Re: State of xfstt
> From: Radovan Garabik <garabik@melkor.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk>
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 21:23:54 +0100
> To: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
> Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: State of xfstt
> -----
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 06:14:23AM -0800, Jim Gettys wrote:
> > An X font server should become the exception (for XFree86 4.x) rather than
> > the rule.
> >
> > It is better to have the server rasterize the fonts than a font server, to
> > provide TT fonts to legacy X applications (pre Render and Xft).
>
> but if you have a LARGE font (such as some rather complete unicode
> fonts), then when the application asks for such a font, font
> renderer freezes for a noticably long time (30 seconds on my P4 1.5 GHz!)
> If I am using font server, I can switch to console, or use other
> applications etc..., but if the fonts are rendered by X server itself,
> the whole machine is dead during this time (you cannot switch to
> console...)
>
> Not that I do not agree with you, but currently font server
> has its advantages.
>
Another argument for client rendering.... Note that Gnome 2 and KDE 3
will both be Xft based.
Even better, however, is that you don't have to gratuitously render all
glyphs in a font just to get the metrics, demanded by the X protocol;
this is why there may be a large delay.
Startup times on Xft based code are oftenm uch reduced.
- Jim
--
Jim Gettys
Cambridge Research Laboratory
Compaq Computer Corporation
jg@pa.dec.com
Reply to: