Hi all ..<snip>
I am using xfs (which is recommended?)
Remark: when my fontpaths were in /etc/X11/XF86Config it worked fine ...I could not see any advantages in using XFS for a normal desktop workstation, so I disabled it, and everything has worked fine ever since(all kinds of fonts and anti-aliasing+byte-hinting). I don't see the need to have an extra daemon serving fonts, when the X server is capable of doing it by itself.
Here are some pro-XFS arguments listed in the Offical RedHat Linux guide: (I use gentoo, for the record)
* Easier to add/remove font-paths, because it's in a separate config-file.
(IMHO, it's just as easy to add them into XF86Config)
* Being able to get fonts over the network, from an XFS daemon running on another host.
(True, but I don't think this is very useful for the typical home/desktop linux user)
* More font-types supported. (???? All fonts I've tried work just as well with the X-server rendering)
* It may stop graphics hickups/freezes when the X-server is rendering the fonts, because the font-server takes care of this instead(and the X-server isn't multithreaded). I've never noticed _any_ performance problems like this, on even my weakest system, a 350MHz Pentium II.
Another argument I've heard somewhere:
* More easily handle new fonts/features because you don't have to update the entire XFree86 server, only the xfs-libraries.(???)
(don't see the big advantage/relevance today, isn't X's font handling modularized anyway (LoadModule freetype, speedo, type1 ....) ?)
Plain con-XFS arguments: * Uses more memory * Redundant, IMO * Probably introduces more security issues
Bottom line: I don't like it, so I don't use it (because everything, as I mentioned, works just as well without it, on my Gentoo systems).
Evaluate why you need it, then decide to use it or not, it's not really a big deal. =)
-- < �yvind Stegard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> < University of Oslo, Dept. of informatics < http://www.stegard.net/ < 0x2B | ~0x2B - Hamlet
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
