Re: [Freedos-user] HTTPS and DOS browsers

[Abe Mishler]

> On Aug 1, 2016, at 5:24 AM, dmccunney  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:41 AM, dos386  wrote:
 The bloat increase is just incredible :-D and sure RAM and CPU
 consumption grows too
>> 
>>> One man's bloat is another's feature. I've been running Mozilla code
>>> since it was still an internal Netscape
>> 
>> COOL ... at that time they refused to add support for MNG as it
> 
> You mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-image_Network_Graphics ?
> 
>> would add 10 KiO of bloat ...
> 
> More to the point, who *needed* it?
> 
> MNG is PNG with support for animation.  PNG was created to be a
> graphics format unencumbered by patents.
> 
> The GIF format used LZW compression.  Terry Welch, the W in LZW,
> worked for Sperry when he wrote the paper that described a version of
> the Lev-Zempel compression algorithm that was simpler and easier to
> implement in software. Because he worked for Sperry, they owned the
> rights to his work.  Compuserve introduced the GIF format in 1987, and
> used LZW as the compression algorithm.  Meanwhile, Burroughs bought
> Sperry and became Unisys.  In 1994, someone at Unisys realized they
> owned a patent on the compression used in GIF files and that began
> going after Compuserve and other sites that used GIF for graphics to
> get compensation.
> 
> PNG grew out of that mess, as developers recognized a need for a
> graphics format unencumbered by patent.  But the PNG developers didn't
> care for the MNG format - they thought overloading PNG to also do
> animation was bad design, and something different should be done..The
> whole question became moot b y 2004 when the relevant Unisys patents
> had all expired expired.
> 
> I don't recall ever seeing an MNG file, and if I were Mozilla, I
> wouldn't bother to add support for something no one actually used,
> even if it produced *no* bloat.
> 
>> now we have 50 MiO bloat of the
>> browser + 20 MiO bloat of Flu$h instead :-D
> 
> You can not install or uninstall Adobe Flash.  If you never do
> anything that needs Flash, you'll never miss it.  Most folks *do*
> stuff that needs Flash and that's not an option.
> 
> What sort of other stuff might you *omit* from Mozilla code to trim
> bloat?  What do you consider bloat?
> 
>>> The big step towards that came from Cisco.  The defacto standard
>>> encoding for video these days is H_264, but it's a proprietary spec
>> 
>> There used to be a draft back in 2007 recommending Theora
>> for coming HTML5 ... but it was trashed after pressure of some
>> companies (Adobe, Banana/Apple, ...) ... and now 9 years later
>> we have 10 times more bloated browsers and still no usable
>> standard, and most video pages still rudely cry for Flu$h.
> 
> H_264 got the nod because it provides better compression, and video
> takes bandwidth.  Google was looking at Theora as an alternative when
> they decided to make Chrome fully open source.  Cisco's purchase of a
> license that allowed them to offer an open source reference
> implementation removed the need to do that.
> 
> We *have* a usable spec, and it's being implemented.  (There's a lot
> more to HTML5 than the new  keyword, and not all of it is fully
> defined yet, but folks are implementing the parts that are as they
> can.)
> 
> I don't think "most" video pages rudely cry for flash, and video isn't
> the only reason Flash is deployed.  Folks are  moving away from it as
> fast as they can.  But getting rid of Flash is a complex exercise.
> Adobe has a beta tool to help migrate extant Flash code to HTML5, but
> it's not a simple or easy process, and doing it takes time and costs
> money.  Got a site where you would really like to see Flash go away in
> favor of HTML5?  Are *you* willing to pay what it will cost them to do
> it?  I didn't think so.  Expect them to spend the money just to make
> *you* happy?  I *hope* you don't think so.
> 
>>> You are *not* representative of the mass user base
>> 
>> well :-D
> 
>>> and what works for you will not work for 99% of the rest of the world
>> 
>> You are wrong. The Internet used more or less to work for 99% of the
>> world ... the problem is that those 99% love to throw away something
>> that works (proverb: "change the winning team ASAP") for no reason.
> 
> The Internet more or less worked for 99% of the world using the stuff
> you advocate *20 years ago*.
> 
> Since you seem to have missed the fact, I'll be a good guy and clue
> you in.  That was *then*.  This is *now*. What worked 20 years ago
> *won't* work now.  The world has changed and we have to change with
> it.  Standing still is *not* an option.
> 
I must point out the irony in that position on a *mailing list* about 
Free*DOS*. Thanks for that. It was a good chuckle 8-p

