On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Tom Horsley <horsley1953(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2011 12:37:28 -0400
Tom H wrote:
> I was thinking more of the hinting and anti-aliasing settings rather
> than of the actual fonts.
In the ubuntu case, I'm pretty certain the actual
fonts are considerably different. I think I've even
seen some references to the default ubuntu fonts
being developed under contract to and copyright by
cannonical.
They may well have different settings by default as
well. I have tried lots of different live CDs on
lots of different computers with different displays,
and I have to say the defaults that come up on
ubuntu live CDs are vastly more readable than any
other distro I've tried.
(An opinion that doesn't carry over to the Unity
interface - GNOME 3 looks like a work of genius
compared to Unity :-).
As a long-time OS X user, I both like and dislike the Unity and GNOME
3 interfaces but my reasons for disliking them have driven me to
Fedora's and Ubuntu's KDE spins. (Your evaluation of Unity's harsh!)
I must have misunderstood the OP. I didn't think that the issue was
one of fonts (but it may very well be since everyone else has
understood it this way) but of the settings that I mentioned. It's the
latter (AFAIU) that make Ubuntu's Live CDs more readable.