What a lazy fucker

you can't even ask a prop for a feature

This

sxiv doesn't have this problem

Best comment ITT

He's right tho. That's unix philosophy.
>Do one thing and do it well.
View your gifs with mpv.

Open source viewers are better tho
ahoviewer > *

>gifs
>current year

This is the real tragedy.

this, apple quick view can open any fucking file (maybe not webm's)

nomacs

I agree with him on the movie part but it should support gifs. While they contain animation I've never once heard nor seen a gif referred to as a video instead of an image.

name 1 proprietary software you use to browse the internet, watch movies, or view pictures. name 1 format too

DOA format, h264 videos took over where it maybe would have. it's far too big file size.

>maybe not webms

Attached: 1492814759584.gif (360x270, 1.63M)

Fix one of them or write your own, then.

There's some 3rd party QL expansion that adds support for thumbnails for officially unsupported shit like MKV and WebM containers/codecs

Are you comparing lossy to lossy?

Speaking of which, mine segfaults with high resolution images because of a library error, but yes, great viewer with nice functionalities

We shouldn't use feh at all because mpv can do still images too.

>what's wrong with using sxiv?
http

>tfw IrfanView + codec pack
Freetards will never know this feel

Attached: inori.png (256x256, 60K)

>plays your gif at the speed of light
Nothin personnel

>work hard to cater to the needs of the user
sure goy

Attached: 1531373326377.png (1020x1007, 60K)

How hard would it be to make an bare-bones image viewer that can view any file downloaded off of Jow Forums?

I want to make one for fun.

Attached: 1545441644713.png (288x292, 84K)

Why would I do that when there are proprietary options that already work the way they should?

>replies with a gif

Microsoft Windows

Needing external programs to do simple tasks. What is this, 1995?

Attached: 43226F67-CDDA-437A-82D3-CF48B7F75536.jpg (1242x1557, 306K)

wrong

Why are open sores still struggling with photo viewers and file selection?

>Entitled asshole complaining about a feature that is not in the roadmap not getting added to A FUCKING OPEN SOURCE PROJECT
Kill your fucking self, please.

>not forking it and adding the gif support yourself

>They provide nothing of value
Software developers that refuse to bloat their shit up is highly valued.

I need something like feh for placing images with transparency freely on the screen and on top of all other stuff. Like for streaming to add some nice icing to the cake. Gif support would be nice, images completely borderless, rotateable, resizeable and moveable with my mouse. There is no programm. feh, qiv and pqiv all failed the test. I wrote one like this for windows a few years ago (and it still works there with all I said) but there is none for linux. Since I am new to linux I am not able to create one currently but when the time comes I will make a good one.

based and redpilled

not that hard you basically need to know enough graphics programming to use a texture and use some existing image decoding library like stb_image
if you really want you can write you own

>maybe not webm's

Attached: tux.png (1000x1000, 177K)

>all those (You)s in denial
based

its pretty good, though i use a patched version to add natural ordering because they dont want that feature added.

Isn't the whole point of using minimal software that you generally have 1 program for each purpose. adding animation support to feh would make it bloated.

animated gifs are outdated anyways

viewing images includes being able to view gifs.

Depends how you define this one task. Plus there are other minimalistic image viewers like sxiv that support animated GIF.

Fairly certain feh can view gifs, just not animated ones. Animations aren't the same as images, hence the separate name.

autism.

Doesn't sxiv already support animated files?

Attached: 4.png (347x409, 143K)

Animated GIF? Yes. APNG and animated WebP? No.

Just use sxiv fag

>use le lightweight memeware
>surprised dev is autistic over muh bloat

>animated WebP
Why is this a thing when webm already exists?

Wrong, free open source projects provide the following valuable features over proprietary software:
>respect of user privacy
>availability free of charge
>serviceability by the end user
>no unwanted updates
>no hidden contractual obligations
>no hidden or recurring fees
>no ads

>inb4 "like i said, nothing of value"
wrong, all of those features are objectively valuable

Sounds reasonable, the dev(s) wrote a program to fulfill a certain use case and then made it available to others as well so that they may get it if they find it useful. Anyone can contribute and implement their own use cases, the original dev(s) aren't tied to implementing everyone's request for free if they don't want to or don't find it useful.

The developer did nothing wrong. Image viewers are for static images, not video. Animated GIFs are video. Use mpv like he suggests.

With proprietary software there is not even a bug tracker to send your retarded request, you fucking moron.

Holy shit I'm already liking sxiv so much more.
Thank you.

Well, VP8 offers no lossless encoding and from my experience (albeit not much) VP9's lossless compression sucks dick.
Guess google just wanted to make WebP the ultimate all-rounder. Unfortunately it's shit at compressing GIF footage compared to APNG.

Is there some kind of gallery application like on smartphones that conveniently plays both pics and videos?

>the consumer
groan

>What a lazy fucker
do it yourself then, entitled millennial faggot

propriatary programs usually make money so the devs have a motive to bootlick the customers. open source is just a bunch of commies trying to get someone else to do the work. see picrelated

Attached: socialism2.jpg (500x312, 52K)

>we love open soruce because we can add functionality ourselves
>also we can fork a project whenever it takes a turn the community doesn't like
>no one does this because this is work and 99% of all freetards are lazy fuckers who just want free (as in money) shit

I honestly don't see why people still need image viewers. This whole category is so 2003

To be fair, forking a project over one removed option (not function, only option) seems a bit overly dramatic.

>hence the separate name
Are animations not the same as videos then? Is mpv bloated for playing both animations and videos?

What if you want to view images?

Fork it

>movie/gif
Woah, is this, dare I say, the power of FOSS?

this thread was worth it for me just because i found out about this piece of software
It even has sensible default zoom for opening images

>feh - fuck every hole
>mpv - must protect virginity
>sxiv - sex 4
>ahoviewer - anime ho viewer
>qiv - questionable image viewer
>pqiv - poor quality image viewer
Why do Linux programs have such horrible names?