 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / General Topics / July 2006"Friskfonter 1.0"- Freeware Germanic Scripts: Runes and Gothic, Junicode Fonts, IPA Fonts
"Friskfonter 1.0" is a freeware software, an -exe archival package of 13 True Type Fonts, representing the earliest known scripts of Germanic wolk: Runic (in several variants), which forms a basis for a number of epigraphic inscription and one TTF representing Gothic scripts of Bishop Wulfila (4th century). This package contains 4 types of Junicode True Type Fonts (containing Ash, Eth, Thorn, Wynn and Yogh characters used in Old English) plus 4 fonts for IPA transliteration. It is of use to historians, archaeologists, linguists, paleographers. It is also of use to anybody who likes to present the script of ancient Germania, in manner of reminiscence and also of renewal. The distribution of "Friskfonter 1.0" is free and unlimited. Contained fonts are intellectual property of their authors and one may not modify, falsify, charge for, sale or use them for any other purpose except personal use and academic and other forms of publishing and printing. The file (c.700 kb) may be downloaded from: http://quick.dropfiles.net/download.php?file=1faabbc40c5d0872a5994f7a1c7bfec3 Vasil Gligorov Skoplje, FYROM > "Friskfonter 1.0" is a freeware software, an -exe archival package > of 13 True Type Fonts, representing the earliest known scripts of [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Vasil Gligorov > Skoplje, FYROM This is probably exactly what you say it is, but it is an .exe file of unknown origin, and it would be foolhardy for anyone to download and execute it. Even if harmless (and I presume that it is), such font-loaded exe files often go ahead and install the contained fonts, strongly against the desires of any person downloading them. If it is simply a collection of fonts, they should be simply zipped or rar'ed into a single file that anybody could open without fear of unwanted consequences. Self-extracting zip or rar files (which this is not) are acceptable IF it is explained what they are and that changing the extension from .exe to .zip or .rar will make them extractable without executing them. - Character Hello. The -exe file will be distributed among freeware software hosting sites over next several days.I have provided a -zip version of the same collection, if anybody has an opinion that -exe files under these circumstances may contain something sinister. The -zip file (friskfonter1.zip): http://quick.dropfiles.net/download.php?file=5d5c9c6d85a6d6b9b229c3d9551da84e Regards, Vasil Gligorov http://paleography.atspace.com > Hello. > ...I have provided a -zip version of the same > collection, if anybody has an opinion that -exe files under these > circumstances may contain something sinister. > The -zip file (friskfonter1.zip): > > http://quick.dropfiles.net/download.php?file=5d5c9c6d85a6d6b9b229c3d9551da84e > http://paleography.atspace.com Thank you. That's much simpler (and a smaller file, too). I'm curious - why do you distribute as an .exe at all? And it's useless for Mac users. - Character > > Hello. > > ...I have provided a -zip version of the same [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I'm curious - why do you distribute as an .exe at all? And it's > useless for Mac users. He did exactly the same thing a couple of months ago, and there was a very long discussion in sci.lang about it. Since he's done it again, apparently with a different group of fonts, he is evidently uneducable. Daniels, Can you be more concrete?Executables are produced for free sowtware distributing sites, which almost without exceptions do accept only programs and archival packages in -exe format. Yeah, sure, making collections of fonts authored by other people is not as creative as starting a paleographical font by oneself, but these kind of collections are handy, mostly for students.I remember that you once denied that fonts which with formal rigidity represent certain ancient scripts (with disregard to ther evolution into various variants, existence of extra characters and marks, syncretisms) are useless in toto.I strongly disagree and I leave it to you- with all of my politeness- to clarify the matter further, since I left that thread which turned into rablings about 1980's word processors.... Vasil Gligorov > Daniels, > > Can you be more concrete?Executables are produced for free software > distributing sites, which almost without exceptions do accept only > programs and archival packages in -exe format. That is simply not true, as you've proven yourself by reposting a zip file at Dropfiles. Rapidshare, Megaupload, and all others that I know of accept files in whatever format they're uploaded. Yes, software applications that requires a setup (as opposed to collections of fonts, graphics, etc.) are posted as .exe's at sites such as ZDNet and TuCows, but they also have many zip files there. Just about all font distribution sites (whether free OR commercial) package fonts almost exclusively as .zip files, with the notable exceptions of Microsoft and Letterhead. - Character > Daniels, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > my politeness- to clarify the matter further, since I left that thread > which turned into rablings about 1980's word processors.... The uselessness of paleographic fonts has nothing to do with the pernicious practice of distributing fonts as programs, i.e. .exe files. On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:04:46 -0700, vasil.gligorov wrote: > Daniels, > > Can you be more concrete?Executables are produced for free sowtware > distributing sites, which almost without exceptions do accept only > programs and archival packages in -exe format. You really have no clue. -exe files are Microsoft-only. Leaving aside the security implications that you have failed, time and again, to understand, distributing fonts that can be used on a variety of platforms using a method that works in only one of them show VERY poor judgment. Wow, I can't believe that, for once, I am on the same side as Mr. Daniels! Mr. Rawlings, I can assure you that software download sites (at least those which are Windows-orientated) do accept, via automatic submission software (which provides their databases, which are also automated with regard to the transfer of package itself) in most cases, only executables, regardless whether are they programs or file archives (like in this case) -Exe version of "Friskfonter" has an advantage of providing EULA, links to my homepage and email, icon (not that this one is very important....) plus a stronger protection against overwritting older files. I will take advice of several participants here by creating -zip and -rar version, which would include detailed instruction for installation on Mac Os and Linux platform, a process which in the case of Mac platforms (since I do not have close access to several most used Mac operative systems, neither personal experience with other OS's, except Linux).These files will be provided to several Mac and Linux software download sites. Take into account that the "Friskfonter" package, by the very virtue that ancient Germanic fonts are not of interest to many people, should be promoted almost Ad Nauseum in order to reach their target audience. At least the -exe version which started this thread has a 'security clearance' from this download site: http://www.filehungry.com/english/product/windows_software/shell_&_desktop/deskt op_utilities/friskfonter Thanks for the advice about zippin'.............it makes sense. Regards, Vasil Gligorov > On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:04:46 -0700, vasil.gligorov wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Wow, I can't believe that, for once, I am on the same side as Mr. > Daniels! On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 02:15:34 -0700, vasil.gligorov wrote: > Mr. Rawlings, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > transfer of package itself) in most cases, only executables, regardless > whether are they programs or file archives (like in this case) Is that supposed to be a recommendation? As you may know, Windows is one of the most insecure OSs in use nowadays, and the practice that you describe significantly contributes to maintaining it in that dishonorable position. That's beside the point though - the point is there are far better ways of distributing non executable data so that one can read it from any common platform. > -Exe version of "Friskfonter" has an advantage of providing EULA, links > to my homepage and email, icon (not that this one is very important....) > plus a stronger protection against overwritting older files. All of which, except for the last one, you can easily include in, say, a zip file. As for the last one, leaving aside the fact that this helps under Windows alone (and maybe not always) it can be argued that it is up to whomever downloads the stuff to take care of. > I will take advice of several participants here by creating -zip and > -rar version, Please do! Drop the executables once and for all. >> Hello. >> ...I have provided a -zip version of the same [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I'm curious - why do you distribute as an .exe at all? And it's > useless for Mac users. I'm curious too - is Mac (un)compressing software unable to open a self-extracting exe? Artur  SignatureWhilst advanc'd in some areas... yet in others does the Duck remain primitive, foremost in her readiness to take offense. > This is probably exactly what you say it is, but it is an .exe file > of unknown origin, and it would be foolhardy for anyone to download > and execute it. Indeed it would. We always recommend that zip archives which have been provided in allegedly self-installing .exe files should not be allowed to execute themselves - instead one should execute pkunzip or some equivalent software which knows how to extract the zip archive without risking an attack by doctored executable software. > Even if harmless (and I presume that it is), such font-loaded exe > files often go ahead and install the contained fonts, strongly > against the desires of any person downloading them. That too can be avoided by the above-mentioned strategem, indeed. I would have presumed that utilities are available also for other platforms which make the same approach possible? Am I wrong? > If it is simply a collection of fonts, they should be simply zipped > or rar'ed into a single file that anybody could open without fear of > unwanted consequences. That's still good advice, since it avoids luring users into a complacent attitude towards running executables. Maybe they won't be harmed by any of us, but there are surely enough cases out there which _will_ harm them, and I would prefer not to be the one who gave them the idea of taking that risk! > Self-extracting zip or rar files (which this is not) are acceptable > IF it is explained what they are Oh, I see - then my remarks above don't apply in this specific case. I still think the principle is worth promoting, though. h t h Hi Vasil, In the future, would you please avoid cross-posting your announcements. There's no reason for lengthy threads to develop on newsgroups where the discussion is irrelevant. Posting to each newsgroup separately would avoid that. Thanks, Signature***Please always reply to the newsgroup!*** Beth Rosengard MacOffice MVP Mac Word FAQ: <http://word.mvps.org/Mac/WordMacHome.html> My Site: <http://www.bethrosengard.com> On 7/30/06 8:50 AM, in article 1154274643.878785.102970@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com, > "Friskfonter 1.0" is a freeware software, an -exe archival package > of 13 True Type Fonts, representing the earliest known scripts of [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Vasil Gligorov > Skoplje, FYROM > Hi Vasil, Er, no, you are addressing Usenet. > In the future, would you please avoid cross-posting your > announcements. If more than one newsgroup is *genuinely* appropriate for a topic, then crossposting, with a single group designated on the Followup-to header, is generally considered good netiquette. Two groups is sometimes appropriate, three groups is marginal, and many a usenaut will have set a kill rule to treat posting to any larger number of groups as spam, and thus will not see the posting. > There's no reason for lengthy threads to develop on newsgroups where > the discussion is irrelevant. Agreed, but the usual netiquette recommendations advise quite a different response. > Posting to each newsgroup separately would avoid that. It would also put the spammer into many killfiles for a gross breach of long-standing netiquette. Apologies for adding to the general noise level, but cross-posting is quite high on the list of what-not-to-do on usenet (though still below top-posting with fullquote). Hi Alan, On 7/31/06 1:14 PM, in article Pine.LNX.4.64.0607312055150.12717@ppepc20.ph.gla.ac.uk, "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote: >> Hi Vasil, > > Er, no, you are addressing Usenet. Er, no, I was addressing Vasil via Usenet, just like I'm now addressing you via Usenet. If others care to read and reply, that's fine. > If more than one newsgroup is *genuinely* appropriate for a topic, > then crossposting, with a single group designated on the Followup-to > header, is generally considered good netiquette. Two groups is > sometimes appropriate, three groups is marginal, and many a usenaut > will have set a kill rule to treat posting to any larger number of > groups as spam, and thus will not see the posting. I'm not sure why you're on my case since Vasil's post did not have a Followup-to and was addressed to five newsgroups. Regardless, the fact remains that many users don't read newsgroups via newsreaders, don't understand Followup-tos and have no idea how to make a kill rule. >> There's no reason for lengthy threads to develop on newsgroups where >> the discussion is irrelevant. > > Agreed, but the usual netiquette recommendations advise quite a > different response. And what might that be? > Apologies for adding to the general noise level, but cross-posting is > quite high on the list of what-not-to-do on usenet (though still below > top-posting with fullquote). As far as I'm concerned, top-posting was completely appropriate under the circumstances. As for the full quote, it was short enough that I saw no need to trim. Something else you might want to take into consideration, Alan: Not every newsgroup adheres to traditional netiquette. Microsoft.public.mac.office.word does not. We actually prefer top-posting and/or inline posting to bottom posting. As for my personal philosophy on top vs. bottom vs. inline, see the last section of this article: <http://word.mvps.org/Mac/AccessNewsgroups.html>. Signature***Please always reply to the newsgroup!*** Beth Rosengard MacOffice MVP Mac Word FAQ: <http://word.mvps.org/Mac/WordMacHome.html> My Site: <http://www.bethrosengard.com> |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.