🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <fxg.724338011@bolgolam>  writes:

    *  So the only difference is representation? That's something
    *  I wanted to know for a long time, my problem being that my
    *  NeXT doesn't eat Mac-Fonts directly.
Essentially, yes.  The differences between Type 1 fonts on Macintosh,
Type 1 fonts on UNIX, and Type 1 fonts on PC, is a matter of storage
format.  Other than that, there's no magic.

    *  And there's one for the NeXT, too. Here, it's an essential
    *  tool: without it, practically no fonts are aveilable. They
    *  have to be distributed in 'yet another vendor-specific
    *  format', i.e. hardly at all, and way expensive anyways. I
    *  wonder why NeXT didn't include these utilities in the first place.
So the third party vendors would have a chance to develop some
utilities and make a living.

    *  As am aside, in some desktop publishing and digital design
    *  mag (page), I read the following opinion:

    *      There are converters in the public domain that convert
    *      macintosh to NeXT fonts. They should be avoided, because
    *      any conversion will influence the font esthetics. Instead,
    *      you should wait for the font suppliers to publish special
    *      NeXT fonts.
Sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me.

    *  (quoted from months back out of memory. I think, it was a
    *  letter, too.) Sounds interesting, Uh? "People who are
    *  willing to pay M$ for a computer should be ready to pay
    *  more for the same fonts, too", or what?
Sounds like yet another vendor trying to justify inflated prices.
UNIX hardware boxes are now available at prices comparable or better
than Macintoshes or PCs.  There's no reason why software for UNIX
boxes should be priced at multiples of Macintosh or PC prices, just
``because it's for UNIX''.