Pale Moon Becomes First Browser To Support JPEG-XL Image Format (neowin.net) 96
Longtime Slashdot reader BenFenner writes: While Chromium recently abandoned the JPEG-XL format (to much discussion on the feature request), it seems the Pale Moon browser quietly became the first to release support for the much-awaited image format. For those unfamiliar with Pale Moon, it is a Goanna-based web browser available for Windows, Linux and Android, focusing on efficiency and ease of use. Pale Moon 31.4.0 also adds support for MacOS 13 "Ventura" and addresses a number of performance- and security-related issues. A full list of the changes/fixes are available in the release notes.
Support for JPEG-XL was confirmed on GitHub.
Support for JPEG-XL was confirmed on GitHub.
How to explain without explaining (Score:3, Insightful)
For those unfamiliar with Pale Moon, it is a Goanna-based web browser [...]
And you suppose that people unfamiliar with Pale Moon suddenly do know what "Goanna-based" means? "They used Goanna to build Pale Moon." Yes, you already said that. But you saying that didn't suddenly make people unfamiliar with Pale Moon any less unfamiliar with Pale Moon. Thanks for playing. Don't call us, we'll call you.
Re: (Score:2)
Like you have to make websites that are broweser-dependant but I suppose that will not do any favours for Pale Moon's popularity.
Re: (Score:2)
That is frankly a problem with that website, because the entire idea of having standards is that you don't have to "cater for every fringe webbrowser", you serve standard HTML and it'll render. Probably not pixel-perfect but that was never guaranteed, in fact not doing that is explicitly allowed.
It is also a problem with you, because you let yourself be bullied. Me, I would have left a snide note (if possible, possibly using another webbrowser) and blacklisted the website. Plenty other websites on the inte
Re: (Score:1)
It being the fault of the web developer doesn't change the fact that it makes the browser largely worthless.
Re:How to explain without explaining (Score:4, Interesting)
One idiot website doesn't make the browser largely worthless. If that were the case, the idiot websites that go "451 we shit on GDPR" in response to the European cookie law (which is really not the same thing, thanks) would make the entire web "largely worthless" for those of us in Europe. And that just isn't the case. As aggravating as these idiot websites are, they're largely irrelevant.
Most of them are "news" sites associated with local American broadcaster's websites. Typically the goals was syndicated news that can be had elsewhere. The biggest problem is they show up in search results at all.
They are another sign of balkanisation. But then, I can't have facebook, twitter, google, or other such accounts because my name isn't deemed real enough or I don't want to surrender a mobile number for convenient spamming. I'm quite used to being unable to reach quite a few websites. And that doesn't even depend on the browser I'm using.
So I say your fact is not a fact in my world, good sir. It's a sign of idiocy, often enough easily avoided by faking a user agent string, should you want to.
The silver lining is that the more this happens, the more there is room for some upstart to offer a competing service sans idiocy.
Re: (Score:1)
One idiot website doesn't make the browser largely worthless.
One idiot who thinks it's one website is largely useless
Re: (Score:2)
The key is to simply not accept being shut out like that. Serve standards-compliant HTML*, or lose business. Blaming the browser, as you are doing, for webmonkey idiocy is not helpful.
Anyone who wilfully defends webmonkey idiocy is far worse than useless. They're part of the problem. Lashing out at the messenger doesn't make that any different.
* HTML 4, since "living standard" HTML 5 is not useful as a standard, it's deliberately set up as a rat race. With marquee and blink, and every week a new set.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not blame the browser for webmonkey idiocy. But the webmonkey idiocy makes it impossible to use the browser, even though I would like to use it. I really tried for a long time to use Pale Moon, I was active on the forum, I made bug reports.
But it was not just one website that did not work (haven't used Pale Moon for some time now so I don't know the current state) and not all websites have equally good alternatives.
And I also notice dif
Re: (Score:1)
And I also notice different behaviour on the same website when you use one browser or another. Not all browsers work the same.
