Sunday, July 11, 2010

Vuvubuntu

I just realized. Lusers are the vuvuzelas of the software world.

OMG OMG OMG. In addition to totally fucked window controls, we now have a font!

I'm so excited about this thing because it's going to fix so many problems. It's going to make my 30 inch monitor work, and give me awesome 3d graphics, and all the game companies will port to linux to take advantage of this font, and my wireless problems will go away. And it will make Intel open source their gpu, and Microsoft will roll over and die.

I mean seriously. That's what happened when they release Bitstream Vera, and Liberation. Right? All the free desktop was missing was a fucking font.

Oh btw, will this make other websties that specify the standard web fonts look good? No?

5000 flames:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 5000   Newer›   Newest»
Technogran said...

LOL

Anonymous said...

ROFLAo this Linux hater guy is getting more moronic with each posting

Anonymous said...

Wow what a lame blog......

karaflos said...

OK.. this blog was nice, now it's just a bad joke...

yOSHi314 said...

i guess somebody hijacked the account.

the good times of this blog are behind us.

or maybe linux is very little rantworthy nowadays, which reflects on the quality of the posts.

Anonymous said...

Looks like even freetards have LHB in their rss, ready to act like they were haters disapointed bout LHB.

Kind of lame

Anonymous said...

To be fair, Bitstream Vera Mono is a great looking programming font. I use it in Microsoft Visual Studio because Courier New looks like ASS.

But yeah, it's not like it's gonna make Steve Ballmer have a sudden cardiac arrest.

Anonymous said...

Seriously, what more did you expect him to say these days? Every fucking problem that shows that Linux is a joke has been covered before, and not one of them has been solved. There's not much left to say, as simple as that.

markuman said...

that was your fist weak one :)

TM Repository said...

Wow what a lame blog.

Too bad he's right. They release a new font and pay no attention to the fact that their font rendering engine is still broken.

Since every issue Linux Hater has ever had with Linux desktop is still broken, he'll have to start rehashing his own arguments eventually, just like the "year of the Linux desktop" claim.

He'll have to start dating his titles with "2010 is the year fonts still don't render correctly in Linux".

Anonymous said...

[quote]Too bad he's right. They release a new font and pay no attention to the fact that their font rendering engine is still broken.[/quote]

Same reason why they waste their time changing the position of window controls. It's the only thing they can afford to do, really. When it's too expensive and hard to build the foundations, you can always rearrange the furniture. And claim you're fixing bug #1 while they're at it.

Anonymous said...

@JULY 12, 2010 12:52 AM

Try Consolas; it's easily the best fixed-width font I've used.

Anonymous said...

@JULY 12, 2010 12:52 AM

Try Consolas; it's easily the best fixed-width font I've used.

Dotan Cohen said...

With the horrible mess that was the last release of Linux's Ubunut poster boy, this is all you have to bitch about? Wow, Linux is getting better all the time it appears.

I'd like to see you get back to where you were before the "retirement". I don't know why I still subscribe.

Anonymous said...

Weak entry, but great potential!

Just load the 18MB PDF with somd Data on the new Font. Loads of Bitmaps. Seens, that the upoopoo team is not able to convert to something sensible.

But: Dozens of Windows-Screenshots. Seems as the leading Destop Unix of the World lacks an decent font editor.

Take this, base-dwellers.
And buggy blogger still runs on linux.

Anonymous said...

"Same reason why they waste their time changing the position of window controls. It's the only thing they can afford to do, really. When it's too expensive and hard to build the foundations, you can always rearrange the furniture. And claim you're fixing bug #1 while they're at it."

Isn't this what Microsoft has been doing and is usually given them credit about why some shitty app from 10-15 years ago still functions on Windows 7, with the same API faults either present or "emulated?"

Even migrating from 9x to NT kernel for mainstream they just couldn't drop the piece of shit Win32 API, and recognize the NT API as the development base with more decent libraries either on top of or alongside that, no instead they just rehash the same shit with a different front-end and more worthless services to automatically run on startup. Just imagine how much cleaner things would run when it isn't redirected through five different API and string conversions before being processed by the kernel and the result sent up the chain. Here's a good example: .NET String -> COM UNICODE BSTR -> ANSI STRING for Win32 API -> UNICODE_STRING -> NT User Kernel Call -> Cross to NT Kernel space via gateway API with ordinal parameter -> reconvert UNICODE_STRING to ANSI -> convert to COM UNICODE BSTR -> convert to .NET String.

Yeah, lets not only rehash the old shit, and go as far to make it as a layer on top of a conceptually more decent kernel, but then... lets make this more fucked up by building at least 2 more layers on top of our abstraction from the base OS kernel user calls. Oh yeah, and lets make a "taskbar" that really seems to suck, and make changing anything remotely non-complex into a 18 step process...

Yeah, that's "innovation"....

Anonymous said...

Dunno dude. All I know is that in Windows I don't have to upgrade to Windows 7 to upgrade Firefox. And I don't have to recompile the kernel to install a fucking driver. And GPU composition works. Oh, and fonts do not suck monkey balls.

Anonymous said...

"Isn't this what Microsoft has been doing ..."
Actually, no. MS has developed new things (W9x kernel -> NT kernel, new security features in Vista / 7 etc.) while bending over backwards to remain compatible. Linux desktops make little progress but manage to break compatibility.

"they just couldn't drop the piece of shit Win32 API, and recognize the NT API"

What NT API are you talking about ? The interface between NT kernel and "personalities" is neither intended nor suited for application development, and the API for the most important personality has been from the start ... TADA! ... Win32. In other words: Win32 IS the NT API.

Tom said...

Most Lusers who talk about NT have never actually very little idea what they're talking about.

NT was designed from the start to abstract out the undocumented NT API from the documented, program-facing API. The programs are supposed to talk to "subsystems," and the subsystems talk to the kernel.

When NT shipped, there was a Win32 subsystem, but there was also an OS/2 subsystem. In fact, NT was originally designed to ship as OS/2 NT -- it wasn't until Windows 3.0 became a roaring success that they added the Win32 API.

These days, there's even a POSIX subsystem. One of Microsoft's greatest mistakes recently is restricting the availability of the POSIX subsystem to the Ultimate/Enterprise/Server SKUs. At around the same time, Apple moved to OS X, and so Apple started picking up Unix programmers.

The Phenom said...

.NET String -> COM UNICODE BSTR -> ANSI STRING for Win32 API -> UNICODE_STRING -> NT User Kernel Call -> Cross to NT Kernel space via gateway API with ordinal parameter -> reconvert UNICODE_STRING to ANSI -> convert to COM UNICODE BSTR -> convert to .NET String.

Where the hell did you come up with his non-sense? To start with, such a chain would be kinda possible if you invoke an API routine from NET via Interop. Even then, you have two steps you made from up your ass: COM BSTR and ANSI.

First, API calls do not involve COM marshaling unless you call COM itself. Second, NT is natively Unicode, so the ANSI part is rubbish, too.

You are clueless.

Anonymous said...

Linux hating blog running on linux. I smell much idiocy hear.

Anonymous said...

Linux hating blog running on linux. I smell much idiocy hear.

Designing ubuntu fonts requires an font editor running on windows.
I smell much fun here.

TM Repository said...

Linux hating blog running on linux. I smell much idiocy hear.

LHBRunsOnLinux(TM)

Every single post has a comment like this. Are you sure you want to be using Blogger as an example of Linux technology when it's so full of bugs? Funny how the FOSS crowd conveniently ignores the fact that Blogger isn't open source either.

Bonus irony points for claiming idiocy and then immediately making a grammatical mistake with "hear" instead of "here".

Anonymous said...

At least its a nigger-free font. No niggers, no problems.

mgol said...

@TM Repository
They release a new font and pay no attention to the fact that their font rendering engine is still broken.

WTF?!? My Ubuntu fonts look perfect. Ubuntu hinting engine is far superior to that of e.g. Debian. What is exactly the problem with font rendering under Ubuntu?

Anonymous said...

I don't know if the hinting engine or the fonts are to blame, and I couldn't care less.

Every linux distribution I've tried has terrible fonts. Terrible. It makes the system completely unusable even for basic web browsing.

Anonymous said...

Too bad he's right. They release a new font and pay no attention to the fact that their font rendering engine is still broken

I think they might be trying to address that by taking attention away from the renderer itself via introducing a default typeface designed by a blind person with Parkinson's. I don't think anything that make that monster look good. The kerning and tracking is way off (though the renderer can override it, base kerning/tracking is provided by the typeface).

I;m kidding, but think about it, what good is a fancy renderer when you refuse to bundle anything proprietary, and even if you do - refuse to pay for a license on a well designed typeface, and barring that, obviously can't afford to hire a decent type designer? Even Helvetica is barely legible on Linux for fuck's sake,

Seems as the leading Destop Unix of the World lacks an decent font editor.

Mac OS X has plenty of top notch, professional-grade font design tools, and a sizable array of typography tools, actually.

Unless you meant Linux, which is neither Unix, nor leading anything in the desktop space. Many would argue that it shouldn't even be considered a desktop OS, either,


Or unless "Desop" is something other than the "desktop", in which case I can buy Linux being the leading brand of it.

Isn't this what Microsoft has been doing and is usually given them credit about why some shitty app from 10-15 years ago still functions on Windows 7, with the same API faults either present or "emulated?"

How exactly to you equate 15 years of backward compatibility with pointlessly moving buttons to the left of the title bar?

Anonymous said...

Unless you meant Linux, which is neither Unix, nor leading anything in the desktop space. Many would argue that it shouldn't even be considered a desktop OS, either,

I'm not the original poster, but I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic there :P

I personally don't consider Linux a desktop OS. Unless it's meant to be a collection of lessons on how to fuck everything up.

Anonymous said...

bahahah

winpost is winrar

Anonymous said...

Unless you meant Linux, which is neither Unix, nor leading anything in the desktop space. Many would argue that it shouldn't even be considered a desktop OS, either,


I'm the poster. "The leading desktop linux of the world" (like "leading hotels") was ment, someway sarcastic. upoopoo tries this.

regarding that mac-fag: Ok, if you compare to the linux crowd, fine to you. You'll be hated too.

Have fun!

Anonymous said...

So what is supposed to be amazing about this font? It looks rather generic. Am I supposed to be jizzing myself because it's GPLed or something?

Mark Shittleworth said...

Linux Hater, I don't think you quite appreciate how awesome this new font is going to be. It will more than make up for everything that's going to inevitably but needlessly break in the next version of Ubuntu.

Sure, my screen will be black, Pulseaudio will be noisily fucking my sound card, the suspend feature will overwrite kernel memory with /dev/urandom, the wireless drivers will fill the syslog with mocking laughter as I attempt to get them working, and installing the Flash plugin will trigger a dialog box telling me that Flash is bad and I don't really want it.

But hey, I'll have this kick ass new font. You Windows users had better not try to copy the TrueType file.

Anonymous said...

Will you please fucking spell check your posts? Jesus Fucking Tux.

Anonymous said...

Jesus is fucking Tux? Ewww, better watch out for STDs there.

Anonymous said...

Why would Jesus fuck tux? Is that the new Tijuana donkey show staring Jesus Mendez?

Anonymous said...

So will their new font be as asstacular as their new sound system?

Anonymous said...

It'll be more asstacular!

Anonymous said...

It'll be more asstacular!

Anonymous said...

I love your blog posts...but do you honestly still have problems with wireless? You really ought to upgrade.

virtuoso said...

people with problem using wireless have a crappy wlan card like mine, why don't you try http://agender.sourceforge.net

Anonymous said...

what does a calender app have to do wireless cards?

Anonymous said...

Another weak blog post.

TM Repository said...

I love your blog posts...but do you honestly still have problems with wireless? You really ought to upgrade.

Or just use Windows and have no wifi problems from the beginning.

