Fontlab will never deliver because they can't. I moved away from Fontlab a few months ago and I've been extremely happy with that decision. Go with Robofont or Glyphs instead.

Funny enough FL is very stable on my G4. Better stick to it …

If you must use FontLab, maybe switch to Windows.

hhp

I have been using FontLab on Mac 10.7.4 with hardly ever a crash since 4447 came out. I only have problems with MS-Office, Word.

On my Mac, I only run the Windows version of FontLab, under Parallels.

On my Mac, I only run the Windows version of FontLab, under Parallels.

John, which version of Parallels and the Windows OS are you running and do you use VOLT through this set up as well? Also which version of OS X are you running?

I'm still running Snow Leopard. I'll probably update to Lion when I'm reasonably confident about the latest version of FontLab. My only complaint with the Parallels approach is that it can be slow if I have more than a few apps running.

I'm running Windows 7 under Parallels v.7 (build 7.0.15106) . I tried installing an early Win8 beta under Parallels, but it didn't seem to work; I'll probably try again with the release version, presuming that Parallels might need updating to handle it.

Yes, I also run VOLT this way. Actually, I do almost all my work on the Mac in the Windows environment, since that is what I am used to. I only use the Mac OS for running UFO tools like Prepolator and UFOStretch. Oh, and for watching films.

Thanks, John. I'm intrigued about what films you might watch but will save that for another thread.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443649/
;-)

hhp

I’ve been running Fontlab 5.1.1 on Mac OS 10.7.4 (whatever creature that is), for almost a year.
It’s very stable.

Occasionally I’ll be working on a glyph and the vectors will fly all over the place, very scary, but Undo plus Save fixes it.

Do you people listen to yourselves? Apple abandoned its core mission years ago, and became a boutique designer brand for airheads. Is it nostalgia or simple stubbornness that keeps you from seeing this?

OTOH, yesterday, a guy was telling me what a super deal Apple stock is, and he should know, because he has an MBA…and is working as a stock-boy at Target.

As John hints however there are some font tools that only run on OSX. Which however is not nice.

hhp

I'm no hardcore Mac fan, Nick. I've only had one for about a year, and only because some of the more interesting recent font tools are Mac only.

Okay: I am not an OS Nazi. If something works for you and it’s Mac only, that is cool. Strokes for folks, and all. All I wonder is: is “interesting” also “useful”?

I think until/unless Tal makes a Windows version of Metrics Machine, we're kind of stuck.

Jason C

1) Why do you think Metrics Machine is so critical?
2) Why doesn't he?

hhp

Hrant,

Excellent questions. BTW, whatever happened to DTL Kernmaster 2012? I have a free upgrade coming.

Which will be welcome, after I pissed away €255 on DTL Countourmaster six years ago…

Of the Mac-only tools I've tried, UFOStretch is the one that I use most frequently and have found very useful. I've not tried Metrics Machine because I have my own kerning workflow that targets VOLT rather than AFDKO feature code.

I suppose "critical" might not be the correct term, and maybe if you've got a kerning workflow that works for you, you aren't likely to change.
But it's so much more efficient, I wouldn't want to have to go back to working without it.

Jason C

I'm beginning to think FontLab has basically shut their doors except for rooking some of us remaining suckers in and taking our money.
I have support requests that have gone unacknowledged for two weeks now. Makes me wish I hadn't paid for the software, and bought something else instead.

Glyphs is not crash/bug-free, but communication from the developer inspires more confidence that it's on a better trajectory than FontLab. I have found it a pleasure to work with so far.

That's how FontLab used to be. So the/one question is: if/when Glyphs becomes as successful as FontLab -which means growing the operation- might it not also lose its responsiveness?

I remember being a Lightwave user on the Amiga when the whole thing was one guy whom you could call and talk to. Hah.

hhp

What precisely does “as successful as Fontlab” really mean? As successful as Monotype? If so, we are all SO screwed…

I remember being a Lightwave user on the Amiga when the whole thing was one guy whom you could call and talk to. Hah.

Maybe we could look at reviving, TypeSmith. Never used it but I loved the Amiga OS. Did you ever use it, Hrant?

Now that you've jogged my memory, yes I do remember trying out TypeSmith! But Fontographer ran so well* via MacOS emulation that I had no reason to use it much.

