On Friday 29 November 2002 10:48 am, Ben Reser wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 09:43:55AM +0800, Leon Brooks wrote: >> Ask yourself if Trey would turn down an opportunity to destroy a Linux >> distributor while simultaneously portraying them as a thief of >> intellectual property. It's nearly Christmas: he'd think Santa had >> already arrived early! This is the kind of corporate back-knifing he has >> specialised in over the years.
> Who the hell is Trey? The `family' name for William Henry "Trey" Gates III (Trey is a card-gaming term for 3). >> Not true. If they weren't trying to restrict distribution, they would >> simply have made them Freeware or BSD, no muttering about unchanged >> distribution. They distributed them as EXEs, remember, not TTFs or even >> ZIPs. > As if Microsoft would ever license anything that freely, very funny. > And they licensed them as self extracting exes so Windows users who > don't know anything can easily download, run the install and be done > with it. Just about every piece of Windows software is shipped this > way. It'd be like saying just because we package things as RPMS for > Mandrake that we're trying to stop Debian people from install it. It's > just a silly point. Disagree. The fonts are shipped with IE-for-Mac as well, and not as EXEs. >> I have another suggestion, too. Surely Microsoft aren't the only company >> on the web who have ever distributed good-quality fonts for free? People >> seem to be as stuck on that idea - even here - as the general public are >> on the concept of there being something besides Windows to install on a >> PC. >> How about including a wrapper that fetches some safer high-quality fonts? >> How about the wrapper (or a different one) fetching not-so-quality >> lookalike fonts that give the same appearance and would be good enough >> for at least 95% of users out there? > Such as? For the latter, follow the Google search linked. For the former, I'd be wasting my time if someone here had already done the research (hint to lurkers). Cheers; Leon
