On 5 Jan 2025 15:46:26 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 19:32:32 -0500, Paul wrote:
>>
>>>> Installing Windows 11? The installer won't allow you to continue
>>>> without logging in to your account. Sure, there are workarounds if
>>>> you pray five times a day and stand on your head doing so, but it
>>>> doesn't allow it be default.
>>>
>>> [long-winded installation procedure deleted]
>>
>> Which is why they say, Windows is a great OS -- if your time is worth
>> nothing.
>
> Paul's procedure has *nothing* to do with the issue
> which Andrzej raised ...

Hey, if you think what he posted makes Dimdows look bad, take it up with
him, not with me.

On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 15:55:22 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Having said all that, claiming that using MS Office is "unprofessional"
> is laughable.

What else do you call it, when “professionals” who should know better,
continue to use it to make the same old mistakes?

A research paper on the lessons learned
<https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008984>
since the mass-renaming of genes to avoid Excel mistakenly converting
them to dates: none.

No lessons were learned.

On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 16:07:15 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> That adds Linux-style package-manager functionality that is missing
>> from macOS. Because without it, trying to install open-source
>> software turns into a complete nightmare.
>
> Have been using OSS on Mac for 15+ years, including building packages
> from source. Far, far easier than on Windows.

That kind of thing doesn’t scale without a package manager, though. How
many hundred open-source packages were you able to build and install at
once?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 15:55:22 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> Having said all that, claiming that using MS Office is "unprofessional"
>> is laughable.
>
> What else do you call it, when “professionals” who should know better,
> continue to use it to make the same old mistakes?
>
> A research paper on the lessons learned
> <https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008984>
> since the mass-renaming of genes to avoid Excel mistakenly converting
> them to dates: none.
>
> No lessons were learned.

You've ignored my previous response where HUPO has changed the official
names for the problematic genes.

Although, I do agree not enough scientists know the limitations and
pitfalls of depending too much on excel or other spreadsheet programmes.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 16:07:15 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> That adds Linux-style package-manager functionality that is missing
>>> from macOS. Because without it, trying to install open-source
>>> software turns into a complete nightmare.
>>
>> Have been using OSS on Mac for 15+ years, including building packages
>> from source. Far, far easier than on Windows.
>
> That kind of thing doesn’t scale without a package manager, though. How
> many hundred open-source packages were you able to build and install at
> once?

My point is that most OSS software that users need are available as
ready-to-use downloads. There's no ubiquitous need for linux-like package
manager on macOS. Useful? Probably. Necessary? Nope.

Asking users to do a "brew install firefox" is a non-starter.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

[Yet another falsification deleted.]

On 2025-01-05 15:08, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> -hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> And Canon does provide some support for Linux printer drivers, but as
>> per their website's language, it is apparently quite limited:
>>
>> "Canon currently only provides support for PIXMA products and the Linux
>> operating system by providing basic drivers in a limited amount of
>> languages.
>>
>> These basic drivers may not encompass the full range of functionalities
>> for all printer and all-in-one products but they will allow basic
>> printing and scanning operation.
>>
>> Linux drivers are not supplied as part of Canon’s installation CD-ROM
>> and these are instead made available via our support area. Please select
>> your product and filter the results based on language and operating system.
>>
>> Canon does not offer specific after care support for Linux related
>> issues beyond the provision of the initial drivers."
>>
>> <https://www.canon-europe.com/support/operating-system-information/>
>
> I bought a Canoscan LiDE scanner and it worked out of the box with
> xsane and skanlite. Never needed to find their "drivers".
>
> The scanner has copy and other buttons to press, but those are not
> relevant to getting the job of scanning done.

I have a Canon scanner myself here at work. With Windows, I can get it
working but it requires a driver to be installed. Windows Update will
offer it, but not immediately after you plug it in, for whatever reason.
You have to wait for it to offer you the update later, still in Windows
Update. Yes, I tried forcing it to check for update and it did not find
a driver until I rebooted.

In Linux, it works out of the box.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Fedora 41
KDE supporting member

Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>On 2025-01-05 15:08, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>> I bought a Canoscan LiDE scanner and it worked out of the box with
>> xsane and skanlite. Never needed to find their "drivers".
>>
>> The scanner has copy and other buttons to press, but those are not
>> relevant to getting the job of scanning done.
>
>I have a Canon scanner myself here at work. With Windows, I can get it
>working but it requires a driver to be installed. Windows Update will
>offer it, but not immediately after you plug it in, for whatever reason.
>You have to wait for it to offer you the update later, still in Windows
>Update. Yes, I tried forcing it to check for update and it did not find
>a driver until I rebooted.
>
>In Linux, it works out of the box.

