts through Fontconfig. The original plan was to make FreeType able to read the existing compressed bitmap font file formats that XFree86 uses. Those formats still suffer from the encoding assumptions that drove the massive space consumption in the core protocol metrics data, plus such fonts are consistently encoded in Unicode.
The new plan is to reencode the existing core fonts as TrueType fonts with only bitmaps for each glyph. The TrueType spec has explicit support for such fonts. Reencoding the fonts will significantly reduce the amount of disk space consumed by the fonts, eliminate all of the existing bitmap readers from the X server (and font server) and simultaneously make the fonts available to fontconfig/xft2-based applications.
Re:One problem. (Score:2)
I was hoping for the "kludge in AA text support for apps using the core X protocol". I expected that all the old fonts would disappear at that point and only the TrueType fonts would be accessable, and they would all advertise as scalable fonts in ISO-8859-1 encoding. I don't really see much need to make the bitmap fonts accessible.
But you are right that the Xft extension is being written (by you, I think) to emulate itself on older X servers, which is excellent (I have used this plenty in fltk btw). All new programs should use this. Is this going to be true of the other XRender extensions as well, such as the shape drawing? It would seem that it can draw an aliased and non-transparent simulation pretty well. This would be very exciting because we could ditch all the X drawing code completely.
Why this is really important (Score:2, Interesting)
This really great news. Linux and X have badly needed a unfied way to handle fonts for a long time.
fontconfig adds:
1) Excellent Unicode handling for developers.
2) This resolves the need for developer hacks and workarounds for accessing and displaying available fonts. For programs like Scribus - a Linux Desktop Publisher [altmuehlnet.de] this will make life much easier in the future.
3) Makes adding and fonts much easier. Now we need a good GUI front end so installing fonts is as easy as Win/Mac.
For desktop linux this is as important as having TCP/IP for networking. (You need good plumbing underneath.)
Re:Why this is really important (Score:2)
What i'd really like to see is being able to just copy off a whole ream of fonts in the $X11BASE/lib/x11/fonts dir and have them Just Work (tm).
Sure, a nice GUI type app to tweak stuff like antialiasing and the XftConfig would be nice, but that's not enough.
Re:Why this is really important (Score:2)
You have to copy them to that directory then use this wizard-like tool to install them, but its easy enough for a windows user to do without having to RTFM.
siri
Kernel Config Should Use Hardware Info Config File (Score:1)
Re:Kernel Config Should Use Hardware Info Config F (Score:2)
Red Hat has it in beta (Score:2)
AFAIK the Mozilla shipped is bog-standard, however, if you want to try fontconfig without too much hassle, I really recommend (null).
Get it from your favourite Red Hat mirror [redhat.com] - I personally use rpmfind.net
Cheers,
Michel
Anyone got this working yet? (Score:2)
That, and I don't see any difference in applications... is this suppose to be transparent (I assume so), or do apps have to be written specifically to use Xft2.so? If the latter, isn't this kinda useless as a "real" solution, as then it's just another way of configuring/rendering fonts that is mentioned above
Re:Anyone got this working yet? (Score:3, Interesting)
Read the website! It tells you to
"That, and I don't see any difference in applications... "
Of crouse not.
1. Fontconfig is a font configuration system. It provides information of installed fonts to applications. It's not a user-visible thing.
2. The rendering is done by Xft/FreeType/Whatever, not by fontconfig.
Perhaps you would know that if you read the website.
"If the latter, isn't this kinda useless as a "real" solution, as then it's just another way of configuring/rendering fonts that is mentioned above
This is by no means useless. Fontconfig isn't "another" configuration system. And it sure is *not* a rendering system. Fontconfig is a step towards a *good* configuration system, not "another" one.
Apps don't support it now, but that's not a big deal. The most important thing is that developers have a sane font configuration system now to develop for.
"That, and I don't see any difference in applications..."
Like I've said before (and like the website says): fontconfig does *not* do rendering! Rendering is done by Xft/FreeType/Whatever.
Fontconfig and Xft2 don't make your fonts suddenly look better, font quality depends on the font itself.
