Fedora Enables ClearType Subpixel Font Rendering Thanks To Microsoft

[RealNC]

It is documented, but not necessarily where you'd look, I agree. The articles I wrote for freetype.org should make stuff clearer. Basically, do what Ubuntu does (slight hinting for everything) and don't touch font rendering options ever again. Also complain to the GUI toolkit makers of your choice to implement the alpha blending stuff I outlined in the articles.

Thanks! I went through your articles and that cleared up some things :-)

I've been using "slight" for as long as I can remember, even though I didn't know what it actually means. It always looked "more correct" to me. The other settings made fonts look different to what they seem to be supposed to look like. The "personality" of the fonts (for lack of a better term) seemed to get lost somewhat at normal text sizes.

As for complaining to the toolkit vendors, maybe the Freetype project should lead the way! Then users can follow up with "+1"s in the respective bugs.

[justmy2cents]

Not sure I understand you correctly. Subpixel rendering (a.k.a. colorful fonts) is not strictly necessary for font to render nicely on LoDPI screens. It can help in some circumstances, but stem darkening can make stuff look nice enough by itself.

this is nice enough? then we really, really disagree

https://www.freetype.org/freetype2/docs/text-rendering-general.html

you should also read the parts where article discusses gamma. this all fails into category i mentioned previously. monitors perform differently, have different dpi and add to that monitor changes with usage. one method can look perfectly on one and then like absolute crap on another. just because it works for you, you shouldn't assume it will work for everyone

one case of how monitor changes is probably monitor calibration. if you would be in dtp and say tried to use same perfect calibration for prolonged time, that calibration would be more and more faulty with time.

[birdie]

I doubt your certainty. The "new" method brings default rendering closer to what's happening on Ubuntu by default, the most popular distro for years.

This is what is absolutely wrong with your reasoning.

1) A lot of people do _not_ use Ubuntu and do _not_ consider its rendering the best.
2) You changed the defaults for no reason other than trying to cater to certain users which will use whatever Canonical developers offer them anyways which means that you actively broke the setups of the people who were used to the old rendering method.
3) You believe you can decide for the users which font rendering method is the best.

In short you imposed your preferences on others without asking them. This is not how software should be developed. This is why Linux is in a perpetual fucked up state because open source developers revolve in their worlds and they couldn't care less about anyone else.

For classical truetype Microsoft fonts the new font renderer is effing horrible. If you wanted to do better you could have written a renderer which takes into consideration which fonts the user is dealing with. If that's not physically possible (say, freetype cannot know in advance what kind of font is given to it), then you do _not_ change the defaults.

Compare the old renderer and the new one and tell me which one is better:

https://imgur.com/a/qCsPcC4

The new one produces blurry, rainbow, bold shat. Also, kerning is completely broken. Certain letters in words touch one another which makes reading difficult.

This is not how any sane OS in existence renders fonts.

This is not "better". This is horrible, terrible font rendering. I cannot imagine a monitor where the new rendering method looks better. When I referred to high DPI monitors I just tried to save your sorry ass.

Actually I raised the issue in the freetype-devel mailing list and I was politely told to fuck off. What's worse - the results I'm showing are 100% reproducible and affect literally thousands of people who now have to use a workaround to fix your shiny new ideas, yet you won't revert the changes or even try to think how to avoid these results.

[phuclv]

You want to avoid this on high ppi screens. Subpixel font rendering has large performance costs.

are you sure? I've used cleartype since XP in the Pentium 2/3 and I've yet to see a noticeable lag when enabling it

[mudig]

this is nice enough? then we really, really disagree

https://www.freetype.org/freetype2/d...g-general.html

I'd consider https://www.freetype.org/image/freet...ning-demo1.png -> lower right picture nice enough. And it's okay to disagree Just keep in mind that the look of fonts is partly technical and partly acquired taste.

you should also read the parts where article discusses gamma.

