I just tried to upload an image (using FireFox 45.8.0) and:
1. Click-> Select file -> Open does nothing
2. Dragging and Dropping a file throws a popup saying: 'There's no WebGL context available.' and the byte counts show (top right) but then, nothing else.
As I mentioned in another thread about a week ago, I have recently been commissioned to create a (simple, stupid) CMS.
One of the features I wanted to incorporate into the CMS is image compression. After a good bit of code hacking and testing, I believe I have got something good going there. That inspired me to create an independent web app/service offering this (image compression) to users at large. My employers have given me the go ahead to do this.
Long story short, here is the alpha (link in title).
(Hopefully, I'll have a much more polished design/UI ready over the weekend.)
For now, please test it at will and give me your feedback/suggestions.
(The thread title can be made into an acronym YAICS; not intended :-))
I don't understand why anybody would seriously use such a service. IMO, the risk of accidentally leaking confidential information and/or breaking privacy laws is just too high relative to the benefit of not having to host something like it yourself.
I saw that, but IMO, a service like this that is advertised online, as you do, needs a privacy statement from the moment it goes live.
It doesn't have to be one that is vetted by a dozen attorneys; that's for if the site really takes of, but how hard is it to write down whether/how often humans looks at the images uploaded, and whether/for how long they are kept around?
1. It is a free service that no one is forcing anybody to use.
2. I still haven't got around to writing/finishing up anything other than the core functionality of the service.
3. The reason I posted here is primarily to get feedback on the core functionality.
4. When I do get around to creating the TOS and Privacy Policy etc., what it will essentially state is that a) no human will look at the images and b) all images will be (automatically) deleted within 24 hours from the time they were uploaded/processed. While it is not hard to write this down, it is not high up on my list of priorities at this point in time.
"Linux enthusiasts perpetually claim that this year is the year that Linux will finally make headway into the desktop for the everyday user — but it never has and never will."
I guess the author has a (much coveted) crystal ball.
Oh stop it. Is anyone seriously expecting Linux to take over the desktop anymore? Ubuntu is embedded in Windows now for cripes sakes! Be happy with the world's servers and cell phones.
The closest thing to a "Year of the Linux Desktop" is the growing popularity of ChromeOS. Nowhere near rivaling Windows, sure, but not entirely obscure either, and certainly not with a "steep learning curve" (come on MakeUseOf; it ain't 2005 anymore, you can cool it with the tired "Linux is hard to use" crap).
The Linux systems that get brought up in these arguments have a lot of non-default helper programs that obfuscate the underlying OS and remove really any reason to be using Linux in the first place other than it's free and it runs on everything.
I mean, yeah Android is nice. And it technically runs Linux. But so does my wifi router... just because I plugged it in and logged into the web interface doesn't mean I can, with a straight face, claim that I am a Linux user.
Does having a laptop that boots straight into a browser without showing anything lower level than that really count as Linux? Does it really make me a Linux user?
Yes it does. What kind of question is that? With the same logic you can claim that no Windows user that doesn't know how to use "obscure" Windows tools is a Windows user. What you are talking about is a "Power User" or admin. Fuck when every Desktop would run ChromeOS would you still claim it wasn't the year of the Linux desktop? Ubuntu tries to hide every "linuxy" aspect and make it user friendly. So people using Ubuntu and not using any of the command line tools aren't Linux users?
Making the choice running a system makes you a user of that system. If the choice is conscious or not is unimportant. Most people only click on "the internet" or office and it doesn't make them less Windows users. Or do you need to be aware of what you are to be it?
The difference is, Windows is Windows. It's a full OS from tip to tail. Linux is a kernel, one that doesn't do a whole lot by itself. If you installed Linux, you'd be very disappointed. But even installing Ubuntu is different IMO than using Android or ChromeOS or a car infotainment system that may technically be based on Linux but the end user would never be able to tell.
Likewise if I've used an ATM or a mall kiosk that was based on Windows, I'd hardly call myself a Windows user. I'm not talking about an admin or a power user. I'm talking about someone being aware at a basic level what kind of system they're using. My grandma knows she's using Windows.
The problem we both have is when we define someone as a Linux or Windows "user". In my opinion what counts for the year of the Linux Desktop isn't if anybody _sees_ themself as Linux user, but rather if someone actually uses Linux.
I think if we are evaluating what the market share of an os it doesn't matter how it hides it presence. ATMs still are vulnerable to Windows exploits and Linux PCs for Linux vulns and it doesn't need someone to identify with something to be it. It's just the difference between calling oneself a * user and being counted/seen as one.
> Does having a laptop that boots straight into a browser without showing anything lower level than that really count as Linux? Does it really make me a Linux user?
