Talk:Libjpeg

Upgrading problems
I don't think that "a common problem" paragraph is necessary--after all, if the last version is from 1998, who would have upgrading problems? Furthermore, it doesn't seem to fit in Wikipedia. Kimastergeorge 04:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this is not in Wikipedia's scope per WP:NOT; I'm removing it. -- intgr [talk] 09:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Website URL?
It looks like the www.ijg.org site has changed (maybe it changed owners). The link should be removed if it is no longer relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.71.78 (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's back. "April 16, 2008: Site is restored to service." on the site magicalspirits (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Crop
Crop is not supported by this library natively. Many (but not all) operating systems have patched the library to add crop support. See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475679 I suggest crop on this page be noted as such. magicalspirits (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Crop is supported natively in libjpeg7 and above 2A01:E35:2F45:9A0:223:14FF:FE3E:4490 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia abuse
This "reference" is full of insane ramblings:

Contributed document - Word .doc file: Evolution of JPEG http://jpegclub.org/temp/Evolution_of_JPEG.doc

It goes on about AC and DC current with references to Thomas Edison, something about God... in any case it is not a technical document.

The submitter's prior Wikipedia edits need to be examined for similar... whatever you call it.

208.118.25.22 (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks pretty technical to me, until the last section (7.4), when it goes off into an opinionated tangent, but not "insane ramblings"... AnonMoos (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You can use Wikipedia as a reference for the presented facts: War of Currents. The "God" part is a citation of the basic message of Barry Long. See http://www.barrylongweb.com/home_en.html. Guido Vollbeding (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

history "summary" and timeline
The addition of the summary and timeline subsections to the history section are questionable, in my opinion. Arguably, they provide nothing notable to the reader. They represent only the libjpeg variant from the IJG, and even from that only the versions which were released under Guido Vollbeding who also authored those sections. The "summary" is therefore at least largely incomplete. This again shows his conflict of interest.

I suggest the complete removal of these two subsections. Alternatively, I'm thinking of shortening them to two sentences about the versioning scheme of the IJG releases and maybe rewriting the table of versions.

I already removed them before, only to find them restored by Guido. So this is already close to an edit war. My communication with him has greatly failed, leading to him being banned from the german Wikipedia. Maybe somebody else can join the discussion here...--Kulandru mor (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Please notice that this is an article about Libjpeg. If you want to write about other subjects which are not libjpeg then please create own articles for those other subjects. Guido Vollbeding (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I was banned from the german Wikipedia because I exposed a breach of law by you which thus could be punished. You are already close to it again, and perhaps I will be a bit more careful in my communication now. Guido Vollbeding (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

