🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5366@mnetor.UUCP> frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) writes:
>Hmmm. I thought *all* fonts (Adobe included) would be managed by just dropping
>them into the system folder (but I don't really know). However, I don't think
>it's fair to lay the blame for font IDs and names at Adobe's door. The
>scheme was invented by Appl, after all, and I believe the cryptic naming
>conventions are a result of narrow menus, lack of inter-manufacturer
>standards, etc. In any case, let's hope everbody's smarter now and will
>adhere to a consistent design. (btw, ATM has nothing to do with this
>particular hassle; it's just an add-on to overcome the weaknesses of
>QuickDraw. Further such appendages from Adobe will clean up the menus
>and also allow eidtable paths to be extracted from typefaces. neat.)

Right... so, why are some people upset over Apple's move to improve
their font technology?  We've got a situation where Apple improves their
system architechture so we can drop Royal fonts, which is a better and
probably more affordable font system, and existing Adobe fonts, all into
the system folder. Not only can we use two technologies, but a side effect
is that it will break up the monopoly that Adobe seems to hold with their
font copyrights, which usually intends to increase selection, and lower
prices. 

That's my point. I guess my original follow-up probably was misguided, but
you seemed to flat out reject Royal technology. The way you made it sound,
it seemed like you'd rather stick with Adobe and system 6....

==============================================================================
== Chris Silverberg, WPI Box 719 ========= BBS Sysop: Main Street U.S.A. =====
== USENET: macman@wpi.wpi.edu ============ 2400 baud - (508) 832-7725 ========
== BITNET: macman@wpi.bitnet ============= Fido: 322/575 - Second Sight BBS ==
== GEnie:  C.Silverberg ================== America Online: Silverberg ========