Thank you for your explanation.
>Unix needs some bdf fonts if you want to use X terminal emulators
>(e.g. xterm). Unix has much better support for bitmapped fonts than
>Windows does,
now doubtless about it. Thanx.
> and there's also no working scaled font editors for
>Unix (that I've ever heard of)
Do things under Windows and then port to *nixes:) That is what i do and
even for the .bdf's.
>, so it's not surprising that Unix
>people would do bdf. TrueType/OpenType fonts are also less supported
>than BDF. OTOH, OpenType can produce _much_ better output,
>especially when printed (if you can find a program that can print a
>OpenType font under Linux.)
Yeahhh I've been with .bdf since I started doing font business under linux.
>Whether or not you should switch to OpenType is up to you.
I just wanna shed the light to the dark side of it. Just checking ways
around. I've not decided yet to switch as I need to study more about it.
One thing for granted, i'd never leave my .bdf thing.
> OpenType
>fonts take a lot more time to make than BDF, and most TrueType/OpenType
>font editors are several hundred dollars and for Windows or Macintosh.
MS's VOLT and Adobe's OFD** can be obtained by licensing freely after a
number of questions????
>It also takes a lot more artistic ability to do a good scaled font
>instead of a small bitmapped font.
Noted.
regards,
william@myanmarlug.org
http://www.MyanmarLUG.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Aug 20 2001 - 16:23:57 EDT