* In fact all Mac programs ran better on my Amiga than on a Mac (because of the co-processors).

hhp

Bring back FontStudio

My impression is that many who are producing the most and best stuff, if they are not using FontLab, are using Robofont. It would be interesting to know who is using what now, and why.

Define "best".

hhp

I use a combination of tools; primarily FontLab but also FontForge, DTL OTMaster and increasingly TTX. I have trialled both Glyphs and RoboFont and both seem like great applications but as I do not currently require either I would not consider moving unless FontLab broke completely. Not to suggest that I am doing anything that would be considered the "best stuff", whatever that means.

Bill, I assume you mean the FontBureau folks? Since they were big sponsors for RoboFont, they probably had great input on what went into it and became committed to using it because of their involvement. I don't think the "Best Stuff" comment is applicable or even important. My guess would be that the Brothers Berlow needed something that fit into their workflow and were sick and tired of waiting for FontLab to fix their mess. You have worked with FB so you know more than I but it seems to me that they had a set of tools from several sources (Metrics Machine included) that did everything but be a drawing tool. They then made RoboFont into their drawing tool and kissed the bug-infested prior software of choice goodbye. They have the developers of RoboFont on speed dial and are listened to quickly there.
This has nothing to do with "best stuff" and everything to do with an efficient production process that is not held hostage by the snail-paced exterminators at FontLab.
Personally, I have all three applications (RoboFont, Glyphs, and FontLab). My problem is that everything I have in process was begun in FontLab and I have had difficulty switching over without spending my time learning the new ones instead of finishing what I have on the front burner now. I will begin my next "from scratch" font with RoboFont to give it a shot [I too am sick of the slow pace in bug fixes--notice I say bug fixes and not "new features" because new features just bring new bugs].

As to your question? I don't know what other people use. Perhaps you could post it as a survey question on Typophile and see?

Yeah, a survey would be good. I don't mean just FontBureau. I think Mark Simonson is using Robofont and also Hoefler and Frere-Jones, but I may be wrong. I'm guessing that there are quite a few in Europe, but I don't know. I'm still using FontLab, but I have used Metrics Machine, and have Prepolator and Superpolator, which are amazing, but in the end were not suited for what I wanted right now.

Hrant, 'best' for me combines excellence in craft and aesthetics, but I know there's a big subjective factor...

Maybe FontBureau should've paid a bit more to make it proprietary? (Unless they realized it would leak out anyway...)

hhp

Why would they want it to be proprietary? There is no gain for them and they got added support from all of us other folks who also purchased the software. They just want tools to work with, not a jump into the software business.

I feel I should say something? But I enjoy this conversation too much! I just realized I have RMX-tools installed as well! Would that add to the problem? I also noticed that Glyphs is far from stable, but at least they focus on the user experience?
People are going on about Robofont! Is it stable for let say 4 MM’s with 700 characters?

KTKM

I also have RMX tools installed and they cause me NO problem whatsoever.

Kristian, you'll have to ask those using Robofont, but I would think that it would do fine. But you would do interpolation in conjunction with Superpolator, not Multiple Masters. The idea of Robofont is that you use it with other UFO tools.

I have been using RoboFont over the summer and plan to continue using it. FontLab is still part of my toolbox, and probably will stay there. I haven't made anything from start to finish in it yet, and I definitely don't feel as fluent with it as I am with FontLab yet. But it also took some time to get accustomed to FontLab.

Seems to me that RoboFont's biggest fans are developers who are big users of UFO and Python, and who want total control over their workflow (as opposed to a workflow that's dictated by the font editor). It fits right in with the other existing UFO-centered tools better than FontLab. Plus, you can endlessly customize it using Python, and this is a big part of its appeal. Out of the box, it's not as capable as FontLab, but it's not meant to be. It's intended as a glyph editing and drawing component of a larger set of tools. So, comparing it to FontLab is a bit of apples and oranges.

Mark,
My main problem is in taking a FontLab file over to RoboFont. I have succeeded in making a UFO after stripping all the apostrophe marks out of the classes. My problem is that RoboFont balks at the code written by FontLab and me. I can output a font error free in FontLab but RoboFont has an error message for several lines of code--mostly, it can't find the class definitions to look up even though I can see them in RoboFont. I am trying to figure out how and where to paste the code text from FEA & FLC files to make RoboFont happy.

Have you tried asking on the RoboFont forum?