Don't be certain it's the browser and not different content based on the browser ID. Office 365's Outlook website site used to be missing features when you used Firefox.
Re: (Score:3)
There are countless websites like this. Pale Moon literally cost me money a couple of few years ago when I was still using it, when I was buying tickets for a train online.
Train company site automatically adjusts pricing based on how many tickets are still available for each train, and reserves them for a while after you accept the terms and go to reserve your seat and pay. Except that Pale Moon didn't hand off the connection to the payment system correctly, because it would glitch on "but seat reservation
Re: (Score:2)
It being the fault of the web developer doesn't change the fact that it makes the browser largely worthless.
Pussing out and taking the easy path is exactly how we got Internet Explorer and now Chrome hegemony.
Re: (Score:2)
Pussing out and taking the easy path is exactly how we got Internet Explorer and now Chrome hegemony.
This is how the world works, I didn't make it up. If it doesn't work to go to websites people want to go to, people won't use it. Antitrust is apparently not a thing any more...
Re: (Score:3)
That thinking is why we had IE 6 for so long
Re: (Score:2)
That is frankly a problem with that website, because the entire idea of having standards is that you don't have to "cater for every fringe webbrowser", you serve standard HTML and it'll render.
Yes, that is how things are *SUPPOSED* to work. In actual practice, it has *NEVER* been that way.
HTML is not the standard. Whatever browser is most widely used is the standard, and websites are designed to work with that browser. First it was Internet Explorer, and now it is Google Chrome. Yes, it is stupid and it sucks.
Re:How to explain without explaining (Score:5, Informative)
Mozilla put LOT of effort was put into advocating that websites code to the standards and not to the browser. i.e. instead of code that said "if userAgent != IE5 then...", it should use correct HTML and if necessary code a fallback. And the fallback could be browser agnostic, testing the browser's capabilties rather than what the browser was, e.g. if some attribute on the element existed.
I think a lot of websites are slipping back into the old habits. They refuse to run on browsers they don't support even if that browser is otherwise standards compliant. That's a terrible thing to do which will come back to bite them at some point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Chrome is IE6 all over again.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of web developers would be happy to only have to target Chrome and it's closely related derivatives like Edge. The problem is that Safari, with its outdated and quirky rendering engine - is actually the new IE6, being it's the only available rendering engine in Apple's iOS walled garden and most web developers consider that market too big to ignore.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point Firefox is a fringe browser. They're 7% of the market share.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but enough educational facilities use Firefox that it gets supported.
It's only a matter of time, though, since they ignore what the users ask for and just do whatever they want. We are the reason for the software, but they don't care about us.
Re: (Score:2)
What they were really saying is "we only tested on Chrome".
.webp (Score:1)
Frustrating (Score:5, Informative)
It's frustrating that JPEG XL has gotten so little support; it's a great format.
*Compresses better than AVIF in most circumstances (which compresses better than WebP, which compresses better than JPEG), esp. on the high-quality end
*Very fast compared to AVIF
*No patent trolls (AVIF has one trying to claim AV1, the parent format to AVIF... though they're only pursuing physical devices that use AV1 for video streaming, at least for now)
*Can quickly and losslessly transcode existing JPEGs for ~20% savings
*Really cool priority-based progressive mode ("saliency"), where it prioritizes sending detail in the parts of the image your eyes are drawn to first; the results [googleblog.com] are like magic.
Not really (Score:3, Insightful)
Jpeg is good enough. Updating all software for a small gain isn't worth the effort. Also this should be avoided:
https://xkcd.com/927/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Updating all software for a small gain isn't worth the effort.
Reading through the discussion on the feature request, it seems like all that work has already been done with support already built into Adobe, Krita, and others tools, and with Facebook, Intel, Adobe, Shopify, etc. all supporting and waiting for its inclusion in Chrome.
