On Sat, 25 May 2024 21:49:55 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> On 2024-05-25 9:00 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 May 2024 07:17:29 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-05-24 7:42 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> That was strictly a limitation of the original Itunes software ...
>>>
>>> Good to know, but that just confirms that Linux will always be playing
>>> catch-up in supporting hardware.
>>
>> It was offering features that the vendors’ own proprietary software
>> would not.
>
> My point is that if a manufacturer develops decent hardware and released
> it on January 1st and the Linux developers provide a feature for it on
> January 2nd, the manufacturer can go ahead and block that open-source
> feature on the 3rd necessitating an update on the 4th.

But the vendor’s not going to bother to do that for older devices, are
they? So at some point they will give up, and let users access their
devices in peace.

Look at this support matrix <https://libimobiledevice.org/status/>, for
example.

On Sun, 26 May 2024 07:21:34 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <v2untu$3ajrn$1@dont-email.me>:

> On Sat, 25 May 2024 21:42:34 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> On 2024-05-25 8:55 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 25 May 2024 07:13:05 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Considering this, third-parties should stop trying to develop for
>>>> Windows and MacOS and try to make their offerings available to
>>>> alternative systems like Linux instead.
>>>
>>> That’s already been happening. Why do you think Microsoft had to bring
>>> out WSL? It was to stem the tide of developers abandoning Windows.
>>
>> In favour of Linux?
>
> Yes. After all, it wasn’t “WSM” or “WSA” or “WSI” or “WSB” or anything
> else, it was “WSL”. Linux compatibility was what was needed.

Microsoft tried for "compatibility", then...punted to running Linux in a HyperV
virtual host.

Modern Windows has Linux, actual Linux, as a component. Would be a
shame if they didn't take more advantage of that...

....oh wait, I guess they are with their AI development!

--
-v

On Sat, 25 May 2024 23:37:53 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 5/25/2024 9:11 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 May 2024 15:46:15 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/23/2024 9:38 AM, Tyrone wrote:
>>>
>>>> Windows usage is shrinking, and has been for the last 14 years.
>>>
>>> Where else does it go from nearly 100%?
>>
>> It’s only about 25% of the total computing market.
>
> What is this 'total computing market' comprised of?
> Who defined it?
> Who measures it?
> How is it measured?

People who know about more than Microsoft Windows. I.e. more than you do.

Just consider the difference between workstations and desktops, and
realize that Linux is the king of the workstation market, just for
example.

On Sat, 25 May 2024 21:22:01 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> In the late 90s, there was no doubt that there was no meaningful
> competition for Internet Explorer. It's not a coincidence that Netscape
> open-sourced their engine before the millennium was up.

Two interesting things then happened. Even open-sourced, Netscape was not
really attractive to most people, because it wasn’t just a browser: it
also included integrated web-authoring and email and I think a bunch of
other stuff too, all of which made it heavily bloated.

So a group of developers decided to strip off everything and leave just
the web browser. That became “Firebird”, and then Firefox. And that’s what
started gaining popularity against Internet Explorer. And suddenly Web
standards became important: it was no longer enough just to say “my site
works in Internet Explorer”.

(I think the original full-fat Netscape is still available, if you want:
go look for “SeaMonkey”.)

The second thing was Google developers creating their “V8” JavaScript
engine. Suddenly JavaScript wasn’t some slow interpreter, it could
actually run code at a reasonable speed: fast enough that you could
implement proper apps running entirely in the user’s browser.

On Sat, 25 May 2024 21:44:20 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> On 2024-05-25 8:58 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> Meanwhile, real-time Compiz effects were running quite comfortably
>> under Linux, on hardware as modest as this Asus Eee 701 with its
>> 900-MHz single- core Celeron, that I still have just nearby.
>
> Meanwhile, if you activated Compiz effects, they ran nice for about ten
> minutes and then caused your windows to turn black.

I ran them for longer than that. In fact, I’ve been running them for about
a decade and a half since then.