I would add that RoboFont and the whole world of UFO-based tools assume a fair amount of knowledge about how OpenType fonts are built (particularly using the AFDKO), in a way that FontLab doesn't.

It's a bit more low-level in a lot of ways. FontLab tends to try to hide a lot of this detail as part of making an all-in-one solution. Glyphs is similar in this regard.

I would also say that the documentation could be better. Something like either the FontLab manual or Leslie Cabarga's Learn FontLab Fast that gives why's and how to's of using RoboFont/UFO workflow, rather than just the what's of the existing documentation, would be a big help. There is almost a "you're smart, you should be able to figure it out" attitude, if I'm not reading too much into it.

I feel the same way, Mark :-)

Or: "We're busier than you are smart."

That can make sense in a brutal "survival of the fittest" sort of way, but the problem is it tends to exclude people who are smart enough, but also very busy: they can only afford to pick up a new tool if somebody helps them hit the ground running. It's not gracious -and in the big picture not fruitful- to exclude them.

hhp

Frankly, I have no interest in knowing how sausage is made; if a program does what it's supposed to do, I remain blissful in y ignorance of its workings. It is only when the program DOES NOT do what it's supposed to do that “deeper knowledge” becomes useful. Or, are you guys just a bunch of Jack Horners?

If FontLab were doing what I think it is supposed to do [run error free and not get in the way of production], I wouldn't have bothered looking or purchasing elsewhere.

True, I like to know what is under the hood, mostly so I can figure out problems on my own and not be held hostage to slow bug fixes.

I would be happy to do my coding in a text editor, and usually do. I also find a spreadsheet ap very handy to keep track of classes, search&replace, and refine sort orders.] I would like to know how to insert class text into the RoboFont file. Simple clues like "paste here" would do just fine. Better would be an "Import Classes" and "Import Features file".
I can see where to paste feature code but not "Classes" as a text file.

Oh, well that's a simple answer: Paste them into the beginning of your feature code. (Actually, they can go anywhere as long as they precede the features that use them.)

I actually don't put my feature code directly into my font editor (either FontLab or RoboFont). Instead I do this:

include (features.fea)

...where features.fea is a text file (containing all my feature code) in the same directory as my font source file (.vfb or .ufo). I use TextMate or BBEdit to edit the code. Once it's saved, I can test the features in the font editor just as if I had typed them into my font editor.

This has two big advantages: Better code editing tools (like code completion and complex search and replace) and the ability to share the same feature code across a family of fonts.

You can use include multiple times for multiple files if you need to break things up more or have exceptions that don't apply to every member of a font family (like maybe all style don't have small caps). You can also use include in a .fea file if you want (though this tends to just make things more complex).

Thanks, Mark!!! I will try it!

Don't forget that class definition syntax is a bit different than in FontLab. In FontLab you do this:

myclass: a b c d e

In AFDKO syntax you would do this:

@myclass = [a b c d e];

If you export your classes from FontLab into a text file, it does the conversion for you.

Mark,
I exported my classes into a text file which FontLab ends with .flc, is this what you mean?

Yes, I think that's the extension it uses. I don't have my computer on front of me so I can't check.

Jeez: I love to see geniuses at work. I learn something new almost every day…then promptly forget it. Getting old sucks.

Actually, no, Chris. The format of the .flc file is unique to FontLab. Nothing to do with feature file syntax.

What you want is the "Save features…" command in the little pop-up menu on the top left corner of the OpenType panel. This will export everything in feature file syntax, including the kerning classes and kern feature.

Note: Confusingly, RoboFont puts all your classes into its Groups feature. However, groups in RoboFont are not used by OpenType features. I'm not sure what they are good for. In any case, there is a RoboFont extension I would recommend called Groups2Features that does finish the job, allowing you to move any of your classes from groups into your feature code. I would also recommend the FeaturePreview extension.

THANKS Again, Mark!

<< there is a RoboFont extension I would recommend called Groups2Features that does finish the job, allowing you to move any of your classes from groups into your feature code. I would also recommend the FeaturePreview extension.>>

I assume these are downloadable?

Yep: http://typemytype.github.com/RoboFontExtensions/

Installation instructions are there, too. Basically, you just double click on each extension file to install.

Thanks, Mark! Got it installed :-)

I totally sympathize with the tenor here. We at FontLab tremendously respect our user community, and have been working hard.