The removal message:
Thank you everyone for your comments and feedback regarding JPEG XL. We will be removing the JPEG XL code and flag from Chromium for the following reasons:
It's a very terse and odd dismissal of the format since it's already included, working, desired by everyone, and essentially ready to go.
Re:Not really (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a good reason not to use Chrome. When a company has a monopoly it makes it real easy for them to say fuck you we'll do what we want.
Re:Not really (Score:5, Informative)
Basically today, if you want to use JPEGXL on the web (for more than just backend storage), you need a WebAssembly-based decoder and a lot of awkward javascript handling. And it doesn't have to be this way. It's frustrating that browser manufacturers have decided "whoa, even WebP is only at ~6,5% uptake rate thusfar and AVIF is just starting; no need to start spreading support for something that's unambiguously better than all of them..."
Re: (Score:2)
Chromium will not support it as of M110.
It's not slated for removal in Firefox, but neither is it slated to become default-enabled yet.
jxl was just recently standardized, which was one of the hurdles the decision making process had hit, so we may see default enabled support in FF soon.
Re: (Score:1)
This is a good reason not to use Chrome. When a company has a monopoly it makes it real easy for them to say fuck you we'll do what we want.
The monopoly isn't Chrome, the monopoly is JPEG. It works. People aren't asking for an alternative (they were in the 1990s when bandwidth was restricted, and even then the superior JPEG-2000 format was largely ignored by the world).
Re:Not really (Score:4, Informative)
JPEG 2000 was ignored due to questions over patents, royalties, etc. It's also complicated with support for stuff like encoding different parts of the image at different quality levels. There also isn't a turnkey permissively licensed library for handling the format, equivalent to libjpeg.
Re: (Score:3)
HEIF, AVIF, WEBP, and PNG all exist because JPEG doesn't work.
People asked for alternatives, and got them. A long fucking time ago.
Multiple Fortune 500 companies that have as their customer base, nearly the entire population of the industrialized world as their customers are asking for it, so let's quit spreading that bullshit, mmk?
Re: (Score:2)
desired by everyone
Squeaky wheel effect. I think "everyone" largely couldn't give a crap about the format. A few vocal supporters on the other hand do. Support isn't relevant though. People need to use something. The world wouldn't know AVIF existed if it weren't for Apple defaulting to taking pictures in the format. The world wouldn't know WebP existed except for Reddit and Google's occasional use. Support for image formats are near universal. There are huge lists of image compression formats that are supported widely and ye
Re: (Score:2)
And that's one way to do it. AVIF is superior because it allows Apple to do all sorts of photo tricks without making a mess of the photos directory - things like HDR but not just having the final composed image, but all the input shots as well, or the action photos where it captures the main image but also a little context around it. AVIF allows all that to be bundled in a single file, which is arguably
Re: (Score:2)
AVIF is capable of encoding 12bpc images- it can encode HDR directly.
This is important, because it allows encoding of actual HDR images in the wide gamut they're designed to be displayed in.
AVIF can display HDR. JPEG cannot.
It is true, that someone can take multiple JPEG shots and synthesize an HDR image. That synthesized image is what would be stored in an AVIF.
That image can then be displayed directly without re-synthesizing the source imagery.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
JPEG really is a terrible, 3-decade-old image format. But I mean, if you like large files and ugly blockiness, you do you?
Re: (Score:3)
Large files?? You ever seen a bitmap or tiff file?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Jpeg is good enough.
No. No it's not. It's quality is terrible. Its filesize is terrible. It has been largely supplanted by new file formats that are wildly inferior to jxl. JXL allows web servers to transcode JPEG into jxl with zero loss in fidelity, and 20% smaller files.
Plus, it allows high-fidelity encoding that don't exist on webp, or are slow as fuck and inefficient on avif, and HDR, which as noted by the multiple fortune 500 companies who expressed support for this feature, is a big deal in a day and age where HDR suppo
Re:Not really (Score:4, Insightful)
No. No it's not. It's quality is terrible. Its filesize is terrible.
