Linux and application installing
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
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.
More information about the devel