Le 26-05-2024, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> a écrit :
>
> It occurs to me that Microsoft wouldn't move to a Linux kernel due
> to so many drivers for one-off devices being Windows-only.

Twenty years ago, yes, when you bought anything, you should be very
careful if you wanted to use it on Linux. Things have improved by now.
If Microsoft want to switch on a Linux Kernel, the manufacturers will
develop drivers for Linux, so what?

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

Le 26-05-2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit :
> On Sat, 25 May 2024 23:59:22 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> WTF is it with Microsoft (and Google) wanting people's personal info?
>
> Their revenue models depend on it.

Of course, now there are advertisements on Windows, Microsoft need them
to fit nicely for the users. Because if the advertisement fits well,
its price is higher. What's best than compare users usages and
advertisements?

It's the same reason why some websites ask us to accept cookies.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 2024-05-25 10:01 p.m., rbowman wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2024 21:42:34 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> On 2024-05-25 8:55 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 May 2024 07:13:05 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Considering this, third-parties should stop trying to develop for
>>>> Windows and MacOS and try to make their offerings available to
>>>> alternative systems like Linux instead.
>>>
>>> That’s already been happening. Why do you think Microsoft had to bring
>>> out WSL? It was to stem the tide of developers abandoning Windows.
>>
>> In favour of Linux? Give me a break. The absolute desert that is
>> professional software on Linux does not suggest that Microsoft has any
>> reason to worry.
>
> Please define professional software for developers. I want to see what I'm
> missing.

Software that is fully supported by a company resulting in a product
that doesn't crash and is used to produce high quality content. Products
like Final Cut Pro, DaVinci Resolve, Cinema 4D, Houdini, Lightroom, etc..

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-05-25 10:29 p.m., rbowman wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2024 21:22:01 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> In the late 90s, there was no doubt that there was no meaningful
>> competition for Internet Explorer. It's not a coincidence that Netscape
>> open-sourced their engine before the millennium was up.
>
> Very late 90s. IE 5 was the first to capture market share. iirc it was a
> star witness in United States v. Microsoft Corporation.
>
> It had a couple of years of grace before it became primarily a tool for
> installing Firefox.

It became a tool to install Firefox in the early 2000s, not 90s.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-05-25 11:59 p.m., DFS wrote:
> On 5/25/2024 10:31 PM, rbowman wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 May 2024 19:10:33 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> You'll first have to buy a new Copilot+ PC, then turn on the Recall
>>> feature (assuming of course that MS would not be so arrogant as to force
>>> such a risky thing on users) and let it capture everything you do.
>>
>> Force? Certainly not. Of course there will be the stream of
>> 'recommendations'.
>
>
> I don't sign into Win11 with an MS account, but I've been using their
> latest Outlook app (not the one in Office) with an old anonymous hotmail
> acct.
>
> Suddenly my Start | DFS button is asking for a phone number to 'recover'
> the hotmail account in case I get locked out.  This didn't happen when I
> accessed the hotmail acct via a browser.
>
> WTF is it with Microsoft (and Google) wanting people's personal info?
>
> Don't they know trolls REQUIRE anonymity, and the Internet is filled
> with us?

Going forward, anonymity will require Linux.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-05-26 3:36 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2024 21:22:01 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> In the late 90s, there was no doubt that there was no meaningful
>> competition for Internet Explorer. It's not a coincidence that Netscape
>> open-sourced their engine before the millennium was up.
>
> Two interesting things then happened. Even open-sourced, Netscape was not
> really attractive to most people, because it wasn’t just a browser: it
> also included integrated web-authoring and email and I think a bunch of
> other stuff too, all of which made it heavily bloated.

I actually liked its web authoring tool at the time. In fact, I liked
Netscape in general until it became very prone to crashing. I imagine
Microsoft had a lot to do with that since it didn't have such problems
on Linux.

