From: Matijs v. Z. <ma...@ma...> - 2012-05-25 09:44:43
|
On 05/25/2012 05:18 AM, Richard Gitschlag wrote: > >> Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 07:46:58 +0200 >> From: ma...@ma... >> To: fon...@li... >> Subject: Re: [Fontforge-devel] Feature Refinements And Additions Needed - >> >> On 05/22/2012 05:39 PM, Richard Gitschlag wrote: >> > No offense, but saying "get a new OS and DIY" is about the worst response you >> > can give to that. Like it or not, a lot of Windows users -- casual and serious >> > alike -- don't have the time or interest to make an investment in a full >> > compiler suite and all that. >> >> It's a little saddening to see how the "Using Linux means installing everything >> from source" idea is still being perpetuated. As a Debian user, *nothing* I use >> in the capacity of a regular user, including FontForge, is installed from >> source, and it is all updated through a single command. This is all much more >> convenient than on Windows. (I'm not singling you out here, Richard, it is the >> general sentiment I read in this thread.) > > And that is the beauty of having a prebuilt binary for your platform - > installing an app is as (conceptually) simple as downloading the package then > running one or two commands. The Debian system skips the separate downloading step, actually :-). However, I do agree that having prebuilt binaries for Windows would be a good thing. Demanding that the FontForge developers provide them, however, is not. Many projects have binaries provided by third parties (e.g., Perl, Gimp). Key would be to create pointers on the FF web site indicating 'known good' binaries. So, is there anyone who has had *good* experiences with the currently available prebuilt binaries? > Now FF may not ever reach the success level of certain Web browsers, photo > editors, or vector illustrators, but the lack of platform-specific builds is a > major stumbling block. Quite frankly, the reason I even attempted using FF at > all is because there are no commercial alternatives that, under my > circumstances, would be worth investing a lump sum in. > > I wanted to design a custom font based on my typical penmanship, but looking at > various commercial produts and their (invariably time- or feature- limited) demo > versions, there was no guarantee I could finish the project within 30 days, I > absolutely had to be sure of the end result (a fully functioning font file), and > I wasn't willing to put up with, say, watermarks inserted onto my glyphs or > elsewhere in the character set. So I chose to bear with FF's installation > headaches (and frequent crashing) instead. It did produce my desired end result > though -- a working TrueType font with a near-complete ASCII character set and > passable font metrics. > > -- Stratadrake > str...@ho... > -------------------- > Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. -- Matijs |