linux vs windows throwdown thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > linux vs windows throwdown thread

«‹›11 »

Agile Vector: May 21, 2007; scrum bored

Notorious b.s.d. posted:

it's ok to not particularly care about font rendering not everyone has to sweat the same stupid bullshit

gonna agree on this because im both a font obsessive and a font good-enough and honestly the real answer is 'whatever you find comfortable' because thats the important part when you stare at a screen for your job or just in general

# ? Jan 29, 2020 02:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 2, 2024 16:17

theadder: Dec 30, 2011

ya thats weird

# ? Jan 29, 2020 02:24

Notorious b.s.d.: Jan 25, 2003; by Reene

Agile Vector posted:

gonna agree on this because im both a font obsessive and a font good-enough and honestly the real answer is 'whatever you find comfortable' because thats the important part when you stare at a screen for your job or just in general

i want my fonts to look better, but i don't have the energy to fight it

for people who don't notice anything wrong, well, plainly there's nothing wrong then

# ? Jan 29, 2020 02:30

Silver Alicorn: Mar 30, 2008; 𝓪 𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓪 𝓲𝓼 𝓪 𝓬𝓾𝓻𝓲𝓸𝓾𝓼 𝓼𝓸𝓻𝓽 𝓸𝓯 𝓬𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓽𝓾𝓻𝓮

akadajet posted:

fonts just work on windows and macos. so just use one of those two if you like reading nice things (like my posts, for instance) on your computer

my monitor (viewsonic somesuch) has its subpixels arranged BGR, so subpixel rendering does not work correctly in macOS

# ? Jan 29, 2020 02:31

echinopsis: Apr 13, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

windows let�s you do it right

# ? Feb 1, 2020 23:19

Tankakern: Jul 25, 2007

lol

# ? Feb 2, 2020 01:54

Mr.Radar: Nov 5, 2005; You guys aren't going to believe this, but that guy is our games teacher.

power botton posted:

someone post the firefox guy who runs a 5 year old version because they blatantly broke font rendering for everyone on the planet except him and for one beautiful build he finally found peace

Mr.Radar posted:

this is more "crazy person with tech opinions" than the usual "tech person with crazy non-tech opinions" fodder for this thread, but i still think it fits.

pop quiz: which side has better text rendering?

according to this user on r/firefox the correct answer is the left one to the point that they go out of their way to use an unsupported version of Firefox from over 2 years ago because it has a bug that lets them force it to use that style of rendering.

quote:
It's called the brainwash effect, you are used to seeing blatantly unsmooth text so you can't deal with seeing smooth text. I guess high dpi displays don't look nice to you either. A proper monitor would follow exactly the sRGB curve, and the GDI rendering engine would take the inverse formula to anti-alias in linear RGB and give the best results.

I am NOT upgrading, it is not worth it. Why would I eyestrain?

Here is another example. https://i.imgur.com/dqhD1q4.png Note that below the enlarged samples, there's a sample of what that size would look like at a higher resolution. I used hacks to have the exact same outline in higher resolution. Take a look from a distance. The GDI sample is as close as it gets to the reference, while the DirectWrite sample is too thick and distorted.

edit: they're still going. this is some legit timecube poo poo:

quote:
If you are used to seeing distorted text, you are going to have problems seeing smooth text. That's how it works. DirectWrite is a curse. DirectWrite is awful and will forever haunt me for life. It's one of the most overrated things on Earth.

[...]

I have viewed the sample image on several screens in pixel perfect size. Now this is where it gets controversial and subjective. I prefer classic GDI rendering, it is much smoother than DirectWrite. On every display. It actually looks like text, it actually resembles the font behind the render. DirectWrite is way too dark, it doesn't truly look like the actual font. But already we are seeing the problem. Now this is where it gets controversial and subjective.. controversial and subjective.. subjective.. The people who prefer text that's actually text are absolutely devastated by DirectWrite.

(emphasis theirs)

it's a good thing I don't know what "actual text" looks like because it's apparently enough to break my brain.

Mr.Radar posted:

i posted this when i thought this person was done, but they apparently spent another day asking how to break their browser and berating people who tell them it's not possible/ask why they would want to. here are the highlights:

they posted this screenshot with their "preferred" font rendering of a reddit post (it's eye-searingly ugly)

they got caught editing wikipedia to inject their nonsense about how directwrite is "broken" to "prove" their point to another commenter

they refused to answer any and all questions about what type of monitor they were using; other posters dug out that this person is using a ~10 year old laptop with a 1366x768 TN panel

they started blocking anyone who posted anything other than direct instructions on how to do what they want (which is literally impossible)

someone suggested they switch to the Pale Moon fork of Firefox which apparently does somewhat support this insane thing, and that's apparently not good enough either

they seem to be done now, though.

