I ve done this change a few weeks ago.
Both worked fine for me.
I believe that (xfs + xfstt) use less memory than xfs-xtt,
right now on my system RSS of xfs-xtt is ~3.5K
but this seems to depend on configuration
and usage (how many TTF requests from your apps)
Main advantages for me:
- I can use
Hi!
I am currently running xfs + xfstt on Potato with xserver-i128. Would
you recommend to change to xfs-xtt? Does it uses less memory? What
advantages are there? Are there problems changing the Font Server?
TIA
juh
--
Heute ist der 3. Oktober! Basta!
http://www.sudelbuch.de/1999/19991109
On Sun, Aug 08, 1999 at 12:09:06PM +1000, Bek Oberin wrote:
>
> I'm a bit confused about xfs and xfstt. I understand that
> xfstt is for truetype fonts, and I have it working.
>
> But as far as I can tell, xfs doesn't offer any advantage
> (for a regular user) over just putting directories in
>
I'm a bit confused about xfs and xfstt. I understand that
xfstt is for truetype fonts, and I have it working.
But as far as I can tell, xfs doesn't offer any advantage
(for a regular user) over just putting directories in
the FontPath bits of the X configs. Is this true?
bekj
--
: --Hacker-
4 matches
Mail list logo
