BREAKING NEWS: The end of JPEG is in sight

Discussion in 'Photoshop Tutorials' started by +/-, Sep 30, 2005.

  1. I think it would be worth including the embedded software industry
    (which includes, not least, the firmware for digital cameras) in this
    kind of estimate.
    Richard Kettlewell, Oct 4, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. I'm seeing a lot more gnu stuff used there of late: in Japan at least, gcc
    is the high-end compiler of choice.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 4, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. You seem proud of your error.
    Roger Whitehead, Oct 5, 2005
  4. +/-

    Howard Roark Guest

    And who are you again?

    You don't even know the basics of OSes which existed for decades
    before Linux came along, yet you make sweeping statements about
    "defacto standards" and what the industry uses in "your experience".


    The GNU implementation of tar() is very good. I use it myself in
    favour of other implementations. Oh, wait, you don't actually think
    that its presense in OS/X means OS/X is GNU based, do you? Oh dear, I
    rather think you probably do.

    Well, I'll let you go back to thinking you know what you're talking
    about, now. I've found what I was looking for in the rpd group.

    Howard Roark, Oct 5, 2005
  5. +/-

    Lorem Ipsum Guest

    I am not surprised. Working "in the semiconductor industry" has nothing to
    do with operating systems, per se. You may as well be a janitor anywhere.
    Lorem Ipsum, Oct 5, 2005
  6. Yahoo has always run their servers on FreeBSD.
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Oct 5, 2005
  7. +/-

    Mike Russell Guest

    Re the Unix "banter". I'll have to agree with Chris Brown and others, and
    disagree with most of HR's statemtents and attitude, which are, IMHO,
    uninformative and inappropriate, respectively.

    For those who care, I've been working with Unix, off and on, for a very long
    time indeed, starting at Berkeley in the early 70's. Although I myself am
    only a minor figure in that world (Tut will back me up on that point :), I
    am have met and spoken to most of the great personalities involved in the
    making of v6, BSD, and V.

    Unix, perhaps because of it's tumultous dependency on academic development
    effort, has turned out to be difficult to take to market, and many,
    including DEC, Novell, and AT&T, have spent more energy on infighting than
    in advancing the Unix market, which is now a fragmented rubble. Even Sun is
    having problems, about to go Open Source if they have not already, and OS's
    like FreeBSD and others are marginalized to the point that Linux, together
    with the GNU software, is indeed the dominant star of the *nix world.

    Stallman is a legit, if controversial figure, and deserves kudos for several
    reasons: surviving all this time with his philosophy vindicated, a large
    following with a body of work to point to, and a resunting impact on the
    commercial world that rivals any conventionally developed and marketed
    software package. And by that I mean everything except Windows :)
    Mike Russell, Oct 5, 2005
  8. +/-

    Lorem Ipsum Guest

    Is it out-of-the-box FreeBSD? I think not.

    U*ix can be good. It can be _excellent_, and it can be secure IF it is
    thoroughly mediated by experts. People who go with Name Brand U*X and update
    just as soon as patches and new versions are released are screwed; that's
    not mediation, it is just plain dumb.

    I love BSD, possibly for romantic reasons (Oh, Bezerkeley then...) but I
    don't trust *x any longer because, frankly, it's grown so big I can't hold
    the whole system in my head at once. A pared *x is cool. I don't mean pared
    to throw out BSD, like the Unix the 3B2 had - which would run until you hit
    it with a sledge hammer - lots of times, but it was a controller, not
    exactly a vulnerable system.
    Lorem Ipsum, Oct 6, 2005
  9. +/-

    toby Guest

    So you switched to...what?
    Well, that applies to nearly all Un*x systems I've run. SunOS 4,
    NetBSD, even Linux come to mind.

    --Toby (fan of PDP-11 UNIX among other things)
    toby, Oct 6, 2005
  10. +/-

    Bryan Olson Guest

    More importantly, to blur the distinction with between I.P. and
    real property. Some see an advantage in equating infringement to
    theft, and kids who make party-mixes to pirates.
    Bryan Olson, Oct 6, 2005
  11. +/-

    Lorem Ipsum Guest

    VMS, aka: OpenVMS for a long, long time. Before that it was RSTS/e, (on
    11/70s) which was definitely not secure, but it never pretended to be. Those
    were the days, eh?

    Now I do not claim that I can keep VMS in my head either, but it was very
    well managed by the DEC team. Now who was the guy from DEC that went to
    Micro$oft and TRIED to implement some of VMS as WindoZe? I'm sure that Gates
    squashed his efforts like a bug. A shame.
    Lorem Ipsum, Oct 6, 2005
  12. +/-

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Lorem Ipsum wrote:
    Are you are thinking of David Cutler?
    You'd be wrong. On the other hand, some of us are a been a bit
    dissappointed that Richard Rashid's ideas haven't had more
    influence on Microsoft OS's.
    Bryan Olson, Oct 6, 2005
  13. +/-

    Lorem Ipsum Guest

    Thank you for the correction. I don't wish David anything but success, for
    his sake, and for the rest of us.
    Lorem Ipsum, Oct 6, 2005
  14. +/-

    toby Guest

    The pseudonym itself is a tip-off.
    History will judge Stallman to have been an overwhelmingly positive
    (and more substantial) pioneering contributor to software, while the
    overwhelmingly destructive efforts of M$ will achieve their deserved
    obscurity. Thankyou Richard, in the 20 years since I first learned of
    your philosophy, my worsening experiences with proprietary software
    only bear out what you've said all along.
    toby, Oct 6, 2005
  15. None of which is on-topic for a Photoshop group.
    Roger Whitehead, Oct 6, 2005
  16. +/-

    Chris Brown Guest

    I'm the guy who wrote the software that the guy who designed your cellphone
    used to make sure the damned thing was going to work, and it ran on Linux
    and Solaris. Pleased to make your aquaintence.
    You seem to know a lot about what I do and don't know.
    Chris Brown, Oct 6, 2005
  17. +/-

    Andrew Haley Guest

    OK. Still the same.
    Not really, no. My point was directly relevant to the text that I
    quoted. Your response seems irrelevant.

    Andrew Haley, Oct 7, 2005
  18. +/-

    Lorem Ipsum Guest

    Methinks the original spamming perp hasn't seen JPEG2000 yet. Man, when is
    that EVER going to catch on?
    Lorem Ipsum, Oct 14, 2005
  19. +/-

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Perhaps never. Do you use it? I don't.

    Camera manufacturers do not support it in cameras, because
    RAW seems to be a better alternative for them.

    For archiving, lossless JPEG 2000 is a bit smaller than PNG,
    but much less universal, and it is slow to encode/decode.
    Photoshoppers might prefer to archive PCD with adjustment layers.

    For "high" quality web images [sic], even if JPEG 2000 were
    widely supported in browsers, it doesn't look much better
    than quality 85-95 (IJG scale) with 1x1 chroma subsampling,
    and doesn't save much additional space.

    For low quality web images, JPEG 2000 does produce smaller
    and better looking files. That seems like a very small win
    considering the hype and proprietary dead-end.

    I would be happy to hear arguments to the contrary.
    Bill Tuthill, Oct 14, 2005
    1. Advertisements

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 (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.