i doubt it, i don’t see why an icon pack would have a systemd service. probably something to do with moonlight [nvidia]
still, thank you for introducing me to a new* icon pack
i doubt it, i don’t see why an icon pack would have a systemd service. probably something to do with moonlight [nvidia]
still, thank you for introducing me to a new* icon pack
I have to say I like this one
image
kde can still look like that too:
i really hope oxygen does get ported to plasma 6, and not dropped like the air theme has been
i must say though, as much as i prefer the look of light themes usually, i think dark themes are objectively[1] better unless you’re in bright sunlight: images and video aren’t affected by themes, so dark themes put the focus on the media, whereas light themes can wash them out
this is conjecture, i haven’t done any studies ↩︎
in about:config, try removing the pertinent domains from extensions.webextensions.restrictedDomains
i’ve never done this though, so caveat executor
Aye so bottom line, we’re stuck with what exists until new formats are forced upon everybody… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
yeah… :(
Raw isn’t a format, it’s supposed to just be unaltered stream from the imager, so every camera model is unique in that regard. But DNG is a way to describe that data so it’s more readable to programs unfamiliar with the specific model. And well, some makers prefer to use their own proprietary models.
ah fair enough, i didn’t know that
Actually AAC is mostly Apple’s format and support for it is pretty great. I’m not super familiar with the details but it sounds like a similar situation as with webp.
is it? i didn’t think any android players supported it apart from specifically apple music? and i’m pretty sure ms’ groove music couldn’t play them?
It’s not. The web site you’re uploading to has to support it to allow you the upload in the first place, and to process it to make previews or lower-res versions for the web pages or apps.
alright yeah i guess. to be honest i was more talking about using images i’ve made on my own site, or publishers using an image format on their own websites. as for uploading to other sites it’s a complete mess: even tumblr doesn’t allow uploading webp, but it then automatically converts to webp which makes a horrible blurry mess
Do believe me, recently I’ve started converting those I want to keep to mp4 and I’m saving gigabytes.
i wasn’t being sarcastic! i do believe you. and yeah, i’d do the same
It’s not all that well supported in lots of those cases I mention. And where it did get, it only got because Apple has actually billions of devices out there and has the power to make the format default among them with one worldwide update. Yet it still has to convert to jpg when sharing elsewhere by default. That’s how huge the resistance is.
sorry, i was talking about jxl here. i agree heif hasn’t got anywhere; but that is, again, mostly due to licencing issues (unsurprisingly, given it’s apple)
I’m not advocating for these formats specifically (definitely not jpeg2000 haha), but I’m saying licences and royalties aren’t that super important when it comes to how supported something becomes.
Hell look at Apple… Everything is proprietary.
yeah exactly - none of apple’s formats are supported outside of apple devices (and i guess itunes for windows)
Or when it comes to formats, mp3 is still the most widely supported audio format (non-free), and DivX has been the most widely supported video format for much longer than anything else… Also non-free.
that’s a fair point, and i can’t really explain that - i can only assume it’s big for the same reason as gif: it was good enough at the time, and got standardised by cds
Haha hardware camera makers are the slowest dinosaurs when it comes to technology. Took them fucking ages for some to support DNG raw format, and before h264 was already getting grey, most would record videos only in mjpeg.
really? now admittedly i don’t know much about cameras, but i’ve had a couple of filmmaker friends and i was under the impression raw was universally supported
But it’s more about phone cameras anyway. And well with those we’ll only have webp and heif at most, so I guess we have to deal with that anyway.
i’m not sure about that - even google camera doesn’t support webp (i mean, it’s called “web picture”, i think they see it as a web format primarily). i think phone cameras will continue to be solely jpg for a long time
Maybe if Mozilla had not abandoned their FF OS, maybe that would’ve been a camera supporting jpegxl now.
that’d be nice. i do wish mozilla wasn’t so catastrophically mismanaged all around
That’s not how people use images. For an image format to be viable, you need your camera to support it, your gallery app/program to support it, the web sites you upload it to, the messaging platforms you share it through.
yes. i agree. but that’s my exact point. if i make an image then upload it to the internet - the only software that’s involved is on my side (gimp, ps, whatever[1]) and the browser of the person viewing it. if it was supported in chromium, that’s automatically available in chrome, edge, vivaldi, brave, discord, element, spotify, whatever other chromium-embedded or electron apps you care to name. given the (unfortunate) prominence of electron-based programmes nowadays; that’s good enough for anyone who isn’t a professional, and they’re already fine. fuck it, it has the joint photographic experts group behind it - they’re quite a big name in photography
Oh you’d be surprised… Gaming videos on Steam, screen recordings, porn clips by amateurs, or just random clips, the amount of low-res gifs with 10s of MB in size is crazy.
meh, i haven’t seen any in the past ~5 years apart from ones specifically chosen for that 256 colour æsthetic; but i will believe you
Sure, it’s shitty of Google to drop the support, but from experience I’m still unfortunately 100% sure it wouldn’t have gotten anywhere.