> So a group of developers decided to strip off everything and leave just
> the web browser. That became “Firebird”, and then Firefox. And that’s what
> started gaining popularity against Internet Explorer. And suddenly Web
> standards became important: it was no longer enough just to say “my site
> works in Internet Explorer”.
>
> (I think the original full-fat Netscape is still available, if you want:
> go look for “SeaMonkey”.)
>
> The second thing was Google developers creating their “V8” JavaScript
> engine. Suddenly JavaScript wasn’t some slow interpreter, it could
> actually run code at a reasonable speed: fast enough that you could
> implement proper apps running entirely in the user’s browser.

The mere fact that Firefox had a way of blocking pop-ups was enough for
people to choose it over Internet Explorer. Even then, it was clear that
IE was catering to the web companies, not the user.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-05-26 3:39 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2024 21:44:20 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> On 2024-05-25 8:58 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, real-time Compiz effects were running quite comfortably
>>> under Linux, on hardware as modest as this Asus Eee 701 with its
>>> 900-MHz single- core Celeron, that I still have just nearby.
>>
>> Meanwhile, if you activated Compiz effects, they ran nice for about ten
>> minutes and then caused your windows to turn black.
>
> I ran them for longer than that. In fact, I’ve been running them for about
> a decade and a half since then.

On XFCE? I can't imagine them working properly on anything else.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-05-26, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-05-25 3:44 p.m., DFS wrote:
>> On 5/25/2024 1:11 PM, Joel wrote:
>>> shitv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "So sorry, but Vista is a big sales and financial success for MS - and
>>>> will shortly finish wiping the floor with Linux and it's 392 free
>>>> distros."  -  some dumb fsck
>>
>> And it did wipe the floor with Linux - as EVERY desktop Windows version
>> has - reaching 24% market share within a couple/few years, while Linux
>> never even reached 2% within 20 years.
>
> Fact.
>
>>> That really is funny,
>>
>> It WAS funny to see various drunk cola idiots declare Vista a "failure".
>>  I watched it in realtime, here on cola.
>>
>> But some Win over Lin beatdowns are funnier than others.  The funniest
>> ones are those where the goobers at the Free Software Foundation declare
>> "victory" over MS or Windows - AFTER MS sells hundreds of millions of
>> Windows licenses.
>>
>> I don't know if Microsoft can recover from those beatdowns.
>
> I actually thought that Vista was pretty good. It was slow to refresh a
> Windows Explorer window for whatever reason, but it was otherwise
> alright on a decent machine. I've said it before here though: the betas
> were absolutely awful and when we got word that it was releasing to
> manufacturer, I was very surprised. The product was nowhere near ready
> to ship, in my opinion.
>
>>> because of how many people literally put XP on machines sold with Vista.
>>
>> That's just lies and imagination.
>
> Low-end machines with Vista pre-installed probably had many owners ask
> friends to install XP on it for them. I have no doubt about it,
> actually. However, the numbers were probably not that large. Most people
> probably suffered through Vista and eventually upgraded when 7 was released.

I upgraded to Linux from Windows XP.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-05-25, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-05-25 9:54 a.m., RonB wrote:
>> On 2024-05-25, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>>> Relf wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> DistroMan, RonB, Uncle_Matuch, rBowman,
>>>> Ahlstrom, DFS, ChrisV, Huntzinger & Crump,
>>>>
>>>> You guys should try (Up_Mixed) Stereo_To_Surround_Sound someday;
>>>> until then, you won't know what you're missing.
>>>
>>> I don't care what I'm missing. Happy with what I have.
>>
>> I don't listen to music enough to be obsessive about it. The quality I'm
>> getting now seems really good to me. I don't need any extra work to make it
>> better (which would probably be lost with my ears anyhow).
>
> We all started on Napster with 128kbps music files. That might be why
> many of us don't care. 128kbps sounded damned good.

