mozjpeg VS core-js

[2] https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg

It would be nice if the author would add mozjpeg[1] to the comparison. At certain sizes, it can produce smaller sizes than WebP, and because it is still a jpeg, it has a much better compatibility story, which the author alluded to.

[1]https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg

image-shrinker is a simple, easy to use open source tool for shrinking images. Under the hood it uses pngquant, mozjpg, SVGO, and gifsicle. You can also install these tools individually if you need to compress some images. I often use pngquantafter exporting PNGs for web projects from Figma or similar tools. I literally run it like this:

> MozJPEG is a patch for libjpeg-turbo. Please send pull requests to libjpeg-turbo if the changes aren't specific to newly-added MozJPEG-only compression code.

https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg#mozilla-jpeg-encoder-proj...

FWIW, Mozilla has been maintaining their own fork for quite a while now[1]

AFAIK most Linux Distros have been using libjpeg-turbo as a drop-in replacement for libjpeg, after some drama in ~2010 where libjpeg came under new management, decided to break ABI/API several times over and add incompatible, non-standard format extensions[2].

[1] https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libjpeg#History

No.

See https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg

Also, there is a fairly big problem with JPG that the ‘quality’ setting is not calibrated. That is you might look at one image and think it looks fine (which is subjective, depends on what you want to use the image for…) with a quality of 60%, but then you compress a million images at that rate, delete the originals, then you find that many of them look really awful. Not only that but there are images you could have compressed more and still been happy with the output.

If you are publishing images for the web consider using WebP which is consistently better, well supported now, and has a calibrated quality knob.

https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg's cjpeg tool is the command line version of the mozjpeg library, itself a fork of libjpeg-turbo. Mozjpeg performs lossless JPEG optimization. There are plenty of others out there.

Use the Mozilla JPEG Encoder, which implements several tricks for smaller file size / better visual quality. The result is still JPEG standard compatible that other software can decode.

Guetzli was already mentioned and roughly does what you are talking about.

MozJPEG [1] includes several quantization tables that are optimized for different contexts (see the quant-table flag and source code for specific tables[2]), and the default quantization table has been optimized to outperform the recommended quantization tables in the original JPEG spec (Annex K).

It's also worth noting that MozJPEG uses Trellis quantization [3] to help improve quality without a per-image brute force quantization table search. Basically rather than determining an optimal quantization table for the image, it minimizes rate distortion on a per-block level by tuning the quantized coefficients.

[1] https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg

[2] https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg/blob/5c6a0f0971edf1ed3cf3...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trellis_quantization

They're still being used. A newer, optimized JPEG encoder, mozJPEG[0], seems to use progressive encoding by default. I suspect with faster internet speeds, most images download and decode so fast that the cool 'enhance' animation doesn't happen anymore.

[0] https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg

This is surprisingly common. The other example off the top of my head, a single maintainer of a very popular project who had to temporarily abandon it due to lack of funds, is Denis Pushkarev (zloirock) and core.js (https://github.com/zloirock/core-js/blob/master/docs/2023-02...).

The majority of OSS projects have most of their contributions by one person (the project leader), and the vast majority of OSS contributors don't do it for their job. It seems nearly every single popular OSS project is like this (one unpaid, maybe sponsored, volunteer doing most of the work); it's not even worth listing projects and names, because you can just pick a couple projects you know and I bet at least one will be an example. Fortunately, most of these people seem to be well-off (probably in part due to the quality of programming jobs), but every once in a while there's someone who's not so fortunate. It should be more common to sponsor maintainers, especially if they are asking for donations provided they can prove that they really need the money (the world we live in, some people who have plenty fake issues to solicit donations, then others who genuinely need and deserve the money are scolded and left unfunded because of them).

Funny you say that, I was just thinking earlier today back to the core-js drama.

In short: the creator of a NPM package that is used by approximately everyone, everywhere, was facing a legal battle. He had been developing this package full time for years and did not have the cash on hand to hire a lawyer. He added a console log that ran on installing his package that said something like "If you're using core-js please consider donating". Queue an absolute shitstorm of people screaming at him in the github issues and him going to prison for around 10 months. Luckily he seems to be back on the grind nowadays, with a decently robust cross-platform slush fund to boot (~200k USD across Pateron, Open Collective, Bitcoin).

It can be a rough world out there for the folks building for the "focus, productivity and anti-distraction" platform.

https://github.com/zloirock/core-js

I think everyone here knows that, at some point, the site would start costing a lot of money and would need to be funded in some way. I would love for the Wikipedia donation model to work for a site like this but everything I find points to that not being the case. Reddit gold not covering server costs and open source devs not tied to a corporation struggling to continue working on their projects being two prime examples. If anyone has anything that can convince me to give it a try, please let me know and I will switch this to a non-profit.

Open source developers are not being paid. They published under licenses that allow zero cost and businesses won't pay.

If you want to write open source code for living, you have to find a business model that works. In this case, it is even under permissive license.

* code freeze - code is under open source license only a certain time after commit/release. Maybe add "support", aka you get security fixes in timely manner.

* open core - put some features behind commericial door.

* go ImageSharp way of split license. That one is fun, because MS deprecated/killed (throws exceptions on attempt to use) official image/font library and that was was intended replacement. Rather blatant offloading of costs.

This has been rehashed several time (core-js recently https://github.com/zloirock/core-js/blob/master/docs/2023-02...).

The gist of it is: Companies are not going to pay if they don't have to. That is the reality and it's not going to change.

This is one of the few examples. https://github.com/zloirock/core-js/blob/master/docs/2023-02-14-so-whats-next.md

Open source: It sounds pretty nice. Open to everyone... But it sucks in general. People really don't care to contribute to open-source. (e.g. here). It is a really good resource for development but for people who don't know anything about development, it is not important. There needs to be some financial income / support for good open-source.

there is https://github.com/zloirock/core-js but is more or less a 1 guy team and he is grossly under paid and well just read this https://github.com/zloirock/core-js/blob/master/docs/2023-02-14-so-whats-next.md im shocked he still works on it

Choice is good to a point but at some point it becomes crippling. It still haunts me on Rails. Is it yarn, is it brunch, is it npm, is it webpacker, is it esbuild, is it import maps... plus personally the pad-left debacle left a bad taste in my mouth and this little nugget about core-js was heartbreaking. For me it's hard to pick JS for anything other than what I absolutely must.

There's a real story behind that (but the software is core-js, not nginx)

npm WARN deprecated [email protected]: core-js@<3 is no longer maintained and not recommended for usage due to the number of issues. Please, upgrade your dependencies to the actual version of core-js@3. \> [email protected] postinstall /home/daniel/src/test/node_modules/core-js > node -e "try{require('./postinstall')}catch(e){}" Thank you for using core-js ( https://github.com/zloirock/core-js ) for polyfilling JavaScript standard library! The project needs your help! Please consider supporting of core-js on Open Collective or Patreon: > https://opencollective.com/core-js > https://www.patreon.com/zloirock Also, the author of core-js ( https://github.com/zloirock ) is looking for a good job -)