My Epson has Linux support from their downloads, tried to deposit a
Christmas check over the Web but a hard crease in the paper made it
unreadable, the ATM choked too. Will have to go in person to the bank
when the snow melts.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On 2025-01-05 15:08, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> -hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> And Canon does provide some support for Linux printer drivers, but as
>>> per their website's language, it is apparently quite limited:
>>>
>>> "Canon currently only provides support for PIXMA products and the Linux
>>> operating system by providing basic drivers in a limited amount of
>>> languages.
>>>
>>> These basic drivers may not encompass the full range of functionalities
>>> for all printer and all-in-one products but they will allow basic
>>> printing and scanning operation.
>>>
>>> Linux drivers are not supplied as part of Canon’s installation CD-ROM
>>> and these are instead made available via our support area. Please select
>>> your product and filter the results based on language and operating system.
>>>
>>> Canon does not offer specific after care support for Linux related
>>> issues beyond the provision of the initial drivers."
>>>
>>> <https://www.canon-europe.com/support/operating-system-information/>
>>
>> I bought a Canoscan LiDE scanner and it worked out of the box with
>> xsane and skanlite. Never needed to find their "drivers".
>>
>> The scanner has copy and other buttons to press, but those are not
>> relevant to getting the job of scanning done.
>
> I have a Canon scanner myself here at work. With Windows, I can get it
> working but it requires a driver to be installed. Windows Update will
> offer it, but not immediately after you plug it in, for whatever reason.
> You have to wait for it to offer you the update later, still in Windows
> Update. Yes, I tried forcing it to check for update and it did not find
> a driver until I rebooted.
>
> In Linux, it works out of the box.

I just noticed in aptitude there's a daemon called scanbd. Might be "fun" to
look into it at some point.

--
There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not wave in a vacuum.
-- Arthur C. Clarke

On 1/6/2025 10:17 AM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> I have a Canon scanner myself here at work. With Windows, I can get it
> working but it requires a driver to be installed. Windows Update will
> offer it, but not immediately after you plug it in, for whatever reason.
> You have to wait for it to offer you the update later, still in Windows
> Update. Yes, I tried forcing it to check for update and it did not find
> a driver until I rebooted.
>
> In Linux, it works out of the box.

A screenshot of the scanner options/properties under Windows vs under
Linux is usually good for a laugh.

DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote:
>On 1/6/2025 10:17 AM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> I have a Canon scanner myself here at work. With Windows, I can get it
>> working but it requires a driver to be installed. Windows Update will
>> offer it, but not immediately after you plug it in, for whatever reason.
>> You have to wait for it to offer you the update later, still in Windows
>> Update. Yes, I tried forcing it to check for update and it did not find
>> a driver until I rebooted.
>>
>> In Linux, it works out of the box.
>
>A screenshot of the scanner options/properties under Windows vs under
>Linux is usually good for a laugh.

Maybe I just bought a better brand of scanner, 'cause my Epson
supports Linux out of the box. Not sure I'd claim the software is
identical, but had no issues utilizing it.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-06 12:34, DFS wrote:
> On 1/6/2025 10:17 AM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>
>> I have a Canon scanner myself here at work. With Windows, I can get it
>> working but it requires a driver to be installed. Windows Update will
>> offer it, but not immediately after you plug it in, for whatever
>> reason. You have to wait for it to offer you the update later, still
>> in Windows Update. Yes, I tried forcing it to check for update and it
>> did not find a driver until I rebooted.
>>
>> In Linux, it works out of the box.
>
>
> A screenshot of the scanner options/properties under Windows vs under
> Linux is usually good for a laugh.

The scanning application in Windows didn't even allow me to scan in a
sequence (like 40 pages of one book inside of the same file). I had to
download another application in the Windows Store to get that
functionality. Meanwhile, even the default Skanpage gives me that
feature out of the box.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Fedora 41
KDE supporting member

On 1/4/2025 9:52 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 01:10:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:19:07 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 12:09:28 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... suggests that people don't do much other than open up Word and
>>>>>>> Excel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the professional world that's pretty accurate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn’t sound like that adjective “professional” extends to the actual
>>>>> quality of results, then.
>>>>
>>>> Based on what, exactly?
>>>
>>> Based on the known issues with over-reliance on Microsoft products.
>>
>> Such as? Excluding the gene name issue, which is pretty niche.
>
> It’s affecting a whole lot of research work
> <https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-016-1044-7>.

I entered a gene named 'March 2' (no apostrophes) into LO Calc and it
converted to a date.

That egregious data mangling issue would affect a whole lot of genetics
research work... if anyone was crazy enough to use LeeberOffice.

