Linux and application installing

Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
Thu Sep 9 15:44:33 UTC 2010


Le Jeu 9 septembre 2010 15:32, Alex Hudson a écrit :
> On Thu, 2010-09-09 at 15:05 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> Le Jeu 9 septembre 2010 14:29, Alex Hudson a écrit :
>> > .TTF fonts (as an example) just aren't very big. I tried a sample font
>> > in my .fonts directory, it's 75K and five lines of varied "The quick
>> > brown fox.." in PNG format comes out at 25K. If I gzip the ttf, it's
>> > 28K, and the png goes to 22K. So the data size is actually pretty close.
>>
>> The google type library is not representative as they do not propose full
>> fonts but fonts cut down to the few hundreds of glyphs necessary for latin.
>> The smallest the font the closest the size will be to a preview file.
>
> I wasn't using the Google Type library for that comparison - I was using
> a system font (although one of the fonts I tested (Inconsolata) is
> available in Fedora as well as on Google). So this argument doesn't
> apply.

Inconsolata has even less coverage than Google Type Library fonts. The author
is still working to complete all the latin blocks and has not started
non-latin blocks. The completed part is very nice, but not very extensive.

>> > So, I disagree it's "as resource intensive" as the RPM method. It's
>> > fundamentally much faster than installing the font locally. Seriously,
>> > just try it. It's not even in the same league.
>>
>> It's more resource-intensive server-side and the whole speed depends on your
>> network pipe.
>
> How can this possibly be true? Both servers are offering files to
> download; one is offering JS + TTF the other is offering RPM. As I've
> shown, the data is essentially the same size.

It's only the same size for very small fonts with few glyphs.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot



More information about the devel mailing list