I've found out that there's more to music files than just kbps. I've heard
some really good 128 kbps songs and some really lousy 300+ kbps songs. It's
been quite a while since I've ripped anything from a CD. I mostly just go to
YouTube now and listen the song I want to hear.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2024-05-25 8:58 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 May 2024 15:44:51 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/25/2024 1:11 PM, Joel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> shitv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "So sorry, but Vista is a big sales and financial success for MS - and
>>>>> will shortly finish wiping the floor with Linux and it's 392 free
>>>>> distros." - some dumb fsck
>>>
>>> And it did wipe the floor with Linux ...
>>
>> Sure it did. So “Aero Glass” 3D effects worked really well, did it? To the
>> point where users were filing lawsuits over the confusion between “Vista-
>> capable” and “Vista-ready”.
>>
>> Meanwhile, real-time Compiz effects were running quite comfortably under
>> Linux, on hardware as modest as this Asus Eee 701 with its 900-MHz single-
>> core Celeron, that I still have just nearby.
>
> Meanwhile, if you activated Compiz effects, they ran nice for about ten
> minutes and then caused your windows to turn black. Soon, the entire GUI
> became impossible to use.
>
> Say what you will about Microsoft's effects in Windows, at least they
> were consistent and worked right.

I've never seen that in years of usage of compiz, compton, and now picom.

Plus very configurable, fine control over shadows, opacity, fade in/out,
refresh rate, vertical sync, .... I mean, the man page for compton goes on and
on and on.

--
You will hear good news from one you thought unfriendly to you.

Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2024-05-26 3:39 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 May 2024 21:44:20 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-05-25 8:58 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, real-time Compiz effects were running quite comfortably
>>>> under Linux, on hardware as modest as this Asus Eee 701 with its
>>>> 900-MHz single- core Celeron, that I still have just nearby.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, if you activated Compiz effects, they ran nice for about ten
>>> minutes and then caused your windows to turn black.
>>
>> I ran them for longer than that. In fact, I’ve been running them for about
>> a decade and a half since then.
>
> On XFCE? I can't imagine them working properly on anything else.

I think the later xfce4 (e.g. on Arch) uses picom as its compositor. Not sure,
will have to check.

On Fluxbox, I use compton (Ubuntu) or picom (Arch). Fluxbox has its own
pseudo-transparency feature as well.

--
Many changes of mind and mood; do not hesitate too long.

On 2024-05-26 8:21 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-05-26, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> On 2024-05-25 3:44 p.m., DFS wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2024 1:11 PM, Joel wrote:
>>>> shitv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "So sorry, but Vista is a big sales and financial success for MS - and
>>>>> will shortly finish wiping the floor with Linux and it's 392 free
>>>>> distros."  -  some dumb fsck
>>>
>>> And it did wipe the floor with Linux - as EVERY desktop Windows version
>>> has - reaching 24% market share within a couple/few years, while Linux
>>> never even reached 2% within 20 years.
>>
>> Fact.
>>
>>>> That really is funny,
>>>
>>> It WAS funny to see various drunk cola idiots declare Vista a "failure".
>>>  I watched it in realtime, here on cola.
>>>
>>> But some Win over Lin beatdowns are funnier than others.  The funniest
>>> ones are those where the goobers at the Free Software Foundation declare
>>> "victory" over MS or Windows - AFTER MS sells hundreds of millions of
>>> Windows licenses.
>>>
>>> I don't know if Microsoft can recover from those beatdowns.
>>
>> I actually thought that Vista was pretty good. It was slow to refresh a
>> Windows Explorer window for whatever reason, but it was otherwise
>> alright on a decent machine. I've said it before here though: the betas
>> were absolutely awful and when we got word that it was releasing to
>> manufacturer, I was very surprised. The product was nowhere near ready
>> to ship, in my opinion.
>>
>>>> because of how many people literally put XP on machines sold with Vista.
>>>
>>> That's just lies and imagination.
>>
>> Low-end machines with Vista pre-installed probably had many owners ask
>> friends to install XP on it for them. I have no doubt about it,
>> actually. However, the numbers were probably not that large. Most people
>> probably suffered through Vista and eventually upgraded when 7 was released.
>
> I upgraded to Linux from Windows XP.