TM Repository said...

WTF?!? My Ubuntu fonts look perfect. Ubuntu hinting engine is far superior to that of e.g. Debian. What is exactly the problem with font rendering under Ubuntu?

Perfect, you say? Please, grace us with a screenshot of your perfect fonts. Every font in Ubuntu looks like it was run through 16x anti-aliasing, giving it a weird subtle drop shadow/glow effect. Next the kerning and hinting are brutal All causing the vertical stems (on p, q, d, I, etc.) to sit halfway between two pixels, blurring them out even further.

The layman can spot it, yet you can't?

Anonymous said...

@ July 12, 2010 12:04 PM

Asstastic!

Captcha: adoldf - YsdexlicRaceGuy's hero.

Anonymous said...

The layman can spot it, yet you can't?

The layman also realizes that Ubuntu is just a re-bundled Debian with a slightly different kernel configuration and some shitty purply-brown theme making Ubuntu's font hinting engine Debian's font hinting engine.

But at this point in the game does it matter? The layman is not going to install or use Ubuntu or Debian unless paid to do so by a chimp in a suit.

Anonymous said...

any1 ever fucked a nigger before?

Anonymous said...

Your mother did.

chindu said...

I think linux is too messed up already and there is too much to fix. Plus, every fix is followed by numerous rants from freetards. Their rants range from "this is a copy of " (as if everything else that is already there is not) to some made-up propaganda from a proprietary company. People spend time in bullshit than doing productive things.

The real "free" is only possible in Venus (TheVenusProject.org.. which is not possible if they want Humans to live, coz competition is built into Human beings) and freetards should realize this.

PS: I use Linux as the only OS myself coz I have a PC and I don't feel safe in Windows (not even with the latest and greatest security suite).

Dr Loser said...

Shuttleworth blows his own trumpet.

Dr Loser said...

Why should fonts be an issue, anyway?

Broadly, there are two types of people who work with fonts:

(1) Typographers, print professionals, graphic artists &c.
(2) Everybody else.

For group (2), the notion that fonts don't just work "out of the box" is absurd. There might just be a dozen or two group (2) people who've downloaded a font to OSX, but the equivalent percentage for Windows has got to be practically zero.

Nevertheless, compare and contrast the instructions for

Ubuntu 10.04

and for

Windows NTx.

With Windows, you ask yourself the question "Where do I get this font from?" You download the font. Three clicks and it's there.

With Ubuntu, you have to figure out whether the font is in this week's repository. If not, you can download it from somewhere else. Now you have to use a subtly different installation mechanism (it wouldn't be that hard to unify the two, but Shuttleworth is still too busy moving buttons around on the desktop).

You seem to have to use the Gnome version of su (gksu), followed by the normal version of su (sudo). Then you have to use Nautilus or Konqueror, because of course you really want your fonts to sit here

The easiest place for people to put their fonts is /home/[username]/.fonts

(You do? That's what it says in the manual, anyway.)

Canonical keeps renaming the commands, for a tolerably obvious reason, so you have to check for instructions like "or, at least in Edgy", which is exactly what you'd expect in documentation for release 10.04.

Finally, don't forget to pleasure yourself with the following very helpful advice:

The following relates to tweaking the anti-aliasing rules for the 'msttcorefonts' collection. It was contributed by Obi Bok but is now unmaintained.

(A stupendous amount of XML config is appended.)

Particularly sad is the comment

The msttcorefonts package contains the Microsoft freeware (non-Free because they are non-modifiable) web fonts.

NOBODY CARES!

Just download the damn things and let people use them! RMS will hate you, but he'll find some other reason to hate you anyway!

Here's a question: what is the core audience of people who will download MST core fonts to a Linux box, any Linux box, and then use Linux image-editing software to tweak them?

Anonymous said...

http://www.google.com/trends?q=linux%2C+windows%2C+apple&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

Google Trends check time...

Can we say 'monotonic decline' now?

Anonymous said...

Today is the day Windows 2000 died

Dr Loser said...

Apart from self-help online support and custom support and just using the OS because it WorksForMe(TM).

(Reference)

How much longer will that fabulous piece of assorted broken cruft, Hardy Heron 2008, survive?

How popular is Hardy Heron compared to Windows 2000?

Anonymous said...

Do your own damn trend search, honestly, if you'd spend less time pontificating how bad Linux is and providing solid quantifiable evidence of the suckage...

Well you'd still have wasted a significant portion of your life but you'd look less lazy.

Dr Loser said...

@July 13, 2010 11:15 AM

(a) I really couldn't care less about the results. I just felt like a reverse troll for a change.
(b) The results of Google trends are, shall we say, minimally conclusive on any topic other than the statistics measured by Google trends.
(c)Hardy Heron wasn't even search-worthy according to Google trends beyond about October 2008. As news, it's consistently flat-lined since introduction, and consistently been below Windows 2000.

Hey, it's your choice of misleading statistics. How 'bout that "solid quantifiable evidence," now?

Anonymous said...

google trend for "Linux Hater"

Interesting, the graph doesn't fall?

hagla said...

@JULY 13, 2010 10:01 AM
http://www.google.com/trends?q=linux,+ubuntu&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0
http://www.google.com/trends?q=ubuntu,+mac+os&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

Dr Loser said...

Garbage Speaks!

Dr Roy is rewarding his mother for basement time by "taking a break." Sadly for her, he's going along too. Or, to quote (and as usual, Schestowitz uses the royal "we"):

I recently received some mails from a 28-year veteran of Microsoft (who worked closely with Bill Gates) and he too told me that his field was moving towards Linux and RTOSes.

Goodness. Fridges? Turtles? Toasters? Supercomputers? What could it be, and why would anybody choose a hard real time OS when they could choose Linux instead?

I think I'll book Tuesday 20th (some dingy pub in Manchester, apparently) in my diary.

If you have a question that you'd like to ask Dr Roy, email me at pink_fairy@fmail.co.uk. Owing to the expected volume of correspondence, a reply is not guaranteed.

Anonymous said...

Schestowitz is a Doctor now?!

How the hell was he able to accomplish that? He is one of the biggest spammers on the internet.

Where did he find the time to study?


Hey, do you have the same blogger failure, where the captcha is broken, and you need to reload it?

Dr Loser said...

Yes indeed.

Dr Loser said...

Yes indeed.

Dr Loser said...

Yes indeed, and indeed he is. Standards have apparently slipped since those halcyon days when I was in college.

Dr Loser said...

But what you're probably looking for is Schestowitz' stirring sign-off:

“Long live the liberation of the workers off all countries from the infernal chasm of war, exploitation and slavery!”

–Karl Liebknecht


A truly thrilling paean to the power of open-source software, which has contributed in notable ways since 1990 or so to the following:

* Prevention of: two Gulf wars. Two Congo wars. Roughly four and a half Slav wars (ignoring Slovenia and giving Kossovan Albanians the benefit of the doubt). Genocide in Rwanda and genocide in Darfur. Israel, Somalia, Ethiopia, Algeria much as normal, sunny now, with showers expected later. Sundry other wars between little people who don't really count.
* Exploitation now practically nonexistent through the pixie-dust magic of FOSS. No more female genital mutilation. Equal opportunity before the law now a worldwide fact, especially in Russia (which has achieved a 99% conviction rate for those with four legs who are ipso facto less equal) and China, where the good people in charge will even sell you the bullet afterwards as a charming memento.
* No slaves anywhere on the planet, and certainly none working in Arabia or growing cocoa in West Africa. Slavery now properly redefined as earning money to write programs or other digital content. As opposed to giving all your efforts away for free to munificent and totally not at all near monopoly corporations such as IBM.

It's a total disgrace that Dr Roy has hitherto escaped the attentions of the Nobel Peace Prize committee. Fuck, if Kissinger can get one, then Schestowitz has got to be next.

As for Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg (who can at least be counted as extremely brave idealists who sacrificed their lives by fighting against early fascism), it's doubtful that they would have equated human happiness with the Linux desktop.

Anonymous said...

I especially love the simple ("as short as possible") procedure for getting the font to test it out:

1) Be an ubuntu member (whatever that means)
2) wait for an email
3) edit a text file somewhere on your computer (notice he doesn't even say exactly where it is)
4) wait an indeterminate amount of time
5) run some weird command that has to do with keyrings and hex numbers
6) install the font with one easy command!

It's almost like they don't want you to test it unless you're a programmer, which is exactly the sort of testing linux needs more of.

Dr Loser said...

@July 13, 2010 2:30 PM

3) edit a text file somewhere on your computer (notice he doesn't even say exactly where it is)

Tut tut. You really aren't paying attention, are you? Pardon my 1337n3ss.

The file is .fonts. Unless it's something else. But it's probably .fonts; you can find it by the following:

find . -name "\.fonts" > /tmp/dotfontsishere 2>/dev/null

(Make sure you disconnect from the internet first, and that you're logged in as root. The /dev/null stuff is a simple way to throw away information. You may wish to keep it.)

Notice the elegance of the naming convention. It is extremely important that you place your personal fonts file in your own, personal, directory (don't ask why)*. It is also extremely important that you will never notice it again, unless you specifically ask. Never, ever, go to your home directory and type "ls -alt". This will reveal the hidden mysteries of the cosmos to you. Not only do you have to remember that you are not root; you also have to remember that you are not, in any meaningful sense, you.

You will now be presented with one or more choices of .fonts. Actually, you might be presented with none. I have no idea what you do in that case.

You would interfere with the font selection of everybody else on your computer if you chose the /usr/share/whatever/.fonts file. Well, there's only you, but you never know. Also, you'll never be quite sure how much you interfere, because some of these wondrous user configuration files totally substitute the personal version, and some just override individual (in this case) fonts. Or some combination of the two. It's generally difficult to be sure.

You are probably best off choosing /home/[your name here]/.fonts, as recommended by Ubuntu. There's even a way to create it yourself! You'll need to, because Ubuntu doesn't bother itself with trivial, automatic, details like that.

After that, you only need to deal with the other five things you mentioned. And, did I mention, the fact that Gnome fonts and Qt fonts don't necessarily agree with each other. And did I mention that, in common with standard Unix font-handling (this is one case where Linux successfully mimics *nix in general) you can arbitrarily edit your fonts file to match about eight or nine criteria for font selection? And did I mention that any arbitrary Gnome or KDE or indeed random program is not mandated to select a font through this central mechanism (if indeed there is a central mechanism)?

Now, class, we've settled that contentious and choice-filled issue of fonts. What shall we do next?

Well, there's always X configuration. It's easy to locate the relevant file, which is probably xorg.cong, but XOrg is now frowned upon, so it might be /etc/X11/X86Config. There are a few others as well. They're all interchangeable and pretty intuitive.

You can easily configure your audio stack via /sys/etc/pulseaudio/120db.conf.

The tricky thing is to configure Linux security, which obviously isn't really necessary, because Linux is inherently secure, what with it being based on Unix. And don't let any of those naughty security consultants who make money on the manifestly inferior Solaris system tell you otherwise.

Anyway, just for larks, you might want to look at the various daemon startup scripts. They're easily located. They're under /etc/rc.d. (Or a subdirectory.) Except when they're somewhere else. Always remembering to check every single script to make sure it doesn't refer to something under /opt.

I forget ... what was the question? Oh yes, configuring fonts. It's really very simple...

* One last thing. Make sure that you don't have an environment variable called FONTHOME, or it might be FONT_HOME, because in that case you're fucked and you'll never be able to work out why.

mgol said...

Perfect, you say? Please, grace us with a screenshot of your perfect fonts.

OK, some examples of font hinting in Ubuntu:
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/7082/ubuntunautilus.png
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/9532/ubuntuterminal.png

Now, I made a screenshot of Mac OS X Terminal (in VMware):
http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/1439/macosxterminal.png

Terrible. Now, tell me - do these Mac OS X antialiased terminal fonts look really that terrible or is it just because I run it not on a real Mac but in VMware? Seriously, I'm curious.