# ? Feb 2, 2020 02:10

psiox: Oct 15, 2001; Babylon 5 Street Team

subpixel rendering works gr8 for me in ubuntu under xfce and xorg (and even on a hidpi display, too!)

i hear people really liking wayland for this kinda thing but have yet to use it

# ? Feb 2, 2020 02:12

eschaton: Mar 7, 2007; Don't you just hate when you wind up in a store with people who are in a socioeconomic class that is pretty obviously about two levels lower than your own?

just use a display with reasonable DPI and an OS that can drive it

rule 36 bicth

# ? Feb 2, 2020 05:21

Salt Fish: Sep 11, 2003; Cybernetic Crumb

quote:

DirectWrite is awful and will forever haunt me for life. It's one of the most overrated things on Earth

I aspire to write code that gets this review.

# ? Feb 2, 2020 07:52

Captain Foo: May 11, 2004; we vibin'
we slidin'
we breathin'
we dyin'

eschaton posted:

just use a display with reasonable DPI and an OS that can drive it

rule 36 bicth

I don't think windows or Linux can do those things, op

# ? Feb 2, 2020 15:38

eschaton: Mar 7, 2007; Don't you just hate when you wind up in a store with people who are in a socioeconomic class that is pretty obviously about two levels lower than your own?

my wife�s gaming PC has a 24in 4K display and Windows 10 handles high DPI fine

# ? Feb 6, 2020 20:16

Perplx: Jun 26, 2004; Best viewed on Orgasma Plasma; Lipstick Apathy

thats 2x scaling, now try 150% with a bunch of lovely apps

# ? Feb 6, 2020 20:33

eschaton: Mar 7, 2007; Don't you just hate when you wind up in a store with people who are in a socioeconomic class that is pretty obviously about two levels lower than your own?

why would anyone use non integral scaling

# ? Feb 6, 2020 22:27

Share Bear: Apr 27, 2004

oh dang im gonna install freebsd on my own computer cause of this thread

freebsd (and irix) kept me in gas/diner money through high school and college but i never used it for anything but server work

edit: but now everything is a goddamned web app so time to dig in

Share Bear fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Feb 6, 2020

# ? Feb 6, 2020 23:48

Notorious b.s.d.: Jan 25, 2003; by Reene

eschaton posted:

why would anyone use non integral scaling

X11 supports arbitrary DPI, and always has. back in the nineties, 80, 96, and 100 dpi were all common configurations.

perhaps obviously none of these are easy integer scalings

adopting high dpi on X11 has always been very easy. set dpi. you�re done. there is no step two

# ? Feb 7, 2020 06:14

Tankakern: Jul 25, 2007

Share Bear posted:

oh dang im gonna install freebsd on my own computer cause of this thread

freebsd (and irix) kept me in gas/diner money through high school and college but i never used it for anything but server work

edit: but now everything is a goddamned web app so time to dig in

just install linux, freebsd is poo poo as a desktop

# ? Feb 7, 2020 13:57

Nomnom Cookie: Aug 30, 2009

Tankakern posted:

just install linux, freebsd is poo poo as a desktop

i dub thee GNU/shaggar

# ? Feb 8, 2020 03:17

Poopernickel: Oct 28, 2005; electricity bad; Fun Shoe

Nomnom Cookie posted:

i dub thee GNU/shaggar

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as GNU/shaggar, is in fact, GNU/GNU/shaggar, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus GNU/shaggar. GNU/shaggar is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "GNU/shaggar", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a GNU/shaggar, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. GNU/shaggar is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. GNU/shaggar is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with GNU/shaggar added, or GNU/GNU/shaggar. All the so-called "GNU/shaggar" distributions are really distributions of GNU/GNU/shaggar.

Poopernickel fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Feb 8, 2020

# ? Feb 8, 2020 04:36

poty: Jun 21, 2008; 虹はどこで終わるのですか？あなたの魂の中で、または地平線で?

how is windows 10 still stuck with that xp cleartype font rendering bullshit from 1999? is everyone working on windows blind?

