Re: [aclug-L] fonts...

[John Goerzen <jgoerzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Nov 21, 1998 at 08:52:57AM -0600, Nate Bargmann wrote:

> It appears current efforts are to patch the X font server to serve TT
> fonts.  One question I have is whether the entire XFree86 source is
> required to compile just the font server.

Actually, there is a font server that does this.  Font servers have been
part of X for years.  A recompile is not necesary; using this architecture,
X can use an unlimited range of font technologies.

> <RANT>

<COLD WATER> :-)

> This is a critical area that must be addressed by the KDE/GNOME folks or
> anyone aiming Linux/UNIX toward a desktop solution using common PC
> hardware and peripherals.  Perhaps it is my distribution (Slackware
> '96), configuration, or just crappy fonts installed on my machine, but
> the print quality sucks.  Printing on my HP-600 from gs results in

This is *not* typical and is not representative of Linux/Unix in general. 
The KDE/GNOME folks also have no stake here, since this is at a different
level of the system than they deal with.

> jagged and fuzzy print no matter the resolution I try.  There are (I'm

How are you selecting the resolutions?

> sure) a lot of folks out there with low end printers who anticipate
> printing performance on a par with Windows.  After all, much is made of
> how well Linux supports low end hardware and this will keep a number of
> 486 and low end Pentiums useful for a number of years and lest we
> forget, there is a large number of low end printer out there too. 

I used to use Linux (or maybe it was FreeBSD, which has a less powerful
print system than Linux) to print to my 9-pin dot matrix printer.  Worked
great.  I currently use it to print to a 600DPI laser.  Works great there,
too -- everything is crisp and sharp.  Therefore, I believe I am justified
in saying that Linux does indeed support the low-end devices and the
high-end devices well.  (To be fair, 600dpi is not really high-end; 1200 dpi
would be.)

> Printing is a critical aspect of computing, IMHO, and shouldn't be left
> to languish.

And it has not been.  Everybody is just picking on you :-)

> Perhaps all of this is because X itself has such poor font display
> capabilities.  Is it possible for this to be fixed/changed and the

That is incorrect.  The font system in X is far more powerful than you can
find in Windows or Macintosh.  I am curious why you say that it has poor
capabilities?

> patches folded back to the Open Group?  I assume (wrongly, again?) since
> many fonts are "Type 1" from Adobe, that these would be of especially
> high quality.  Perhaps that is only true of printers with a built-in

X has native support for these.

> Postscript interpreter.  Even though I'm using Ghostscript 5.50, the
> print quality is no better than with the 2.62(?) version it replaced. 
> To be honest, a hard copy of any website printed by my system is not an
> example to show someone contemplating a move to Linux right now.

If you've ever seen the posters that I place outside the ACLUG meeting room
before events, you'll see a fine example of Linux print quality and even
powerful rendering of pictures.

> </RANT>
> 
> Now, is there a prefered order to specify the font directories in
> /etc/XF86Config that would result in better screen and print quality. 


> Does Ghostscript even use the XFree fonts?  I know it installs its own,

No.  Ghostscript uses separate fonts, but it can be told to use additional
fonts if you purchase such.

> but nothing I've tried seems to help.  I will admit this is a problem I
> haven't spent a majority of my time to address.  I also am aware that

What Linux distribution are you running, incidentally?

> under Windows my HP-600 uses a vendor supplied driver that is fine tuned
> to the capabilites of the machine.  I'm sure they are using unreleased
> specs to do it.  HP isn't likely to release this information any time
> soon as they probably use it in current production models.  It'll also
> be a lonnnngggg time before HP provides any Linux support for older
> Deskjets.

Is your printer PCL-compatible?

> I keep hoping that programs like WordPerfect won't rely on GS, but will
> somehow support the printer directly and do a better job than is now
> available.  Unfortunately, I'm dreaming...

WordPerfect always has had its own printer drivers.  (Direct PCL encoding,
etc.)  That said, I believe that option to be inferior.

> No, I'm not going back to Windows, but I find it puzzling that I cannot
> use this system to create a presentable document as I could under Win
> 3.1 and my current hardware.

I believe it is a bit unfair to make the generalizations that you have
without trying much to fix it, or to examine others' output.  Also, you may
want to search mailing list archives for your distribution and DejaNews for
items.

> There, I feel better.

Good! :-)

-- 
John Goerzen   Linux, Unix consulting & programming   jgoerzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx |
Developer, Debian GNU/Linux (Free powerful OS upgrade)       www.debian.org |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Visit the Air Capital Linux Users Group on the web at http://www.aclug.org
---
This is the Air Capitol Linux Users Group discussion list.  If you
want to unsubscribe, send the word "unsubscribe" to
aclug-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx.  If you want to post to the list, send your
message to aclug-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx.