Almost all of this is out-of-date with newer freetype/fontconfig/toolkits. Subpixel positioning is a default thing on most distros, grayscale AA is the sane distro default (due to the proliferation of alternative subpixel layouts), and Harfbuzz shaping has become near-universal.
I have some problems with fonts on Linux, but none of the stuff mentioned there is the stuff that I care much about (compared with the other problems I have). Problems I have is that some programs are not capable of using bitmap fonts (some, such as Firefox, can use bitmap fonts in some places but not in others), and some programs are incapable of using non-Unicode fonts. (Newer programs might also support colourful emoji, which I also don't want, but fortunately I do not that problem because I do not have any such programs on my computer.)
I don't agree that this should be flagged. Put the year in the title, that's all. Blog posts go out of date all the time, the OSes simply have different issues now.
So I'm sorry to hear about some of the problems with Linux font rendering in this article, it goes beyond my knowledge. I want to say though as a user, I have, between Linux, Mac and Windows machines over the years, literally always preferred Linux font rendering over cleartype and now even Mac not caring about lower resolutions and non-mac screens. You shouldn't need a 4k screen to get crisp and smooth fonts and sometimes even when you do they still look like shit, especially cleartype.
This is giving me flashbacks to the days of bad fonts and bad rendering. Back when using the web on Linux was a totally different and grossly inferior experience.
At least we can still simu late it whenwe get n0staIgic.
Font rendering on GTK3 was pretty decent, I'd say on par with Windows and better than Mac (without retina screen). Then GTK4 was released and fonts looked ugly for quite a while. Now they have been improved, but still not at GTK3 level. But hey, now you can rotate text, for whatever reason.
wtf...? I know it's only their opinion, but jeez that is one hot take.
I've been using OSX/macOS since ~2005, and in comparison, Windows (and heaven forbid you had to use Linux) had the absolute worst font rendering ever. Even today it looks horrible.
Update:
Hah, just read their FAQ, quote:
"Q: Why bother, just buy a HiDPI screen?
A: In my opinion and experience, HiDPI is a niche gimmick similar to 3D movies."
Doesn't HiDPI "Retina display" prove the point; ClearType won when it comes to rendering. Due to patents, the solution was to quadruple the number of pixels, making subpixel hinting and anti-aliasing mostly redundant.
I am a bit confused, as I don't think it proves the point. HiDPI is so much easier on the eye than subpixel rendering. HiDPI screens look closer to print than to 96 DPI Windows 7.
Maybe that's just me b/c I always found the color fringes irritating, but I am very happy that 4K displays are now more or less standard.
That's my experience, I strongly dislike ClearType, it always looked blurry, even with all the tweaking Microsoft allowed you to do it new became really clear and sharp like on the mac. Sadly Linux seems to have gone the Windows route and smudged the fonts, rather than making them clearer and sharper.
If HiDPI is what made fonts on macOS what they are, then there's now way around it, we have to rid ourselves of none HiDPI display.
Almost all of this is out-of-date with newer freetype/fontconfig/toolkits. Subpixel positioning is a default thing on most distros, grayscale AA is the sane distro default (due to the proliferation of alternative subpixel layouts), and Harfbuzz shaping has become near-universal.
I have some problems with fonts on Linux, but none of the stuff mentioned there is the stuff that I care much about (compared with the other problems I have). Problems I have is that some programs are not capable of using bitmap fonts (some, such as Firefox, can use bitmap fonts in some places but not in others), and some programs are incapable of using non-Unicode fonts. (Newer programs might also support colourful emoji, which I also don't want, but fortunately I do not that problem because I do not have any such programs on my computer.)
I know it's subjective but...
Font rendering with ClearType on Windows used to be so awful you had to install an external library[0] to get something closer to a Mac experience.
[0]: https://github.com/CoolOppo/GDI-PlusPlus
I don't agree that this should be flagged. Put the year in the title, that's all. Blog posts go out of date all the time, the OSes simply have different issues now.
So I'm sorry to hear about some of the problems with Linux font rendering in this article, it goes beyond my knowledge. I want to say though as a user, I have, between Linux, Mac and Windows machines over the years, literally always preferred Linux font rendering over cleartype and now even Mac not caring about lower resolutions and non-mac screens. You shouldn't need a 4k screen to get crisp and smooth fonts and sometimes even when you do they still look like shit, especially cleartype.
This is giving me flashbacks to the days of bad fonts and bad rendering. Back when using the web on Linux was a totally different and grossly inferior experience.
At least we can still simu late it whenwe get n0staIgic.
Font rendering on GTK3 was pretty decent, I'd say on par with Windows and better than Mac (without retina screen). Then GTK4 was released and fonts looked ugly for quite a while. Now they have been improved, but still not at GTK3 level. But hey, now you can rotate text, for whatever reason.
After following the advice in this article [1] to my eyes, my linux fonts look better than my MacBook's.
tldr: "FREETYPE_PROPERTIES="cff:no-stem-darkening=0 autofitter:no-stem-darkening=0"
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41643573
Oh come on, put the date in the headline. I have none of these kerning issues on my boxes.
This is a terrible post. Most professional typesetters/publishers use macOS for a reason and have for decades.
Also this blog post is 5 years old and woefully out of date anyway.
This article also points a finger at macos for having bad rendering too.
I think that is what they are commenting on: it seems odd that the typesetters all use MacOS if it has some terrible font rendering issue.
"For decades OS X remained a very ugly baby"
wtf...? I know it's only their opinion, but jeez that is one hot take.
I've been using OSX/macOS since ~2005, and in comparison, Windows (and heaven forbid you had to use Linux) had the absolute worst font rendering ever. Even today it looks horrible.
Update:
Hah, just read their FAQ, quote:
"Q: Why bother, just buy a HiDPI screen?
A: In my opinion and experience, HiDPI is a niche gimmick similar to 3D movies."
https://pandasauce.org/get-fonts-done/
Doesn't HiDPI "Retina display" prove the point; ClearType won when it comes to rendering. Due to patents, the solution was to quadruple the number of pixels, making subpixel hinting and anti-aliasing mostly redundant.
I am a bit confused, as I don't think it proves the point. HiDPI is so much easier on the eye than subpixel rendering. HiDPI screens look closer to print than to 96 DPI Windows 7.
Maybe that's just me b/c I always found the color fringes irritating, but I am very happy that 4K displays are now more or less standard.
That's my experience, I strongly dislike ClearType, it always looked blurry, even with all the tweaking Microsoft allowed you to do it new became really clear and sharp like on the mac. Sadly Linux seems to have gone the Windows route and smudged the fonts, rather than making them clearer and sharper.
If HiDPI is what made fonts on macOS what they are, then there's now way around it, we have to rid ourselves of none HiDPI display.
And yet current Safari on current MacOS renders text in the HN comment box very poorly.