> Then there was the massive screwup over underreporting of COVID-19
> figures in the UK, which went undetected for months
> <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/10/excel-glitch-may-have-caused-uk-to-underreport-covid-19-cases-by-15841/>.
>
> The Austrian Social Democratic Party’s botched election of a new
> leader
> <https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/06/austria_election_excel_blunder/>.
>
> How many Excel screwups can you commit in just one job?
> <https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/12/excel_anesthetist_recruitment_blunder/>.
>
> Is it a good idea for a Formula 1 team to use Excel to manage its
> parts inventory?
> <https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/03/formula-1-chief-appalled-to-find-team-using-excel-to-manage-20000-car-parts/>.

You're literally blaming human error on Excel.

There's a good Linux advocate.

> There are entire websites devoted to compiling errors caused by using
> Microsoft Excel.

I notice you didn't say 'caused by Microsoft Excel'. Why stop lying now?

On the other hand, here's a partial list of websites devoted to
compiling errors that were actually caused by GuhNoo hobbyware (or in a
minority of instances human error).

https://bbs.archlinux.org/
https://www.centos.org/forums/
http://forums.debian.net/
http://fedoraforum.org/
http://forums.gentoo.org/
https://forum.manjaro.org
http://forums.linuxmint.com/
http://forums.opensuse.org/
http://www.pclinuxos.com/forum/
https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/forumdisplay.php?forumid=14
http://ubuntuforums.org

MS is doomed
Excel is doomed

Andrzej Matuch wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On 2025-01-06 12:34, DFS wrote:
>> On 1/6/2025 10:17 AM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I have a Canon scanner myself here at work. With Windows, I can get it
>>> working but it requires a driver to be installed. Windows Update will
>>> offer it, but not immediately after you plug it in, for whatever
>>> reason. You have to wait for it to offer you the update later, still
>>> in Windows Update. Yes, I tried forcing it to check for update and it
>>> did not find a driver until I rebooted.
>>>
>>> In Linux, it works out of the box.
>>
>> A screenshot of the scanner options/properties under Windows vs under
>> Linux is usually good for a laugh.

Why no screenshot to buttress the claim?

Depends on the scanner app you're using. Skanlite, easy with a few options,
or xsane, with an insane number of options.

Xsane:

https://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/computing/printing/xsane

> The scanning application in Windows didn't even allow me to scan in a
> sequence (like 40 pages of one book inside of the same file). I had to
> download another application in the Windows Store to get that
> functionality. Meanwhile, even the default Skanpage gives me that
> feature out of the box.

Windows includes basic webcam, scanner, photo software. I don't know why
DFS is so boastful about Windows.

--
There are no manifestos like cannon and musketry.
-- The Duke of Wellington

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 16:16:20 -0500, DFS wrote:

> I entered a gene named 'March 2' (no apostrophes) into LO Calc and it
> converted to a date.

I tried importing some of those potentially troublesome gene names from a
CSV file with LO Calc’s default settings, and it read them in just fine.

You see, it has some smarts to tell what’s supposed to be a date, from
something that’s not.

> That egregious data mangling issue would affect a whole lot of genetics
> research work... if anyone was crazy enough to use LibreOffice.

That is in fact the recommendation in that paper I cited -- if you don’t
know how to use proper stats software, but only know spreadsheets, than LO
Calc is a better (or rather, less bad) choice than Excel.

> You're literally blaming human error on Excel.

HAL: “Well, I don’t think there is any question about it. It can only be
attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and
it has always been due to human error.”

Poole: “Listen, HAL ... There’s never been any instance at all of a ...
computer error occurring in the 9000 series, has there?”

HAL: “None whatsoever, Frank. The 9000 series has a perfect operational
record.”

Poole: “Well, of course I know all the wonderful achievements of the 9000
series, but ... uh ... Are you certain there’s never been any case of even
the most insignificant computer error?”

HAL: “None whatsoever, Frank. Quite honestly, I wouldn’t worry myself
about that.”

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:23:47 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 16:07:15 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That adds Linux-style package-manager functionality that is missing
>>>> from macOS. Because without it, trying to install open-source
>>>> software turns into a complete nightmare.
>>>
>>> Have been using OSS on Mac for 15+ years, including building packages
>>> from source. Far, far easier than on Windows.
>>
>> That kind of thing doesn’t scale without a package manager, though. How
>> many hundred open-source packages were you able to build and install at
>> once?
>
> My point is that most OSS software that users need are available as
> ready-to-use downloads.

But you did say you were “including building packages from source”. How
complex were those builds you managed? Does each download include all its
dependencies?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 08:23:47 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 16:07:15 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That adds Linux-style package-manager functionality that is missing
>>>>> from macOS. Because without it, trying to install open-source
>>>>> software turns into a complete nightmare.
>>>>
>>>> Have been using OSS on Mac for 15+ years, including building packages
>>>> from source. Far, far easier than on Windows.
>>>
>>> That kind of thing doesn’t scale without a package manager, though. How
>>> many hundred open-source packages were you able to build and install at
>>> once?
>>
>> My point is that most OSS software that users need are available as
>> ready-to-use downloads.
>
> But you did say you were “including building packages from source”.