However, the fact is: the current codebase of FontLab Studio was written on Windows and was then ported to Mac OS 9, then to PowerPC Carbon on Mac OS X, and then to Intel Carbon on Mac OS X. It's like a wardrobe that you kept dismantling and reassembling three or four times, each time you move. The fourth iteration will squeak and wobble no matter what you do. We've had three full-time developers working primarily on stability of FontLab Studio 5.1 for over a year now, and you can see the results. They are, well... (Please note that, despite the fact that it was three man-years of development, we decided to release FontLab Studio 5.1 for free to all existing users.)

This only confirms the decision we made three years ago to build up a completely new codebase from scratch (Victoria). Since then, a second team of three developers has been working on this under the greater-than-ever Yuri Yarmola.

*Finally*, at ATypI Hong Kong (next week) we'll be showing the first application based on the Victoria technology.

It won't be the new FontLab Studio this time, but let me just say that it opens 200 UFOs in under 25 seconds total, is very stable and I think many of you will like it a lot, whether you're on FontLab Studio, Fontographer, Glyphs, RoboFont or FontForge.

For the first time ever, we won't have to deal with a huge effort of porting code between Mac and Windows (we can release applications for both platforms practically from the same core), so we can concentrate on the *relevant things*, not on aligning some stupid dialog boxes and making sure that copy-paste of text doesn't crash the application.

It took Adobe many years to develop InDesign 1.0 because they could not develop PageMaker any further. It took Apple many years to develop Mac OS X 10.0 because they could not develop Mac OS 9 any further. They needed fundamental change.

And yes, some people actually moved away from Mac OS 9 to Windows in that process. Some switched back over to Mac OS X. And quite a few switched to Mac OS X from Windows even though they had never used a Mac before.

However: in both Apple's and Adobe's cases, people were frustrated because it took the companies so long, and the very initial releases of the products were also frustrating to some.

Yet, if you use InDesign on Mac OS X now, and perhaps think back to PageMaker on Mac OS 9, I'm not sure you would want to ever go back.

So, as for FontLab Studio: there will be one more version of FontLab Studio 5.x for both Mac and Windows available this year. It will be maintenance release with a few potentially useful features.

A brand-new font editor will follow, based on Victoria. Some 60-70% of the new editor are ready, but there are still some major parts missing. It will be free of all those frustrating limitations we had to live with for the last 5-10 years which were part of FontLab Studio. I might even say, it'll be free of quite a few frustrating limitations that any type designer had to live with, regardless of the tools they use.

It certainly won't be the old shit. It'll be a fundamental change.

Perhaps it'll be new shit. You'll be the judge. But I cannot say "available now" just yet — sorry.

I've been on this bumpy ride of Victoria development for three years now. It's been the busiest and the most exciting time since I joined FontLab. To me, and people who have seen it, the results are absolutely breathtaking.

So, prepare yourselves to join the last bit of the bumpy ride in 2013. Don't hold your breath quite now, save that for later. But please keep your fingers crossed for us.

By all means, if FontLab Studio 5.x is causing you pain, use Glyphs or RoboFont until then. Since the Victoria-based font editor will be an entirely new product anyway, we'll need to win over the users of existing apps to switch — be it our own or someone else's apps.

Did I say 2013? Yes, I did say 2013. And we mean it.

Best regards,
Adam

Adam, sounds great - godspeed. Patience is not for the impatient. :-)

Since this will essentially be a new product, do you expect the upgrade fee to be more than usual?

hhp

Adam,
I understand and appreciate your efforts. It is just that it is frustrating to not be able to release type in the midst of this transition.

Well, it DID take Adobe many years to develop InDesign 1.0, and it was an unmitigated piece of crap; it screwed up font handling so bad that I had to uninstall, then reinstall Acrobat, Illustrator AND Photoshop. From the serious ass-smoking that Adam is laying down, I suppose that we can expect a similarly auspicious launch of Victoria. Whoop-tee-freaking-doo.

BTW, I stall haven't heard anything about DTL Kernmaster 2012; wasn't that due out months ago?

This sounds promising, Adam. And is appreciated very much.

This sounds promising, Adam. And is appreciated very much.

How very obsequious. I have a better idea…

Adam, how about you give everyone your personal phone number, so you can field all if the calls from people who are fed up with your smoke-up-the-ass song and dance routine. Enough irate calls might incentivize you to actually fix these stupid problems. ASAP, or in 2013. Really. No shit.