# ? Feb 8, 2020 09:20

eschaton: Mar 7, 2007; Don't you just hate when you wind up in a store with people who are in a socioeconomic class that is pretty obviously about two levels lower than your own?

Nomnom Cookie posted:

i dub thee GNU/shaggar

# ? Feb 8, 2020 09:22

echinopsis: Apr 13, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

poty posted:

how is windows 10 still stuck with that xp cleartype font rendering bullshit from 1999? is everyone working on windows blind?

its good

# ? Feb 8, 2020 11:15

Notorious b.s.d.: Jan 25, 2003; by Reene

Tankakern posted:

just install linux, freebsd is poo poo as a desktop

yeah freebsd is kinda dead

# ? Feb 10, 2020 05:08

eschaton: Mar 7, 2007; Don't you just hate when you wind up in a store with people who are in a socioeconomic class that is pretty obviously about two levels lower than your own?

nah, it just doesn�t have any pretense of being Windows like most Linuxes

# ? Feb 10, 2020 06:19

Cybernetic Vermin: Apr 18, 2005

judged by where software is targeted windows is borderline dead too, so might as well embrace the new reality

# ? Feb 10, 2020 09:05

mike12345: Jul 14, 2008; "Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries."

poty posted:

how is windows 10 still stuck with that xp cleartype font rendering bullshit from 1999? is everyone working on windows blind?

yeah desktop linux might suck in many ways, but the font smoothing has been better than windows since... idk you could gently caress around with freetype in the early 00s and get better results.

# ? Feb 10, 2020 12:10

Notorious b.s.d.: Jan 25, 2003; by Reene

eschaton posted:

nah, it just doesn�t have any pretense of being Windows like most Linuxes

you mean it has no pretense of being actively developed?

# ? Feb 11, 2020 05:40

akadajet: Sep 14, 2003

e:wrong thread

akadajet fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Feb 11, 2020

# ? Feb 11, 2020 05:41

olives black: Nov 24, 2017; LENIN.
STILL.
WON'T.
FUCK.
ME.

just installed ubuntu 20.04. the software app is broken, had to use apt-get lol

# ? May 3, 2020 05:03

Notorious b.s.d.: Jan 25, 2003; by Reene

olives black posted:

just installed ubuntu 20.04. the software app is broken, had to use apt-get lol

Notorious b.s.d. posted:

The problem with Ubuntu isn't a matter of taste. It's not that I don't like Unity, or I have bad feelings about Shuttleworth, or that the logo doesn't agree with me. It's much more fundamental: The Ubuntu model for development is broken.

Ubuntu periodically forks Debian's "Unstable" tree (Debian's rolling release). Canonical, inc. works from that snapshot for six months, and then publishes a Ubuntu release.

Inside that Ubuntu release, there is a core of Canonical-supported packages. Canonical accepts bug reports for these packages. These packages receive updates for the supported lifetime of the release. Ubuntu's "core" is supported much the way that Debian or CentOS is.

The problem is that this core is only a fraction of the packages on the system. Ubuntu 14.04, the latest "long term support" release, contains 44378 packages. Only 8751 of them are in the supported part. The rest of the packages go into a separate repository, "Universe."

The packages in Universe, the missing 35 thousand packages, are six months old on release day. They've gone six months without updates or security patches. By the end of the release cycle, they're five and a half years out of date.

--

Shadowhawk will doubtlessly point out that a legion of unpaid, untrained, unorganized volunteers can "maintain" packages in universe. But it's completely optional. Any given package might be untouched (bad), get backported security updates (good), be updated religiously from upstream (really bad), or replaced with something completely different from debian (really, really bad).

There's no release management process. There are no guarantees about what you find in Universe. It's totally up to the kindness of individual strangers.

Universe and Launchpad.net are sources of "works on my machine" issues and security holes. And that is all I have to say about that.

--

Of course, all this peril can be avoided if you don't enable the "Universe" repositories. If you restrict yourself to the core and update repos, you should have no problems. In that case, Ubuntu could be just fine.

Now let's try to use it.

I'd like to build a ruby application.
Whoops. There's no bundler. That was part of Universe.

Python?
Oops. No pypi and no virtualenv. Those are also stuck in Universe.

Java?
Sorry. Maven was also part of Universe.

Perl?
Nope, no mod_perl2.

PHP?
Actually, PHP works fine with only core. All the necessary bits are supported. I can say without any trace of sarcasm that Ubuntu is 100% totally suitable to hosting PHP applications.