Anonymous said...

Everyone knows Mac fonts suck. They're blurry. I don't care what you Macfags say, your fonts are FUCKING BLURRY. THEY LOOK LIKE SHIT COMPARED TO CLEARTYPE, YA FAGGOTS.

http://www.atpm.com/12.01/paradigm.shtml

JoeMonco said...

Terrible. Now, tell me - do these Mac OS X antialiased terminal fonts look really that terrible or is it just because I run it not on a real Mac but in VMware? Seriously, I'm curious.

Well, the fonts are indeed blurry in your OSX terminal snap, but not as seizure-inducing as the color-striped mess in Ubuntu.

Anonymous said...

You don't get fonts looking like those out of the box in ubuntu or any other linux shitstribution. I'm not willing to tinker just to get the fucking fonts right in 2010.

mgol said...

Well, the fonts are indeed blurry in your OSX terminal snap, but not as seizure-inducing as the color-striped mess in Ubuntu.

Yeah, now You're telling me sth like "I know that OS X sucks in some ways but Ubuntu sucks more". That's an adult response.

I gave You screenshots with Ubuntu default fonts which don't look blurry at all. Antialiased Mac OS X terminal fonts do (at least in my VMware install).

So, unless they look differently on a real Mac, the conclusion is simple - Ubuntu fonts are OK, Mac ones suck.

mgol said...

One remark - I have pixel hinting enabled, If You looked at my Ubuntu screenshots on a CRT screen they can look bad. However, on an LCD one, they're really great.

mgol said...

You don't get fonts looking like those out of the box in ubuntu or any other linux shitstribution. I'm not willing to tinker just to get the fucking fonts right in 2010.

I set them in the previous Ubuntu version and didn't change it upon upgrade to 10.04. IIRC I only changed hinting from medium to slight and font size from 10 to 8 (I have good eyes and I prefer smaller fonts).

With medium hinting they looked good but I prefer the slight alternative. No "messing", just works.

I know there are many problems with Ubuntu but You just mentioned something that hasn't been a problem for a long time (I use Ubuntu since 2007 and its font rendering has always looked nice to me; contrary to e.g. Debian's ugly fonts).

JoeMonco said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JoeMonco said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JoeMonco said...

I gave You screenshots with Ubuntu default fonts which don't look blurry at all.

Despite it is obviously using an anti-aliasing method for a white background over a black backdrop (hence the colored stripes)? The flaw is painfully obviously even given the size and quality of the screen-shot, I tell ya. And you say this is "not blurry at all"?

mgol said...

Despite it is obviously using an anti-aliasing method for a white background over a black backdrop (hence the colored stripes)?

Are you still on CRT or what? That's what subpixel rendering EXACTLY does - it adds colour stripes (sometimes red, sometimes blue) so that it looks more smooth on LCD screens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpixel_rendering

And you say this is "not blurry at all"?

Anti-aliased fonts will always be a bit more blurry than usual ones. However, it's hardly visible here. Some people prefer 100% sharp fonts and they will always disable anti-aliasing/hinting, on all OS-es.

And maybe You would say sth my Mac OS X screenshot? THAT is what blurry fonts mean and it's really awful.

JoeMonco said...

One remark - I have pixel hinting enabled, If You looked at my Ubuntu screenshots on a CRT screen they can look bad. However, on an LCD one, they're really great.

I am staring at your "not blurry at all" screen-shot with a 20" wide-screen LCD right now. And your point is?

mgol said...

Two pictures:
Grayscale:
http://a.imageshack.us/img267/8372/ubuntufontsgrayscale.png
Subpixel:
http://a.imageshack.us/img713/1737/ubuntufontssubpixel.png

I really prefer the second one.

And you keep avoiding my question about OS X terminal (they use grayscale hinting there and it's visible).

I am staring at your "not blurry at all" screen-shot with a 20" wide-screen LCD right now. And your point is?

Apart from the fact that it doesn't matter if it has 15", 20" or 50", I use my laptop LED screen in Dell Latitude E6500 and I don't see what's so blurry in these screenshots.

Maybe you'd provide at least one screenshot showing how according to you font rendering should look like? Sth can be good or bad only compared to sth different.

mgol said...

The flaw is painfully obviously even given the size and quality of the screen-shot, I tell ya.

What do you mean by the "quality of the screenshot"?

Anonymous said...

Yay, Loonix has a new font that will look super fucking cool. I can just go into the fonts folder by typing fonts:/// and in Nautilus, view all my pretty ... oh wait, that's broken for my inconvenience with no fix in sight.

:`(

Anonymous said...

Download Ubuntu Desktop Edition:

* 32-bit - Recommended for most users
* 64-bit - Not recommended for daily desktop usage

LOL. Didn't freetards claim 64-bit computing was so ahead it was not funny?

Anonymous said...

Now let's browse the web out of the box in Ubuntu 10.04, shall we?

http://a.imageshack.us/img684/2897/screenshotxs.png

Can you say shitty, blurry fonts?

The Phenom said...

Can you say shitty, blurry fonts?

Indeed I can. Fonts are blurry, compared to W7.

Anonymous said...

I wear glasses when I use windows 7 and fonts look much better indeed.

Anonymous said...

Font rendering is a non-issue.

I change the hinting style to full RGB in the gnome font manager and all the text looks sharp yet still smooth and anti-aliased.

Anonymous said...

I especially love the simple ("as short as possible") procedure for getting the font to test it out:

1) Be an ubuntu member (whatever that means)
2) wait for an email
3) edit a text file somewhere on your computer (notice he doesn't even say exactly where it is)
4) wait an indeterminate amount of time
5) run some weird command that has to do with keyrings and hex numbers
6) install the font with one easy command!

It's almost like they don't want you to test it unless you're a programmer, which is exactly the sort of testing linux needs more of.


Or you can download the font, double-click the TTF file then click "Install Font" in the font pre-viewer app.

I know... 3 mouse clicks is hard dude. I have to replace my mouse each time, since it cannot handle the stress.

JoeMonco said...

Are you still on CRT or what? That's what subpixel rendering EXACTLY does - it adds colour stripes (sometimes red, sometimes blue) so that it looks more smooth on LCD screens.

No joke, Sherlock. It's sub-pixel rendering in that snap - and shockingly sub-par at that. This is an enlarged screenshot taken from Windows Vista with ClearType enabled. Now compare it to this blown-up picture from the snap you have posted here previously. Notice the lack of depth in the latter. Also notice how ClearType avoid transforming the letter "m" into an unintelligible mess with its approach to sub-pixel rendering.

The outcome of this is obviously less "stripy-ness" in Windows given the same font type, font size and screen resolution, and I have used Ubuntu with both CRT and LCD monitors before, by the way.

And maybe You would say sth my Mac OS X screenshot? THAT is what blurry fonts mean and it's really awful.

Care to provide a screen-shot with Ubuntu displaying gnome-terminal with the same greyscale rasterization just for a fair comparison? I happen to have an old machine with Ubuntu 10.04 installed, but somehow I am feeling a bit too lazy to switch it on right now.

What do you mean by the "quality of the screenshot"?

As it turns out there is a little problem with the way Chrome displays PNG images and everything just comes out looking like a lossy JPEG file. Never mind that.

Anonymous said...

No joke, Sherlock. It's sub-pixel rendering in that snap - and shockingly sub-par at that. This is an enlarged screenshot taken from Windows Vista with ClearType enabled. Now compare it to this blown-up picture from the snap you have posted here previously. Notice the lack of depth in the latter. Also notice how ClearType avoid transforming the letter "m" into an unintelligible mess with its approach to sub-pixel rendering.

Not a fair comparison unless you show all possible hinting styles:

slight, medium, and full.

The fonts in Ubuntu look slightly smoother but with full hinting the text is still sharp and easy to read.

I happen to like "clean" fonts. I don't want to see pixelated edges on text.

JoeMonco said...

My bad! The font size I used for the Vista snap was 14 points. Here a ClearType rendering result with a font size of 12 points.

JoeMonco said...

Not a fair comparison unless you show all possible hinting styles

There are only two anti-aliasing options you can choose from in Vista - Standard and ClearType. ClearType is obviously an implementation of sub-pixel rendering. Standard, on the other hand, is pretty much the Windows equivalent of the "greyscale" anti-aliasing options in Gnome/Ubuntu. The point of this exercise is to compare the best from the two, and you are welcome to try and get fonts in Ubuntu to look better than Windows in whichever way you like, but I honestly doubt you will have any success in doing that.

Michael Houston said...

Ubuntu whips Windows in every imaginable way when it comes to font rendering. Microsoft just can't keep up.

Anonymous said...

In fact Ubuntu beats Windows at everything it does! That's why everyone is using Ubuntu these days, mind you.

Anonymous said...

There are only two anti-aliasing options you can choose from in Vista - Standard and ClearType. ClearType is obviously an implementation of sub-pixel rendering. Standard, on the other hand, is pretty much the Windows equivalent of the "greyscale" anti-aliasing options in Gnome/Ubuntu. The point of this exercise is to compare the best from the two, and you are welcome to try and get fonts in Ubuntu to look better than Windows in whichever way you like, but I honestly doubt you will have any success in doing that.

The best will depend on the monitor.

You're enlarged pixel mosaic says nothing. The M doesn't look better with ClearType. The white is more pronounced but that doesn't mean anything, especially since there aren't three screenshots showing the font hinting modes in Ubuntu.
The font engine (I assume FreeType) is quite customizable in gnome. Not only can the hinting be changed the the color pixel layout can be changed to provide optimal rendering for different types of LCD monitors with unusual color layouts--such as the cheap OLPC screen.

JoeMonco said...

The white is more pronounced but that doesn't mean anything

It means everything. The depth and contrast that the Ubuntu snap shows is pretty much the same stuff I would get with a font color of RGB=(192,192,192) in Windows. It's uncomfortable to the eye and makes the text look stripy and hard to read. This is why despite having been a Ubuntu user, I have never enjoyed running it on my desktop for even just one day.

Michael Houston said...

Does everyone drive the best car? Does everyone live in the best designed house? Does everyone use the best operating system? Didn't think so. Goodbye.

Anonymous said...

More often than not, you get what you pay for.

Goodbye, dear freetard.

Anonymous said...

It's a little unfair to complain about Mac OS X's rendering of fonts in Terminal.app, because frankly in Mac OS X (as in Windows) terminals are totally unnecessary to the overwhelming majority of users (unlike in Linux, where you often can't make the system work without them), and are even unnecessary to a majority of programmers.

For one thing, BBEdit (which is what you use on a Mac if you're serious about editing text files) lets you open a shell/Perl/Python/whatever script, execute it, and show the results in a new window. (It also lets you pass it along to a real Terminal.app terminal if you want, but why bother?) It's only if you're doing something interactive on the command line that you have to use a terminal, and offhand I can't think of anything I've needed to do on a Mac in the last three years which required interaction on the command line. Everything else has either had a GUI or has been something I could script without interaction.

And by the way: I must disagree on Cleartype. ClearType has never looked as good to me as Mac OS X antialiasing. But that's a matter of taste, and I still agree that it looks better than Linux.

I also have to agree that there's just too much stuff that's broken on Linux to make it worth dealing with the OS any more. At this point, the Free Software crowd would be better off (in terms of having a really good system, one that works well enough to attract new users) by trying to design a complete new OS from scratch. It won't happen, though -- if they tried, you'd have a bunch of idiots demanding to use X11 as the graphics layer and GNOME or KDE on top of it, which would immediately bring in about 40% of the problems with Linux. Besides, the FOSS crowd doesn't actually make new things, just copies of existing ones.

mgol said...

Care to provide a screen-shot with Ubuntu displaying gnome-terminal with the same greyscale rasterization just for a fair comparison?