Heck, Apple has been using HEIF for years and that’s a trillion dollar company with a huge market share, and you still get shitton of places where you can’t use it.
it did get places. it has got places. again, it’s very new and is already well supported
jpeg2k failed because of licencing and royalty issues[2]. heif hasn’t spread because of licencing and royalty issues. in my personal opinion, webp has licencing issues. png didn’t. jpeg (sort of) didn’t. jxl doesn’t.
but anyways, this isn’t a pro-jxl comment; it’s an anti-webp comment. i used jxl as an example of why webp, and its adoption, is making the web worse even though it’s better than png from a technical standpoint
or camera, you’re right; but i’m pretty sure that A) there are some cameras that support it already, and B) again, the jpe group have a considerable amount of sway so i’m sure they could persuade most camera manufacturers to support it ↩︎
i mean, as well as the fact it didn’t really bring anything new to the table. but that’s a whole other point ↩︎
Sorry, 5 graphics programs isn’t “support”. You need support from the millon mobile apps, web sites and image and web libraries. A format that you can only use by yourself or with a handful professionals is useless in practice.
i gave those because they’re the most pertinent programmes for people dealing with creating & editing images. there are mobile (or at least android) libraries; and web is the issue i’m talking about - it’s hampered by chromium. there are more here if you’re interested.
and i’d say that’s not bad for a format that’s only a few years old
Ed: look at the list of formats supported by XnView
i don’t know what this is supposed to mean. xnview supports jxl
There’s been hundreds of new image formats in the last ~20 years, and none has gotten anywhere.
because png is good. i’m not defending gif or jpeg, they suck. but png is simple, fast to decode, and open by design. there have been better formats, but not paradigm shiftingly better. it may not be the best as an image format, but it is good
Even PNG needed a decade for some things to support it properly, and that one really had a brand new massive use case.
yeah that’s my point, jxl has been adopted faster than png or webp (it was only officially standardised in 2022!)
People use gif to make videos for crying out loud, and bitch about webp all the time, that’s how massive the pushback against new formats is.
i really don’t think many people use gif. most people use gifv or similar (usually webm) without realising it. apart from its very specific use case, gif sucks; so most software automatically converts to something else
Do you really think jpegxl would get anywhere by itself? No, it would be the same as with jpeg2000 and tons of other formats - first supported by a handful of programs, but not used by anyone else and then forgotten.
jpeg2k had major issues other than a lack of support - jxl has deliberately avoided those pitfalls
jpegxl actually has pretty good support - affinity, photoshop, gimp, krita, etc. all support it fine
it’s only chrome/electron that’s holding it back (even firefox supported it until chrome dropped support). i don’t think it’s lazyness
i have no love for gif (hence i use apng), but all the other alternatives are either videos so show controls by default, not widely supported, or webp. i realise webp is objectively the better format for most things, but i still argue it’s existence is a net negative effect
webp may be open (although actually i’d argue it isn’t, the licences for the decoder and the format itself are both very woolly), but as it’s actively contributing to enshittification by holding back truly open formats i’d say that doesn’t really matter
now whilst i know why people like webp, maybe we could stop using formats owned by google…
until jpegxl becomes viable (which it mainly isn’t because it compete[s/d] with webp), lets stick to nice formats not owned by tech giants, like apng?
#titlebar { display: none !important; }
?
but more seriously you might be able to debug using the browser toolbox (ctrl
+alt
+shift
+i
); or you might try asking on !FirefoxCSS@fedia.io (or !Firefox@fedia.io)
nah, i agree with you. win explorer with qttabbar, tortoisegit, and some tweaks from winaerotweaker
dolphin is pretty good though and it has some features that explorer doesn’t, like a terminal pane
but …surely you could just do the same thing with the old design? artist’s rendition:
in fact, now i look at it, it makes them look even more similar once i collapse the sidebar
meh, subjectively i find that creates a “worst of both worlds” situation. but this comment was more about the futility of the development time that went into this specific feature
maybe; but if the location of menu buttons hints at their use then the hamburger should collapse the side drawer like the one on e.g. youtube, but i doubt it does
I had to look up Fitts’s law, and I’m not sure I get it. Could you explain what you mean?
basically; the speed that it takes to click a button is dependant on the size of the button and the distance from the cursor. however, buttons at the edge of the screen have effectively infinite size, as they can’t be overshot. the most used actions should be placed there, as they are the easiest to click by muscle memory (particularly the corners, as they have infinite size in both dimensions)
on windows, kde, cinnamon, etc.; by default the bottom left is start, the bottom right is show desktop (this one i can’t explain), and the top right is close maximised window. the top of the screen is also used for other window-related actions like minimise, restore, change csd tabs, etc.
gnome flouts this by having most of the top of the screen doing nothing (most of it is completely empty) apart from rarely used actions like calendar and power. and the bottom right and left doing nothing[1]
did i explain well?
ETA: I kinda feel like mine was about KDE not being a fit for me personally, and yours was a slam on Gnome rather than a statement of personal preference.
nah it was very much a personal thing: some people like having a minimal and clutter-free feature set; i like having as many features as possible, because then i find features i didn’t even know i liked.[2]
as for the top bar: this one confuses me - it just seems objectively bad. but obviously it’s not as some people clearly like it. i haven’t had anyone actually explain to me why, though
i didn’t know how useful a terminal embedded in the file manager would be until i started using dolphin, now i can’t do without it ↩︎
every time i try to use gnome, i end up spending all my time going “dammit, where are all the bleeding features”
(also the lack of fitts’ law adherence due to that pointless bar at the top)
yep, that’s me
i’m not even sure it’s worth having an option. i don’t think i’d even have noticed a difference, apart from the menu button being in a slightly different place to every other gnome app. it’s fine; but it wasn’t worth the development time
we’ve got monitor edge barriers! the feature i missed most from windows is here i’m so pleased!