On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Tom Horsley <horsley1953@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 5 May 2011 12:37:28 -0400 > Tom H wrote: > >> I was thinking more of the hinting and anti-aliasing settings rather >> than of the actual fonts. > > In the ubuntu case, I'm pretty certain the actual > fonts are considerably different. I think I've even > seen some references to the default ubuntu fonts > being developed under contract to and copyright by > cannonical. > > They may well have different settings by default as > well. I have tried lots of different live CDs on > lots of different computers with different displays, > and I have to say the defaults that come up on > ubuntu live CDs are vastly more readable than any > other distro I've tried. > > (An opinion that doesn't carry over to the Unity > interface - GNOME 3 looks like a work of genius > compared to Unity :-). As a long-time OS X user, I both like and dislike the Unity and GNOME 3 interfaces but my reasons for disliking them have driven me to Fedora's and Ubuntu's KDE spins. (Your evaluation of Unity's harsh!) I must have misunderstood the OP. I didn't think that the issue was one of fonts (but it may very well be since everyone else has understood it this way) but of the settings that I mentioned. It's the latter (AFAIU) that make Ubuntu's Live CDs more readable. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