Being terrible and being good enough are not mutually exclusive. Just because something better exists doesn't mean you need to drop what you have. I mean you run a RTX4090 right? No? Didn't think so. When we have something that works and is good enough (visual quality of a JPEG at 90% is basically completely indistinguishable from an original RAW file), and when you're not bandwidth constrained (I can stream 4K video on my mobile phone, it's not 1997 anymore), then even "terrible" is "good enough".
Re: (Score:1)
Being terrible and being good enough are not mutually exclusive.
Fair enough- I should have said, "Its quality is terrible in comparison to its competitors. So much so, that the only images in that format are legacy."
And when your performance is worse than all of your competitors, that does mean you almost certainly aren't "good enough".
Just because something better exists doesn't mean you need to drop what you have.
That ship sailed a long time ago.
There's a reason we have png, webp, and avif.
I mean you run a RTX4090 right?
3090Ti.
No? Didn't think so.
A silly assumption.
Let me get this right though- you're comparing a set of free things to things that cost over 50% of the median worker's wages in t
Re: (Score:1)
Is that what you boast to your friends in the school playground sonny?
Your attitude screams stupid kid trying to act big.
Re: (Score:1)
I will not cite them again, because dumb fuckers like you on the internet like to lash out when you're made to feel stupid.
However, since I can't scrub them from my history, you can start looking now.
You barked at the wrong tree, troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Grow up you stupid little man. You sound like a child with your idiotic potty mouth comments so whether you are one or not is irrelevant.
Re:Not really (Score:4)
Grow up you stupid little man. You sound like a child with your idiotic potty mouth comments so whether you are one or not is irrelevant.
How I sound is irrelevant. What is relevant here is how fucking stupid your argument is. I don't understand why you keep trying to change the subject.
There's a reason jlx is backed by Intel, Meta, Adobe, NVidia, Shopify, Cloudinary, TwicPics, and many, many, fucking many more support it.
That reason is because they're a lot fucking smarter than you. If you want me to detail how, I shall.
You have set some arbitrary feel-good value for "good enough".
That can be said about any format that evolves through time. All you can do is evaluate on the incremental improvements, and see if the cost is worth the improvement.
In the case of jxl, it looks better with less bytes. It supports features that were lost when the internet moved to png for low-quality images, and avif for high-quality images (what, you didn't know fucking nobody makes jpegs anymore?)
It already exists today in Chromium (simply experimentally flagged- must be enabled), and has the overhead of any of the other 28 third-party libraries that are included in the Chromium codebase, increasing the total codebase size by approximately 0.3%, and code which will not even be maintained by Chromium. Chromium is not shy about adding new libraries to its codebase. The additional code to handle image/jxl and feed it to the external library would be just over 0.002% increase in codebase.
No matter what your usecase is, jxl is the superior option.
What jxl does most importantly- is it renders webp irrelevant.
And therein, a lot of people suspect, lies the real problem.
So in summary, take your good enough, and shove it up your ass.
The internet disagreed with you so much that it supplanted jpeg over a fucking decade ago with better formats. And now it's their time, too. As soon as today's Internet Explorer caves.
Re: Not really (Score:2)
Thank you for proving my point. Like I said, grow tf up.
Re: (Score:2)
Other than, of course, 640k should be enough for anyone.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that it isn't.
On the audio front we've gone beyond mp3 to vorbis, opus, aac, Arguably mp3 versus those is closer to 'good enough' than jpeg is to jpeg-xl.
JPEG doesn't have alpha channel, it can't do animation (though I will say the internet fascination with animated gifs instead of just embeddable video clips befuddles me) and it can't store layers (e.g. a JPEG-XL is able to be more like an xcf or psd file).