Best Regards, Nick

P.S. Nice hat, dude…although it could really use a feather to round out the whole William Tell vibe you have going…

I'm interested in seeing the new technology. I'm always pleased when companies do a 'ground up' revision, it bodes well for the future of the software and normally always results in pleasing usability (if not in the first release, then the second).

Also, I can't help but feel certain comments on this forum are becoming exceptionally cruel. I've been following Typophile for some time now, and the things that I'm seeing posted lately are beginning to push me away. It's not nice and no one respects nasty posters. Being friendly is so much better!

Actually ever since James left* there's only been one abusive person here. And if you can't ignore one person out of hundreds that's mostly your loss.

* Although he did recently pop in with this tinged-with-racism gem:
http://typophile.com/node/96629#comment-523576

hhp

Adam, does this mean there will be no further development of Fontlab after the next maintenance upgrade?

I saved for a year to buy Fontlab, will there be a cheaper crossgrade for existing Fontlab users to the new app if Fontlab is dis-continued?

Many thanks

Has anyone experienced FontLab 5.1.3 pre-release build 4631 being more stable than 5.1.2?

I have yet to install 5.1.3, but I've been getting a lot of random crashing with 5.1.2 after upgrading to Mountain Lion awhile back.

Has anyone experienced FontLab 5.1.3 pre-release build 4631 being more stable than 5.1.2?

Yes, running on 10.7.3 and so far more stable than 5.1.2.

Octopi,

yes, that's right. We won't be releasing a new major upgrade of FontLab Studio based on the old codebase. Maintaining it has become increasingly complex.

The new font editor we're working on, which we'd like to release in 2013, won't be a direct continuation of the current FontLab Studio as we know it today.

Of course we will be offering discounted pricing for all existing users of FontLab Studio (and for users of other our products accordingly) -- just as we had offered discounted pricing in the past for, say, users of Fontographer who'd like to purchase FontLab Studio.

We think that for some time, users will find it useful to have both products. It's likely that some of the "font tech trickery" features which are part of the current FLS won't be included in the new product.

I'm excited to say that we've shown an early preview of our new font editor at ATypI in Hong Kong last week, both publicly and, in more depth, privately to some respected type designers, and they reacted very positively to what they have seen.

This gives us strength to continue our efforts to create the best tool for type design on the market. Many thanks for your continued support!

Best,
Adam

Karl, Michael,

build 4631 includes a key fix to -- there is no other way to put it -- a major fuckup that crept into the code after build 4447.

Please let us know of your experiences!

(While, as I said above, we won't be releasing a major upgrade to FLS 5.x, we do intend to continue fixing bugs for quite some time. Our goal is to make FLS 5.x as stable as possible, while new features will go into the fully new product.)

Thanks!
Adam

Please let us know of your experiences!

A key one for me (and I know others here have mentioned it) was the app (5.1.2) crashing as I edited glyphs, which happened on a fairly regular basis. This has so far not happened with the 5.1.3 build.

Without knowing more about the new product (though I would very much like to be involved in beta testing, if and when that is opened up) it would be nice to see the FontLab tool maintained in some way; perhaps broken down into components or depending on the success of the new product, with a version released into the wild for others to tinker with?

Also, I can't help but feel certain comments on this forum are becoming exceptionally cruel. I've been following Typophile for some time now, and the things that I'm seeing posted lately are beginning to push me away. It's not nice and no one respects nasty posters. Being friendly is so much better!

I presume that this comment is directed toward me; perhaps I flatter myself. However, I do not think it unreasonable to expect that a product which carries a premium price actually to work, or that promises made be actually fulfilled. Silly me.

* Although he did recently pop in with this tinged-with-racism gem:

My being bored to death with everything you have to say has nothing to do with racism.

Now get back to bitching about font editors.

You get back under the bridge!

hhp

Robofont is great. But one major issue with it now is that it is conceived as a glyph editor and doesn't provide tools for hinting. You can autohint with the AFDKO on generating a OTF, or with ttfautohint if you're doing TrueType, and that's basically it. I have a few few fonts with PS links in FontLab. In Robofont I will just loose this information and have to rely on what a tool is doing automatically. With the demand for webfonts, this is not enough. So just for that, FontLab is still a major, functional and advanced tool.