You maybe don't see yourself as one, but you are one. I don't think my Grandma knew she was using Windows and it doesn't matter if she knew.
In that case Linux won years ago. Nearly everyone has seen a billboard or mall kiosk or in-flight entertainment system running on Linux, nearly everyone has connected to a web page running on a Linux server, many people run Android-powered TVs. Hell, my dog can push the ice dispenser on my Samsung smart fridge, she's a Linux user too.
Debate's over. If you don't have to know you're using Linux, if you don't have to see yourself as a Linux user, if all you have to do is be exposed to a system that incidentally runs Linux in some odd capacity for it to be considered Linux on the desktop, that's it. Linux won.
Bad news for everyone who is anti-Microsoft but visits Stack Overflow which runs on Windows Server... wonder if those people are aware that they're now considered Windows users?
> Does having a laptop that boots straight into a browser without showing anything lower level than that really count as Linux? Does it really make me a Linux user?
That's the attitude that keeps Year of the Linux [whatever] from happening. Just because you haven't recompiled your kernel to get some odd library working doesn't mean you're not a Linux user. The idea of a true Linux user is a fallacy in league with there being no true Scotsmen.
How about the other example I stated about my wifi router? It runs Linux, I plugged it in, and I've connected to its web admin page. Am I now a Linux user? My TV runs Android, am I a Linux user?
I never said you had to compile a kernel to be a Linux user... I'm just not sure if an appliance really counts.
> That's the attitude that keeps Year of the Linux [whatever] from happening.
I don't think it's the attitude stopping it. I think it's that ChromeOS has a 0.82% market share and other Linux distros have a 1.66% market share, while Windows and Mac make up 95%
Define "default". From the perspective of a user buying a Chromebook, the "helper programs" are very much the default.
Additionally, "helper programs that obfuscate the underlying OS" is pretty much the whole point of a desktop environment. I fail to see what point you're trying to make there.
"I mean, yeah Android is nice. And it technically runs Linux."
Which is really all that matters. We're talking about the Year of the Linux Desktop, not the Year of the KDE Desktop or the Year of the GNU Desktop.
Not that Android is (usually) a desktop OS, but whatever.
"But so does my wifi router... just because I plugged it in and logged into the web interface doesn't mean I can, with a straight face, claim that I am a Linux user."
Sure you can. You're not a Linux desktop user, but you still use Linux in some capacity rather than, say, VxWorks or IOS.
"Does having a laptop that boots straight into a browser without showing anything lower level than that really count as Linux? Does it really make me a Linux user?"
I think it does. It'd be no different from being a Windows user who only uses a web browser.
You don't have to stutter for your point to be logically inconsistent to the point of incomprehensibility. Lorem ipsum is nonsensical faux-Latin regardless of any speech impediments.
If ChromeOS or Android don't count as "real" Linux desktops because (aside from Android not usually being used for desktops) they abstract away the "Linux" part, then by your exact same logic, any Linux distro that ships with a full-fledged desktop environment is not a "real" Linux desktop, either, since they by design abstract away the Linux part. In fact, literally no actual operating system could possibly be a Linux desktop unless we want to go ahead and turn all user software into kernel modules, since literally anything in userspace is by definition an abstraction on top of Linux.
Linux is one component in a fully-featured operating system. Exactly which userland happens to be running on top of it does not change one's status as a Linux user.
Meanwhile, pretty much every desktop environment for Linux (except maybe recent versions of GNOME) is not exclusive to Linux, so by the logic you've presented, there's literally no such thing as a "real" Linux desktop.
>[maybe] there's no such thing as a "real" Linux desktop.
That may be the simplest answer, but when people talk about "the year of Linux on the desktop" they're talking about something in particular, right? Or does any Linux system count? Android smart TVs? Routers? Mall kiosks? Car infotainment systems? Bluray players where the only interface is a Java program? Or are we only counting systems where we can drop to a shell? In which case, do we only count Android phones that let you install bash, or only ones that can be rooted, or do we count them all?
It's not a logical inconsistency, and it's not incomprehensible. It's a simple question: at what point do you differentiate "it runs on Linux" from "it's Linux on the desktop"? Because if my router counts, Linux won a long time ago.
"when people talk about 'the year of Linux on the desktop' they're talking about something in particular, right?"
Yes: they're talking about a computer running a desktop environment on Linux on a desktop or laptop computer. ChromeOS meets all those criteria. Android would meet all those criteria should it ever be widely deployed on laptops or desktops.
So:
"It's a simple question: at what point do you differentiate 'it runs on Linux' from 'it's Linux on the desktop'?"