The more reasonable question is between AVIF, HEIF, and JPEG-XL, is there enough in JPEG-XL t
Re: (Score:1)
The more reasonable question is between AVIF, HEIF, and JPEG-XL, is there enough in JPEG-XL to justify it, as those are more in the same ballpark than JPEG. The parent poster makes a fairly compelling case for JPEG-XL (which makes sense, with AVIF around, there had to be some motivation to do JPEG-XL).
AVIF and HEIF may compress well, but they produce low quality images that are spectacularly slow to decode, and have many other limitations. JPEG-XL is a great image codec which would also be near ideal for the web, but is compelling even outside of it, or just server side. It also offers a smooth transition path for existing jpeg/pngs which doesn't make images look awful, and is reversible. (yes, people are lossily transcoding JPEG->AVIF to save space, and it is ugly.)
A javascript/WASM JPEG-XL decoder m
Re: (Score:2)
"it can't do animation"
Thats a plus point. If you want moving pictures use a video format.
Re: (Score:3)
On the audio front we've gone beyond mp3 to vorbis, opus, aac, Arguably mp3 versus those is closer to 'good enough' than jpeg is to jpeg-xl.
Disagree for three reasons and then a caveat at the end:
a) Audio streams continuously and thus uses far more bandwidth creating a demand for better and smaller files at good quality.
b) Mp3 wasn't audibly transparent at any bitrate, a JPEG at max quality is indistinguishable from a RAW file.
c) Audio development is largely pushed by idiots who don't understand the difference between their own mental biases and therefore demand formats that can produce audio frequencies they are incapable of hearing (just look
Animated gif befuddlement (Score:2)
>(though I will say the internet fascination with animated gifs instead of just embeddable video clips befuddles me)
And what's even more befuddling is that in 2022, an image-file-format limited to 256 colours is still popular (not to mention a lossless animation format being used to compress arbitrary video). Do Gen-Z'ers who do not understand the concept of file-storage [slashdot.org] even realise that GIFs should have been obsolete ages ago.
Re: (Score:3)
JPEG is poor for a number of reasons. It doesn't perform well at lower bit rates, compared to WebP which is supported by all major browsers. At the very least it makes sense to switch to using WebP.
Another issue is accounting for different screen DPIs and connections. You might want to serve lower resolution images on mobile to keep the site speedy. On desktop you might prefer to serve up high DPI images for high DPI displays, but lower resolution ones to everyone else.
Animated GIFs are also a very poor tec
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't perform well at lower bit rates
That would be a concern if it was 1999 and my dial up modem was struggling to make pictures show on the screen. But even then the far better JPEG-2000 format didn't take off. JPEG is poor, but it still is good enough.
compared to WebP which is supported by all major browsers
A great example. Aside from a few companies which depend on bandwidth as a cost centre and largely provide images, WebP is borderline unused.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"After the JPEG-2000 and WebP debacles, I think it's time we did this correctly"
Please refer to the xkcd cartoon I linked to.
The JPEG-XL presentation included this XKCD (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between making 15 competing standards, and having only PNG and JPEG (both of which are many decades old). Seriously, I was already using PNG extensively in my college years over 20 years ago, and JPEG is far older than that.
You know, the PC industry is really weird. On one side, you have hyperactive idiots screaming how we need to innovate and redesign the whole works every 6 months, on the other side, you have people using crusty, 40-year-old technology and insisting that it's "good
Re: (Score:1)
It's frustrating that JPEG XL has gotten so little support; it's a great format.
*Compresses better than AVIF in most circumstances (which compresses better than WebP, which compresses better than JPEG), esp. on the high-quality end
*Very fast compared to AVIF
*Can quickly and losslessly transcode existing JPEGs for ~20% savings
Those features would be nice if we were still living in 1990 and saving things on floppy disks.
Today, my PC is fast enough and my hard drives big enough that making pictures a little smaller is not something I'm concerned with.