Here You are:
Ubuntu grayscale: http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/6103/terminalubuntugrayscale.png
Ubuntu subpixel: http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/5180/terminalubuntusubpixel.png
Mac OS X: http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/8438/terminalmacosx.png

Also, I don't see any option to enable subpixel font rendering in OS X, so an argument to compare grayscale to grayscale is pointless - they don't support it, it's their problem, not mine.

It's a little unfair to complain about Mac OS X's rendering of fonts in Terminal.app, because frankly in Mac OS X (as in Windows) terminals are totally unnecessary to the overwhelming majority of users

"It's a little unfair to compare browsers' speed to IE as almost nobody sane is using it."

Seriously, it IS there, people DO use it and it is NEEDED. There are many folks that need sometimes to write some handy scripts, do some administrative tasks etc. etc. They need to run Terminal.app for it. If fonts look like they do, it DOES SUCK. Don't give me any shit like "well, who needs it, anyway" when I provide some serious drawbacks?

LinuxHaterPredictorGuy said...

Four months from now, the next blog post will complain that they changed the colors on the Ubuntu logo. It will have the title "lolcolors", and sound like it was written by a fourth grader.

TM Repository said...

Four months from now, the next blog post will complain that they changed the colors on the Ubuntu logo. It will have the title "lolcolors", and sound like it was written by a fourth grader.

And it will only garner 2000 comments.

I'd like to hear your predictions about Linux itself, since it seems to be at a standstill. Fonts and logo colour changes are all Ubuntu seems to be able to do these days. I guess it's just too perfect, right?

Anonymous said...

http://www.fuelies.net/messageboard/viewthread.php?tid=25995

Anonymous said...

Seriously, it IS there, people DO use it and it is NEEDED. There are many folks that need sometimes to write some handy scripts, do some administrative tasks etc. etc. They need to run Terminal.app for it. If fonts look like they do, it DOES SUCK. Don't give me any shit like "well, who needs it, anyway" when I provide some serious drawbacks?

Well, actually, no, you don't need Terminal.app to have a terminal. You can use X11's Terminal (installed by default now -- open /Applications/Utilities/X11.app to play with it) and have a clear bitmap font by default -- and text display faster than Terminal.app, although on recent hardware, there's no effective difference. (Run ls -lR / on an old single-core Mac, though, and you'll find that the X11 terminal throws the text on the screen noticeably faster.)

Or you can edit and run your scripts directly in BBEdit (or TextWrangler if you don't want to pay for BBEdit), which is easier and more sensible than using a terminal window unless you need your script to be interactive. (And even then, you can do the editing in BBEdit or TextWrangler and use the "Run in Terminal" command instead, so you don't have to deal with Terminal.app any more than the bare minimum.)

Or -- and this, combined with your insistence that Mac users use the Terminal, is what convinces me that you don't use a Mac and are actually a Linux user arguing from Linux habits -- if you really must use Terminal.app and you're a normal human being, within about two minutes of launching the thing you will have used the preferences to change the font to something which is easier to read. (Which is to say: Monaco with the antialiasing option turned off at size 9, 10, or 12, or Andale Mono 10 or 11.)

gg said...

夜世界,情趣用品,情趣,跳蛋,按摩棒,電動按摩棒,AV,充氣娃娃,自慰器,自慰套,電動自慰器,飛機杯,威而柔,潤滑液,情趣睡衣,角色扮演,丁字褲,SM,情趣用具

Declination said...

Or -- and this, combined with your insistence that Mac users use the Terminal, is what convinces me that you don't use a Mac and are actually a Linux user arguing from Linux habits -- if you really must use Terminal.app and you're a normal human being, within about two minutes of launching the thing you will have used the preferences to change the font to something which is easier to read. (Which is to say: Monaco with the antialiasing option turned off at size 9, 10, or 12, or Andale Mono 10 or 11.)

As an interesting aside, I think Snow Leopard or Leopard ships with a new Monospaced font Menlo, which I find considerably easier to read than Monoca.

mgol said...

your insistence that Mac users use the Terminal

I'm far from arguing that the usual Mac user needs terminal. Thanks God, they don't. However, if someone looks for an OS with UNIX basis, they have a choice of Mac OS X or Linux and I'm just saying these types of people need terminal, just because it's a lot faster than to use some dedicated GUI apps to do certain quick tasks.

if you really must use Terminal.app and you're a normal human being, within about two minutes of launching the thing you will have used the preferences to change the font to something which is easier to read. (Which is to say: Monaco with the antialiasing option turned off at size 9, 10, or 12, or Andale Mono 10 or 11.)

But I'm used to anti-aliasing. I use it in Ubuntu terminal and it doesn't cause me any problems with reading, it doesn't distract me etc. etc. On the other hand, it's nice for an eye as I don't like too abrupt fonts (especially slashes look bad without anti-aliasing).

Now, if things look how they look, I'm unable to have decent anti-aliasing in Mac OS X terminal. Which is sad and is a heavy reason for me not to switch to a Mac when I'll be changing my computer in a few years (which I'm actually considering sometimes).

Anonymous said...

mgol you're a troll and a liar. Go die in a fire you Loonix faggot.

Dr Loser said...

@July 15, 2010 9:51 AM

Or you could use /Applications/Utilities/X11.app or BBEdit or TextWrangler, as proposed by Anonymous@July 14, 2010 11:37 PM.

Is this so hard to understand?

Personally, I've never seen the problem with CLI fonts in any case. I mean, it's text-based. Fiddle around a bit with emacs settings (in my case), and make sure that the background and foreground colours work, and you're pretty much done.

On the other hand, if you want a GUI to be readable, given that on any given web-page (say) you have a welter of well-meaning CSS, then a decent font-renderer is a must.

It's an environmental difference. If you work with a character-based system, you get used to Courier New. If you work with GUIs, as 99% of the world do, you want something that won't make you want to poke your eyes out with a pointy stick.

I'm not taking sides here. I'm just saying.

mgol said...

mgol you're a troll and a liar. Go die in a fire you Loonix faggot.

Mummy at work? Fuck yourself, you moron.

Or you could use /Applications/Utilities/X11.app or BBEdit or TextWrangler

It is meant for programming and I'm talking about simple, quick administrative tasks as well as checking some things by specialized commands. No, it will NEVER be fully represented in GUI, that's just not possible.

Nothing fully replaces terminal, if it was otherwise, it wouldn't be present at all. Now, if they provide it, I'd like its fonts to be decent, can I?

Personally, I've never seen the problem with CLI fonts in any case. I mean, it's text-based.

But You don't use anti-aliasing, don't You? I'm just used to it. I discovered Ubuntu fonts look good to me even in a terminal and now I just can't look at too sharp fonts. De gustibus non est disputandum.

I'm not taking sides here. I'm just saying.

At least You're providing some actual arguments, as opposed to some morons whose only argument is calling another human being a "fagot".

Anonymous said...

You're a man and you crave dicks. How is that an inaccurate term?

Anonymous said...

Opensuse 11.3 has been released! In a surprising turn of events, a thousand packages have updated their version numbers, it comes with yet another beta file system, and a myriad screenshots of the installer with shitty fonts have been taken once more for your viewing pleasure!

http://easylinuxcds.com/blog/?p=3789

Anonymous said...

Loons every where are prepping to reinstall another loonix distro!

Dr Loser said...

@July 15, 2010 10:47 AM

Nothing fully replaces terminal, if it was otherwise, it wouldn't be present at all. Now, if they provide it, I'd like its fonts to be decent, can I?

Never used any of the four, but by your criteria (as I understand them), on OSX, BBEdit or TextWrangler come close. If you just want a "native, Unix" terminal, then I can't see how /Applications/Utilities/X11.app doesn't do the job.

Let me rephrase your assertion:

Nothing fully replaces Notepad, if it was otherwise, it wouldn't be present at all.

Not an easily defensible argument, is it? Certainly not when you're complaining about the lack of advanced features, such as font aliasing.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

But you're not arguing on the basis of taste. You're arguing on the basis of novel features (for Terminal.app at least). A more apt quotation in this case would be

ex africa semper aliquid novum.

At least You're providing some actual arguments, as opposed to some morons whose only argument is calling another human being a "fagot".

Yeah, well, you'll have to get used to that round here. They're normally either anonymous or Adam King/Matthew Smith/snickerdouche/Tanya. It's like puppy dogs urinating on your tootsies -- you know it's a sign of affection.

Now, if they call you a nigger-lover (latest citation: Matthew Houston), then you're in the big time, mate.

Anonymous said...

As an interesting aside, I think Snow Leopard or Leopard ships with a new Monospaced font Menlo, which I find considerably easier to read than Monoca.

That screenshot with the unreadably fuzzy text that somebody posted in a screenshot? That's Menlo. It looks great at 9 point size, okay at 10 point size, and like crap at anything higher. (I'm reasonably sure it was hand-tuned for 9-point display.) And they made the Terminal.app default Menlo 11 or 12, I forget which.

It is meant for programming and I'm talking about simple, quick administrative tasks as well as checking some things by specialized commands. No, it will NEVER be fully represented in GUI, that's just not possible.

Not true. Any command on the command line can be wrapped into a GUI program. Sometimes they can be combined -- for example, BBEdit does just about anything you would want to do with searching or text editing. (Yes, that includes regular expressions.)

Heck, you can even build a program around hdiutil (the insanely overfeatured command to manage disk images). I started to do that a while back, and then realized that the options which aren't exposed in Disk Utility.app are largely useless these days. (How often do you need to segment a disk image these days?)

Nothing fully replaces terminal, if it was otherwise, it wouldn't be present at all. Now, if they provide it, I'd like its fonts to be decent, can I?

Well, let's see. You refuse to admit that changing the font in Terminal.app is an acceptable solution. And you have confessed that you aren't a Mac user, so your whole opinion is based on a screenshot of one particular font, plus an increasingly old article about the font rendering in a previous version of the OS.

So, basically, you're saying that you would value a good fixed-width font in the terminal (where you say Linux is better) over good rendering of all the non-fixed-width fonts you use in the rest of the OS (where Linux is just about dead last; I think it beats Haiku -- because Haiku doesn't have anti-aliasing yet). You won't be spending much time in a terminal window, but you think that the font rendering in a terminal window is the single most important issue? And we're supposed to take you seriously, and worry because that is discouraging you from getting a Mac?

Sorry, but anyone with a brain can see that you never seriously considered getting a Mac, and you're just doing some concern trolling. Next you'll be telling us you refuse to switch from generic cola to Coke because Coke doesn't contain any protein. Of course, neither does your generic cola, but you need an excuse not to spend the money and that one works as well as any other.

Anonymous said...

As an interesting aside, I think Snow Leopard or Leopard ships with a new Monospaced font Menlo, which I find considerably easier to read than Monoca.

That screenshot with the unreadably fuzzy text that somebody posted in a screenshot? That's Menlo. It looks great at 9 point size, okay at 10 point size, and like crap at anything higher. (I'm reasonably sure it was hand-tuned for 9-point display.) And they made the Terminal.app default Menlo 11 or 12, I forget which.

It is meant for programming and I'm talking about simple, quick administrative tasks as well as checking some things by specialized commands. No, it will NEVER be fully represented in GUI, that's just not possible.

Not true. Any command on the command line can be wrapped into a GUI program. Sometimes they can be combined -- for example, BBEdit does just about anything you would want to do with searching or text editing. (Yes, that includes regular expressions.)

Heck, you can even build a program around hdiutil (the insanely overfeatured command to manage disk images). I started to do that a while back, and then realized that the options which aren't exposed in Disk Utility.app are largely useless these days. (How often do you need to segment a disk image these days?)

Nothing fully replaces terminal, if it was otherwise, it wouldn't be present at all. Now, if they provide it, I'd like its fonts to be decent, can I?

