Unicode-capable, sans-serif terminal fonts?

[William O'Higgins]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 12:54:01PM -0400, John Vetterli wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Pavel Zaitsev wrote:
>>Antialiased fonts btw are wrong. Read:
>>http://joel.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$190
>>So far I do agree with that document.

I'm delighted to read this.  It is yet another example of how, when a
thing is generally done badly, it must be fundamentally bad [1].  Some
anti-aliasing is horrid, unsuitable at any size - but there are
implementations that are much improved.  Drain the bathwater, keep the
baby.

>He has a point.  The font I use with xterm and rxvt renders characters 
>only 6 pixels wide.  (I chose this so I could fit two 80-column xterms 
>side-by-side on my 1024x768 screen.)  If you try to anti-alias text that 
>small characters like 'W' end up as blobs on non-uniform gray instead of 
>legible text.  But I do like aa fonts for large text (say, when I'm web 
>browsing).

Small text (below 12ish pixels) should not be anti-aliased - the loss is
too great.

>Up to 3 cents now.

Damn inflation!

[1] Another is the characterization of Perl as a "write-only" language.
Very legible, lucid code can be produced in Perl.  That this is not
normally done is not the language's fault (though the language does make
it eminently possible).
-- 

yours,

William

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/legacy/attachments/20050425/b3ec7ade/attachment.sig>