Re:Frustrating (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazingly, not all limitations around "AC's hard disk space". Such as:
* Server bandwidth
* Server disk space
* Mobile bandwidth
* Emerging uses (for example, satellite bandwidth, which is VERY limited)
Additionally, instead of *reducing* space/bandwidth, you can instead *increase* quality (resolution, etc).
Over on Mastodon all images are downscaled to a weak 2MP to bring JPEG sizes to ~400-500k (though the algorithm used is poor, they could get half the size or double the quality by being less aggressive with downscaling but with a lower quality factor). Because disk space is the primary server hosting cost, and hosting costs of nearly $1 per year per user when offering a free service definitely DO add up. By contrast, an iPhone 14 can take 48MP photos that are 40-70MB in size. A better format, *at least on the storage end*, can greatly improve the quality one can offer while reducing hosting costs.
Re: (Score:2)
(ED: When I wasy "satellite bandwidth", I'm talking about this [techcrunch.com])
Re: (Score:2)
Over on Mastodon all images are downscaled to a weak 2MP
Because on a social media platform for talking shit with each other we need something better?
You have solution to a non-existent problem. Even companies who do heavily depend on server bandwidth (e.g. Imgur) don't use any of the many better and more efficient algorithms (e.g. WebP).
We have solutions to this non-problem already. All they did here is add another solution that people can ignore, just like they ignored WebP, just like they ignored JPEG-2000.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it would be better to say "no patent trolls thusfar"...
Re: (Score:2)
Someday it will be as popular as Ogg Vorbis!
Re: (Score:2)
You missed one overriding aspect: No one cares. Compression formats better than JPEG are dime a dozen. JPEG itself has been superseded in 1997 by JPEG-2000 and it failed to take off. WebP is nothing more than a curiosity. Apple by default had iPhones save photos in AVIF format a few years back and everyone complained.
Bottom line, devices are powerful, bandwidth is plentiful, and people are in general perfectly happy with JPEG, especially at compression quality settings >90%. Even the feature you say is "
Does NOT work on Mac OS 13 (Score:3)
Re:Does NOT work on Mac OS 13 (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
tl;dr (Score:2)
A browser nobody uses supports a format nobody ever heard of.
Re: (Score:2)
A browser nobody uses
Chromium is the code base running the browsers behind a commanding majority of all web requests.
supports a format nobody ever heard of.
The format is supported by multiple Fortune 500 companies, and for very good reason. It's superior in every way, and offers compute-cheap lossless transcoding of existing JPEGs at a savings of ~20% (avg)
I love it when fuckwits say shit that is completely wrong with absolutely zero knowledge on the topic.
Re: (Score:3)
Chromium is the code base running the browsers behind a commanding majority of all web requests.
While true that the Blink engine as used in Chrome/Chromium/Edge/Vivaldi/Brave/etc is the most prolific, that has nothing to do with Pale Moon. Pale Moon is a fork continuing the Firefox 28 general architecture. So it is fair to consider it a very niche browser.
Google has conversely removed their tentative JXL implementation. Probably for bad reasons, but reasons that nonetheless undermine JXL viability until someone can get Google to put it back in and get it on a course to being in the 'stable' releases
Re:tl;dr (Score:4, Interesting)
While true that the Blink engine as used in Chrome/Chromium/Edge/Vivaldi/Brave/etc is the most prolific, that has nothing to do with Pale Moon. Pale Moon is a fork continuing the Firefox 28 general architecture. So it is fair to consider it a very niche browser.
Yes, Pale Moon is a nothing.
I should have been clearer.
It should have read,
"Yes, but Chromium is the code base running the browsers behind a commanding majority of all web requests. That's why this is important."
The story is about both Pale Moon adding support, and Google removing the experimental feature in M110.
Google has conversely removed their tentative JXL implementation. Probably for bad reasons, but reasons that nonetheless undermine JXL viability until someone can get Google to put it back in and get it on a course to being in the 'stable' releases without any experimental flag.
Agreed.
