Matt Zimmerman wrote:
- Xfont, which provides font services (including selection and rendering)
through the X server. This is basically obsolete in favour of client-side
fonts.
Why is this? Client side fonts are bad for several reasons:
1) You end up with the mess you point out, where
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 10:52:46AM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
3) Performance suffers. The X server is in the best position to render
fonts using any hardware acceleration provided by the video card, and
allows for those fonts to be shared by all applications, reducing
duplication and
* [Florian Zeitz]
Linux has been able to do this for ages, but it has been considered a
bad idea, because it wears the memory sticks flash.
In theory all it takes is:
1. # mkswap /dev/sdX (where sdX is your memory stick)
2. Edit your fstab to say:
/dev/sdX none swap sw,pri=2 0 0
Am Montag, den 21.05.2007, 19:32 +0200 schrieb Florian Zeitz:
...
I think it might be worth implementing if done properly (it seems using
ReadyBoost in it's current form in Vista can actually slow down the
system sometimes).
The technique to slow down your computer and waste sticks for some
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 15:09 -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
How does server side fonts require more round trips? It should amount
to a single message that specifies what font to use, what text to
render, and where.
Only after a detailed exchange to determine the character-set coverage
of the
On Monday 21 May 2007 13:32:46 Florian Zeitz wrote:
Oystein Viggen wrote:
* [Florian Zeitz]
Linux has been able to do this for ages, but it has been considered a
bad idea, because it wears the memory sticks flash.
In theory all it takes is:
1. # mkswap /dev/sdX (where sdX is your
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 01:13:56AM +0100, Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
- Whether we still need all these horrible bitmap fonts
You mean the fonts available in the x-fonts* packages?
I think the names are xfonts-*.
Last time I checked, X server won't start without the fixed bitmap
font from