You're in the minority no matter how you spin it. A lot of people just
held onto Windows XP until it stopped being supported in 2015 or moved
to 7 once it was available. Some people truly love Linux, but a lot of
the people who tried it moved right back onto Windows because something
they enjoyed was suddenly missing.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Sat, 25 May 2024 13:58:10 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> As for popping... that usually happened when records were mistreated...
>> or warped.
>
> I was on the Netflix DVD plan until they dropped it. I thought DVDs would
> be a step up from VHS rentals but apparently the general public uses DVDs
> for frisbees or drink coasters when they're not watching them. DVDs are a
> lot sturdier than vinyl but humans haven't improved.
>
> Speaking of mistreating -- I remember a Cub Scout project that consisted
> of making candy dishes out of 78 rpm records. Heat them up in the over,
> bend the edges into flutes, apply paint, and you were good. I wonder how
> many classics were lost?
>
> We worked up to etching aluminum trays in Boy Scouts. Must have run out of
> 78s. Somehow I doubt 12 year olds messing around with lye is an approved
> activity these days.

I remember those goddam Pinewood Derbies. My rough-hewn efforts could not
stand up to the sleek, highly polished, colorfully-painted, and varnished cars
with bolts in them for weight, obviously made mostly by Dad. :-(

--
You will meet an important person who will help you advance professionally.

Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2024-05-25 5:50 p.m., rbowman wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 May 2024 07:46:56 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>
>>> A while back, a friend of mine's husband was trying to sell me on vinyl
>>> as I was buying some of his CDs. He was telling me how the sound is
>>> better, this and that. The entire time, I was reminding myself of the
>>> constant popping I would hear when listening to albums as a kid. The
>>> slightest thing would ruin the sound on that vinyls.
>>
>> Well, yeah, a kid with grape jelly on his fingers did tend to degrade
>> vinyl records. I had fairly decent equipment and didn't get the frying
>> bacon effect once I got past the 78/45/33 1/3 rpm automatic changer stage.
>
> Shockingly, we took good care of the records we had. We had so few of
> them that we didn't want to lose any. In fact, my brother and I had so
> little that we generally grew up taking care of what we did own.

My uncle got big into Quadraphonic. Pink Floyd in quad, for example.

--
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
-- Wm. Shakespeare, "The Tempest"

On 2024-05-26 8:25 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-05-25, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>> On 2024-05-25 9:54 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-25, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>>>> Relf wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>
>>>>> DistroMan, RonB, Uncle_Matuch, rBowman,
>>>>> Ahlstrom, DFS, ChrisV, Huntzinger & Crump,
>>>>>
>>>>> You guys should try (Up_Mixed) Stereo_To_Surround_Sound someday;
>>>>> until then, you won't know what you're missing.
>>>>
>>>> I don't care what I'm missing. Happy with what I have.
>>>
>>> I don't listen to music enough to be obsessive about it. The quality I'm
>>> getting now seems really good to me. I don't need any extra work to make it
>>> better (which would probably be lost with my ears anyhow).
>>
>> We all started on Napster with 128kbps music files. That might be why
>> many of us don't care. 128kbps sounded damned good.
>
> I've found out that there's more to music files than just kbps. I've heard
> some really good 128 kbps songs and some really lousy 300+ kbps songs. It's
> been quite a while since I've ripped anything from a CD. I mostly just go to
> YouTube now and listen the song I want to hear.

