The sad state of font rendering on Linux(pandasauce.org)
14 pointsby neveroddoreven8 hours ago8 comments
  • tadfisher8 hours ago
    Almost all of this is out-of-date with newer freetype/fontconfig/toolkits. Subpixel positioning is a default thing on most distros, grayscale AA is the sane distro default (due to the proliferation of alternative subpixel layouts), and Harfbuzz shaping has become near-universal.
  • politelemon7 hours ago
    I don't agree that this should be flagged. Put the year in the title, that's all. Blog posts go out of date all the time, the OSes simply have different issues now.
  • DDayMace4 hours ago
    So I'm sorry to hear about some of the problems with Linux font rendering in this article, it goes beyond my knowledge. I want to say though as a user, I have, between Linux, Mac and Windows machines over the years, literally always preferred Linux font rendering over cleartype and now even Mac not caring about lower resolutions and non-mac screens. You shouldn't need a 4k screen to get crisp and smooth fonts and sometimes even when you do they still look like shit, especially cleartype.
  • init2null5 hours ago
    This is giving me flashbacks to the days of bad fonts and bad rendering. Back when using the web on Linux was a totally different and grossly inferior experience.

    At least we can still simu late it whenwe get n0staIgic.

  • daoistmonk8 hours ago
    After following the advice in this article [1] to my eyes, my linux fonts look better than my MacBook's.

    tldr: "FREETYPE_PROPERTIES="cff:no-stem-darkening=0 autofitter:no-stem-darkening=0"

    [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41643573

  • nixosbestos8 hours ago
    Oh come on, put the date in the headline. I have none of these kerning issues on my boxes.
  • greenthrow8 hours ago
    This is a terrible post. Most professional typesetters/publishers use macOS for a reason and have for decades.

    Also this blog post is 5 years old and woefully out of date anyway.

    • cosmotic8 hours ago
      This article also points a finger at macos for having bad rendering too.
      • bee_rider8 hours ago
        I think that is what they are commenting on: it seems odd that the typesetters all use MacOS if it has some terrible font rendering issue.
  • slater8 hours ago
    "For decades OS X remained a very ugly baby"

    wtf...? I know it's only their opinion, but jeez that is one hot take.

    I've been using OSX/macOS since ~2005, and in comparison, Windows (and heaven forbid you had to use Linux) had the absolute worst font rendering ever. Even today it looks horrible.

    Update:

    Hah, just read their FAQ, quote:

    "Q: Why bother, just buy a HiDPI screen?

    A: In my opinion and experience, HiDPI is a niche gimmick similar to 3D movies."

    https://pandasauce.org/get-fonts-done/

    • krona8 hours ago
      Doesn't HiDPI "Retina display" prove the point; ClearType won when it comes to rendering. Due to patents, the solution was to quadruple the number of pixels, making subpixel hinting and anti-aliasing mostly redundant.
      • iSnow8 hours ago
        I am a bit confused, as I don't think it proves the point. HiDPI is so much easier on the eye than subpixel rendering. HiDPI screens look closer to print than to 96 DPI Windows 7.

        Maybe that's just me b/c I always found the color fringes irritating, but I am very happy that 4K displays are now more or less standard.

    • mrweasel8 hours ago
      That's my experience, I strongly dislike ClearType, it always looked blurry, even with all the tweaking Microsoft allowed you to do it new became really clear and sharp like on the mac. Sadly Linux seems to have gone the Windows route and smudged the fonts, rather than making them clearer and sharper.

      If HiDPI is what made fonts on macOS what they are, then there's now way around it, we have to rid ourselves of none HiDPI display.

    • amluto8 hours ago
      And yet current Safari on current MacOS renders text in the HN comment box very poorly.