Ubuntu 24.04 LTS Won't Support JPEG-XL Out-Of-The-Box

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Ubuntu 24.04 LTS Won't Support JPEG-XL Out-Of-The-Box

There had been some hope that the Ubuntu 24.04 desktop would support the JPEG-XL image format out-of-the-box, but that isn't going to happen as a default change...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Ubuntu-24.04-No-JPEG-XL

[Joe2021]

And I won't support Ubuntu by installing it on any of my boxes...

Seriously, it is a codec for a raster image format. Nothing more, nothing less. It exists for some years now and is not hard to compile. But still are some entities acting like it being a great burden to support this.

[spicfoo]

And I won't support Ubuntu by installing it on any of my boxes...

Support as in are you a commercial customer or just downloading a free distro? If it is the latter, not sure why Canonical would care about you.

[avis]

Michael really could have mentioned the spectacular JXL 0.10 release: https://cloudinary.com/blog/jpeg-xl-...e-pareto-front

[Joe2021]

Support as in are you a commercial customer or just downloading a free distro? If it is the latter, not sure why Canonical would care about you.

I am fully aware that they do not care about me.

[Setif]

Seriously, it is a codec for a raster image format. Nothing more, nothing less. It exists for some years now and is not hard to compile.

They build it and package it, It's just not pre-installed. Not a big deal.

[Joe2021]

They build it and package it, It's just not pre-installed. Not a big deal.

If it is not a big deal, why this article?

[avis]

If it is not a big deal, why this article?

Engagement! Reposts! Ad views!

[geerge]

Michael really could have mentioned the spectacular JXL 0.10 release: https://cloudinary.com/blog/jpeg-xl-...e-pareto-front

Thank you for the benchmark link. Love me some benchmarks.

I take only minor issue with this:

Not shown on the chart is QOI, which clocked in at 154 Mpx/s to achieve 17 bpp, which may be “quite OK” but is quite far from Pareto-optimal, considering the lowest effort setting of libjxl compresses down to 11.5 bpp at 427 Mpx/s (so it is 2.7 times as fast and the result is 32.5% smaller).

First off qoi isn't multithreaded and they're comparing it to libjxl running 8 threads. Second the default qoi encoding isn't an optimal use of the code space, it didn't take much pissing about for me to create a qoi-like that's more space efficient some time ago at no time cost (quicker even when I/O is involved IIRC). If I can be arsed I'll try some benchmarks later.

[byteabit]

If it is not a big deal, why this article?

I think he meant (just my interpretation), it's not a big deal to support the image format in Ubuntu.