This topic does point out how far away we are from _The Future_ where 
everyone's computer terminal magically connects to Skynet or The Oasis with 
equal access for all. Sometimes I yearn for simpler times too ... or 

Re: [Freedos-user] HTTPS and DOS browsers

[Ralf Quint]

On 8/1/2016 2:14 PM, TJ Edmister wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 05:24:30 -0400, dmccunney 
> wrote:
>
>> More to the point, who *needed* it?
>>
>> MNG is PNG with support for animation.  PNG was created to be a
>> graphics format unencumbered by patents.
> If GIF was patent encumbered, then it would seem that anyone who wanted
> support for animation in an unencumbered format "needed" MNG.
GIF was indeed covered by several patents from Unisys, in particular the 
LZW compression, which all ran out in 2004...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIF#Unisys_and_LZW_patent_enforcement

Ralf

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] HTTPS and DOS browsers

[TJ Edmister]

On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 05:24:30 -0400, dmccunney   
wrote:

>
> More to the point, who *needed* it?
>
> MNG is PNG with support for animation.  PNG was created to be a
> graphics format unencumbered by patents.

If GIF was patent encumbered, then it would seem that anyone who wanted  
support for animation in an unencumbered format "needed" MNG.

> PNG grew out of that mess, as developers recognized a need for a
> graphics format unencumbered by patent.  But the PNG developers didn't
> care for the MNG format - they thought overloading PNG to also do
> animation was bad design

As someone who has implemented a PNG decoder from the official spec, I had  
a good chuckle over the idea of the PNG devs shying away from something  
because of "bad design."

>
> The Internet more or less worked for 99% of the world using the stuff
> you advocate *20 years ago*.

Yes. That's what the previous poster just said.

>
> Since you seem to have missed the fact, I'll be a good guy and clue
> you in.  That was *then*.  This is *now*. What worked 20 years ago
> *won't* work now.

On the contrary. Despite deliberate efforts to break things, there is  
plenty that still works.

> The world has changed and we have to change with
> it.  Standing still is *not* an option.

Well, you can't stand still if your job security depends on making changes  
for the sake of it. Mine doesn't.

> You might not like a lot of the changes needed, but you're stuck with
> them.

I have found it's remarkably easy to not use things that I don't wish to  
use. YMMV.

> The world is bigger than you are and doesn't *care* what *you*
> think.

As spokesman for the world, maybe you can do me a favor and inform them  
that this feeling is mutual.

> __
> Dennis
>
> --
> ___
> Freedos-user mailing list
> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user



--
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] HTTPS and DOS browsers

[dmccunney]

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:41 AM, dos386  wrote:
>> > The bloat increase is just incredible :-D and sure RAM and CPU
>> > consumption grows too
>
>> One man's bloat is another's feature. I've been running Mozilla code
>> since it was still an internal Netscape
>
> COOL ... at that time they refused to add support for MNG as it

You mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-image_Network_Graphics ?

> would add 10 KiO of bloat ...

More to the point, who *needed* it?

MNG is PNG with support for animation.  PNG was created to be a
graphics format unencumbered by patents.

The GIF format used LZW compression.  Terry Welch, the W in LZW,
worked for Sperry when he wrote the paper that described a version of
the Lev-Zempel compression algorithm that was simpler and easier to
implement in software. Because he worked for Sperry, they owned the
rights to his work.  Compuserve introduced the GIF format in 1987, and
used LZW as the compression algorithm.  Meanwhile, Burroughs bought
Sperry and became Unisys.  In 1994, someone at Unisys realized they
owned a patent on the compression used in GIF files and that began
going after Compuserve and other sites that used GIF for graphics to
get compensation.

PNG grew out of that mess, as developers recognized a need for a
graphics format unencumbered by patent.  But the PNG developers didn't
care for the MNG format - they thought overloading PNG to also do
animation was bad design, and something different should be done..The
whole question became moot b y 2004 when the relevant Unisys patents
had all expired expired.

I don't recall ever seeing an MNG file, and if I were Mozilla, I
wouldn't bother to add support for something no one actually used,
even if it produced *no* bloat.

> now we have 50 MiO bloat of the
> browser + 20 MiO bloat of Flu$h instead :-D

You can not install or uninstall Adobe Flash.  If you never do
anything that needs Flash, you'll never miss it.  Most folks *do*
stuff that needs Flash and that's not an option.

What sort of other stuff might you *omit* from Mozilla code to trim
bloat?  What do you consider bloat?