More to illustrate that building from source was possible. It wasn't the
default.

> How
> complex were those builds you managed? Does each download include all its
> dependencies?

Fairly simple to moderately complex with internal and external
dependencies, but that was a while back. I don't do much of that kind of
stuff anymore.

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 00:12:18 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> More to illustrate that building from source was possible.

I never said it wasn’t, just that it doesn’t scale well without a proper
package manager to help with the dependencies -- something that macOS
lacks.

>> How complex were those builds you managed? Does each download include
>> all its dependencies?
>
> Fairly simple to moderately complex with internal and external
> dependencies, but that was a while back.

How did you handle getting hold of the dependencies for each build?

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 02:10:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 00:12:18 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> More to illustrate that building from source was possible.
>
> I never said it wasn’t, just that it doesn’t scale well without a proper
> package manager to help with the dependencies -- something that macOS
> lacks.
>
>>> How complex were those builds you managed? Does each download include
>>> all its dependencies?
>>
>> Fairly simple to moderately complex with internal and external
>> dependencies, but that was a while back.
>
> How did you handle getting hold of the dependencies for each build?

Tarball Hell. I haven't played that game in a long time thankfully.
Usually 'apt install xxxxx' pulls what you need from the repositories
rather than having to build every dependency back to when the dinosaurs
roamed the earth.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 00:12:18 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> More to illustrate that building from source was possible.
>
> I never said it wasn’t, just that it doesn’t scale well without a proper
> package manager to help with the dependencies -- something that macOS
> lacks.

It doesn't lack it, it's simply not part of the core OS as it is a niche
requirement.

That's the beauty of an OSS community. Additional capabilities are
available to those who want/need them.

>>> How complex were those builds you managed? Does each download include
>>> all its dependencies?
>>
>> Fairly simple to moderately complex with internal and external
>> dependencies, but that was a while back.
>
> How did you handle getting hold of the dependencies for each build?

With a package manager, obviously. Firstly, macports and then homebrew.

You're focusing on the exception rather than the rule, however. Installing
OSS is not a "complete nightmare" without a package manager *because* most
software is already packaged for easy installation. Either via the
developer themselves or the App Store.

If you are expert enough to want to install stuff from source then you can
on macos with the help of Homebrew.

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 14:12:43 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Installing OSS is not a "complete nightmare" without a package manager
> *because* most software is already packaged for easy installation.

Including its dependencies? So if multiple packages share the same
dependency, you end up with multiple copies of that dependency?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 14:12:43 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> Installing OSS is not a "complete nightmare" without a package manager
>> *because* most software is already packaged for easy installation.
>
> Including its dependencies? So if multiple packages share the same
> dependency, you end up with multiple copies of that dependency?

Depends on the dependency, but often yes. Just like on Windows and,
sometimes, Linux with pre-packaged/compiled software.

On 1/5/2025 8:20 AM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> the Audi required special tools to open it up. Similarly, it
> needed non-standard parts for the repair itself.

My wife had an A4, and now has a Q5. Great cars, but for those reasons
you mentioned I probably wouldn't ever buy one.

She absolutely insists on paying the stealership outrageous amounts for
simple servicing - it makes her feel good, even though I could do most
of it for the cost of a few special tools and parts.

On 2025-01-08 12:21, DFS wrote:
> On 1/5/2025 8:20 AM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>
>> the Audi required special tools to open it up. Similarly, it needed
>> non-standard parts for the repair itself.
>
>
> My wife had an A4, and now has a Q5.  Great cars, but for those reasons
> you mentioned I probably wouldn't ever buy one.
>
> She absolutely insists on paying the stealership outrageous amounts for
> simple servicing - it makes her feel good, even though I could do most
> of it for the cost of a few special tools and parts.

If you lease the cars, you can avoid all those servicing costs. It's
part of why my wife and I leased for such a long time with Infiniti.
However, I actually like this new QX60 and will probably just buy it
after three years. I was reluctant to buy the previous one because the
model was known for its unreliable CVT, but this one's got a nine-speed
automatic.

--
CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 13:28:46 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 14:12:43 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>
>>> Installing OSS is not a "complete nightmare" without a package manager
>>> *because* most software is already packaged for easy installation.
>>
>> Including its dependencies? So if multiple packages share the same
>> dependency, you end up with multiple copies of that dependency?
>
> Depends on the dependency, but often yes. Just like on Windows and,
> sometimes, Linux with pre-packaged/compiled software.

That’s one of the things package managers are designed to handle properly.