The line spacing is way too tight (this is line-spacing: 1).
Obviously that is beneficial for ASCII-art (smaller vertical gaps), but plain text would benefit from at least 1.1 and maybe 1.2.
I am not a typographer but the cap height of this font (I think it's the cap height) appears quite large, when perhaps it would be better to have a slightly smaller cap height so the ASCII-art features would work well at line-height 1.0 without the letters feeling so vertically cramped.
line spacing beyond minimal ought not be an attribute of a font. I can see a "recommended" line spacing for some type of "vertical as well as horizontal beauty", but drives me nuts when choosing a font also chooses scads of whitespace.
I like to squeeze a lot of info on a page, why do other people get to say "no". Sure, space out your wedding invitation, I can deal, but on the daily text on my screen, that should be up to me.
I do prefer "typewriter" fonts that are more squoze horizontally, this one seems to have loosened the ol belt a little, maybe for more "squareness".
The problem is that to resolve the readability issues many people seem to be observing on that page you need to set it to 1.1 or 1.2 (try it!)
But that will break the console pseudographics.
Part of the problem with this font appears to be large, space-filling (yes, squareness is another way to put it) glyphs, when if they had a bit more of a difference between the cap height and the ascender height the full-height pseudo graphical glyph stuff would still work without the textual characters feeling so cramped.
At least, I think that is right. I know just about this stuff to be wrong in important ways.
Either way there must be a solution to this; it feels like a missed opportunity.
It does have that feel, but it's decidedly cramped compared to, say, the VT100's font, or even that of the VT52, which are both a bit closer to the "server" heritage they are alluding to.
Many other "code page 437" (console graphics fonts) do much better than this for readability at base line-height.
Obviously that is beneficial for ASCII-art (smaller vertical gaps), but plain text would benefit from at least 1.1 and maybe 1.2.
I am not a typographer but the cap height of this font (I think it's the cap height) appears quite large, when perhaps it would be better to have a slightly smaller cap height so the ASCII-art features would work well at line-height 1.0 without the letters feeling so vertically cramped.
Basically, slightly less-tall letters.
But as I say, not an expert.