Why is font rendering on GNU/Linux so garbage compared to Windows and Mac? is there a way to fix it?

Try infinality fonts

OSX is king Windows, Linux, and Android are all equally bad. Does Apple have a patent on non-shitty typography? (like they apparently do on non-shitty trackpads and non-shitty scrolling)

because you're using a shit font for low rez grids

Attached: 1537950056580.png (1680x1008, 198K)

no surprise they have the best looking one. their whole OS has looks in the top 3 priority at all times

can't you just add a symlink of the config file for all those options in /etc/fonts/conf.avail/ to /etc/fonts/conf.d/ ?

they only 'looks' good because of the high ppi

where did this meme come from? I can see no difference between windows or linux font rendering

>is there a way to fix it?
Use KDE.

People constantly bitch about OS X poor fonts here, how they are too soft and not sharp at all. At least with Linux you can always modify anything and everything.

Honestly, no standards on theming.

If gtk had a default font that it rendered to screen people could spend effort making that font as good as possible.

But no, theming is an after compile time hack in gtk and sadily gtk has been king for far to long.

arstechnica.com/features/2018/09/macos-10-14-mojave-the-ars-technica-review/12/

Subpixel antialiasing (or subpixel rendering) is something you don’t even need if you use a Mac with a Retina display or external 4K and 5K displays—it’s difficult to see individual pixels on those screens with your naked eye, let alone the tiny subpixels that make up those pixels. But changes to subpixel antialiasing in Mojave subtly affects the way the operating system looks on non-Retina screens, including many MacBook Airs and iMacs that Apple continues to support in Mojave and sell in its store.

...

Mojave removes this feature. A form of LCD font smoothing still exists in System Preferences under General, but this setting now just toggles “linear blend” antialiasing that uses different shades of gray to make fonts look smoother. It’s helpful, but it only works at the pixel level, which means in some cases that fonts will look a bit blockier on non-Retina displays in Mojave than they did in High Sierra.

Apple says that the removal of subpixel rendering is because the effect depends on a specific subpixel arrangement, which could be reliably assumed in the early days of LCDs but can’t be relied upon now that different technologies (like OLED) use so many different subpixel arrangements. For instance, the iPhone X’s OLED screen uses a diamond subpixel layout, a radical departure from RGB stripe subpixels.

This argument doesn’t quite pass muster, since the older non-Retina screens that MacBook Airs and iMacs are using are precisely the kinds of screens that are still using the classic RGB stripe subpixels that subpixel antialiasing was designed for. But it’s the same argument that Microsoft has used when disabling ClearType in latter-day versions of Office, so it’s not unprecedented. And Apple has tweaked some fonts over the course of the Mojave betas to improve areas of the operating system that looked especially bad without subpixel rendering.

OH NONONONO

Attached: Screen-Shot-2018-09-16-at-5.13.27-PM-980x551.png (980x551, 127K)

Niggers

Font rendering is one of the standard breakages, it will be stable if you don't install off distro packages but if you don't something over writing a font version or a clash of wm with ui engine, fonts being stupid as fuck in c++ tend to die.

CRTs blur everything and are usually low resolution.

OSX is consistently the shittiest one, the reason fonts look good is because they use retina displays since basically forever

Linux font rendering far surpasses fagOS.
It's not even a competition.
Applel's only option was just throw money (high density screens) at the problem to make it go away.

Attached: 1554176594239.png (662x580, 126K)

That's not macos font rendering. It very clearly has colored pixels in the fonts when macos does grayscale.

Your titlebar looks fine to me. I wonder why you are trying to show linux fonts are bad by presenting us with motherfucking microsoft arial. No shit that non type hinted proprietary fonts look like shit, sherlock. you are deliberately trying to paint a bad light here, not only are you excluding the normal font your OS uses, which is fucking fine btw, but you are also using a program from the 80s that uses bitmap fonts for its interface.
Just fuck off, shill.

Does anyone here has a guide of to improve the fonts? i use kubuntu and i am pretty sure is not my monitor, i dual boot windows and all the fonts look nice there.

Attached: Screenshot_20190829_134623.png (1366x768, 369K)

before 2016 it used to be bad because of patents or whatever
but freetype got gud and btfo applel and microshit
who now can't stop seething

Looks alright, what's wrong?

change your font to noto sans 9pt with slight antialiasing
top is 10, bottom is 9
youre welcome

Attached: noto 9 vs 10.png (1366x1678, 915K)

if it's not too outdated you should mostly only need fontconfig aliases like these
bpaste.net/show/rRNV

No OSX was far superior even in the olddendays. I remember always installing some tweak on Windows that changed the font-rendering to OSX-style (don't remember the name of it). When Safari was available on Windows they used their own OSX-type font layout since Windows was so atrocious.

For years the problem has been the other way: sub-pixel AA has been turned on by default on 'retina' Macs when things look much nicer without (i.e. just with greyscale AA). First thing I do on a retina Mac is turn that off.

Turning "LCD font smoothing" on on my retina Macbook w/ Mojave makes the text look blurry.

Attached: 43425435.png (5060x3380, 1.5M)

wrong

Attached: screenshot.png (647x226, 53K)

>Is there a way to fix it?
Contribute

My GNU/Linux distro doesn't have this problem.

Attached: font rendering.png (1072x877, 197K)

you absolutely do

How?

What are you talking about?

Attached: Screenshot_2019-08-29 Tokyo - Wikipedia.png (1904x941, 490K)

>is there a way to fix it?
install ubuntu

>ubuntu
Ubuntu maintains specific repositories of nonfree software, and Canonical expressly promotes and recommends nonfree software under the Ubuntu name in some of their distribution channels. Ubuntu offers the option to install only free packages, which means it also offers the option to install nonfree packages too. In addition, the version of Linux, the kernel, included in Ubuntu contains firmware blobs.
The “Ubuntu Software Center” lists proprietary programs and free programs jumbled together. It is hard to tell which ones are free since proprietary programs for download at no charge are labelled “free”.
Ubuntu appears to permit commercial redistribution of exact copies with the trademarks; removal of the trademarks is required only for modified versions. That is an acceptable policy for trademarks. The same page, further down, makes a vague and ominous statement about “Ubuntu patents,” without giving enough details to show whether that constitutes aggression or not.
That page spreads confusion by using the misleading term “intellectual property rights”, which falsely presumes that trademark law and patent law and several other laws belong in one single conceptual framework. Use of that term is harmful, without exception, so after making a reference to someone else's use of the term, we should always reject it. However, that is not a substantive issue about Ubuntu as a GNU/Linux distribution.

Instead of this non-free distro, install Trisquel which is forked from it. Trisquel complies with the FSF's free software distribution guidelines.
trisquel.info/

who the fuck cares
it's the most compatible distro
if it works then I don't care

>it's the most compatible distro
>if it works
Trisquel also "just works". But even if it didn't, it would be superior by sheer virtue of freedom alone.
>who the fuck cares
>then I don't care
Please watch this informative video: audio-video.gnu.org/video/short--undated--rms--free-software-four-freedoms.ogv

hi Richard do any interesting talks lately?

>hi Richard
"I do not post on Jow Forums. I have nothing against it in principle, but I am told a lot of the posts nowadays are right-wing bigotry which I condemn totally. I have occasionally answered questions for interviews for Jow Forums, but I have never posted anything there. Any posting there that says it is by me is by an impostor."
stallman.org/stallman-computing.html
>do any interesting talks lately?
Sadly, most of his talks are posted on YouTube, but you can find some of them here: audio-video.gnu.org/

Because the owner of the most promising font rendering project (I.E. Infinality) disappeared into thin air and nobody wants to fork his work

WOW THAT LOOKS FUCKING SHARP
Why'd nobody ever tell me about that? That's Segoe UI tier

are you a time traveler?

no, macs have always had the smoothest and most soothing font rendering. windows is kinda jerky and linux about the same or even more so. 4K displays wouldn't benefit macs as much as they would benefit linux by making their shitty font rendering not matter. Too bad Apple is trying to force the obsolescence of 1080p by removing subpixel antialiasing. I haven't updated from high sierra though, and I'm glad I haven't.

fuck emojis

what?

Because it's free and freetards like free shit.

youre joking right? windows font rendering was absolute garbage until recently, as they do it in the kernel

Attached: font-rendering.png (3000x2000, 1.42M)

It's not (pic)

The Ubuntu font looks good at small sizes.
Chromium-based browsers have blurry font rendering so use something else, that's the reason I stopped using VS Code.

Attached: 2019-08-30-135809_2560x1440_scrot.png (2560x1380, 653K)

your mom

How?

ITT: "my favorite OS with my configuration and data does what's best for my taste on my specific hardware therefore everything else objectively sucks"

The worst part about having been on Jow Forums since 2008 is that none of these threads even remotely surprise me anymore. It's the same bait threads day in and day out.

Only Ubuntu has good font rendering.

that looks like shit senpai

>all that rice but browsing on http

For example, the kerning on the word Windows in your screenshot looks absolutely atrocious

Its just the default font rendering in Arch with some config options in Xresources
! Font config
*dpi: 192
Xft.dpi: 192
Xft.autohint: 0
Xft.lcdfilter: lcddefault
Xft.hintstyle: hintslight
Xft.hinting: 1
Xft.antialias: 1
Xft.rgba: rgb

! Terminal config
URxvt*font: xft:DejaVu Sans Mono for Powerline:size=9
URxvt*boltfont: xft:DejaVu Sans Mono:bold:size=9
URxvt*letterSpace: -1

this is bait

Nodody cares you fucking commie

Bait of baits, says the Preacher, bait of baits! All is bait.

Showing off your text rendering at larger than 20pt serves no purpose

systemd-fontd when?

that is just the normal webpage which uses 14px font-size

This guide has bretty good results.
reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/5r5ep8/make_your_arch_fonts_beautiful_easily/

>compared to Windows
Windows has literally garbage font rendering.

I have no clue what you have to actually do to get fonts to look so bad, the defaults on every distro I have ever used were much better then this or everything I have seen on Windows.

You mean to say they are distros which are preconfigured to support them, which means basically nothing.

>macs have always had the smoothest and most soothing font rendering.
What evidence do you have?
Everytime I see OSX it's on a very high resolution display, and obviously even shitty fontrendering looks good on that.

Hmm I don't care about fonts so much but I'm curious is something wrong with the fonts on my nixos laptop?

Attached: 2019-08-30-15:04:04.png (1366x768, 451K)

i also dont know the difference but ngl that looks hot

Once this braindead industry moves to ~200ppi as standard, all the shitty font rendering in every OS won't matter, since there will finally after decades be enough pixels to approximate characters well.
No shit font rendering sucks in (linux|windows|macos), there arent enough pixels and we use stupid hacks.

it's because antialiasing is greyscale default, but most monitors are rgb
If you change the setting it should look normal, also hinting should be set to slight by default which is the best setting

rate

Attached: 1545518086440.png (1632x601, 289K)

Which is why fonts like in the OP look better.

that looks like shit

Attached: ttthg.png (3840x2160, 2.36M)

fag read the article from a week ago and doesn't realize it can look fine.
go back to your news article, nerdboy

Attached: file.png (2383x1340, 378K)

oh and chrome even looks shittier than most proggies on linux here's a normal one

Attached: file.png (1120x715, 74K)

i suck dicks

good to know, bro

freetard

thanks

actual tripcode here, don't get trolled
baron von #$uw{$=

have sex

Stop using KDE. It's shit.

and yeah i fixed the title bar keming just now

It’s shit but they’re all shit and KDE is the best shit of all the shit.

Depends what the problem is. Firefox in KDE renders fonts like shit. But fonts will look fine in chrome based browsers. And Firefox will look alright in Gnome.
It's all a giant clusterfuck.