Well, let's see. You refuse to admit that changing the font in Terminal.app is an acceptable solution. And you have confessed that you aren't a Mac user, so your whole opinion is based on a screenshot of one particular font, plus an increasingly old article about the font rendering in a previous version of the OS.

So, basically, you're saying that you would value a good fixed-width font in the terminal (where you say Linux is better) over good rendering of all the non-fixed-width fonts you use in the rest of the OS (where Linux is just about dead last; I think it beats Haiku -- because Haiku doesn't have anti-aliasing yet). You won't be spending much time in a terminal window, but you think that the font rendering in a terminal window is the single most important issue? And we're supposed to take you seriously, and worry because that is discouraging you from getting a Mac?

Sorry, but anyone with a brain can see that you never seriously considered getting a Mac, and you're just doing some concern trolling. Next you'll be telling us you refuse to switch from generic cola to Coke because Coke doesn't contain any protein. Of course, neither does your generic cola, but you need an excuse not to spend the money and that one works as well as any other.

Michael Houston said...

Mac fonts are gay just like their users. Because they keep wining about wanting to be married like normal people everyone has pity on them. In reality they are part of a massive conspiracy to kill off the straight population. Read "the pink swastica" if you don't believe me. It will open your eyes. They're almost worse than commy freetards.

Dr Loser said...

@July 15, 2010 12:36 PM

Michael: sorry I called you "Matthew" by mistake.

The idea of killing off the "straight population" is novel, to say the least. You're probably right, though. Let's do it the other way. Perhaps we can start with homo-erotic cross-dressers like the Klan?

Or, and this is just a teeny tiny thought that is probably too difficult for your teeny tiny mind to comprehend, perhaps we could discuss the Linux desktop, and those who comment upon it?

You've tried PieStar. You've tried here. We're not interested. Go away.

Anonymous said...

Emacs is a pretty good operating system, but it could use a better text editor.

Dr Loser said...

@July 15, 2010 1:19 PM

True. I'm working on it.

TM Repository said...

Mac fonts are gay just like their users. Because they keep wining about wanting to be married like normal people everyone has pity on them. In reality they are part of a massive conspiracy to kill off the straight population. Read "the pink swastica" if you don't believe me. It will open your eyes. They're almost worse than commy freetards.

You believe everything you read? You're going to be disappointed when you find out Twilight isn't a gay vampire conspiracy.

Way to subversively try to garner support for your homophobic agenda by trying to lump gay people in with freetards.

weak trolling.

Declination said...

That screenshot with the unreadably fuzzy text that somebody posted in a screenshot? That's Menlo. It looks great at 9 point size, okay at 10 point size, and like crap at anything higher. (I'm reasonably sure it was hand-tuned for 9-point display.) And they made the Terminal.app default Menlo 11 or 12, I forget which.

I agree that was a fuzzy mess. However, having a reference terminal I can fire up, I can tell you that the default 11pt Menlo does not look like a comparable fuzzy mess. I suspect it is because its not actually an OS X screenshot, but rather a screenshot of something inside a VMWare window. I've observed that fonts sometimes interact oddly with VMs. I find XP running inside VMWare to be nearly illegible with ClearType turned on, but I generally have no problems with it otherwise.

Dr Loser said...

TM Repository@July 15, 2010 1:48 PM

It's Michael Houston.

Do try to keep up. Incidentally, I'm still trying to work out whether this is Queef's latest persona. It makes some sort of sense, except that Houston appears to be able to spell things correctly.

LinuxAnnoncerGuy said...

Linux 2.6.35-rc5 released!!!!

FunFactProviderGuy said...

This blog is full of morons.

Anonymous said...

This blog is full of Ballmer's Bitches *snicker*.

mgol said...

But you're not arguing on the basis of taste. You're arguing on the basis of novel features (for Terminal.app at least).

I'm arguing that Terminal.app features are probably enough for me, but my I'm prejudiced to it on the basis of my fonts taste.

If you just want a "native, Unix" terminal, then I can't see how /Applications/Utilities/X11.app doesn't do the job.

If it looks like that:
http://rubenerd.com/uploads/ufraw_term.png
then You may have a point here. I was unable to test it as X11 doesn't work properly in my VMware installation I have for testing purposes.

Now, if they call you a nigger-lover (latest citation: Matthew Houston), then you're in the big time, mate.

Yeah, well, I'll try to get used to that then. ;)

Not true. Any command on the command line can be wrapped into a GUI program.

I'd rather say that more and more needed features can be build in BBEdit but it's never like they can cover everything I may want (an app GUI would become unreadable then). Maybe You're right that most of my needs would be satisfied (I don't have BBEdit to check myself) but certainly not everything. :)

mgol said...

That screenshot with the unreadably fuzzy text that somebody posted in a screenshot? That's Menlo.

Are You referring to my screenshot? That was Monaco. Actually, I've just checked Menlo and it seems it looks better in size 10 with anti-aliasing than Monaco.

I still regret there is no subpixel rendering here.

Well, let's see. You refuse to admit that changing the font in Terminal.app is an acceptable solution.

Because I want it anti-aliased, I'm just used to it. Other fonts hurt my eyes.

And you have confessed that you aren't a Mac user, so your whole opinion is based on a screenshot of one particular font, plus an increasingly old article about the font rendering in a previous version of the OS.

As I've said, I have one Hackintosh VMware Snow Leopard image that I keep only to be able to check some Mac features just to be able to say myself if I want to buy a Mac in a couple of years. I doubt a visit in Apple Store could be thorough enough for me to check what I need.

So, basically, you're saying that you would value a good fixed-width font in the terminal (where you say Linux is better) over good rendering of all the non-fixed-width fonts you use in the rest of the OS

Actually, not. I prefer this:
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8599/menufontsubuntu.png
to this:
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/542/menufontsmacosx.png

Just look how blurry those OS X fonts are there.

You won't be spending much time in a terminal window, but you think that the font rendering in a terminal window is the single most important issue?

It's not just a terminal font. Look above.

but anyone with a brain can see that you never seriously considered getting a Mac

As I'm now only a student in a country with an average monthly salary at less than $1100, You're right - I've never considered buying a Mac as I don't have that much money. In a few years I maybe will as I will actually get a job. I think it's better to get to know a platform a little before actually buying something.

mgol said...

I agree that was a fuzzy mess. However, having a reference terminal I can fire up, I can tell you that the default 11pt Menlo does not look like a comparable fuzzy mess. I suspect it is because its not actually an OS X screenshot, but rather a screenshot of something inside a VMWare window. I've observed that fonts sometimes interact oddly with VMs.

I guess I have to go to a shop and check how it looks on a real Mac.

BTW: it was 10 pt. Monaco, not Menlo. Menlo 10 pt. screenshot is here:
http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/2200/macosxterminalmenlo10pt.png
Does it look the same with Your Mac?

Rectal Examiner said...

Windows is behind the times in terms of consoles. Let's see why:

1) Three choices of fonts for Win 7. Linux, Solaris have all the system fonts to choose from
2) Linux, Solaris can have their fonts anti-aliased in the console. Windows? Nope.
3) Linux, Solaris can have their console windows partially transparent. Windows? No again.

So much for billions of dollars buying quality.

And don't tell me "it's just the terminal". That's rubbish. The terminal is and always will be an important part of any operating system.

Even mac fags have a better terminal than Windars.

mgol said...

Opensuse 11.3 has been released! (...) a myriad screenshots of the installer with shitty fonts have been taken once more for your viewing pleasure!

http://easylinuxcds.com/blog/?p=3789


Actually, it's hard to judge fonts just by looking at GIF (WTF?!? Where is PNG?) screenshots at reduced size...

Anonymous said...

2) Linux, Solaris can have their fonts anti-aliased in the console. Windows? Nope.
I don't know much about fonts in cute terminals because I'm a Windows user, but this seems pretty elegant console to me.

Anonymous said...

Are vuvuzela jokes still a thing?

But in all seriousness, the ubuntu font doesn't even look all that great. Just like the rest of ubuntu, it's fat, ponderous, and doesn't realize the only people who will ever use it are hipsters and morons.

Rectal Examiner said...

I don't know much about fonts in cute terminals because I'm a Windows user, but this seems pretty elegant console to me.

Sorry princess but it still only offers three fonts (what is this Soviet Russia in during the cold war), no transparency, and sloooooooooowwwww.

Nice fail, play again soon.

TM Repository said...

Sorry princess but it still only offers three fonts (what is this Soviet Russia in during the cold war), no transparency, and sloooooooooowwwww.

Nice fail, play again soon.


Wait, so because the Windows command prompt doesn't support transparencies it's somehow a bad thing? I love the notion of transparent windows somehow making life easier for developers.

"if only I could partially read what was behind this terminal I'd be far more productive"

Give me a break. The Windows command prompt is a second class citizen because it's even more unnecessary than the OSX terminal! Sure, OSX is pretty and makes things easy until you go outside the iPhoto/Garage Band/iTunes things aren't so easy.

Kudos to Apple for putting their limited resources where it matters (I'm looking at you, Canonical) but if you're a developer, you've got to be pretty retentive to think that it's more difficult to develop on Windows than any other platform.

Pop quiz, on your favourite unix/linux installation, where does Python store it's site-packages? Have fun googling that since it's different on each distro. Now ask me where it is on ANY version of Windows. hint: exactly the same place.

Anonymous said...

2) Linux, Solaris can have their fonts anti-aliased in the console. Windows? Nope.

Not with the default, raster font (it's done to simulate what you could see in DOS, and there was no ClearType back in the days).

With the other (admittedly limited in number) fonts you can have ClearType enabled on them.

Now, before looking at my screenshot, bare in mind that I tweaked a little bit the ClearType on my computer. On Windows 7 you can do it in:

Cotrol panel -> Appearance and Personalization -> Screen -> Adjust ClearType text

I did it to better suit me, my bad vision and a not-so-decent laptop screen. So, don't complain about how bad it looks, that is not the default ClearType setting and it's easily configurable by anyone (the configuration dialogs are incredibly easy to follow, just click the picture that looks better for you and you're done!).

Screenshot

This prooves that the Windows' command prompt is able to use antialiased fonts just like anything else in the system.

Then again the command prompt is pretty much useless. It is there mainly to support the programs written for consoles; this is mostly a freetarded thing, I never got why in this day and age people still think that building a console app makes it so much less complex and without many bugs, it's not like it's hard to make GUIs.

If, instead, you are serious about working with a decent console on Windows, what you really want is PowerShell. If I emember correctly you can even install it as any other Windows component (IIS, POSIX subsystem, etc).

mgol said...

I don't know much about fonts in cute terminals because I'm a Windows user, but this seems pretty elegant console to me.

Providing JPG screenshots should be banned. PNG, people, how can you even try to judge fonts from a JPG screenshot?!?

If, instead, you are serious about working with a decent console on Windows, what you really want is PowerShell.

PowerShell is merely slightly compatible with UNIX-like tools, so I'd be more bothered by this incompatibilities and poor support of POSIX tools than by font issues in this case. Come on, it even doesn't support command switches which are EXTREMELY useful for scripting purposes.

Anonymous said...

Neelie Kroes, the EU official who was behind the recent Microsoft lawsuits, seems to be a big FOSS fan.

She posted a message on youtube to the GNOME developers conference, where she is praising Linux and FOSS and even praised the fail-train Munich migration!

see it for yourself:

link


I could understand if she would be praising just specific European FOSS companies, but no, she seems to be really a (very naive) fan of the FOSS concept as such.




The first youtube comment is great:

I think the development in Open Source software is also a trend how a new economy will be formed.. Not by capitalism, but by community.of free people.

Free people? I sense some great bullshit here, reminds me of Linux_Victim's crazy zealots.

Carsten Hardt said...