I did, I even wrote it

one case of how monitor changes is probably monitor calibration. if you would be in dtp and say tried to use same perfect calibration for prolonged time, that calibration would be more and more faulty with time.

Actually, LCDs with LED backlights barely change compared to the CCFL backlights and CRTs of yesteryear.

This is what is absolutely wrong with your reasoning.

1) A lot of people do _not_ use Ubuntu and do _not_ consider its rendering the best.
2) You changed the defaults for no reason other than trying to cater to certain users which will use whatever Canonical developers offer them anyways which means that you actively broke the setups of the people who were used to the old rendering method.
3) You believe you can decide for the users which font rendering method is the best.

My reasoning is absolutely fine

1) Ubuntu remains the most popular distribution and I have seen little complaints about font rendering over the years. I think you're stuck in your non-Ubuntu bubble.
2) I cater to what I consider the most consistent font rendering. If you read my articles, you'd know. Canonical just did the smart thing from the start.
3) Yes, and I explain in my articles why I made the choices I did.

In short you imposed your preferences on others without asking them. This is not how software should be developed. This is why Linux is in a perpetual fucked up state because open source developers revolve in their worlds and they couldn't care less about anyone else.

On the contrary, my choices increase consistency of font rendering, which actually improves the state.

For classical truetype Microsoft fonts the new font renderer is effing horrible. If you wanted to do better you could have written a renderer which takes into consideration which fonts the user is dealing with. If that's not physically possible (say, freetype cannot know in advance what kind of font is given to it), then you do _not_ change the defaults.

Rendering is absolutely fine. You say that because you do not yet understand that font rendering is part technical, part acquired taste. Back in the day, Apple users preferred the fuzzy rendering of MacOSX to the Windows approach. The new default strike a good balance between sharpness and outline fidelity no matter what font you give it, similarly to how it's handled on Windows. Did you know that I simply took the changes Infinality once contributed (v37) and stripped them to the bare minimum?

Compare the old renderer and the new one and tell me which one is better:

https://imgur.com/a/qCsPcC4

The new one produces blurry, rainbow, bold shat. Also, kerning is completely broken. Certain letters in words touch one another which makes reading difficult.

I prefer the "NEW" rendering, it's much more consistent and harmonious looking. The kerning is ok-ish, but not perfect due to limitations of Gtk not being able to do subpixel positioning. I suggest you turn down the LCD filter strength. On Gtk/cairo, you will not get rid of color fringes no matter what you do.

This is not how any sane OS in existence renders fonts.

Correct, because Windows and macOS render fonts correctly: with linear alpha blending and gamma correction, which only Qt 5.9+ can do currently, iirc, and only with OTFs. This incidentally helps a lot with the color fringes. Try it in ft-view. With DirectWrite, Windows even does subpixel positioning nicely, macOS has been doing this for longer.

I repeat: because Gtk/cairo can't do linear alpha blending and gamma correction, you will NEVER get rid of color fringes. Try it in ft-view, which will render text correctly

This is not "better". This is horrible, terrible font rendering. I cannot imagine a monitor where the new rendering method looks better. When I referred to high DPI monitors I just tried to save your sorry ass.

Actually I raised the issue in the freetype-devel mailing list and I was politely told to fuck off. What's worse - the results I'm showing are 100% reproducible and affect literally thousands of people who now have to use a workaround to fix your shiny new ideas, yet you won't revert the changes or even try to think how to avoid these results.

I'll look past your irrational and misguided anger and I don't believe your conclusion. Ubuntu, the most popular distribution for years, had slight hinting and subpixel rendering on _for years_ and as I said, I heard very little complaints about it.

But maybe point me to your mail? I can't remember.

[RealNC]

In short you imposed your preferences on others without asking them.

That's not true. Users are asked. This is a change of defaults. Defaults only apply to users who have not expressed a preference of their own. Using defaults means you were asked, but opted to not answer. If you don't express a preference of your own, then it is impossible to not have one imposed on you.

