Superior Linux font rendering

>he doesn't use https everywhere

I want my ISP to see shit I see.

It's imitating the OSX font rendering

i'm retarded but using Arch.
how do I get my characters to look like this? they look amazing desu

Attached: 992381381483.jpg (1280x720, 119K)

placebo garbage. waste of memory.

>how do I get my characters to look like this?
Get freetype
My settings:
Hint slight
rgb (obviously, depends on monitor)
lcdlight

Idk, in OpenPepe it is easy, literally one package, ein kick and done.

is this good or bad?

Attached: test.png (574x686, 85K)

what font is this? looks pretty damn good.

It's terrible.

better?

Attached: test.png (452x156, 10K)

configure freetype select a good lcd filter and hinting style

Your font is shit

Pretty sure it's Lucida Console

There's a cyan halo around the text.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-11-19 at 1.14.22 PM.png (841x269, 53K)

Attached: tokyo.png (1889x984, 423K)

you fucked up the rgb order/direction; just disable if can't into it

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-11-19 at 1.24.10 PM.png (1440x900, 645K)

linux font rendering is OK on a 4k display in hidpi mode

For some reason, Ubuntu is the only distribution that comes with acceptable font rendering.
It doesn't matter how much I tweak freetardtype on other distros, it just looks worse.

Manjaro/Antergos is nice too, so are most ubuntu derivs.

I don't know about fonts, but during my short experience with linux as a main OS, a few years ago, I noticed sound was real better.
Not sure why, as I can't into audiophile.

>2018
>Spic Distros

Attached: Screenshot_2018-11-19.png (530x607, 98K)

>these 5 and 7
lmao
loonix quality®

Attached: file.png (316x188, 48K)

comically terrible

Font is shit, rendering looks OK.

>I don't know anything about fonts
ok, kid

What's the problem?
Maybe I could still tweak the rendering to be a little better but its still an improvement to winblows.

Attached: file.png (1590x435, 180K)

why are you quoting yourself, user
don't you have some fixing to do? you should start now because it's gonna take some time!

>shitty font
>it's Linux fault somehow

They work fine ootb with zero tinkering.

Attached: Screenshot from 2018-11-20 03-48-30.png (3840x2160, 943K)

that's a problem of shitty rendering, not of shit font.

>Manjaro
>Gnome
>work fine with zero tinkering
Oh sweetie...

That rendering imitates OSX
Here's the default infinality, happy now?

Attached: Screenshot_2018-11-19 Tokyo - Wikipedia2.png (1894x605, 374K)

You switched fonts, user. Leave the font as it was before

Wrong, I did
eselect lcdfilter set 3
eselect infinality set 2

As always, install gentoo

And it changed the article font to something looking like Arial from something that looked like Helvetica (can't say if it's the actual fonts or libre clones).
Look closely.

I don't think it's possible to objectively show others font quality using screenshots.
Exact same image can look perfect in high dpi but like absolute shit in lower.
Vector fonts without cleartype look like shit on 1080p above ~20 inches, but look great at 1440p, not to mention 4k.
Cleartype has its own problem in that it's display dependent, as it relies on rgb orientation which isn't standardized.

It's almost like choosing a different rendering algorithm changes how a font looks
Weird, huh?

Attached: file.png (1887x707, 474K)

Rendering fonts at lower dpi depends on hinter
Back in the days linux would use auto hinter or no hinter, that looked awful
Now it can use native hinter in font, a little better but still doesn't feel right
On hdpi, you can probably get away with using anything

Best Korea has best font rendering

Attached: VirtualBox_Red Star OSlkk 3.png (1024x768, 271K)

All I ever did was change fonts to my liking.

Attached: Screenshot from 2018-11-20 05-17-29.png (3840x2160, 615K)

say it again?

Attached: 1516200029164.png (514x387, 60K)

here's one that includes "2015"

Attached: 1513891569383.png (519x580, 90K)

Well?

Attached: file.png (1883x833, 505K)

I just mean in general.

Gnome and Manjaro are inherently garbage. A glance at your desktop proves it.
Now show us your "filepicker" so I can kek harder.

If you're a dev working with gtk maybe you could help fix that mess.

Attached: file.png (1920x1200, 512K)

Are you surprised that text fields and buttons in a dark theme has a dark background?

>"it's w-working as intended"
No Im not surprised because this only happens in gtk.

Its yet another thing gtk devs won't fix because they prefer to spend time breaking compatibility, arguing with application devs and sucking cocks.

