Slashdot Mirror
JPEG2000 Coming Soon
Sonny writes "In a few months time, internet users will be able to make use of the JPEG2000 standard which, its developers claim, enables web graphics to be downloaded much faster than is currently possible. This will not only make graphics-heavy web pages easier to download, it will also preserve image quality. The JPEG standard compresses image files which are then transmitted across the web faster than uncompressed files. Now, researchers at universities around the world have developed JPEG2000, the next-generation image-compression technology under the auspices of the International Standards Organisation. It is the first major upgrade of the standard since it first appeared in the early '90s. What is also important about the technology is its ability to send files without loss of data, which is not the case with current JPEG files. To take advantage of a JPEG2000, web browsers will need a Plug-In for either Internet Explorer or Netscape browsers. These free plug-in's are expected to be available later this year. The extension for the new files will be ".jp2"."
apparently you didn't read the posting Dept., did you pigfucker?
And this followed by reading every other post on slashdot, I've come to the conclusion that the majority of Slashdotters are incredible blessed with the ability to criticise, complain and attack, under the guise of wit (which in most cases a complete failure). All the while not reflecting on their own inability to come up and implement several of the same technologies which they criticise.
End Rant.
shut up, you're a fag, nobody cares what you have to say, go away.
If you based your findings of the previous poster being "a pretentious fucktard" and "a narrow-minded little SOD that has some major issues dealing with reality" your statements may carry some more weight.
Basicly that is what is called "an argument" as opposed to what you did, which is called "a claim" or in less polite terms "having your head up your ass".
Yes, I'm off topic and I honestly don't care - I just hate people who don't present arguments.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
The Netscape plug-in interface is a JOKE compared to ActiveX. It's a nickle-and-dime hack intended to solve a ten-dollar problem. Netscape plug-ins are easy to support because they're so crippled, and can't do much.
Netscape certainly could have supported ActiveX plug-ins, because ActiveX is well documented and designed to be hosted inside of any application. Netscape plug-ins are not. Netscape decided not to support ActiveX for purely political reasons. Netscape actually uses something called "XP/COM" inside for its implementation, which is just a simple rip-off of COM (the technology ActiveX is based on). But Netscape chose not to expose that to the users in a way that enabled them to plug in ActiveX controls.
Supporting ActiveX controls isn't rocket science. But the design of the Netscape plug-in interface is Fred Flintstone pseudo-science. To compare it to ActiveX is totally ignorant, and shows you understand neither.
As I said: Netscape's decision to not support ActiveX plug-ins was purely a political decision. It was one of Netscape's more idiotic self destructive blunders. Look where it got them: Absolutely nowhere. Now, hardly anybody uses their browser any more.
It's simply false and deceptive to state that "There's just not enough market demand for these technologies to warrant the cost of implementing them." ActiveX and Visual Basic dominate the market, no matter what fantasy world you're living in.
The fact that you're wrong is why you have to resort to the passive voice and slippery wording like: "In addition, some reports raise the question of how secure ActiveX is." Which reports? This is the web: use a link!
"It has been claimed that" Who claimed? Why are you using the passive voice? Because you want to avoid stating WHO claimed that. Because it was just "some ignorant kids in slashdot" who made false claims they can't support.
"ActiveX has serious problems with security" So do Netscape plug-ins! Netscape plug-ins are no more secure than ActiveX plug-ins.
"and some even say" Again, you're afraid to say who, or provide a link because the people who say it are full of shit.
"that the problem is an almost complete lack of security." Wrong. ActiveX has a much more advanced security model than Netscape plug-ins. Read the documentation before going off half cocked.
"The same concerns have been raised about VBScript." And the absolutely same concerns have been raised about JavaScript.
"So besides making me stick with an insecure plug-in interface," Netscape has stuck you with an insecure plug-in interface. Microsoft originally provided BOTH interfaces, and let the developers decide. And the developers decided: Anyone who's use both knows that ActiveX is much better than Netscape's lame plug-in interface, and Microsoft is right to finally drop the old unpopular baggage, which they at least gave a chance. But Netscape NEVER GAVE THE DEVELOPERS A CHOICE. They stuck developers with one and only one lame assed insecure useless plug-in interface.
"what other reason is there for me to go to IE6 or newer?" There are many good reasons, but you refuse to see them because you're an idiotic close-minded religious fanatic.
"Did they tell us (a registerred MS Developer...)?" Obviously you've never read any of the documentation they send you. Because if you did know anything about ActiveX, you wouldn't get so many of your facts wrong when comparing it to Netscape's lame-assed plug-in interface.
"In any case, thanks for calling me narrow-minded even though it's pretty obvious I know more about this topic than you do." Statements like that make you sound even more narrow minded. Obviously you don't know very much about the topic at all.
I wrote my first Netscape plug-in soon after Netscape released their original SDK. It totally sucked. I've written many ActiveX plug-ins since then, and there's no way I'm going back to Netscape's ridiculous plug-in interface.
Years ago, I had a job offer in hand from a company I wanted to work for, so just for fun I went on a job interview to Netscape, to meet people and see what was going on there. I certainly never wanted to work for Netscape, but I did want a chance to talk with the people developing the software. So I showed them the Netscape plug-in I developed, and told them about how frustrating and inadequete their plug-in interface was, and asked them to fix the limitations so they had a chance to compete with ActiveX. Obviously they didn't listen to me, or any other developers, because the Netscape plug-in interface is still totally crippled, and Netscape still refuses to give users and developers a choice by also supporting ActiveX.
So you don't have any right to complain about Microsoft dumping Netscape plug-ins, because Netscape never supported Microsoft's ActiveX plug-ins in the first place. And don't say it would have been difficult, or you reveal your total ignorance. Netscape's decision was purely political, and stupid.
Microsoft is the company that supported both plug-in interfaces for a long time, but Netscape only ever supported their own parochial nickle-and-dime plug-in interface, which totally sucks. Get your facts right.