[birdie]

But maybe point me to your mail? I can't remember.

So, we still have literally hundreds of applications in Linux (based on GTK) which cannot use the new font rendering method properly, yet you made it default? That's not even a good joke to begin with. And it's only properly supported by Qt >5.9 applications? Wow, nice!! What about a transitioning period where we have an option of enabling(opting into) something new and when most applications are ready to use something new, you finally switch to it? Haven't that occurred to you? Why do we have to opt out of your brilliant ideas?

And speaking of the screenshots I've posted. If you a twitter user with a lot of followers I'd like to see a poll where people could choose what they like more. I guess you'll be quite disappointed with the results.

Also, why do you keep insisting that Ubuntu is the most popular Linux distro? According to distrowatch it's now the fifth most popular: https://distrowatch.com/ Also, again, if you work in Canonical, why do you impose Ubuntu's defaults on everyone else? That's a nice way to alienate people.

And here's my freetype-devel post: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html.../msg00010.html

[mudig]

So, we still have literally hundreds of applications in Linux (based on GTK) which cannot use the new font rendering method properly, yet you made it default? That's not even a good joke to begin with. And it's only properly supported by Qt >5.9 applications? Wow, nice!! What about a transitioning period where we have an option of enabling(opting into) something new and when most applications are ready to use something new, you finally switch to it? Haven't that occurred to you? Why do we have to opt out of your brilliant ideas?

You refuse to understand because you're angry. Every toolkit can use the "new" rendering. I've run my desktop like that for years and I've tinkered a lot (currently have slight hinting and no subpixel rendering on a LoDPI screen because I couldn't be assed to turn the option on :OOOOOO). Windows users have a very similar look, at least in modern browsers that use DirectWrite. Ubuntu has been using slight (v40-like) hinting since at least 2009 or something _and it is fine_. Really. It doesn't matter where Distrowatch places it, it has been (if it isn't anymore) the dominant desktop distro in the past decade. And _it is fine_.

None of the X11/Wayland platform text rendering is correct (nor was it before), except maybe Qt 5.9+ for OTFs, but it gets the job done. All this did was increase overall consistency. This is most apparent on the web, where having v35 only gets you very ugly font rendering mixtures. Strong hinting won't hide the color fringes. It was broken before, it still is, but it will look more consistent overall.

And speaking of the screenshots I've posted. If you a twitter user with a lot of followers I'd like to see a poll where people could choose what they like more. I guess you'll be quite disappointed with the results.

Asking a bubble never produces anything meaningful.

And here's my freetype-devel post: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html.../msg00010.html

Ok. See Werner's response to your assertion that v35 looks better than v40, he says it all. I do not share your opinion on how v35 looks better but you know what? v35 is still there. Use it and rejoice Even better: Root for progress on Gtk/cairo in your community to finally get correct font rendering. See https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/cairo/cairo/issues/2 to start.

[birdie]

You still missed the most important part of my reply. You enabled something by default which is still generally not supported in Linux distros right now and no one, except you of course, runs your setup. 99.999% of Linux users out there now have to suffer because you created a cozy nice Linux setup for yourself while distros/UIs/whatevs didn't follow your suit.

This is not how you enable new improved features. You do not force them through a complete wreckage of the existing ones. The workaround you keep talking about should have been the exact opposite - an option (opt-in) to enable something new for the brave. And now users need to Google how to fix their fonts because they suddenly got worse for no reasons.

[birdie]

That's not true. Users are asked. This is a change of defaults. Defaults only apply to users who have not expressed a preference of their own. Using defaults means you were asked, but opted to not answer. If you don't express a preference of your own, then it is impossible to not have one imposed on you.

Who are you BS'ing? There has never been an open discussion about the new rendering method in FreeType. I've never seen a single poll anywhere. I presume you're trying to defend Mr. mudig but please do that properly and get your facts straight.