That's what my wife does too. As for the kbps, a lot of it depends on
the encoder. Some MP3 encoders are garbage and others are great.
Apparently, the LAME MP3 encoder is stellar. Similarly, some AAC
encoders are trash (the one used by Linux for a long time) and others
are excellent (the Apple one). Vorbis was my choice because it's been
excellent from the beginning and there was no variation to it as a
result of its open-source nature.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-05-25, Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
> Le 25-05-2024, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> a écrit :
>> I have no idea about the technical data. I just know that some of my music
>> sounded better on the record player than it did from the CD. But maybe the
>> early CDs had less range than newer ones. (It seems like I remember reading
>> something about that.) It's been a long time ago now.
>
> The CD didn't change since the beginning. But the way to record, and to
> restore the sound evolved a lot since the beginning. There is no issue
> with the CD. If you hear it on a shitty system, you'll have shitty
> sound. If you hear it on the good system, you can have something close
> to what was recorded. Now, people listening to vinyls put money on it
> and don't have shitty system. So, of course a vinyl on a good system has
> a better sound than a CD on a poor quality system. But the fault is not
> on the CD. I have never been impressed by the quality of the vinyl
> compare to that of a CD on a good system.

I had a CD player and a turntable on the same system and a few titles where
I owned both the records and CDs and (to my ears) the records (at least some
of them) sounded better. Admittedly, a very limited test as I didn't have
that many record/cd duplicates.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-05-26 8:40 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2024-05-25 8:58 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 May 2024 15:44:51 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/25/2024 1:11 PM, Joel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> shitv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "So sorry, but Vista is a big sales and financial success for MS - and
>>>>>> will shortly finish wiping the floor with Linux and it's 392 free
>>>>>> distros." - some dumb fsck
>>>>
>>>> And it did wipe the floor with Linux ...
>>>
>>> Sure it did. So “Aero Glass” 3D effects worked really well, did it? To the
>>> point where users were filing lawsuits over the confusion between “Vista-
>>> capable” and “Vista-ready”.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, real-time Compiz effects were running quite comfortably under
>>> Linux, on hardware as modest as this Asus Eee 701 with its 900-MHz single-
>>> core Celeron, that I still have just nearby.
>>
>> Meanwhile, if you activated Compiz effects, they ran nice for about ten
>> minutes and then caused your windows to turn black. Soon, the entire GUI
>> became impossible to use.
>>
>> Say what you will about Microsoft's effects in Windows, at least they
>> were consistent and worked right.
>
> I've never seen that in years of usage of compiz, compton, and now picom.
>
> Plus very configurable, fine control over shadows, opacity, fade in/out,
> refresh rate, vertical sync, .... I mean, the man page for compton goes on and
> on and on.

The issues might have been the result of NVIDIA's proprietary driver not
interacting properly with the Compiz tools. Still, the graphical errors
were fairly constant.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-05-25, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>>The CD didn't change since the beginning. But the way to record, and to
>>restore the sound evolved a lot since the beginning. There is no issue
>>with the CD. If you hear it on a shitty system, you'll have shitty
>>sound. If you hear it on the good system, you can have something close
>>to what was recorded. Now, people listening to vinyls put money on it
>>and don't have shitty system. So, of course a vinyl on a good system has
>>a better sound than a CD on a poor quality system. But the fault is not
>>on the CD. I have never been impressed by the quality of the vinyl
>>compare to that of a CD on a good system.
>
> I can understand how, under excellent conditions, vinyl may produce a
> more pleasing sound. But there are a lot of things that can, and do,
> go wrong with that archiac technology. When CD came out, I switched to
> it and never looked back.

I didn't. I went to Salzer's (a Ventura, CA new and used record store of the
time) and bought up some 500-600 used records (over a year or two) and
listened to them for several years before moving to CDs.

> I've also never wanted anything better than CD, for stereo. As a
> delivery system for stereo sound, it's plenty good. There's no
> denying that properly mastered multi-channel surround can be better,
> though.