Re:Anyone got this working yet? (Score:4, Informative)
The documentation included in this release is aimed at helping get applications ported to the library, not at helping get systems configured to use the library. That kind of documentation is needed, but it just hasn't been written yet.
Fontconfig has been released, but that's only relevant to application development right now.
Network transparency (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:All we need is.... (Score:1)
Can you explain that?
Linux is only free if you know your shit!
Re:"These are Microsoft web fonts"?! (Score:4, Informative)
1. (item 2) Reproduction and Distribution. You may reproduce and distribute an unlimited number of copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; provided that each copy shall be a true and complete copy, including all copyright and trademark notices, and shall be accompanied by a copy of this EULA. Copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be distributed for profit either on a standalone basis or included as part of your own product.
Re:Hahaha... (Score:1)
Touchy... Yes, you are right, I have an IQ of 70. All people who aren't Linux desktop zealots must have low IQ's right?
> There's been a lot of progress since "years ago" when you left....
Etc, etc. I'm well aware of many of these improvements. I do read Slashdot you know. I am also a Linux user, just not on the desktop. All these individual, fragmented improvements do little for someone that either:
a) Isn't capable of digesting, configuring, upgrading etc on their own
-or-
b) Doesn't have someone readily available to do it for them.
> Linux is NOT lagging in this area, nor, indeed, in any other aspect of desktop usability.
ROFL! You're kidding right? No, I forgot, you're just a zealot... Please, I'm sure you'll get little agreement on this attempt at absolution.
Re:Hahaha... (Score:1)
Fine - I will!
*storms out of room*
Re:a step toward world domination? (Score:1)
Re:a step toward world domination? (Score:1)
Lest we forget how anal a NeXT fan can be..
I guess if MacOSX is the future in the way that NeXT was, we can expect they'll do nothing with it for 10 years sell it on for a huge lump of cash and it'll still be the future...
We have a saying - MacOS is the future, and will always remain so
Re:a step toward world domination? (Score:1)
(yes I know that Apple 'reportedly' have an x86 port they keep in sync with the Mac version, but I take that 'report' with a pinch of salt)
Re:a step toward world domination? (Score:1)
Always? (Score:1)
Indeed an x86 version of OSX would be great, but Apple would have a hard time becoming a software based company, owing much of their cash to overpriced hardware.
Re:a step toward world domination? (Score:2, Interesting)
There are (at least) two desktop markets, home and office. They are extremely different.
I doubt Linux can ever take on the home PC market in any useful way without PC's getting a lot simpler.
The office desktop market, however, is a bit different and is something that Linux is already creeping into, much as it did with the server market. How effective it will be overall against Windows is obviously unknown, but if it knocks their market share down even half as much as it did in the server market, well, there'd be a whole heck of a lot more competition in that market than there is right now!
Several factors have come together this year to make the Linux office desktop considerably more appealing (aside from the fact that this is really the first year that the software has been evolved enough to be viable). Microsoft are doing stupid things with their licenses which a lot of users (more often than not out of a general dislike of MS) aren't taking kindly to. Also, the price of a PC, especially a not-kitted-out-for-Doom-III office PC, is getting lower and lower, the margins are squeezed tighter than a duck's butt. You can now buy a PC for the same or less than a copy of Microsoft Office.
Just as Microsoft has commoditized the hardware market out from under the IBM's and Dell's and HPaq's of the world, so things like Linux and Star/OpenOffice are commoditizing the software market out from under Microsoft.
I'm really looking forward to the work between the StarOffice team and OASIS - an agreed standard for XML based office documents provides the opportunity for pretty much all of the not-Microsoft companies who produce office suites to present a united front. Who knows if they will, but the opportunity is there if they want.
Re:a step toward world domination? (Score:2)
On the server Linux is plodding along taking more and more market share and slowly winning. On the desktop Linux has not really been born yet but it is plodding along getting better and better. Eventually it will start taking market share in that area as well. You see, Linux can't really be stopped. There is no way to buy it, crush it, intimidate it or otherwise derail it. Microsoft has tried all of there tricks but in the end there it is plodding along getting better and better.
No, Microsoft can't win against Tux. They can only delay the inevitable.
Re:So when do we get to see... (Score:2)
Re:So when do we get to see... (Score:2)