@TMR: Well, there is the command line in Windows, and then there is the Powershell. Despite the silly name, the latter kicks serious ass. Here is an example:

As an Exchange admin, I was asked by a user to give him a list of all the members of some (big) distribution lists. (DLs are great in Exchange, but the tools for handling them are not.) Solution:

Get-DistributionGroupMember -identity "Name of DL" |
get-mailbox |
format-table displayname, primarysmtpaddress

The first command gets the members' entries and passes them to the second command AS OBJECTS so the second command can retrieve the mailbox metadata and pass it to the final formatting command AS OBJECTS so the formatter can retrieve the requested attributes and output them as a table. Copy and paste output into Excel, pretty up - voilà ! One happy user.

I don't even want to know what I would have to do with a system using all text files and the usual CLI tools.

Oh, and @Anonymous: Of course the Powershell supports command switches and external commands.

Carsten Hardt said...

Sorry, the last part of my previous post was of cause for mgol, not Anonymous.

mgol said...

Of course the Powershell supports command switches and external commands.

I'm talking about POSIX tools like ps, ls and so on.

Anonymous said...

@ Kroes

Free people? I sense some great bullshit here, reminds me of Linux_Victim's crazy zealots.


Since you mentioned LV: Many countries in Europe are currently increasing taxes and cutting their various social and welfare programs.

And Neelie has said that FOSS is "cheaper". That's exactly the right time where FOSS comes into play, as LV said: if FOSS gets mentioned by an official in a company/country what ever, it's a sure sign that the shit has hit the fan.



(Un)fortunately, it's a delusion that FOSS brings any benifits in such situations. The Munich fiasco probably costs more now than if they would have just updated their Windows licences. And at the end there was no army of free programmers that worked on SUN's offerings. It didn't help them either.

Carsten Hardt said...

@mgol: If you have those tools installed (via Cygwin or MS Services for Unix), then you can use them in PS. But why would you want to, once you have learned the possibilities of the PS ? BTW: By default, "ps" is an alias to the PS command "get-process" and "ls" is an alias to "get-childitem".

An example for get-process:

[PS] D:\>get-process -name "outlook"

Handles NPM(K) PM(K) WS(K) VM(M) CPU(s) Id ProcessName
------- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ -- -----------
1650 53 85572 33792 574 107.50 5280 OUTLOOK

Anonymous said...

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/542/menufontsmacosx.png

Just look how blurry those OS X fonts are there.


Something about VMWare is interfering with your font rendering, because my MacBook Pro doesn't have (just for a start) the gray strip on the right edge of the "T" or "l" in "Terminal".

Also, I don't see any option to enable subpixel font rendering in OS X, so an argument to compare grayscale to grayscale is pointless - they don't support it, it's their problem, not mine.

The option is actually in the "Appearance" section of System Preferences; they used to have a pop-up menu with multiple choices, but since only two of them ever looked decent -- even on a CRT -- they now just have a checkbox. (The two magic choices which looked good were "off" and "LCD".)

Three choices of fonts for Win 7. Linux, Solaris have all the system fonts to choose from

That's probably (I don't have a copy here to test) because Windows -- very sensibly if this is the case -- limits your choice to fixed-width fonts, because non-fixed-width fonts screw up terminal programs. To say nothing of the questionable utility of using a decorative font in a terminal window. I mean, I don't like using a terminal and avoid it as much as possible, but the point is to have the text be as legible as possible while keeping the font size as small as possible so that you can see as much as possible.

Non-fixed width fonts tend to have extras which reduce legibility on a screen at small sizes. There are very few serif fonts, for example, which are really legible antialiased at 9 or 10 points, and even sans-serif fonts tend to be more legible at that size when not antialiased. Now, if the higher-density screens which are starting to come into use on phones start crossing over into computers, this will no longer be a problem since antialiasing is primarily a kludge to get around the low density of computer screens, but I doubt we'll see that technology make the jump to larger sizes any time soon.

I'm talking about POSIX tools like ps, ls and so on.

If this is also your idea of the minor administrative stuff which you will "need" to use day to day on a Mac which is why you need a terminal, then I can verify something right now: you are indeed projecting your (irrelevant) experiences on Linux onto other OSes. On neither Windows nor the Mac do you usually need to do manual process control at all, and of the times when you do you very rarely need to use the command line. (Next time you're on the Mac, investigate Activity Monitor.) Similar story for file management: only on Linux is the "ls" command actually important. I can get more useful information about individual files on the Mac either (as a user) by using the Finder's Get Info windows or (as a programmer) by using actual APIs exposed by the OS.

Dr Loser said...

MGol @July 16, 2010 4:14 AM

What's so great about POSIX tools? They're designed as a one-size-fits-all for *nix systems. (And even then, there's significant variance allowed by the standards.)

This is like complaining that C doesn't support tail recursion, or that Scheme doesn't support side-effects, or (to take a more obvious and generic example) that different languages require different commenting syntax (/* */, //, #, --, the list is endless).

As Carsten says, if you need it, download it. But you don't really need it. The underlying OS behind, say, 'ls' and 'ps' is so completely different between *nix and Windows that it's impossible to write shell scripts that deliver the same result without extensive branching, in which case you might as well use the native commands. (You'd be better off with Perl or Python or ... insert language of choice here.)

What you appear to be saying is that you can't be bothered to learn a new framework. Guess what, kid: that's what you'll have to do in the real world, so it's best you get used to it now.

Dr Loser said...

Incidentally, if by some chance you are bothered about different comment syntax, you should be using Whitespace. The only commenting style that I can think of that no longer works is Fortran IV, which (presumably still) requires a big fat letter C in the sixth column: font immaterial.

Much as I love Whitespace, which as far as I'm concerned is Forth for the aesthetically inclined, I hope that you will recognise this as an argument through exaggerated silliness.

WineAnnouncerGuy said...

Wine 1.2 has been released.

* Support for 64 bit Windows applications.
* Over 23,000 changes and 3,000 bug fixes.

Dr Loser said...

@July 16, 2010 8:44 AM

Nothing like 23,000 changes to give you serious confidence in a product, is there?

Anonymous said...

Freetards sure love big numbers. Eight million packages in the repositories, 23.000 changes in Wine, 10 million downloads, 7293 bugs fixed... all of it worthless, the shit still doesn't work.

Rectal Examiner said...

"Wait, so because the Windows command prompt doesn't support transparencies it's somehow a bad thing? I love the notion of transparent windows somehow making life easier for developers."

But of course, YouDontNeedThat™. The irony of this is just dripping.

Anonymous said...

"I love the notion of transparent windows somehow making life easier for developers."

Since you're not a software developer, I'll explain it to you. It allows you to see behind the terminal so that if there's information such as a web page with instructions or commands, you can see them and type them.

Once you've used this feature it's hard to go back to an OS that does not have said feature. Similar to multiple desktops. Oops, another feature not found in Windars.

:(

Dr Loser said...

@July 16, 2010 9:34 AM

Once you've used crystal meth, it's also hard to go back. Not a very good argument, really.

If you want to use transparency on Windows 7, then fine; go ahead and use it. I have no idea whether or not it works with a DOS command box, but who cares? It's a vanishingly small usage case.

Love the "yer no' a programmer, wee laddie" assertion, btw. WhatHaveTheRomansEverDoneForUs(TM).

A sane developer values his eyesight. Move the DOS box to one side, and, presto! You'll be able to read all those valuable hints gleaned from the Web without going blind. Incidentally, what do you do when you need two sources of copypasta? Open yet another web page behind the two apps you already have running? Good luck with that one.

As for multiple desktops, see this. You may disagree with PieStar's conclusions. But, tell me: why would you need both transparency and multiple desktops?

Or does your "development" mostly involve shuffling increasingly unreadable desktop elements between an arbitrary number of multiples and then shuffling them around until you have "just" the right combination of transparencies?

Shit, it's a wonder anybody at all ever got any development done before the wonder that is the Linux Desktop came along.

Anonymous said...

Since you're not a software developer, I'll explain it to you. It allows you to see behind the terminal so that if there's information such as a web page with instructions or commands, you can see them and type them.

Right, because it's so helpful to put a page of antialiased text under a page of translucent antialiased text. I just tried, and there was no level of translucency where this was actually faster or more helpful than just repeatedly hitting command-tab to jump between the programs, or moving the web browser window to the right side of the screen (or the bottom) and putting the terminal window in some portion of the remaining space. And before you accuse me of having a huge money-wasting monitor: I'm on a beat-up previous-generation MacBook Pro with a 1440 x 900 screen. You can get a larger screen than I have for considerably less than $200 these days, even ignoring rebates, coupons, and the like. (Just with a very very quick look, I was able to find one for $135 with shipping.)

Yeah, Terminal.app can do that on the Mac. I suppose that means that the Mac is Freedomer than Windows (or at least the Terminal.app is Freedomer than the default Windows terminal), although of course since both are closed-source neither one is as Freedomy as the various Linux DE terminals are. But honestly, I'm more interested in whether I can do useful things than in the sheer number of things (including useless or worse-than-useless ones) which I can do. It is technically possible to build a machine which would filter disease-ridden crap out of the sewer and throw it at passing cars. If Windows and the Mac were written in such a way that they would somehow sense what was going on and refuse to control something so insanitary and antisocial, while Linux had no such limitation, it would not be a victory for Linux.

Anonymous said...

@JULY 16, 2010 9:25 AM

Didn't actually read what you linked to did you? Secondly, yes you don't need that unless you love eyestrain. Most people aren't idiotic like that though.

mybach62 said...

We offer the farouk chi flat iron. We provide the best price and free shipping for all the
chi flat iron. As we know, the
ghd iv styler is the first class and famous brand. So it is the good chance for you. Don't let it pass. If you are looking for the
babyliss flat iron, you have come to the right place for
instyler rotating hot iron.


ghd straighteners was known as
ghd flat iron, which was authorized online
ghd seller provides all kinds of hair straighteners,pink ghd,purple ghd,babyliss. By visiting
ghd iv salon styler , you will find what you want and made yourself more beautiful.If you miss it ,you miss beauty.Buy a piece of ghd for yourself.Come and join us
http://www.ghdhairs.com/ to win the
ghd iv mini styler.
ghd uk
ghd australia
ghd africa
ghd southafrica
t3 hair dryer
purple ghd straighteners
ghd spain
ghd ireland
ghd denmark
ghd america
ghd italy
ghd germany
ghd france
ghds
cheap ghd
purple ghd straighteners
ghd hair straightener
ghd hair straighteners
ghd hair straighteners wholesale
straighteners

DiSCo said...

Really trustworthy blog. Please keep updating with great posts like this one. I have booked marked your site and am about to email it

to a few friends of mine that I know would enjoy reading..
seslisohbet
seslichat
sesli sohbet
sesli chat
sesli
sesli site
görünlütü sohbet
görüntülü chat
kameralı sohbet
kameralı chat
sesli sohbet siteleri
sesli chat siteleri
görüntülü sohbet siteleri
görüntülü chat siteleri
kameralı sohbet siteleri
canlı sohbet
sesli muhabbet
görüntülü muhabbet
kameralı muhabbet
seslidunya
seslisehir
sesli sex

Anonymous said...

sigh.. multiple desktops. i tried that nonsense for a while, and yes you CAN get nice little programs for windows that do it, but ya know what? it turned out to be a waste of time, especially since i'm using a 23 inch hi-def monitor... and it was a waste of time with the 17 inch i had before. windows 7 you just use aero-snap to pop the corner windows to which ever side of the screen you want.. do the same for the other window.. and presto, you have both your browser, AND you silly terminal side by side so you can see both clearly. wow.

Anonymous said...

"Once you've used crystal meth, it's also hard to go back. Not a very good argument, really."

Do try and be coherent. This analogy makes absolutely no sense but then again you/Monco don't like analogies anyway.

