Re: screenshot of ugly fonts

From: Sam Halliday (sam@neutrino.phy.uct.ac.za)
Date: Tue May 28 2002 - 08:37:18 EDT

  • Next message: Joaquin Cuenca Abela: "Re: screenshot of ugly fonts"

    > > > They are not supposed to look nicer. This is a X11 feature.
    > > well, it seems odd to me that the same fonts look nice in all the
    > > rest of my apps... even this mail client, sylpheed (which uses gtk+)
    > > has nice looking fonts, the list is endless... and i ahev several
    > > WYSIWYG apps for various thigns, and the fonts are OK in them...
    > > what makes AbiWord so different?
    > Those Apps make no attempt to print or to be WYSIWYG. Your comment of
    > the quality of AbiWord's printed output is exactly the point. We only
    > use scalable fonts. We only distribute *FREELY distributable* scalable
    > fonts.

    no, thats not true... one of the programs i use is TeXmacs which is
    WYSIWYG and also XMGrace for graphing (and who is going to argue about
    gv?)... these programs use freely distributable fonts as well... in fact
    you can just create symbolic links form the ghostscript FREE fonts to
    the XMGrace directory and have full control over which fonts are
    available to you... which is VERY helpful when you try to stick to the
    postscript font availability standards... TeXmacs obviously being a
    LaTeX editor has all the TeX fonts available to it... also free.

    don't think i'm bashing abiword here, i think it is fantastic and i am
    very impressed by it... i am just very intrigued as to why the fonts are
    so different to everything else on my system, and also why it has to use
    its own fonts and i can't seem to be able to just delete the ones in the
    distribution and replace with my own ghostscript ones....

    cheers,
    Sam



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 28 2002 - 08:34:52 EDT