And it's a simple answer:
1: It's a desktop or laptop computer.
2: It's running Linux.
3: It's running a graphical desktop environment.
If all three of those things are true, then it's Linux on the desktop. All three of those things are true for Ubuntu, so it's Linux on the desktop. All three of those things are true for ChromeOS, so it's Linux on the desktop.
Whether the operating system allows lower-level access (like a command-line interface) is irrelevant.
"Because if my router counts, Linux won a long time ago."
Your router probably doesn't meet those criteria, since it's probably not a desktop computer and probably not running a desktop environment.
"Android smart TVs?"
Fails criterion 1.
"Routers?"
Fails criteria 1 and 3.
"Mall kiosks?"
Probably fails criterion 3, and almost certainly fails criterion 1.
"Car infotainment systems?"
Fails criterion 1.
"Bluray players where the only interface is a Java program?"
> they're talking about a computer running a desktop environment on Linux on a desktop or laptop computer
That's literally what I was asking. Thank you for replying with your opinion on the subject, it's ridiculous that it's taken this long for someone to say what they actually think instead of just arguing about compiling kernels and a lack of Scottish people.
In my opinion Android is not Linux on the desktop. In my opinion ChromeOS is not Linux on the desktop. I understand there are other opinions, but when I think Linux on the desktop, I think Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, Red Hat, etc. Even the Wikipedia page about Linux on the desktop says "The term Linux adoption often overlooks operating systems or other uses such as in Chrome OS that also use the Linux kernel (but have almost nothing else in common, not even the name – Linux – usually applied"
So there is definitely room for debate. But apparently not on this forum.
"In my opinion Android is not Linux on the desktop."
Agreed, since it does not (usually) run on a desktop or laptop computer.
"In my opinion ChromeOS is not Linux on the desktop."
And why not? That's the point that I've been trying to coax out with no success. What makes it anything but Linux on the desktop?
Is it the fact that it doesn't provide low-level access to the system by default? If so, then why is that a requirement for a desktop system? It seems to not be in line with how the vast majority of desktop computer users actually use their computers. It would also exclude Windows and macOS from being desktop operating systems, since they're (IMO) just as hard to work with on a low level (if not harder) than ChromeOS (but not as hard as Android or iOS).
Is it the fact that everything's web based? If so - again - why does that matter? Who cares what executable format is used or what programming language is used for user-facing software? (Of course, this "fact" ain't entirely true: https://developer.chrome.com/native-client/overview)
Is it the fact that the Linux name is not used? If so, then by that logic Ubuntu is not a "real" desktop Linux system, since https://www.ubuntu.com/desktop doesn't mention Linux anywhere (except for the developer subpage, where it's mentioned as a development feature).
The Wikipedia quote explains the perception's existence. It doesn't explain why that perception of "ChromeOS ain't a real Linux on the desktop" exists or by what criteria it's not a "real" Linux desktop. The fact that it uses the Linux kernel is the only thing that matters for the phrase "desktop Linux", since - again - we're talking about desktop Linux, not desktop GNU or desktop KDE or desktop GNOME or desktop whatever other software.
To be fair, ChromeOS has a proper shell[1], you can ssh from it, etc. (of course you may be able to shell into your router, too, hopefully not via telnet...).
If you want to do anything "linuxey" with a Chromebook, don't you need to use something like Crouton and install a whole different distribution anyways?
Is it even possible or simple to install ChromeOS on a Pi? Most projects related to ChromeOS on Pi seem to be dead. There's FlintOS, which had it's last update last month, but in the release notes:
> We have disabled the root password briefly for improved security, subsequent releases will have a better system to maintain security and allow users root access if activated.
There's also ChromiumRPI, which hasn't been updated in a year and does not and will not support wifi.
Also as far as I can tell, none of them can play Netflix unless you're on a real Chromebook. I'd say it's fairly "hard to use".
Thanks for the info! (I haven't touched ChromeOS in a long time). Still kinda supports my point that ChromeOS does have a steep learning curve if you want to do anything outside of web browsing.
To your implied question about Linux on a Chromebook - you can skip all that Crouton stuff if you flash a special bios. I've got Ubuntu Server with Xmonad on mine as a daily driver and it's been a smooth experience.
I'm afraid I'm not able to discern your meaning from that little snippet, but...
I am willing to go on record now as saying "never will". It hasn't happened yet and the desktop is already dying. The mobile space is the juggernaut now and through Android, Linux is the biggest player.
1. Click-> Select file -> Open does nothing
2. Dragging and Dropping a file throws a popup saying: 'There's no WebGL context available.' and the byte counts show (top right) but then, nothing else.
HTH