Font Server or Hard-Coded FontPath

[Net Llama!]

On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Tim Wunder wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 December 2002 10:51 pm, someone claiming to be
> kwall at kurtwerks.com wrote:
> > The Subject: line pretty much says it, but allow me to phrase it as
> > a question: which is preferable, using a font server or using the
> > standard hard-coded FontPath directives in XF86Config? I don't serve
> > X terminals, so I'm not sure using a font server (xfs or, for True
> > Type fonts, xfstt) buys me anything. The floor is open for opinions,
> > but I'd prefer facts. ;-)
> >
>
> Based on my experience with RedHat 8.0's FontServer, hard code that puppy (er
> path)! That's my next step, anyway... XFS keeps crashing on me, not
> fun...YMMV
> AFAIK, xfstt is no longer needed to serve TrueType fonts, at least RH8 is only
> using xfs.
> But, if you want to add an unnecessary server that could cause your system to
> break, use xfs ;-)

Redhat has always used xfs.  I'm not sure that any distro used xfstt out
of the box.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lonni J Friedman				netllama at linux-sxs.org
Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo		     http://netllama.ipfox.com