[oclug] can someone explain this?

[Jon Earle]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Michael P. Soulier wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 10:12:49PM -0400, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
> >     Ok, this has driven me nuts for ages, and I'm hoping someone can explain
> > this. 
> >     I mess with my font paths, and suddenly applications using a font like
> > -adobe-courier-medium-r-normal-*-*-120-*-*-m-*-iso8859-1, when they once took
> > up half the screen and looked great, suddenly take up most of the screen and
> > look like s**t. Why doesn't this font, at a given resolution, always look the
> > same?? I _hate_ this aspect of Linux! Fonts are such a major pain!

Yep, Linux fonts really are a huge, ugly PITA.  Stupid stuff like this is
an aggravation, not a technical challenge. I will give MS this one point -
idiot tasks such as configuring fonts, display resolutions, sound and even
hardware driver installation, are for the most part, fool-proof (there
are exceptions to this of course, but they are rare).  These same tasks in
Linux require effort, time which could be better spent doing something
more productive.

>     Ok, apparently switching the 75 and 100 dpi fonts caused the size change.
> So, let me expand this question:
> 
>     dpi = dots per inch
> 
>     This is a _density_, so changing them shouldn't cause a size change, but
> merely a change in the quality of the font. It should look tighter, smoother,
> etc., but not larger. 
>     So, why do the 100dpi fonts look larger? What's the point of the "point
> size" in the font name if it's not always the same size at a given monitor
> resolution?

It's because of the number of dots.  You see, dots only come in one size,
and Linux is smart and flexible enough to recognize more dots = more
font.  If it can't fit more dots into the inch, it will expand the inch.

At least, that's the only explanation I've been able to come up with.

Still running at 75dpi,
Jon