[Coco] [Color Computer] RE: DjVu misconceptions

[John W. Linville]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 07:56:56AM -0000, James Diffendaffer wrote:

> "Sarcasm is the making of remarks intended to mock the person
> referred to"
>
> Humor wasn't intended.
 
Well, at least we know what _your_ intent was when you used <sarcasm>
tags...

> You are making wild claims against the format,
> attacking people that support it and seem to be more interested in
> feeding your ego than a rational discussion.  

Are we reading the same email?

> Claims were made DjVu isn't supported on anything but a web browser
> plugin.  Nope... not true.
> 
> Claims were made it was Windows only... Nope... not true.  
> 
> The format is brand new... Nope.

You are attributing the words of others to me.  I don't believe I
said any of the above, mostly because I had never even heard of this
format a few days ago.

> Patent encombered... just like PDF and the patents start to expire in
> a couple years.  Saying legal action will take place now is absurd
> since they publicly announced the change in license terms.  They
> wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court unless you violate the terms
> of the license.  For any commercial project you need to read the fine
> print of any license agreement.
 
And this makes it better because...?

> Then there was the whole thing about you needing to keep an old
> machine just so you could view documents stored in a dead format...
> uh... yeah... whatever.  
 
I did say something like that, in response to the argument that you
will surely be able to convert djvu files to something viewable in
the future.  Being able to convert them to something else isn't much
of an argument in favor...I'm sure you agree.

> > Still, even your own results reveals the disparity in prevalence.
> 
> And???  Didn't you see the <sarcasm> </sarcasm> tags around the text?
> Google is a search engine and PDF allowed free licensing a decade
> ago... not just recently like DjVu.  
 
Which is why _everyone_ can deal w/ PDFs while practically _nobody_
knows what djvu files are...

> Claims were made it's obscure but you refuse to define what the
> magical number is that would show when it's no longer obscure.

It was your idea that there is some magic number, not mine.  The real
test is whether or not someone says "what?" when you say "this is a
djvu file"...

> Who needs to adopt the format before it's mainstream?
> Which definition of obscruity anyway?  There are over 1.6 million
> google hits, info pages on wikipedia... info certainly isn't "hard to
> find" if a person actually looks.
> Uncommon would be accurate, not widely adopted...  but obscure? 
> Clouded by darkness... sounds ominous but I'm not sure it's accurate.

You are splitting hairs...or having a tantrum...

> It takes time for people to adopt new formats.

...if they adopt them at all.

> Adoption of DjVu was
> hampered by corporate vision that if you have a superior technology
> people will pay absurd license fees for it.  What they were charging
> for the software to build DjVu files is not something that you or I
> could afford.  Lizard Tech took the approach that if you make it
> affordable, they will come.

...and it is working so well that no one even knows what djvu is...

Many companies have tried to turn-around their failing products at
the last minute by trying to figure-out how to make money by giving
them away.  That strategy is far from a guaranteed success.

> >  I suspect that may be the case for those advocating djvu as
> well...)
> 
> Emotional???  Over a file format???  LOL.. no.  If decent PDFs would
> fit on one disk I could care less.

Hmmm...well, you wrote an angry, seething five-page response to a
pithy one-page email...

> You on the other hand "refuse to install anything on your computer
> that isn't already there".  That sounds kinda emotional to me.  And

Actually, here you are quoting what _you_ said _about_ me...

For the record, I have a Master's degree in computer engineering,
and I get paid by Red Hat to develop the Linux kernel.  Does that
sound like someone who fears technological change to you?

> "adding to the misery of your life" blah blah blah.  Insecurity I
> presume?  Were you picked on by the other kids or something?  

Clearly, you have no idea who I am...

> Look, I've compared the formats before and for everything *I* tested,
> DjVu compresses better for the same quality, zooms better (PDF scales
> individual pixes as vector graphics... which just gives you bigger
> pixels when you zoom in) and most importantly to me... actually gives
> a one or very few DVD distro a chance.

Then use it for whatever it is that you do...just don't expect me to
buy it...

> Just remember that additional disks don't just cost what a disk
> costs... it includes additional labor, lables, packaging, possibly
> additional shipping costs... you get the idea.  8 disks could cost
> half again what a single disk will.  I love the old CoCo but that has
> it's limits.

And what about the cost of the djvu generation software?  And the fact
that the disks are less likely to be useable, due to use of an unknown
(even obscure) file format?

I don't know about you, but I'd rather pay $80 for something that
I'll use than $50 for something that I only bought in order to support
the community...

> > You seem to think that djvu is the up-and-coming thing.  Maybe so,
> although I see no evidence of such.
> 
> This from the guy that won't even install the viewer.
 
...because I have no need, since no one seems to use the format...

> I don't know about you but when I set up my machine I had to download
> a PDF viewer.  I have had to download codecs to play videos on popular
> web sites, Flash, Quicktime, and then there are updates.

You had to download a PDF viewer?  Really?  Seriously?  Perhaps you
should reconsider your choice of OS vendor...
 
> And you offer the ever present DjVu is goind to die argument over and
> over again... or should I say "the sky is falling"?

What I have said is that there is no proof that it will ever flourish.
The difference is subtle, by I'm sure you can see it...

> So what you are saying is that a format with obvious benefits is going
> to just up and die?  The open source projects will disappear, the
> Princton document arcives will dissapear, the Jewish document archives
> will dissapear, the... oh never mind.  
 
Hyperbole.

> The CoCo hasn't died even though a new one hasn't been produced in
> over a decade but a file format with open source projects will just
> die overnight?  Does that really sound rational to you?

A file format w/ open source projects...like lha?  Or maybe zoo?  Hmmm...

> I know what your point is... you don't want to install anything that
> isn't already on your machine.  You said that.

Again, _you_ said that _about_ me.

> Why am I so sure the format will stick around?
> What would really cause DjVu to take off as a format?
> Expiration of the patents and Porn.
> The ability to download high-res porn as smaller files that can be
> zoomed without loss of detail... well, you figure it out.

I see...well, let me know how that works-out for you.  In the meantime,
I'd prefer that we all leave djvu production for the pornographers.

John
-- 
John W. Linville
linville at tuxdriver.com