Re: backart - default backend?

[MJ Ray]

Andrew Ruder asked:
> Is there really some reason that we are continuing to have the -art
> backend *not* be the default backend?

I am still using -xlib because the last time I tried -art, I found:
1. I couldn't get non-Latin1 fonts to work;
2. it seemed slower in normal light use - seems like more
anti-aliasing done, but maybe related to failing font searchs;
3. it didn't work remotely.

Any or all of the above may be my fault and I'll try to rebuild
some things properly (following instructions carefully, taking
logs and all that) later today to test, but I'd welcome hearing
about advances since November on any of the above.

With -xlib, I found:
1. I needed to set the string encoding and a font mask, but
then it used my already-installed fonts;
2. it antialiases text once the right default is set;
3. it worked remotely (but I broke it since).

The suggested change looks like it asks installers to work
harder, uses more disk space and antialiases things which don't
need it on modern screens. It may be that I've forgotten the
benefits of back-art because I've not used it for some time
and nothing I use really hammers the backend libs.

I had a quick check of the web site and list archive (even read
the whole October thread) and didn't find anything compelling
to me. The only one I can see as clear-cut is about image
operations, but presumably they're just missing from -xlib so
far? A web search for terms like "gnustep back-art benefits"
finds nothing beyond the disputed font system. If it's so good,
why is the web so quiet about the reasons why?

At a minimum, it seems like several people want the -art font
problem fixed before it is the default. Is it possible to use
fontconfig instead of nfonts? Or at least, make nfonts without
extra user action by default? Last time it was suggested, I
think the replies were a mix of "yes, this needs doing" and
"but it's already simple".

-- 
MJR/slef