From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1NfpdT-0004YU-0n for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 02:08:19 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NfpdP-0004XP-PL for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 02:08:15 -0500 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=55527 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NfpdO-0004XA-G0 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 02:08:14 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NfpdN-0008Q4-P0 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 02:08:14 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f219.google.com ([209.85.218.219]:63580) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NfpdN-0008Pw-Ez for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 02:08:13 -0500 Received: by bwz19 with SMTP id 19so1020229bwz.8 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:08:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:to:in-reply-to :references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer :content-transfer-encoding; bh=0mCbfbJucRgBJXrGplYBVoLPM6/YniRU85osEmA0Uzk=; b=Op+9y3/x1RP4EFAmWzgBvmTOkqXlLn7TcvjhxWLyQM/RuGOzGC6AAJvAV9/c3Z/N8V tmRJhoIHciwAwWTaBIBVipebjxk6BEEZ8UrqEYvTxO5NhNXAZxGnde9fmlEiXxMaWPiS Jy6yaPNFPo+/6n5iYcYmV/rGstklJrC3RcwNo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id :mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=wfW/Ge5LoP2sIhxkrgZIq+p9MICUtm/4wT1ixVgRorQX4JlNq/Se4esqAj9SRJmRdx 6qzc/xhyxTHtizAAAHGFQXDOkNHzkmMy55Kfr7F+J+1bLzJRcAkrsBzwiWH387IGMJnD J2V287mue5UxRTuMC0Oej6UgPFLS7ZrfbcWQg= Received: by 10.204.32.196 with SMTP id e4mr626618bkd.131.1265958492353; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:08:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?78.140.16.69? ([78.140.16.69]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 15sm1396397bwz.8.2010.02.11.23.08.10 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:08:11 -0800 (PST) From: Evgeny Kolesnikov To: The development of GNU GRUB In-Reply-To: References: <4B585690.8090602@gmail.com> <1264160815.29881.61.camel@EK> <4B5EB1A5.5040200@gmail.com> <1264500247.3195.22.camel@EK> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:08:09 +0600 Message-ID: <1265958489.2292.33.camel@EK> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Subject: Re: Antialiased fonts patch. X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GNU GRUB List-Id: The development of GNU GRUB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:08:16 -0000 On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 14:30 +0100, Michal Suchanek wrote: > On 26 January 2010 11:04, Evgeny Kolesnikov wrote: > > I use 8-bit in order to give GRUB ability to look and feel exactly > > as other parts of OS, so yes, 8 bits are required. If one can't allow > > Grub will never look and feel exactly as the OS unless you import > GTK/QT, its themes, freetype, ... GTK and QT uses FT for rendering fonts. Actually almost everything in linux desktop uses FT. grub-mkfont also uses FT to render common fonts formats into the PF2(3) format. So, GRUB2 will look and feel _exactly_ like GTK/QT in terms of _font_rendering_. Controls and other theming is out of scope of this patch and entire GRUB2 I suppose. Anyway - everything in QT/GTK is the bitmaps, drawn in some order. GRUB2 understands alpha channels in bitmaps, so everything is in the hands of GRUB2 theme designer. > > this for his system - he can use 1-bit fonts. I don't really care about > > such situation just because other parts of desktop on such a system will > > be awful too. > > In fact I think that 4bit antialiasing should suffice. 16 tones of the > same color should be more than enough for most cases. Still I am not > sure that it will make the rendering really faster than 8bit AA. > > Only testing on various real hardware can possibly answer the > question if and when one of the methods is faster. I would even expect > that none is overall faster and that system exist where either is. If we really care about speed we should use 1-bit fonts. Nothing can be faster. And 1-bit fonts will stay here. But if we care about eye-candy view, we should not throw away any bits from FT library result. This will not be fast enough to replace 1-bit fonts, and it will differ from other desktop apps. So, what the profit? You also may concern about font size itsef (15-30 Mb for sub-pixel AA), but who really care about it when 1 Tb HDD costs less than 100$? Also we can gzip entire font file later if it will really be the problem.