"If you want to use transparency on Windows 7, then fine; go ahead and use it. I have no idea whether or not it works with a DOS command box, but who cares? It's a vanishingly small usage case."

So again you are giving in to your own silly little arguments: , YouDontNeedThat™

Another weak rebuttal from a weak minded fail king.

"Or does your "development" mostly involve shuffling increasingly unreadable desktop elements between an arbitrary number of multiples and then shuffling them around until you have "just" the right combination of transparencies?"

No it doesn't because I have transparency in windows and the terminal as well as multiple desktops. But that's why you fail.

Dr Loser said...

Rectal Examiner@July 16, 2010 9:25 AM

"Wait, so because the Windows command prompt doesn't support transparencies it's somehow a bad thing? I love the notion of transparent windows somehow making life easier for developers."

But of course, YouDontNeedThat(TM). The irony of this is just dripping.

I'd suggest caulking the basement ceiling, then. You don't really want something you can't understand dripping on your head, do you?

People need food, love, equality before the law, etc.

Anybody who uses the Net needs a reliable connection.

Developers need tools (mine is emacs, but YMMV) to develop.

Only an idiot needs the DOS command box to be transparent.

Linux on the desktop fails catastrophically on: device detection; printer support; WiFi; X; Pulse Audio; usability; font management; games; flash; and so much else. Transparent windows don't really help much here.

That's kind of what YouDontNeedThat(TM) means.

To drip a bit more on your sad little life, nobody needs transparency. Certainly not with a DOS box. It's an optional extra, like learning ancient Greek. It makes you feel better, but fundamentally it's utterly useless.

Anonymous said...

"Linux on the desktop fails catastrophically on: device detection ... [ and more irrelevant meth-induced randomness]"

Pathetic attempt at straw man but then again you are doctor loser aren't you? You are the epitome of fail king.

"To drip a bit more on your sad little life, nobody needs transparency."

Are you suggesting that your opinion means something?

Keep digging that hole fail king. You fail like no other.

Dr Loser said...

Once you've used crystal meth, it's also hard to go back. Not a very good argument, really.

Do try and be coherent.


Excuse me? That's pretty coherent. If it helps any, I've lost at least two friends to crystal meth. Not just coherent, therefore, but with the benefit of experience.

This analogy makes absolutely no sense but then again you/Monco don't like analogies anyway.

Can't speak for Joe, but I'm all for analogies. As long as they make sense. And as long as they're relevant.

If you want to use transparency on Windows 7, then fine; go ahead and use it. I have no idea whether or not it works with a DOS command box, but who cares? It's a vanishingly small usage case.

So again you are giving in to your own silly little arguments: YouDontNeedThat(TM)
.

Not my argument, mate. You'd be surprised how many people out here agree with it.

Did you notice the trivial little qualification concerning a DOS box? I only ask, because you appear to have the perceptive qualities of a rhinocerous with glaucoma. Nobody in the entire world cares!.

Now, I can't prove that your concept of "development" is inherently better because it stacks two or more browsers transparently below a random CLI box and using copypasta. I can't prove it, and in fact I don't care, because it's impossible to distinguish the pretensions of a complete idiot who does that from the scenario that you present. I'm just assuming from experience that you're full of crap. And I'm assuming from experience that some other developer (like, say, a polite version of me) would walk over and say, "What the fuck are you doing with that unintelligible mess?"

What I do object to is your dimwit assumption that somebody who isn't accustomed to twenty three translucent overlays on a given desktop is ipso facto not a programmer. (In this case, TMRepository, who amongst other attributes is a programmer.)

Sorry, sucker. That is an entirely inexcusable accusation. I don't need your abject apology. Other developers might appreciate a gentle "oops."

But then, that isn't within the purview of Loons, is it?

Another weak rebuttal from a weak minded fail king.

I'm not a member of any royal family, as far as I'm aware. But perhaps you'd care to explain how a rebuttal of a nonsensical position is "weak"? And let's assume it's "weak." How would that make it a failure?

Dr Loser said...

@July 16, 2010 2:23 PM

Linux on the desktop fails catastrophically on: device detection ... [ and more irrelevant meth-induced randomness]

Pathetic attempt at straw man but then again you are doctor loser aren't you? You are the epitome of fail king.


What a nice little troll you are. You've been looking up critical thinking and stuff, haven't you? How very sweet, if ultimately pointless.

I just know that you're going to love the Wikipedia definition of a straw man, so here it is. I'm genuinely looking forwards to your explanation of why my comments are substituting a weaker proposition.

After all, even if they're a straw man, then the weaker proposition is enough to put any sane human being off Linux on the Desktop for life.

"Meth-induced?" Quite how mentally retarded are you? I'd serious try crystal meth if I were you, because it made my friends very happy for a while before their universe imploded around them. Your universe has got about six months to go. Get that crystal meth now!

mgol said...

sigh.. multiple desktops. i tried that nonsense for a while, (...) it turned out to be a waste of time

Well, as the Windows multiple desktops implementation sucks so much that I just can't express it, I am not surprised You considered it to be useless. I know what I'm talking about, I've tried to use it long ago while I was still using Windows.

Anonymous said...

Used to use multiple desktops on my freetard days... I might have had a use for them on XP/Vista and their lousy taskbar, but with the new one in 7 I don't miss them at all. I never thought they were a good idea for 99% of users anyway.

Anonymous said...

"Meth-induced?" Quite how mentally retarded are you? I'd serious try crystal meth if I were you, because it made my friends very happy for a while before their universe imploded around them.

If you want to tell someone to fuck off, why don't you just say "fuck off?" Don't beat around the bush. Don't be a pussy, just tell him to fuck off.

Anonymous said...

Seems as the leading Destop Unix of the World lacks an decent font editor.

A: You mis-spelled doorstop

B: It isn't UNIX.

Declination said...

Now, I can't prove that your concept of "development" is inherently better because it stacks two or more browsers transparently below a random CLI box and using copypasta.

Yes, its perfectly clear that its easiest to read text through other text with a transparent background. From now on, whenever I'm reading a book, I will ensure that first layer it beneath a transparent clipboard that I have scribbled all over with dry erase marker in order to ensure maximum retention of the contents.

Anonymous said...

Fuck transparent windows and multiple desktops. M$ made Aero, Aero Peek, Aero Flip, Aero Shake and Aero Snap to arrange various windows over the desktop.

There is also the old Alt+Tab and there are some third party software (even with no price!) that can enable multiple desktops, transparency and Expose-like features.

The fact is that there are a very low percentage of users that claims a bad experience while using Windows' console. Apple and Microsoft have the best UI for desktop computers.

Dr. Loser's Psychologist said...

"I just know that you're going to love the Wikipedia definition of a straw man, so here it is. I'm genuinely looking forwards to your explanation of why my comments are substituting a weaker proposition."

Are you that fucking stupid? Seriously, are you that fucking stupid?

You started realizing that you were loosing the argument against transparency and you threw in the "Linux on the desktop fails catastrophically ... [blah blah blah]"

You are such a fucking cock puppet.

Rectal Examiner said...

"Fuck transparent windows and multiple desktops. M$ made Aero, Aero Peek, Aero Flip, Aero Shake and Aero Snap to arrange various windows over the desktop."

That's only the title bars and the borders there princess, we're talking about the whole window dressings and content pane.

"The fact is that there are a very low percentage of users that claims a bad experience while using Windows' console."

Statistics? Didn't think so.

Dr. Loser's Psychologist said...

"Well, as the Windows multiple desktops implementation sucks so much that I just can't express it, I am not surprised You considered it to be useless."

Hah, so many Windows zealots. You won't use a feature because it's originally from Linux?

I thought this board was suppose to be anti zealot. Now I realize it's just Windars zealots against Loonix zealots.

Anonymous said...

That's only the title bars and the borders there princess, we're talking about the whole window dressings and content pane.

LOL, this shows how much you know about Microsoft and their technologies.

Aero Peek: A way that you can see your desktop, or any other window without focus while the window with focus stays with it.

Aero Flip: Similar to Alt-Tab, but more efficient.

Aero Shake: Similar to a "Show Desktop" commant, but more intuitive and you select what window stay in focus while the others are minimized or restored.

Aero Snap: An way to arrange windows over the desktop dimensions. Like Compiz, but more stable, intuitive and efficient.

Aero are more that pretty windows and transluced borders, Aero helps the user to be more productive. Even Firefox, Opera and Chrome are using Explorer and Aero's capabilities like jumplists and thumbnails-per-tab.

Now tell me... how this fucking Ubuntu's new font will make users more efficient and productive? How the transparency on the terminal can help me? Is hard to see what is behind the terminal with all those text.

TM Repository said...

The fact is that there are a very low percentage of users that claims a bad experience while using Windows' console.

I'd take that a step further and claim there's a very low percentage of Windows users who ever even have to touch the command prompt!

Imagine that, average users being able to use and configure an application without having to edit conf files or opening up terminals.

TM Repository said...

I love the gigantic leap from transparent terminals to Aero glass. The glass is an effect, like the drop shadows or highlights. The glass effect is in no way meant to make it possible to see or read windows behind it, this would make the window borders appear cluttered if you could. It is JUST chrome, just for show, a pretty effect.

Meanwhile, advocates of the transparent terminal believe that being transparent makes it more functional. They claim they can read what's going on behind the NON-transparent text in a terminal with a translucent background colour.

This is bullshit, but even if we humour them, there are still too many things wrong with the picture. For instance, why do they need so many terminals that they can't see their other windows? Why aren't all other windows transparent? How fucking small is their screen that they run out of real estate with a terminal open?

Ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

Hah, so many Windows zealots. You won't use a feature because it's originally from Linux?

Windows 7 taskbar is a much better solution to the same problem. A solution that users can actually understand. Oh, and multiple desktops weren't invented on Linux. The world doesn't revolve around fucking Linux, you know. It's just a UNIX clone, and not a particularly good one.

Anonymous said...

It's just a UNIX clone, and not a particularly good one.

Actually, it's a clone of a clone -- MINIX is the middle term.

Anonymous said...

How fucking small is their screen that they run out of real estate with a terminal open?

The freetard are using this little piece of Linux's shit.

Cum on my titties said...

"LOL, this shows how much you know about Microsoft and their technologies."

LOL ZOMG another windows zealot who's comparing apples to oranges. Seriously princess, get a clue first, then come back with a rebuttal. We're not talking about mouse gestures that completely hide windows, we're talking about windows that are always on top and still semi-transparent.

"Aero Shake: Similar to a "Show Desktop" commant, but more .... [ more irrelevant dribble]"

No princess, these are two completely different things. You fail. Go to the back of the bus.

"Now tell me... how this fucking Ubuntu's new font will make users more efficient and productive?"

Another Windars zealot with another straw man argument that is pathetically constructed. You ladies are too easy.

I CAME ON UR MOMS TITTIES said...

"I'd take that a step further and claim there's a very low percentage of Windows users who ever even have to touch the command prompt!"

Another clueless opinion by a basement dwelling Windars user.

Anonymous said...

"Imagine that, average users being able to use and configure an application without having to edit conf files or opening up terminals."

Another pathetic straw man. You're such a cock puppet.

I CAME ON UR MOMS TITTIES said...

"This is bullshit, but even if we humour them, there are still too many things wrong with the picture. For instance, why do they need so many terminals that they can't see their other windows? Why aren't all other windows transparent? How fucking small is their screen that they run out of real estate with a terminal open?

Ridiculous."

Oh the horror! I mean if you can't comprehend it, it must be ... incomprehensible right?!

Hah, another cock smoking Windars cock puppet. Go back to the basement, pull the Union Jack flag tighter over the window to hide the sunlight and continue wanking to pictures of Ted Turner.

Ur Mother's Pimp said...

"Oh, and multiple desktops weren't invented on Linux."

Oh do enlighten princess, where did multiple desktops originate from?

Anonymous said...

