fish shell VS mozjpeg

We're using bash as our terminal shell for now (it is standard in many distros) but it is not the only one out there. If you want to test out zsh, fish or oh-my-zsh, you will see that there are a few differences and the features are usually the main differentiator. Try that, poke around. Source: 6 months ago

Before actual update, confirm your shell is independent on python. It is important when you use fish:. - Source: dev.to / 9 months ago

> As for why I don't think that's their goal, just look at https://fishshell.com/ not one of the listed features requires them to drop POSIX compatibility entirely. “Sensible scripting” is right there. - Source: Hacker News / 9 months ago

This is the default behaviour of fish[1], by the way! [1]: https://fishshell.com. - Source: Hacker News / 9 months ago

Last suggestion? Give fish a go. Its amazing. https://fishshell.com/. Source: 11 months ago

It would be nice if the author would add mozjpeg[1] to the comparison. At certain sizes, it can produce smaller sizes than WebP, and because it is still a jpeg, it has a much better compatibility story, which the author alluded to. [1]https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg. - Source: Hacker News / 6 months ago

Image-shrinker is a simple, easy to use open source tool for shrinking images. Under the hood it uses pngquant, mozjpg, SVGO, and gifsicle. You can also install these tools individually if you need to compress some images. I often use pngquantafter exporting PNGs for web projects from Figma or similar tools. I literally run it like this:. - Source: dev.to / 8 months ago

> MozJPEG is a patch for libjpeg-turbo. Please send pull requests to libjpeg-turbo if the changes aren't specific to newly-added MozJPEG-only compression code. https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg#mozilla-jpeg-encoder-proj.... - Source: Hacker News / 10 months ago

FWIW, Mozilla has been maintaining their own fork for quite a while now[1] AFAIK most Linux Distros have been using libjpeg-turbo as a drop-in replacement for libjpeg, after some drama in ~2010 where libjpeg came under new management, decided to break ABI/API several times over and add incompatible, non-standard format extensions[2]. [1] https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg. - Source: Hacker News / 11 months ago

No. See https://github.com/mozilla/mozjpeg Also, there is a fairly big problem with JPG that the ‘quality’ setting is not calibrated. That is you might look at one image and think it looks fine (which is subjective, depends on what you want to use the image for…) with a quality of 60%, but then you compress a million images at that rate, delete the originals, then... - Source: Hacker News / about 1 year ago