[arch-general] Packages with non free licenses

Xavier shiningxc at gmail.com
Tue Dec 18 15:09:48 EST 2007

On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 08:59:17PM +0200, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
> Chapter 2 :P
> Now regarding a possible replacement of the ttf-ms-fonts package from
> extra.
> As i have said before i am no expert on the topic.
> I have seen people on the web claiming that there is no real substitute
> for this package. I have also read that webpage font rendering is better
> and faster with the use of those fonts cause most pages are created
> using some of these fonts.
> My experiments during the last days rather prove the above points, even
> though i didnt get into the core of this messing with font configuration
> files.
> There are many popular font packages in AUR, some even in Community [7-9]
> as well as many others too available across the web.eg. [10]
> Maybe a combination of some of those packages will suffice for the
> replacement? Is an effort to achieve this worth it?
> I would love hearing what others more relevant with this users have to
> say about this.

I dislike anti-aliasing, but all ttf fonts are ugly without it, except ms
fonts. That's the only reason I had for installing them.
But well, there is also bitmap fonts, and that's actually mainly what I'm
using right now.

I often heard the web reason also, but I'm not totally convinced by it. A
lot of web pages look alright with different fonts.

Anyway, even if I find that these fonts look great, I have nothing against
moving them to unsupported, if that could remove potential legal issues.

More information about the arch-general mailing list