Face the reality that all humans are now naked when it comes to their thoughts
Why are you sharing all your thoughts on the internet if you have a problem with this.
Why right NOW is anyone going gee... maybe over-sharing every detail of my life with strangers online could be a problem. Some algorithm could scrape them up and use them against me or others.
You just fucking now come to this conclusion.
At the very least be raped for the things he does.
Fuck all the way off you sick weird freak.
And those corrections require atomic clocks.
You think LLMs would write "Slashdot doesn't have table support, so it's hard to do side-by-side well, but:"? You think LLMs like writing sentences that end in conjunctions that express incomplete thoughts? Do you think LLMs write "high frequences", "naively pairs", call H.265 X.265 (I was thinking of what you refer to it as in ffmpeg), imbalanced parens after "lacks motion vectors",etc?
Don't get me wrong, I am a LLM user, I absolutely do use it sometimes for search, fact checking things I'm writing, spelling/grammar checks (clearly not that time, lol), etc. But I write my own posts.
Slashdot doesn't have table support, so it's hard to do side-by-side well, but:
JPEG XL advantages:
Licensing:
JPEG XL: Fully royalty-free (Open source / Apache 2.0)
HEIC: Proprietary patent minefield (MPEG LA, Advance, Velos; royalties apply)
Legacy JPEG Migration:
JPEG XL: Lossless, reversible bitstream transcoding (~20% smaller); fast enough for real-time web servers
HEIC: Lossy re-encode only (generational quality loss; cannot reconstruct original JPEG)
Fine Detail & Textures
JPEG XL: Retains sharp text, fine lines, subtle textures, and film grain
HEIC: Video-derived coding (HEVC / X.265). Tends to smooth out high frequences and smudge grain.
Software Encoding Speed
JPEG XL: Extremely fast; highly parallelized SIMD architecture
HEIC: Exceptionally slow and computationally expensive in software
Software Decoding Speed
JPEG XL: Fast, lightweight multi-threaded CPU decoding
HEIC: Heavy CPU overhead (without using hardware acceleration)
Progressive Rendering:
JPEG XL: True progressive decode; smart saliency algorithm to focus bandwidth on critical details first.
HEIC: None; full file must be received and decoded before display
Lossless Compression
JPEG XL: Dedicated modular mode; vastly outperforms PNG and WebP
HEIC: Ill-suited; you basically have to try to do lossless compression with an inherently-lossy format
Bit Depth & HDR
JPEG XL: Native HDR; up to 32-bit floating point per channel
HEIC: Typically capped at 10-bit or 12-bit integer
Max Dimensions & Scaling
JPEG XL: Up to 1B x 1B; efficient viewport/crop loading without full decoding
HEIC: v5.2, 4096x2160; v6.2: 8192x4320; a tiling hack allows up to 16384 x 16384
Channels & Color Spaces:
JPEG XL: Arbitrary color spaces (hyperspectral); unlimited extra channels (alpha, depth, thermal, masks, CMYK, etc)
HEIC: Rigid container; limited auxiliary channels and standard video color spaces
HEIC advantages:
Rollout / acceleration:
JPEG XL: no dedicated hardware acceleration (thankfully, it's not as important because it's so much more efficient). Software adoption still rolling out.
HEIC: Hardware silicon (ASICs). Default capture format on modern iOS/Android; native capture in Sony, Canon, and Nikon cameras
Video:
JPEG XL: Supports animations (GIF/APNG replacement), with some optimizations** (it's not just a series of stills), but lacks the full set of optimizations that a proper video codec has.
HEIC: Container naively pairs full HEVC video tracks and audio with video.
** - JPEG XL can store up to 4 reference frames in a buffer, with multiple blending modes from the references (add, replace, multiply, etc); has subframe bounding boxes ("dirty rectangles") for when only part of a frame changes; invisible frames; modular deltas (differences between frames); etc. However, it lacks motion vectors (e.g. detecting a feature drifting across a scene and simply having to encode "move it" (followed by any needed deltas). So it's great for "GIFs", but if you wanted to encode a full movie, it'd be significantly larger than e.g. HEVC.
Look, I use HEIC, but JPEG-XL is just better.
* Royalty-free
* Lossless transcoding of legacy JPEGs to immediately reduce their sizes by ~20% (fast enough that you can have webservers do it in realtime)
* Better fine detail / high frequency data representation for the same bitrate. HEIC was designed for video and simply is not as good at stills.
* Faster decoding
* MUCH faster compression
* True progressive decoding - and not old-school blocky progressive decoding, but using a smart algorithm that restores coarse detail (particularly focusing on parts of the image that the eyes immediately focus on) first, then progressively adding in finer detail that the eyes take more time to notice later.
* Vastly better lossless compression
* Better colour depth and native HDR (up to 32 bit per channel)
* Up to 1B x 1B pixel images (again, useful for scientific and engineering applications), with efficient loading (don't have to load and decode the whole 1B x 1B image at full resolution to view it)
* Arbitrary colour spaces - you can even use it for scientific hyperspectral imaging. You can include e.g. alpha, depth maps, thermal data, selection masks, etc etc.
It's just a better format for stills. It's annoying that it's taken this long to get support to take off (because it takes ages for most people to update their browsers), but I'm really glad that it's starting to.