Their given reasons are very easily debunked as flat out falsehoods.
That makes it very hard to believe that the decision is anything but some kind of corporate political decision.
It seems likely to me that Google is invested internally to jxl not taking over from webp/avif (which it is clearly superior in both of their use cases).
Unsure why. What is clear is that the corporate backing behind jxl is overwhelming. Enough that their stated reasons for removal can really only be responded to with "lolwut?"
For relevance, Google's reasons are:
- Experimental flags and code should not remain indefinitely
- There is not enough interest from the entire ecosystem to continue experimenting with JPEG XL
- The new image format does not bring sufficient incremental benefits over existing formats to warrant enabling it by default
- By removing the flag and the code in M110, it reduces the maintenance burden and allows us to focus on improving existing formats in Chrome
This [cloudinary.com] is the best compiled list of reasons why Google is full of shit (with the bonus of being written by someone who is at least pretending that Google acted in good faith with those reasons, and is trying to rebut them kindly instead of calling them flat out liars)
If the uninterested ecosystem, which includes corporations with half the world as their customers, push in the public sphere- say, "harping support for jxl in [random no-name browser]", then Google may be forced to reconsider.
As it sits now, since they're obviously full of shit, I doubt anything but pressure can possibly fix the issue.
The web is worse off for the lack of jxl. Period, and full stop. The people who ship the majority of all images flying around on the internet were chomping at the bit for jxl support to be pulled out of experimental and enabled by default. Going against Google's power in the browser market starts with one little browser saying "fuck you" to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People should perhaps hear about jxl though, it really is pretty compelling stuff.
The more noteworthy fact is that while Pale Moon got to 'stable' first, it is done on the back of the fact it is in the pipeline to be in firefox.
Which means in the image ecosystem, basically Blink is the only one that is not currently on track to do JXL (it *was* and then oddly reversed course). This is of course pretty much screwing over the feasibility of adopting it, as Google effectively owns the keys to the most prolifi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If nothing else (Score:1)
It should cater to some security by obscurity clause, something nobody uses tend to be overlooked by cyber criminals looking for targets to find holes in.
No thanks on a single process browser... (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"There are two significant aspects of Goanna's divergence: It does not have any of the Rust language components that were added to Gecko during Mozilla's Quantum project,[10][11] and applications that use Goanna always run in single-process mode, whereas Firefox became a multi-process application.[12][13]"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The whole browser grinds to a crawl when one tab goes runaway. This basic problem still happens with multi-threaded browsers, but it doesn't result in the browser becoming completely unresponsive. Instead, it makes the whole machine somewhat unresponsive, or (if you have enough cores) you may not even notice.
Re: (Score:2)
What is JPEG-XL (Score:2)
It sounds like something for those into BBW type of pron
A previous Slashdot article on JPEG-XL (Score:3)
One BIG strike against Pale Moon, though (Score:1)
I was all ready to make Pale Moon my ONLY browser until I discovered that it just plain SUCKS for streaming video sites. YouTube videos never start, and the developer stubbornly REFUSES to include the Widevine DRM extension essential for Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO Max, etc.
So it remains an interesting curiosity and helpful for debugging web code, but useless as an "only browser" or "primary browser." Sad, because it has real potential.
Re: (Score:2)
Can Palemoon even support Widevine? I know that there are all sorts of requirements around code signing and integrity and protection of DRM content and stuff so that the Widevine DRM module can verify that the browser its running in doesn't have holes allowing DRM content to be copied and that the browser hasn't been hacked or modified in ways that could allow the DRM to be defeated or the content to be copied but I have no idea if Palemoon can meet that criteria or not.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm thinking it COULD be if the developer wanted to bother. Goanna is a fork of Gecko, and a lot of older Firefox and Seamonkey extensions work with it so it couldn't be THAT different...
And .... (Score:2)
If Chromium does not support it, then Edge Doesn't and that's 90%+ of web sites using it that users are not going to see it ...