From Fedora Project Wiki
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
* [http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2008/06/catastrafont.html catastrafont], 2008-06-16 | * [http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2008/06/catastrafont.html catastrafont], 2008-06-16 | ||
* [http://modeemi.fi/~tuomov/b/archives/2008/03/20/T13_47_17/ state of fonts review], 2008-03-20<ref>weak points: subjective preferences, technical assessments; strong point: state of our font preferences tools.</ref> | * [http://modeemi.fi/~tuomov/b/archives/2008/03/20/T13_47_17/ state of fonts review], 2008-03-20<ref>weak points: subjective preferences, technical assessments; strong point: state of our font preferences tools.</ref> | ||
* [http://scobleizer.com/2006/08/17/linux-achilles-heel-fonts/ | * [http://scobleizer.com/2006/08/17/linux-achilles-heel-fonts/ Linux Achilles' heel: fonts] 2006-08-17 | ||
{{:Fonts_SIG_signature}} [[Category:Fonts SIG]] | {{:Fonts_SIG_signature}} [[Category:Fonts SIG]] |
Revision as of 15:46, 23 July 2008
Every once in a while someone posts an (often entertainning) diatribe on the state of Linux fonts and text layouting. A complex mix of exaggerations, long-past facts, subjective preferences, references to other distributions, and plain mistakes, they nevertheless contain little nuggets of truth pointing to actual problems.
Because the Fonts SIG is all about fixing those problems, we encourage people to list those articles there:
- catastrafont, 2008-06-16
- state of fonts review, 2008-03-20[1]
- Linux Achilles' heel: fonts 2006-08-17
- ↑ weak points: subjective preferences, technical assessments; strong point: state of our font preferences tools.