Ubuntu 22.10 To Ship With WebP Image Support Out-Of-The-Box

[skeevy420]

That doesn't even make sense.

ssokolow said "Hell, why do we need any file extensions when we can mush everything together into a single file type?"

and an MKV is basically that in regards to the amount of video/audio/subtitle codecs it supports.

[okias]

Once upon a time, there was an mine ITP 2 years ago about webp-pixbuf-loader with finished packaging work which got in just a few months ago. I'm just saying Debian had it first

[GreenReaper]

Once upon a time, there was an mine ITP 2 years ago about webp-pixbuf-loader with finished packaging work which got in just a few months ago. I'm just saying Debian had it first

Debian also had potential security issues by packaging three-year-old versions of libwebp prior to fuzzing which I had to poke them about and then file as a security issue to get fixed (which it did a few months later, although getting an actual new version took another year from my initial report).

I guess this is not surprising considering how the maintainer system works - someone has to package a random library to use it with the project they actually care about, and it's then reused by other, more crucial projects - but it's worrying. What other widely-used libraries have drifted into unmaintained status?

[ssokolow]

Matroška has .mka for audio alone, .mkv for av, .mks for subtitles alone, and mk3d containers with stereoscopic video... and if you count WebM, .webm for mkv containers with only webm compatible codecs.
Ogg has .ogg usually for audio alone, .oga for audio alone, .ogv for av, .ogx for fancy multiplexing, .spx for only Speex tracks, .opus for only Opus tracks. .ogm was technically the first "arbitrary multimedia" extension for the ogg format, though it is largely disused.
MPEG 4 Part 14 has .mp4 which usually contains AV, .m4a which usually contains audio alone, .m4b for audio alone with chapters (think audiobook), .m4r for only ringtone codecs supported by iPhones, .m4v sometimes used for video alone, .3gp and .3g2 extensions for phone recordings, .m4p for iTunes music with DRM....

Aside from I guess AVI, most multi-purpose containers have extension naming schemes for different types of content; not having such a scheme would make you an outlier.

I'd forgotten about .mka and other non-.mkv extensions. (Which is particularly embarrassing, given that, only a few month ago, I was working on the filetype definitions for a corruption checker that supports invoking FFMPEG to check media files.)

Sorry about that.

GIF, APNG, and WebP are outliers of that nature and that's why I hate them.

[ssokolow]

file extensions are fundementally for the users, not the OS

Exactly why I think WebP is user-hostile for using the same extension whether it's lossless or lossy, static or animated, and refuse to use it. (Well, that and what an evil thing it is for sites to transparently transcode .png URLs to a "may be lossy" format unless I either alter my HTTP request headers to be more fingerprintable or reach for wget.)

[Quackdoc]

Exactly why I think WebP is user-hostile for using the same extension whether it's lossless or lossy, static or animated, and refuse to use it. (Well, that and what an evil thing it is for sites to transparently transcode .png URLs to a "may be lossy" format unless I either alter my HTTP request headers to be more fingerprintable or reach for wget.)

I myself dont really mind, no image format is a guarantee of quality, there are many people who kill quality in their workflow, and pngs that used to be jpegs etc. a good jpeg is better then a bad png. Mr. Sneyers from cloudinary actually talked about this, there isn't really any benefit for the end user in discriminating between lossless and non-lossless for distribution (which in the end is what webp, avif, and jxl are for) since as I said, the workflow matters a lot more then if the image was encoded as lossy or lossless.

and as for animations vs stills, technologically speaking its kind of really annoying to deal with, but from a user perspective, an animated picture, should be consumed as a picture. and there really isnt much value to most people in sorting out animated pictures from pictures. (Even aom changed animated pictures from .avifs to .avif since they deemed it not worth while to segregate the two, the distinguished factor is in the sub branding). Dont get me wrong, I would personally love it if animated avif images were .avifs, since it would make sorting a bit easier (now if you want to sort out images, you check the subrand for 'avis')

[ssokolow]

(Even aom changed animated pictures from .avifs to .avif since they deemed it not worth while to segregate the two, the distinguished factor is in the sub branding). Dont get me wrong, I would personally love it if animated avif images were .avifs, since it would make sorting a bit easier (now if you want to sort out images, you check the subrand for 'avis')

Bah. Well, I suppose, given that I already need to reprocess GIFs and PNGs to strip supplementary frames and enforce the "must not be animated" requirement, it shouldn't be too difficult to just reject AVIF uploads until it becomes sufficiently easy to support reprocessing them.

(In PNG's case, I can even justify it as "rendering them spec-compliant".)

That said, I really do wish the spec people would stop colon-gazing and define a CSS property to force anything which accepts an image file (img, object, etc.) tag to not animate.

[dpeterc]

there are many ways to get pictures to blend well, alpha images are a single way, alpha webps are a bad way

Opinions make a poor argument.

[microcode]

What does that have to do with anything?

The place where most Ubuntu users use webp has had webp for the whole time that webp has been a thing on the internet. Having libwebp in the distro didn't stop most people using Ubuntu from making the most common use of it.

[brad0]

The place where most Ubuntu users use webp has had webp for the whole time that webp has been a thing on the internet. Having libwebp in the distro didn't stop most people using Ubuntu from making the most common use of it.

How does a web browser get you thumbnails when you're viewing images locally? It doesn't. No one uses a web browser when viewing local images either.