Oh do enlighten princess, where did multiple desktops originate from?

Do your fucking homework yourself.

Anonymous said...

I think it's time to settle the issue on transparent Windows:

There is a solution with a little script, included in the very helpful script collection "ac'tivaid" by the german it-magazine c't.
Then there are a multitude of programs (AquaSnap and others), that implement this functionality for people who really want it.

So, i rest my case.

Anonymous said...

Freetard review comment of the day:

http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/Wine/1156450537/1

"When Windows perishes (and surely it will), Wine will be the only way to run old Windows software without running Windows in emulator."

Um no

a.) nobody asked this jerkola to mention windows in a WINE program review.

b.) people will still run it in windows, even if it "perisshes" or run it virtualized.

c.) wine always has been a poor hack and i can never get it to work properly, even on old 32bit kids software for windows 95

d.) a wine user is a windows user any name you call it.

Anonymous said...

Even if every single Windows app worked under Wine, people would still use Windows. Why? Usability and the overall quality of the system (including screen fonts that don't make your eyes bleed). Freetards would want you to believe that the only thing missing are apps, when that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Anonymous said...

Windows transparency. In my opinion it's useless garbage, but someone can still find it useful. I'll try to articulate what I think is the reality on the Windows platforms about transparency and terminal windows.

The command prompt is a very basic implementation of a terminal. It's there mostly to run console apps that are still produced for Windows, and to support older apps produced for older versions of Windows (not all the Windows apps are GUI based for various reasons).

I found myself using it frequently to administer Windows Server 2003 machines. It was mostly to correctly migrate server roles, as not always the GUI based migration was complete, or the migration was wrong and so it needed to be fixed to correctly run the domain. This is not what I do for a living, I just found myself in that position, so I had to do stuff that was out of my competence. I managed to make things work with the default system tools and some power tools from Sysinternals, but never through third party software; I know there's a lot of commercial software ready to make administration easier, but since that's not my field I wouldn't really know what to buy and how to properly use it.

Going back to the command prompt, I always had the feeling that it was there to run apps, and not to actually be the primary tool for system administration or any other task. Thankfully Windows Server 2008 and 2008 R2 are much easier for guys like me to actually set up and use, and since then I never had to use the terminal again (I even stopped using it to ping other networked appliances, as SIW gives me a complete set of GUI tools for pretty much everything and beyond).

I think no one would actually do any serious stuff on the Windows command prompt, not in the sense of the many Linux terminals, witch are much more feature-complete and tailored to heavy duty work. It's just a basic terminal, no fancy stuff. If you really wanted to make the command prompt a super terminal, you would have to implement a lot more stuff than just the transparency.

What you really want, instead, is the PowerShell. Yes, it's inner workings are different from what you are accustomed to in the Linux world, but as far as I can tell there are a lot of people saying that is incredibly powerful. I don't have first-hand experience neither I do care about it. It's not something I would need for my job. What I can tell you, instead, is that searching on Google for "powershell transparency" gives you a lot of results and ways to actually have transparency (and not just the Aero Glass) in the terminal background.

Windows and all it's tool may not be the most feature-complete you'll find around, and you will certainly not have a uber system out of the box, but you can easily customize the system and the workflow for your needs and with less headaches than with other systems.

Windows has always had "an app for that".

Anonymous said...

Windows transparency. In my opinion it's useless garbage, but someone can still find it useful. I'll try to articulate what I think is the reality on the Windows platforms about transparency and terminal windows.

The command prompt is a very basic implementation of a terminal. It's there mostly to run console apps that are still produced for Windows, and to support older apps produced for older versions of Windows (not all the Windows apps are GUI based for various reasons).

I found myself using it frequently to administer Windows Server 2003 machines. It was mostly to correctly migrate server roles, as not always the GUI based migration was complete, or the migration was wrong and so it needed to be fixed to correctly run the domain. This is not what I do for a living, I just found myself in that position, so I had to do stuff that was out of my competence. I managed to make things work with the default system tools and some power tools from Sysinternals, but never through third party software; I know there's a lot of commercial software ready to make administration easier, but since that's not my field I wouldn't really know what to buy and how to properly use it.

Going back to the command prompt, I always had the feeling that it was there to run apps, and not to actually be the primary tool for system administration or any other task. Thankfully Windows Server 2008 and 2008 R2 are much easier for guys like me to actually set up and use, and since then I never had to use the terminal again (I even stopped using it to ping other networked appliances, as SIW gives me a complete set of GUI tools for pretty much everything and beyond).

[...]

Anonymous said...

[...]

I think no one would actually do any serious stuff on the Windows command prompt, not in the sense of the many Linux terminals, witch are much more feature-complete and tailored to heavy duty work. It's just a basic terminal, no fancy stuff. If you really wanted to make the command prompt a super terminal, you would have to implement a lot more stuff than just the transparency.

What you really want, instead, is the PowerShell. Yes, it's inner workings are different from what you are accustomed to in the Linux world, but as far as I can tell there are a lot of people saying that is incredibly powerful. I don't have first-hand experience neither I do care about it. It's not something I would need for my job. What I can tell you, instead, is that searching on Google for "powershell transparency" gives you a lot of results and ways to actually have transparency (and not just the Aero Glass) in the terminal background.

Windows and all it's tool may not be the most feature-complete you'll find around, and you will certainly not have a uber system out of the box, but you can easily customize the system and the workflow for your needs and with less headaches than with other systems.

Windows has always had "an app for that".

Anonymous said...

Oh do enlighten princess, where did multiple desktops originate from?

Virtual desktop

Rooms, Xerox PARC, 1984
Amiga 1000, Amiga, 1985
Switchable desktop, X Window System, 1989

There you go little mermaid.

Dr Loser said...

@July 17, 2010 12:20 AM

No princess, these are two completely different things. You fail. Go to the back of the bus.

What is it about Linux zealotry that attracts racist scum? (This is a serious question. I can see how FOSS ideology will attract strange bed-fellows, but the last thing I'd expect a Loon to be is racist.)

The usual way of expressing your opinion is "go to the back of the class," but if you want to jump to the ludicrous inference that we are all Microsoft propagandists, I suppose you might just as well plunge hopelessly further into mental instability and claim that we're racially inferior, too.

Dr Loser said...

@July 17, 2010 5:08 AM

The strange thing about PowerShell is not that it's a Good Idea. (After all, Microsoft never has Good Ideas, right?) It's that it's what a Loon would consider a rip-off, which is to say one of the few ideas that Microsoft borrows from forty years of Unix shells and, shockingly, gets right.

(It's not a rip-off if a random Linux distro borrows an idea from Microsoft and/or Apple and/or -- cf multiple desktops -- Xerox. Thievery in the defence of Freedom is no vice.)

I refer y'all, as usual, to The Unix Hater's Handbook, specifically to chapter 8, and more specifically to the "Pipes" subsection:

"Indeed, while pipes are useful at times, their system of communication between programs—text traveling through standard input and standard output—limits their usefulness. First, the information flow is only one way. Processes can’t use shell pipelines to communicate bidirectionally. Second, pipes don’t allow any form of abstraction. The receiving and sending processes must use a stream of bytes. Any object more complex than a byte cannot be sent until the object is first transmuted into a string of bytes that the receiving end knows how to reassemble. This means that you can’t send an object and the code for the class definition necessary to implement the object. You can’t send pointers into another process’s address space. You can’t send file handles or tcp connections or permissions to access particular files or resources."

That's a lot of words, so I advise Linux users to hide it behind a Gnome terminal using transparency while they make their customary "choo choo choo" noises in default of thinking.

What it boils down to is that Microsoft has finally got the shell paradigm right (more or less) for an object-oriented world.

An object-oriented world is what we've had for the last twenty years. Linux, with its fanatical adherence to the concept of bleeding edge software and a cult-like devotion to the CLI, has done ...

... Well, in the last twenty years, what exactly has Linux done to improve the CLI?

It's not like they weren't fucking warned. The Unix Hater's Handbook came out in 1994, for God's sake.

Anonymous said...

Check out powergui, which is a front end to powershell:

http://www.powergui.org

And also a powershell clone for linux

http://sourceforge.net/projects/pash/

AeroGuy said...

LOL ZOMG another windows zealot who's comparing apples to oranges. Seriously princess, get a clue first, then come back with a rebuttal. We're not talking about mouse gestures that completely hide windows, we're talking about windows that are always on top and still semi-transparent.

Is this your comeback? Lame troll. You are wrong too, we are talking about how Linux users are the vuvuzuelas of the software world and how the new font in Ubuntu will increase its usability.

Yeah, this blog is about usability, Linux usability.

No princess, these are two completely different things. You fail. Go to the back of the bus.

Show Desktop: Hides or shows all windows. Aero Shake: Hides or shows all windows except one.

You're right, two completely things.

Another Windars zealot with another straw man argument that is pathetically constructed. You ladies are too easy.

Come on, you freetards can do more than insulting and questioning our genders.

Anonymous said...

That just shows how much Linux zealots have issues with the female gender.

I remember the early days of online gaming; gamer girls were thought to be the geeks' holy grail. Today gamer girls are the norm, and (especially on consoles) it's very likely that the player that just fragged you mercilessly is in fact a hot, 25yo girl with a degree in astrophysics and an awesome job.

I really seen a lot of stuff in the last 20 years, and stereotypes are pretty much dead everywhere. Freetards are like the last remaining bastion of all the internet stereotypes born in the '80s through the mid '90s. But that shouldn't surprise me, we are talking about individuals who think that a clone of a clone of a disco era OS is the future.

Anonymous said...

What it boils down to is that Microsoft has finally got the shell paradigm right (more or less) for an object-oriented world.

Text-based interface to objects which persist as objects beyond their original context? Wow, I bet nobody ever did that before.

Oh, wait.

Rectal Examiner said...

"Do your fucking homework yourself."

No Nancy, you're the one with the claim, and in order to sound like you have anything other than dogshit on your breath, you need to demonstrate why your claim is something other than garbage pulled out from your ass.

broomfighter said...

thank you

Dr Loser said...

Rectal Examiner@July 17, 2010 11:41 AM

I presume you keep up-to-date with your chosen speciality by stuffing your tiny little head up your own rectum. Beats reading for a living, I suppose.

No Nancy, you're the one with the claim, and in order to sound like you have anything other than dogshit on your breath, you need to demonstrate why your claim is something other than garbage pulled out from your ass.

Considering the topic is easily discoverable on Wikipedia, amongst other academically sound sources, your demand for a demonstration is moot. However, let's just suppose you're not a raving troll, and actually have a point. Has anybody actually backed up the assertion with a link?

Well, yes, as a matter of fact. Refer to Anonymous@July 17, 2010 5:15 AM, above:

Oh do enlighten princess, where did multiple desktops originate from?

Virtual desktop

Rooms, Xerox PARC, 1984
Amiga 1000, Amiga, 1985
Switchable desktop, X Window System, 1989

There you go little mermaid.


Only five or six posts above yours. That has to be some sort of record for laziness and stupidity, even by the standards of a feeble-witted and foul-mouthed troll.

Although it's not really possible to confuse you with a mermaid, is it? Mermaids are fish below the waist. They don't have an arsehole to jam their own head up.

mgol said...

Even Firefox, Opera and Chrome are using Explorer and Aero's capabilities like jumplists and thumbnails-per-tab.

Why not say something true, for a change?

Neither Firefox nor Opera uses that, Opera has done it in 10.50, but they resigned as this was considered to be impractical by their users.

Only IE uses it, but seriously, who in a non-corporate environment would use this über-crap?

You know, even for a flame some research is needed before posting lies.

LinuxAnnoncerGuy said...

Linux 2.6.25-rc5-git2 released!!!!!

Over 200 changes and 53 bug fixes from Linux 2.6.25-rc5-git1.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 5000   Newer› Newest»