>> The big step towards that came from Cisco.  The defacto standard
>> encoding for video these days is H_264, but it's a proprietary spec
>
> There used to be a draft back in 2007 recommending Theora
> for coming HTML5 ... but it was trashed after pressure of some
> companies (Adobe, Banana/Apple, ...) ... and now 9 years later
> we have 10 times more bloated browsers and still no usable
> standard, and most video pages still rudely cry for Flu$h.

H_264 got the nod because it provides better compression, and video
takes bandwidth.  Google was looking at Theora as an alternative when
they decided to make Chrome fully open source.  Cisco's purchase of a
license that allowed them to offer an open source reference
implementation removed the need to do that.

We *have* a usable spec, and it's being implemented.  (There's a lot
more to HTML5 than the new  keyword, and not all of it is fully
defined yet, but folks are implementing the parts that are as they
can.)

I don't think "most" video pages rudely cry for flash, and video isn't
the only reason Flash is deployed.  Folks are  moving away from it as
fast as they can.  But getting rid of Flash is a complex exercise.
Adobe has a beta tool to help migrate extant Flash code to HTML5, but
it's not a simple or easy process, and doing it takes time and costs
money.  Got a site where you would really like to see Flash go away in
favor of HTML5?  Are *you* willing to pay what it will cost them to do
it?  I didn't think so.  Expect them to spend the money just to make
*you* happy?  I *hope* you don't think so.

>> You are *not* representative of the mass user base
>
> well :-D

>> and what works for you will not work for 99% of the rest of the world
>
> You are wrong. The Internet used more or less to work for 99% of the
> world ... the problem is that those 99% love to throw away something
> that works (proverb: "change the winning team ASAP") for no reason.

The Internet more or less worked for 99% of the world using the stuff
you advocate *20 years ago*.

Since you seem to have missed the fact, I'll be a good guy and clue
you in.  That was *then*.  This is *now*. What worked 20 years ago
*won't* work now.  The world has changed and we have to change with
it.  Standing still is *not* an option.

You might not like a lot of the changes needed, but you're stuck with
them.  The world is bigger than you are and doesn't *care* what *you*
think.
__
Dennis

--
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

Re: [Freedos-user] HTTPS and DOS browsers

[dos386]

> > The bloat increase is just incredible :-D and sure RAM and CPU
> > consumption grows too

> One man's bloat is another's feature. I've been running Mozilla code
> since it was still an internal Netscape

COOL ... at that time they refused to add support for MNG as it
would add 10 KiO of bloat ... now we have 50 MiO bloat of the
browser + 20 MiO bloat of Flu$h instead :-D

> The big step towards that came from Cisco.  The defacto standard
> encoding for video these days is H_264, but it's a proprietary spec

There used to be a draft back in 2007 recommending Theora
for coming HTML5 ... but it was trashed after pressure of some
companies (Adobe, Banana/Apple, ...) ... and now 9 years later
we have 10 times more bloated browsers and still no usable
standard, and most video pages still rudely cry for Flu$h.

> You are *not* representative of the mass user base

well :-D

> and what works for you will not work for 99% of the rest of the world

You are wrong. The Internet used more or less to work for 99% of the
world ... the problem is that those 99% love to throw away something
that works (proverb: "change the winning team ASAP") for no reason.

--
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user

[Freedos-user] New FreeDOSers Monthly Reminder

[John Price]

MONTHLY REMINDER FOR THE FREEDOS MAILING LISTS

Hello, and welcome to the FreeDOS mailing list!

If you have been a list member for some time, then you can skip this
as you should be familiar with the rules by now.

--

The FreeDOS Project aims to create a free, complete implementation of
classic DOS. DOS is still a popular system, and plenty of people use
FreeDOS to play classic DOS games, run legacy software, and support
embedded systems. For more information about FreeDOS, visit:

  http://www.freedos.org/


We have only a few rules for posting to the FreeDOS mailing lists:

1. Don't swear. We don't want this mailing list to become what Usenet
   turned into.

2. Keep posts on-topic. Remember, we set up this mailing list to
   discuss FreeDOS issues.

3. No flame wars. If you feel really strongly against what someone has
   said, send a reply off-list.


Some suggestions:

** Please send only plain text email messages, rather than messages
   formatted in HTML. Plain text makes it easier for everyone to read
   your posts. Above all, HTML email is particularly difficult for
   some screen readers.

** When replying to messages, please quote just the bit of email you
   are replying to. Don't copy the whole conversation if you don't
   need to.

--

  
  

/* This is an automated message sent out to the mailing list at the
first of each month.  It is automagically downloaded from 
http://freedos.sourceforge.net/freedos/lists/remind.txt 

Feel free to contact John Price if necessary by replying to this
message. */


--
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user