Attached: file.png (1920x1200, 750K)

>what is qt5ct

What about it?
Im using the Breeze-dark qt theme and the Breeze-Dark gtk theme.
The gtk version of them same theme gave the same poor behavior you said is "intended."

Thats why I avoid using gtk applications whenever I can. They are inferior because they were written with an inferior toolkit.

which is garbage

>The gtk version of them same theme gave the same poor behavior
So bitch about it to the Breeze theme maintainers? Why are you making pointless noise?

if you have shit taste

news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17476873

This has nothing to do with Mojave though

Ive tried 3 gtk dark-themes. They all have the same bug and I don't think its a coincidence. Just another limitation of gtk.
Nothing the kde maintainers can do to fix.

Pic related is arc-dark gtk. The arc-dark qt version, again, works as it should!

Attached: file.png (951x577, 156K)

I don't see what's wrong with keeping the textfield and the button background black in a dark theme?

It doesn't matter if you can't see whats wrong with it. Its obviously not the behavior the theme makers intended otherwise the gtk and qt versions would be identical. You probably drag and drop file uploads from your filemanager and say thats a GOOD THING.

Look at the text fields for the search bar and address bar. They are dark in the qt themes.

>Look at the text fields for the search bar and address bar. They are dark in the qt themes.
See, it only makes sense, bro. Now why shouldn't the textfield inside firefox be any different?

>Blur covers almost half of letters

That shit still looks ugly af

OSX font rendering sucks nigger balls. Why do you think they were so quick to switch to hi-dpi screens?

sup

Attached: fonts.png (1646x772, 491K)

Not an expert in font rendering but aren't all options changeable trough user config files? So any mess up only requires deleting (or moving outside dirs searched) those configs and therefore load the original config of the distro.

not a problem on my MacBook Pro (tm) with Retina Display (tm) :^)

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-11-19 at 8.10.20 PM.jpg (3360x2100, 1.32M)

The fuck are you on about? It's not even close. No, I don't know what it is either, but it definitely isn't Lucida Console.

IBM Plex Mono? It's on Google fonts and has the same squiggly braces.

when the thread derails from linux hate to a font competition...

Yeet yourself, fool.

How's manjaro gnome?

boring.
(just works)
Yes, it's plex.

...
I pity linux fags, I really do.
why would you inflict this on yourself?

Attached: pkm00001.png (236x235, 61K)

Let's see your rendering

>she didn't install gentoo

Attached: 2276.jpg (376x545, 57K)

You proved yourself wrong and now move goalpoasts. What a moron.

Nice projection, cuck

VScode render fonts directly to canvas, show vim or other shitty linux system fonts :)

IDK bruh, default Manjaro GNOME looks fine enough for me. I just changed the fonts though.

Attached: Screenshot from 2018-11-20 08-07-19.png (3840x2160, 1.66M)

>show vim
ok lol

Attached: Screenshot from 2018-11-20 08-09-45.png (3840x2160, 317K)

they don't, windows as a whole is designed around appealing to the corporately retarded

looks pretty nice, user. Don't care about the seething wincucks.

Try doubling the scaling. Maybe your text will actually be comfortably readable.

Because its completely out of place.
When a page is completely light dont introduce random dark elements that break the theme of the website itself.
The text fields inside a website should match the rest of the page. That's all im saying.

The problem is completely obvious to everyone but you. You're the reason gtk doesn't have thumbnails in its filepicker a decade after the bug was reported.

Creating an adaptive theme would require more standardization, which qt folks hate. (Oh no, another protocol to be compatible with!)
On the other hand, what happens to your Qt theme when the website is dark? Do the textfields become dark then? No?
Stop moaning, seriously, your arguments are very weak.

KDE doesn't have this problem

What are you even talking about? That text looks absolutely huge on a 4K 27" monitor, it would be perfectly readable even on a 13-15" laptop screen.

>On the other hand, what happens to your Qt theme when the website is dark? Do the textfields become dark then? No?
Ohnonononononononono

>Stop moaning, seriously, your arguments are very weak.
HAHAHAHAHAHA GNOMETARDS BTFO AGAIN

Attached: file.png (1920x1200, 348K)

Fruit vending machines have better font rendering than that. Even Windows does.

r8

Attached: 2018-11-20_02-55-35.png (1901x878, 452K)

I know right, just look at this superior Windows font technology.

Attached: 1540115607842.png (552x343, 26K)