![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
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. Artoria 2e5 Contributions/Artoria2e5 03:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
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. Artoria 2e5 Contributions/Artoria2e5 03:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)