I don't think I've ever listened to multi-channel surround — if I did I
didn't know it.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-05-25, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-05-25 10:18 a.m., RonB wrote:
>> On 2024-05-25, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-24 7:51 p.m., RonB wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-24, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-24 11:32 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2024-05-24 8:30 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-24 3:00 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-24, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <brevsnip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Probably because some people think that Apple Music also requires Apple
>>>>>>>>>>> hardware. Even without Apple hardware, the sound quality is superior as
>>>>>>>>>>> is the selection.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You would have better ears than I have to tell the difference.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The ears are one thing, but even if you only know about the
>>>>>>>>> specifications, you would know that what Spotify offers can't compete.
>>>>>>>>> Apple's lossy codec is the best there is, so a song encoded at 256kbps
>>>>>>>>> using it will sound magnificent no matter what kind of speakers you use.
>>>>>>>>> If that is not sufficient for you, it also offers lossless at no extra
>>>>>>>>> charge. Meanwhile, the default for Spotify is AAC at 128kbps, using an
>>>>>>>>> inferior codec that is probably the one offered by Nero. High quality
>>>>>>>>> there is 256kbps, more or less on par with what Apple Music offers at
>>>>>>>>> the low end but, again, with a worse encoder. There is no lossless option.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But is the "loss" noticeable to human ears?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is. There is an additional punch to the Apple AAC encoder that is
>>>>>>> lacking in Nero's. Nero's does a good job, but it isn't as good. It's
>>>>>>> better than MP3 though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And if so, does it matter? I enjoy a tune the same whether I listen to it
>>>>>>>> through earbuds, $15 logitech speakers, whether in quiet or a bit of
>>>>>>>> background noise. Most of musical information is low frequency (under 5 kHz),
>>>>>>>> though the harmonics increase that up to maybe 16 kHz.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For people who aren't audiophiles, there isn't a difference in audio
>>>>>>> quality, but they will likely notice the greater selection from Apple. I
>>>>>>> also think that Apple has an excellent interface, with YouTube's being
>>>>>>> the absolute worst.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I stopped listening to YouTube while walking. Sick of commerials in the middle
>>>>>> of a 10-minute tune. Also the slightest accidental touch of the phone screen
>>>>>> can stop the playback.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Switched to SomaFM... their Secret Agent channel has some good walkin' tunes.
>>>>>
>>>>> YouTube Music doesn't have commercials if you pay for it. It also
>>>>> removes ads from YouTube itself, making for a much more pleasant viewing
>>>>> experience there too.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't have ads if you use uBlock Origin either.
>>>
>>> True, but my being a Catholic makes me reluctant to use services in a
>>> way that doesn't benefit the provider. I stopped blocking ads a while
>>> back and pay to support the sites I most often frequent. If I am not
>>> interested in paying and a site becomes needlessly annoying to use, I
>>> simply check out an alternative.
>>
>> I look at it differently. The site is available. uBlock Origin is available.
>> I'm not shedding any tears for Google. If there is a small site I do unblock
>> ads on it. If it's a huge corporate site, I don't care. I especially despise
>> ads on a site where I buy something.
>
> For me, the ads are only fair. I've used Brave for a while and blocked a
> bunch of ads, but it eventually became clear that if the webmaster
> didn't mind my not seeing the ads, they would have removed them
> themselves. The fact that the site is often bombarded with that crap
> means that they do rely on the income they receive from it, and I have
> no right to use their content without their source of income without
> their permission. I'm trying to be a better person with age.

To each their own. I don't feel sorry for Google, Microsoft, Apple or any of
the big corporations. If Google goes under because I don't watch their
ads... EXCELLENT! In June (I think, unless they've delayed it again) uBlock
Origin is basically going to quit working in Chrome and (I'm guessing) Edge
as they go to Manifest 3. At this point Firefox is claiming they'll contnue
to support Manifest 2, but we'll see.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-05-26, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2024 19:10:33 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> You'll first have to buy a new Copilot+ PC, then turn on the Recall
>> feature (assuming of course that MS would not be so arrogant as to force
>> such a risky thing on users) and let it capture everything you do.
>
> Force? Certainly not. Of course there will be the stream of
> 'recommendations'.

I just watched something from the CEO of Microsoft saying that only the user
of the computer will be able to use "recall." And he wouldn't lie, would he?
Of course not!

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine