"Friskfonter 1.0"- Freeware Germanic Scripts: Runes and Gothic, Junicode Fonts, IPA Fonts

V

vasil.gligorov

"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
 
C

Character

"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
Click to expand...

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
 
C

Character

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.
Click to expand...
The -zip file (friskfonter1.zip):

http://quick.dropfiles.net/download.php?file=5d5c9c6d85a6d6b9b229c3d9551da84e
http://paleography.atspace.com
Click to expand...

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
 
P

Peter T. Daniels

Character said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
V

vasil.gligorov

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
 
C

Character

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
A

Artur Jachacy

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.
Click to expand...

I'm curious too - is Mac (un)compressing software unable to open a
self-extracting exe?

Artur
 
A

Alan J. Flavell

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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
 
P

Peter T. Daniels

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....
Click to expand...

The uselessness of paleographic fonts has nothing to do with the
pernicious practice of distributing fonts as programs, i.e. .exe files.
 
F

Felix Rawlings

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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
V

vasil.gligorov

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/p...shell_&_desktop/desktop_utilities/friskfonter

Thanks for the advice about zippin'.............it makes sense.

Regards,
Vasil Gligorov
 
F

Felix Rawlings

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)
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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,
Click to expand...

Please do! Drop the executables once and for all.
 
A

Alan J. Flavell

Hi Vasil,
Click to expand...

Er, no, you are addressing Usenet.
In the future, would you please avoid cross-posting your
announcements.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but the usual netiquette recommendations advise quite a
different response.
Posting to each newsgroup separately would avoid that.
Click to expand...

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).
 
B

Beth Rosengard

Hi Alan,

Er, no, you are addressing Usenet.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Agreed, but the usual netiquette recommendations advise quite a
different response.
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...

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>.

--
***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>
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Your Participation (20 min. of Your Time) in a Development of Mac Fonts Package is Needed 0

Top