6 ms·

If they don't need to upload it why are they using a web browser at all? There are literally hundreds of programs that integrate tools to compress images.

aarreedd 7y ago
Because website are convenient
- hombre_fatal 7y ago
  Hell, I just used a .doc to .epub transcoding website today because I couldn't be bothered to look up a local tool for the job much less download it and read its docs. The website worked and I moved on with my life. I'd probably even still be using Youtube to .mp3 websites had I not happened to have experience with youtube-dl.
  - blauditore 7y ago
    I had not heard of youtube-dl before, thanks for the pointer.
    - rakoo 7y ago
      If you have an Android, check out Newpipe as well
davidmurdoch 7y ago
You mean hundreds of tools that run the risk of infecting your machine with malware and bloat?
- llaks_72 7y ago
  I know microsoft paint is bloat but I wouldn't go so far as to call it 'malware'. It's more like adware. Also running any script in your browser is downloading, and running anonymous code giving it a playground to do whatever it wants. I'd trust the guys maintaining imagemagick or ffmpeg in my little corner of the web over the security team for firefox. Smaller attack surface y'know?
  - anchpop 7y ago
    Microsoft paint is horrible for resizing images Most people don't have imagemagick installed or know how to use the commandline, and even people who do might want to quickly resize an image on a friend's computer, or something.
  - gitgud 7y ago
    At least a browser is somewhat sand-boxed to protect users, a native image tool could quite easily gain complete control of your system...
    - adrianN 7y ago
      With the native image tool you have much more control about when you want to upgrade. The risk of someone replacing a trusted tool with a malicious version is lower when the tool is managed by apt or brew or whatever you use on Windows.
      - gitgud 7y ago
        True, but in some cases (like small tools like this) I prefer the sand-boxed nature of web apps. Downloading a random tool, - even to test with - can be malicious...
ThePawnBreak 7y ago
Because it's for your mum that doesn't know what a program is. Because you're in a place where you don't have the right to install new software. Because it's quicker. Because it's OS independent. Because you don't need to update it.
onion2k 7y ago
Actually there aren't. There are 5 that do it well - MOZJpeg, PNGQuant, TinyPNG, svgo, and jpegtran. Additionally there are tools for compressing to WebP, guzelti and other new but useful formats. None of these tools are exactly friendly, they change rapidly, and installing them is quite hard (compile-from-source hard in some cases), and some need dependencies to be installed separately. There are GUI tools for image compression but mostly they're wrappers around the libraries that drive the apps I've listed, but a few versions behind. They're not great. Using a browser based app or service is ideal for compressing a handful of images.

aarreedd 7y ago

Because website are convenient

hombre_fatal 7y ago
Hell, I just used a .doc to .epub transcoding website today because I couldn't be bothered to look up a local tool for the job much less download it and read its docs. The website worked and I moved on with my life. I'd probably even still be using Youtube to .mp3 websites had I not happened to have experience with youtube-dl.
- blauditore 7y ago
  I had not heard of youtube-dl before, thanks for the pointer.
  - rakoo 7y ago
    If you have an Android, check out Newpipe as well

davidmurdoch 7y ago

You mean hundreds of tools that run the risk of infecting your machine with malware and bloat?

llaks_72 7y ago
I know microsoft paint is bloat but I wouldn't go so far as to call it 'malware'. It's more like adware. Also running any script in your browser is downloading, and running anonymous code giving it a playground to do whatever it wants. I'd trust the guys maintaining imagemagick or ffmpeg in my little corner of the web over the security team for firefox. Smaller attack surface y'know?
- anchpop 7y ago
  Microsoft paint is horrible for resizing images Most people don't have imagemagick installed or know how to use the commandline, and even people who do might want to quickly resize an image on a friend's computer, or something.
- gitgud 7y ago
  At least a browser is somewhat sand-boxed to protect users, a native image tool could quite easily gain complete control of your system...
  - adrianN 7y ago
    With the native image tool you have much more control about when you want to upgrade. The risk of someone replacing a trusted tool with a malicious version is lower when the tool is managed by apt or brew or whatever you use on Windows.
    - gitgud 7y ago
      True, but in some cases (like small tools like this) I prefer the sand-boxed nature of web apps. Downloading a random tool, - even to test with - can be malicious...

ThePawnBreak 7y ago

Because it's for your mum that doesn't know what a program is. Because you're in a place where you don't have the right to install new software. Because it's quicker. Because it's OS independent. Because you don't need to update it.

onion2k 7y ago

Actually there aren't. There are 5 that do it well - MOZJpeg, PNGQuant, TinyPNG, svgo, and jpegtran. Additionally there are tools for compressing to WebP, guzelti and other new but useful formats. None of these tools are exactly friendly, they change rapidly, and installing them is quite hard (compile-from-source hard in some cases), and some need dependencies to be installed separately. There are GUI tools for image compression but mostly they're wrappers around the libraries that drive the apps I've listed, but a few versions behind. They're not great. Using a browser based app or service is ideal for compressing a handful of images.