I’ve been using openSUSE 13.2 with KDE plasma 5.2 for a few days and I like it.
One thing I don’t understand is why it is necessary to install the patches from the namtrac:subpixel repository to get proper font rendering.
In my research I found out, that apparently some users don’t have a problem with font rendering, sometimes suggesting that there is something wrong with the other users monitors. I can rule out a broken monitor, because both on windows and ubuntu fonts look just fine. It also looks the same as on completely different machines.
Can it be a software issue, where font anti-aliasing is part of openSUSE/KDE but does not work without the patch on some installations?
Or is it purposefully not included? What are the reasons in this case?
Ubuntu just doesn’t care and includes various patent restricted implementations.
This is very interesting, thanks!
This is going off-topic now, but do you know what the difference is regarding the movie-dvd situation? In that case both openSUSE and Ubuntu require to install the decryption lib (and various codecs). Is it different because in the font rendering case it is a patent and for dvds it is a license? Or maybe they deemed font rendering to be absolutely essential to the user experience.
This naturally is completely IMO but it’s most likely due to the reason that at one point libdvdcss was a hot potato and it literally broke laws ( including such laws as DMCA in USA, where Novell is located thus making it impossible for them to include it ) whereas including patented software can be interpreted as merely infringement on said patent and is tried as a civil case as opposed to a criminal case.
So it’s a case of “Hmm, will they sue us? Most likely not. Let’s include it.” because the cost to take someone like Ubuntu to court would outweigh the gain, both PR wise as well as monetarily. Not to mention patent laws vary from country to country.
Thanks for the information!
Forget about Novel now. The current owner of SUSE Linux and openSUSE are Micro Focus (a UK based firm) with offices in a number of other countries worldwide including the USA.
Doesn’t change the fact that they operate in USA which means they are bound by DMCA.
Also UK has similar laws which make libdvdcss illegal.
And that’s why I only addressed the fact that was NOT accurate.