> On Aug 1, 2016, at 5:24 AM, dmccunney <dennis.mccun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:41 AM, dos386 <dos...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> The bloat increase is just incredible :-D and sure RAM and CPU >>>> consumption grows too >> >>> One man's bloat is another's feature. I've been running Mozilla code >>> since it was still an internal Netscape >> >> COOL ... at that time they refused to add support for MNG as it > > You mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-image_Network_Graphics ? > >> would add 10 KiO of bloat ... > > More to the point, who *needed* it? > > MNG is PNG with support for animation. PNG was created to be a > graphics format unencumbered by patents. > > The GIF format used LZW compression. Terry Welch, the W in LZW, > worked for Sperry when he wrote the paper that described a version of > the Lev-Zempel compression algorithm that was simpler and easier to > implement in software. Because he worked for Sperry, they owned the > rights to his work. Compuserve introduced the GIF format in 1987, and > used LZW as the compression algorithm. Meanwhile, Burroughs bought > Sperry and became Unisys. In 1994, someone at Unisys realized they > owned a patent on the compression used in GIF files and that began > going after Compuserve and other sites that used GIF for graphics to > get compensation. > > PNG grew out of that mess, as developers recognized a need for a > graphics format unencumbered by patent. But the PNG developers didn't > care for the MNG format - they thought overloading PNG to also do > animation was bad design, and something different should be done..The > whole question became moot b y 2004 when the relevant Unisys patents > had all expired expired. > > I don't recall ever seeing an MNG file, and if I were Mozilla, I > wouldn't bother to add support for something no one actually used, > even if it produced *no* bloat. > >> now we have 50 MiO bloat of the >> browser + 20 MiO bloat of Flu$h instead :-D > > You can not install or uninstall Adobe Flash. If you never do > anything that needs Flash, you'll never miss it. Most folks *do* > stuff that needs Flash and that's not an option. > > What sort of other stuff might you *omit* from Mozilla code to trim > bloat? What do you consider bloat? > >>> The big step towards that came from Cisco. The defacto standard >>> encoding for video these days is H_264, but it's a proprietary spec >> >> There used to be a draft back in 2007 recommending Theora >> for coming HTML5 ... but it was trashed after pressure of some >> companies (Adobe, Banana/Apple, ...) ... and now 9 years later >> we have 10 times more bloated browsers and still no usable >> standard, and most video pages still rudely cry for Flu$h. > > H_264 got the nod because it provides better compression, and video > takes bandwidth. Google was looking at Theora as an alternative when > they decided to make Chrome fully open source. Cisco's purchase of a > license that allowed them to offer an open source reference > implementation removed the need to do that. > > We *have* a usable spec, and it's being implemented. (There's a lot > more to HTML5 than the new <video> keyword, and not all of it is fully > defined yet, but folks are implementing the parts that are as they > can.) > > I don't think "most" video pages rudely cry for flash, and video isn't > the only reason Flash is deployed. Folks are moving away from it as > fast as they can. But getting rid of Flash is a complex exercise. > Adobe has a beta tool to help migrate extant Flash code to HTML5, but > it's not a simple or easy process, and doing it takes time and costs > money. Got a site where you would really like to see Flash go away in > favor of HTML5? Are *you* willing to pay what it will cost them to do > it? I didn't think so. Expect them to spend the money just to make > *you* happy? I *hope* you don't think so. > >>> You are *not* representative of the mass user base >> >> well :-D > >>> and what works for you will not work for 99% of the rest of the world >> >> You are wrong. The Internet used more or less to work for 99% of the >> world ... the problem is that those 99% love to throw away something >> that works (proverb: "change the winning team ASAP") for no reason. > > The Internet more or less worked for 99% of the world using the stuff > you advocate *20 years ago*. > > Since you seem to have missed the fact, I'll be a good guy and clue > you in. That was *then*. This is *now*. What worked 20 years ago > *won't* work now. The world has changed and we have to change with > it. Standing still is *not* an option. > I must point out the irony in that position on a *mailing list* about Free*DOS*. Thanks for that. It was a good chuckle 8-p
This topic does point out how far away we are from _The Future_ where everyone's computer terminal magically connects to Skynet or The Oasis with equal access for all. Sometimes I yearn for simpler times too ... or sufficiently advanced technology that makes it appear simpler... Either would suffice. > You might not like a lot of the changes needed, but you're stuck with > them. The world is bigger than you are and doesn't *care* what *you* > think. > ______ > Dennis > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