Companies CHOOSE to get tied in, they CHOOSE to only ever run one system, they CHOOSE to make the migration painful, they CHOOSE to hold back on it in the hopes they can negotiate to carry on just as they are. And those are all DUMB from a business-continuity point of view and no substantial organisation should be allowing that to happen.
You're full of hindsight bias.
It's like saying we CHOSE Linux and calling us dumb because we weren't doing hybrid Linux/FreeBSD the whole time when a good 25 year run ends, and not even ends, gets more expensive. Nothing you can say makes that 20+ year run a bad bet. It was the right decision then, it still was right up until Broadcom's uncertainty.
Why are you even talking about business continuity, nothing is shutting down, business is uninterrupted. Migrating from VMware NOW looks just like migrating from VMware ten years ago. A lot of time and effort to move to an inferior product (no hard feelings proxmox). The higher cost makes the inferior product more palatable, so we'll switch. That doesn't rewrite history and make running two OS, two switch vendors, two fabric vendors, two storage vendors, two server vendors, two virtualization vendors, two database vendors, two full suites of automation and monitoring tools make any sense. That's a lot of overhead you have to pay continuously that doesn't pay itself off unless one of the vendors is a bully. Now we know Broadcom is a bully, and that's the treatment they should get.
There are people still using VMWare?!?!? And their main issue is COST, rather than the fact that VMWare is like a thousand years old?
Vintage VMware from the early 2000s is still a better product than the alternatives today, but if you've only ever used Fisher-Price IT in the cloud rentals I guess you wouldn't know what to even do with a server.
VMWare customers let themselves be locked into a service
Please explain what locked in to VMware means. They're just VMs. Exporting disk images and VM definitions is easy. What makes switching hard is all the other platforms are absolutely terrible.
There's nothing anybody wants to migrate to. We would have already done it already. Or other people would have, and there would be a comfortable split in the market. VMware had the lion's share of local virtualization because it was the only platform that didn't suck ass. That is the tragedy.
Go use one of the alternatives guys, now blow it out from your lab to thousands of VMs and many teams of people that just need to get their job done. They suck, don't lie. We export VMs back and forth from VMware to virtual box to AWS AMIs alllllll day, this is routine. Moving a vm or installing a new one and migrating applications to another OS is work, but it's not the barrier, and there's nothing particular to VMware preventing any of that. We just don't want to. AWS costs waaaaay too much for what we get out of our own hardware, so we have to decompose everything and look at it all sideways squinting to make the math make sense where before we'd just give it a little extra ram and not think twice. All the clouds suck like that, just running VMs on them is expensive. All the VMware alternatives for your own hardware ssssssuuuuuuuucks.
The need for them came from relativity, but the atomic clocks needed to be able to handle such fine corrections are based on the hyperfine transition of 133Cs. You're not getting very far on atomic clocks without particle physics
When economists analyze the effect of corporate raiders like Broadcom, it turns out that this is actually good for capitalism.
[Citation needed]
The guy says it's good, implied culling the herd, then explained that as the process where you kill your best bull. I'm not waiting around to hear the explanation of that crazy =)
But, in the big picture, it’s a bit like taking down the primary bull in a large herd. It’s messy, painful, chaotic, disruptive and brutal, but the end result is a healthier herd.
How does that begin to make sense. If you kill the fittest animal because you could squeeze more money out of its steaks the fastest, you are left with a less fit herd. You repeat that and you have a herd of undesirable animals. Even your cattle analogy shows the bulls are not interchangeable, because you're filtering for fitness in a way that by definition leads to a worse group. The company you can squeeze the hardest fastest had the most viable product and reliable customers. Repeat that and it doesn't matter where the engineers go or which bulls fuck which cows, you're by definition filtering the best outcomes out, because that's the easiest most efficient juice to squeeze.
It's "good" for capitalism as in it's squeezing the most money the fastest, but if you always cut the healthiest trees, it's not good for the forest, which means it's not a benefit to a healthy market, which means that behavior is not good capitalism. Sorry there's just thousands of analogies that make this plainly obvious, including your own.
Everybody wins, right? Well, except for the customers... perhaps the money this costs them will buy them a valuable lesson.
Don't pay for nice things. Great lesson.
Probably because people are stupid and inflexible. Well. Looks like Broadcom knows the idiots they are exploiting very well.
Stupid and inflexible?
20 something years of ESX dominating, 20 years for anyone else to catch up, and the alternatives are still ass.
Stupid and inflexible because people preferred an affordable product that can migrate running processes seamlessly between servers, with native storage clustering and enterprise grade capabilities all _push button simple_ enough for one person to manage the whole operation out to an absolutely ridiculous scale, and was perfectly fine for over two fucking decades. I regret _none_ of that. Who wants to go back in time and double down hard on Xen virtualization, seriously? It's not even a funny joke, nobody wants that.
What do you have to show for that time, what virtualization platform would you put your name on and market if you could. Could you compete what you have today with ESX 2.0 and Virtual Center 1.0 from 2003 at an affordable price. You could not. 2003 VMware is literally a better product than every virtualization product available today, with the exception of hardware virtualization features that didn't exist yet, OK, so let's just say 2005 then. 20+ year old software has better functionality and usability than alternatives today, and frankly it's sad.
You do not have mail.