We have different branches of the same origin with a lot of shared history and ongoing code exchange, each producing a libjpeg. There are more commonalities than differences. The relatively small amount of things that makes each libjpeg individual and the total size of the article give little justification for a split, IMHO. Splitting would arguably only introduce redundancy and hurt overview. The project that inherits the original IJG label is seen by many as disloyal to the original goals of the project, who rather regard the libjpeg-turbo line as the true successor to the old libjpeg.--Kulandru mor (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, "libjpeg-turbo" is not libjpeg! "libjpeg-turbo" is an incompatible, illegal, and erroneous fake variant of the original libjpeg. The original libjpeg is released by the Independent JPEG Group, which is now at version 9.1, and that is the title and subject of this article. Guido Vollbeding (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Please don't import disputes from German Wikipedia to here.
 * 2) libjpeg-turbo is a Fork. It's quite common on Wikipedia to discuss forks in the same article as the parent project, if the fork doesn't merit a separate article on its own.
 * By the way, what ever happened to Tom Lane? He seemed to be the real IJG guy for a number of years... AnonMoos (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That would be a long story and this is certainly not the right place to tell it.
 * Similar applies to the "History" section in the article, especially when told by someone who wasn't at all involved in the process. The result can only be distorted as it is now.
 * My approach for Wikipedia would be to stick to the facts only, not to opinions which don't have substance.
 * For example, since I have the responsibility for the direction of JPEG development, I cannot at all rely on opinions, not even on my own opinions. I have to be very aware of the reality as it actually is, not as someone THINKS it is, including myself. That is the "secret" of successful development...
 * If I see people expressing lots of opinions, then I know for sure that they can't take responsibility.
 * That might finally also give you a hint about what happened to my predecessor: Awareness, or consciousness, is a very rare and largely unknown quality, especially in the IT domain which is quite mind-dominated. Awareness or consciousness in that sense of transcending the mind, transcending thinking (going BEYOND the mind, going BEYOND thinking). If you don't have that quality, then you simply can't bear such kind of responsibility as it is necessary for the development of a subject like JPEG.
 * That quality is not taught at common schools, and the people farthest away from that quality are the people sitting in the committees. That's why the actual JPEG development is conducted by the Independent JPEG Group. Guido Vollbeding (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Your abstract generalized philosophical remarks may hold interest in another context, but they appear to have very little relevance to improving the article "Libjpeg" (the intended purpose of this page), and they do very little to address the point I made about Forks... AnonMoos (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have pointed out that the quality of the article has already been impaired by the addition of unsubstantial opinions, and I have already improved the article by restoring the facts.
 * My responsibility is for the core JPEG development and clarification, and for providing libjpeg as source reference codec. I have nothing to do with incompatible "forks" and "branches" which were derived from an obsolete code base and which only increase confusion. Guido Vollbeding (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * They had to fork from libjpeg 6b, since that was the latest version available for over 11 years (1998-2009), and when versions 7 and higher were finally released, they did not add the features that many software projects that made use of libjpeg wanted added, and added features that such software projects did not want added. Those are some of the kinds of reasons that lead to software forks. AnonMoos (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * libjpeg 6b did not have reference quality as libjpeg 9a does. Those narrow-minded efforts do not contribute anything for general source reference. There has to be a universal source reference, and this is only provided by IJG libjpeg.
 * Apparently there are some enemies of true open source software, particularly in the so-called "open source" domain. It is necessary to learn to detect the fakes. Guido Vollbeding (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Whatever -- your version may be "better" in some sense, but it doesn't appear to go in the direction that the majority of software projects which make use of the library want it to go. If it doesn't meet the practical needs of those projects, then it is not better in that particular sense.  And if version 6b was so bad, it shouldn't have been left as the last-released version for eleven years. AnonMoos (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't say it was "bad". The original maintainer could not take responsibility for further maintenance. Only one person was found who could do that, and that person needed some time to prepare for that huge responsibility. That shift of responsibility happened in 2005.
 * Actually we are at version 9a, and I think this is a real improvement over 6b. There are currently no critical errors, and I would want to hold that version for at least two years, so next version appearing not before 2016.
 * This is a fundamental project, and I cannot care for secondary purposes. My task is to advance the big picture and provide the reference. Nobody else does this, and it has to be done. It is not always a comfortable position, and you must be able to stand offenses, but my confidence is unshakable. Guido Vollbeding (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Guetzli
Guetzli is a hopeless stub, maybe it could be merged here for comparison with Mozjpeg. –2.247.247.5 (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If the article's sourcing passed the WP:GNG criteria, I would be all for it. But the sources are either not independent, or not reliable, so I have to wonder if it deserves to be on Wikipedia in the first place. -- intgr [talk] 17:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This merge proposal sounds to me like proposing to merge the article on oranges into the one on apples—because it's both fruits, right?.. The logical thing would be to merge into JPEG.

There is actually a lot of sources on Guetzli. It's just some tech demo with very limited practical use, but since it's Google stuff it created a lot of buzz.--Kulandru mor (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Libjpeg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120901070906/http://filmicgames.com/archives/778 to http://filmicgames.com/archives/778
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140812062122/http://sourceforge.net/p/libjpeg-turbo/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/README-turbo.txt?format=raw to https://sourceforge.net/p/libjpeg-turbo/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/README-turbo.txt?format=raw

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Does the IJG libjpeg still deserve to be the main topic?
libjpeg has been on the path of doom ever since they decided to break the ABI. Now that libjpeg-turbo is one of ISO & ITU's reference JPG implementations, maybe the time has come to make it the main topic of the article. Artoria2e5 Contributions/Artoria2e5 03:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * "Libjpeg" is the historical origin, and the others started as forks from it. Not sure whether it's the "main topic", but as long as they're all covered in the same article, then libjpeg will be logically and chronologically be discussed first... AnonMoos (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)