The great strength of Robofont is the UFO workflow and community. While robofont has nothing for hinting, you ***could*** build your own tool for it (or for whatever else), and attach it to Robofont as a plugin or as an external tool like MetricsMachine. That is already happening with RoboHint: http://vimeo.com/38350058

As far as FontLab goes, sure last years have been annoying as hell. And surely when you pay for a product you expect it to work well. But as font makers, don't we also experience the difficulty of producing software that has to work in different environnements over a long period of time? Sometimes you get requests and just can't answer them in a timely matter because you have to finish a project or find out what is causing that problem. Would you really like your customers to treat you like an idiot because kerning is suddently not working in Word after they updated their computers?

Beating on the FontLab guys relentlessly just shows a lack of respect and understanding.

(And I have my share of unanswered questions/requests on the FontLab forum)

Now it would be great to get an answer there: http://typophile.com/node/36474?page=1
:)

You get back under the bridge!

I'll get back under the bridge when I see you hanging off of it.

Adam yes the 5.1.3 build solved the problems I was having, specifically with the intermittent crashing. Everything has been smooth since installing it the other day.

Speaking on your earlier post, I'm curious what you meant by "font tech trickery"? My current workflow is Fontlab, RMX Tools, Prepolator, Superpolator and UFO Stretch. I have no interest in trying the new programs on the market as I have no real qualms with my current workflow, I only imagine that it'd be much nicer if all the separate programs I just listed were merged into one program.

The new version of FontLab in 2013 won't have all the same features as the current version? What major features are being omitted?

@Michael Jarboe

Them's a whole lotta tools; I've gotten by with Fontographer, FontLab and MS Font Validater for years—but, then, I'm a hack with 0ver 1,100 fonts to my name.

What would be really cool would be an INTELLIGENT Bold function—one with tunable parameters to solve the S/8 pariah…

Mike,

well, it's difficult to explain. Most functionalities have a different approach. For example, we have unlimited layers which includes any numbers of outlines and bitmaps (color, grayscale or b/w). Glyph design and spacing happens in one unified window, which supports any OpenType features including Indic and Arabic shaping. The "blind" implementation of Multiple Master is replaced by a very different approach to interpolation across different masters. Character sets, encodings, codepages are seriously revamped. Etc. etc.

All this has serious implications to the workflow. I think you're right to assume that quite a few of functionalities that you've mentioned will be unified in the new app.

For about 1/3 the price of FontLab, you can by a basic PC (Dell) that will run Fontlab in Windows. If you must, hide it in a closet so your friends won't know.

Luc(as) de Groot has a Dell notebook with an Apple sticker plastered over the Dell logo on the cover :)

Best of both worlds, Adam. He's got a good, inexpensive machine, and his designer friends still think he's cool.

And he gets to laugh at their delusions. Luc[as] is da man.

hhp

Adam, I have noticed that in version 5.1.3 using the Macro Toolbar, the 'Top level' drop down doesn't change to reflect any of the selections. For instance, if I select from the Top level drop down 'RoboFabUFO', it will still read as 'Top level', or any other selection it gets stuck on.

It doesn't seem to effect the functionality, as the second level drop down reflects each selection and the Macros still work. (even though RoboFab seems to be broken a bit with this new version of 5.1.3) The only way to get the Top level drop down to reflect the selection name is to 'Reset macro' after making a selection.

These FontLab updates keep screwing up my RoboFab Macro, I need oldnick to start yelling at someone, pronto.

And exactly what are you trying to imply, Buster?

We have posted today new pre-release builds 4692 of FontLab Studio 5.1.3 for Mac and 5.2 for Windows. Quite a few bug fixes, finally including a fix for the RoboFab UFO importing problem!

Best,
Adam

Thanks, Adam!
Is 4692 at least as stable as 4447?

Chris,

we haven't heard any negative comments or problem reports so far.

Best,
Adam

Thanks, Adam.

I am feeling sick merely at the idea of having to learn a new type design software… :-(

If it matters to anyone, a largely stable build of FontForge for Mac is now available at http://fuuko.libferris.com/osx/packages/. It's not perfect, in fact it's downright experimental, but it might give you something to work with for a while.

Hi Adam,

Since we're almost halfway through 2013 now, which quarter will FontLab's Victoria thing most likely be released? Second, third?

Curious!

Cheers,
Gerben

Fifth?