BREAKING NEWS: The end of JPEG is in sight

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.

 

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

 

You seem proud of your error.

 

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".


Wow.

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.


B.

 

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.

 

Yahoo has always run their servers on FreeBSD.

 

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

 

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.

 

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)

 

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.

 

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 wrote:
[...]

Are you are thinking of David Cutler?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_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.

 

Thank you for the correction. I don't wish David anything but success, for
his sake, and for the rest of us.

 

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.

 

None of which is on-topic for a Photoshop group.

 

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.

 

OK. Still the same.

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

Andrew.

 

Methinks the original spamming perp hasn't seen JPEG2000 yet. Man, when is
that EVER going to catch on?

 

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.