It may just be that I have a particular "font" perspective and others do
not. But I honestly doubt it. When I have shown others the comparison,
no one has liked the Linux fonts. It is just a fact. I know that some
people are not very discriminating, but I find it hard to believe that
Linux users are that way. (As an example, some years ago when they were
testing HDTV against NTSC TV, it was found that a sizeable percentage of
test subjects viewing the two formats found ... no significant
I have never tried bringing in any Windows fonts but I definitely plan
to try this with one of the Linix distros as it really seems to make
sense that a USB pen is the way to go. I was checking out Newegg, one of
my mail order suppliers, and they have up to 16 gig ones now. Even the 4
gig ones are well under $100 although the faster ones are usually a bit
more than the slower ones and from the reviews the slower ones are a lot
I am not a font expert, but did follow the font wars of past decades and
if you recall, TrueType was Apples invention to counter John Warnock's
Adobe Type 1 fonts. Eventually, MS and Apple formed a united front and
Warnock just about blew a gasket at a major industry trade show:) Later,
Microsoft tried to get some advanced font handling from Apple but was
denied. So they developed the OpenType fonts and eventually Adobe joined
forces with MS (who would have guessed that) to make this a fairly
common standard. Windows XP and 2000 and later (Vista, of course) can
support both the .TTF and the .OTF OpenType Adobe fonts and very
recently the OpenType rendering is transitioning to an ISO open standard
known as "Open Font Format."
Now maybe I am not clear on what Linux OS can do for sure, but Linux
does have the FreeType open software that supports OpenType. Even if
they did not have the exact Windows font, you would think that they
would clone one. After all that is what TrueType did to Adobe fonts. It
is not really possible to copyright a font in the U.S. since a 1976
court decision, but this is not true throughout the world. Of course you
can not use the exact same name for a given font since the name has a
trademark. And today, look how good the TrueType fonts look on screen.
The hinting is moderate from what I have read, but really works so well
with computer screens which are notoriously dificult to view clearly.
All one needs is a few high quality sans serif and a serif fonts and you
can have excellent typography.
I will know more when I get a USB pen drive going, hopefully not too
long from now since I had reached the point of no longer having interest
in running Live disks with their limitations and want to try something
that has some reasonable speed and allows me to save parameters. I will
let you know how it goes.
> Your comments regarding whether Linux or Windows looks, and feels
>better are as you say "the user's perception." Who was it that said
>"beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? Can you change the look and
>feel of any Windows desktop? Not even the Windows Plus after thought
>can provide the kind of configurable desktop session that the X-windows
>implementation does. The reason that the Windows fonts are not on a
>Linux distro is quite simple, Mr Bill would sue the pants off of the
>distribution publisher. But if you already paid for those nice fonts
>then you can certainly use them on your Linux box. I do all the time,
>in the manner that Per described. There are some very good scalable
>fonts that can be substituted for the Microsoft TT fonts and those are
>available via deb (Debian) or rpm (RedHat) download. The installation
>of fonts, particularly foreign TT fonts has been made easier in recent
>>The idea of using a removable USB pen seems like something that might
>>help me come up with a useable distro as I might be able to save the
>>fonts, display driver, etc.
>What you ask for is already available for Knoppix, Ubuntu, and Kubuntu.
>I cannot say for certain, but probably for other Live-CD distributions
>which are available. The Live-CD Linux distributions use something
>called the UnionFS (file system) which allows you to create and store
>modifications to the system, user created files, or newly installed
>libraries and/or executables. The Persistent Disk Image can be written
>to a free partition, a foreign file system, or to a USB flash drive. It
>is read and mounted along with the CD when you boot from the Live CD.
>The USB flash drive is a particularly good way to carry your disk image
>from one machine to another and to boot up the Live CD with all of the
>Rick peculiar settings intact.
>I suggest that you purchase a copy of "Hacking Knoppix" for a really
>good treatise on customizing the Live-CD install and then saving it for
>future boots from the Live-CD. This book even has an excellent chapter
>on recovering that MBR that might be destroyed by a virus program which
>neither XP or the many add-ons fail to detect. You don't need to step
>on your own foot during a dual boot install, there are lots of nasty
>folks out there producing vicious code that runs on unsuspecting Windows
>>For those that use USB flash type memories, how large would be enough if
>>I created a partition on my computer that could be accessed for Linux OS?
>I have used a 256 Mg USB flash drive, but would certainly recommend a 1
>G USB flash drive. My local Office Max had them on sale for $9.00 a
>week ago. The 2 G flash drives were $24.00. Pretty cheap way to run
>Linux and keep your HD intact.
>Yahoo! Groups Links