On 12/31/2024 2:25 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 02:18:09 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> On 12/30/2024 7:59 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 18:58:06 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you ever do need to automate office software or build custom
>>>> applications, you'll find that MS Office and VBA is extremely superior
>>>> to ALL other office software.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, no.
>>
>> You have NO idea what you're talking about.
>>
>>
>> > Even Microsoft realizes that VBA is crap, which is why it is offering
>> > Python access to Excel users -- at a cost, of course.
>>
>> Python can't come close to replacing VBA (and vice versa of course).
>
> Esri did a good job of replacing VBA.
>
> https://www.esri.com/arcgis-blog/products/arcgis-desktop/3d-gis/arcgis-
> desktop-and-vba-moving-forward/?rmedium=redirect&rsource=blogs.esri.com/
> esri/arcgis/2016/11/14/arcgis-desktop-and-vba-moving-forward
>
> They had their own scripting language, Avenue, and switched to VBA over 20
> years ago,
>
> https://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/fall02articles/new-tool.html

The best embedded scripting language I came across was Borland ObjectPAL
(a derivative of Delphi), included with Borland Paradox for Windows in
the early-mid 90s. PDoxWin lives on in WordPerfect Office; not sure if
it still uses ObjectPAL. WP includes a limited VBA.

> For a while VBA and Python coexisted, but VBA was phased out.

Of what?

> Enjoy living in the past.

VBA is thriving in Office 2024 and 365. Get with the present.

On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 19:32:19 -0500, DFS wrote:

> On 12/31/2024 2:25 PM, rbowman wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 02:18:09 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/30/2024 7:59 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 18:58:06 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you ever do need to automate office software or build custom
>>>>> applications, you'll find that MS Office and VBA is extremely
>>>>> superior to ALL other office software.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, no.
>>>
>>> You have NO idea what you're talking about.
>>>
>>>
>>> > Even Microsoft realizes that VBA is crap, which is why it is
>>> > offering Python access to Excel users -- at a cost, of course.
>>>
>>> Python can't come close to replacing VBA (and vice versa of course).
>>
>> Esri did a good job of replacing VBA.
>>
>> https://www.esri.com/arcgis-blog/products/arcgis-desktop/3d-gis/arcgis-
>> desktop-and-vba-moving-forward/?
rmedium=redirect&rsource=blogs.esri.com/
>> esri/arcgis/2016/11/14/arcgis-desktop-and-vba-moving-forward
>>
>> They had their own scripting language, Avenue, and switched to VBA over
>> 20 years ago,
>>
>> https://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/fall02articles/new-tool.html
>
>
> The best embedded scripting language I came across was Borland ObjectPAL
> (a derivative of Delphi), included with Borland Paradox for Windows in
> the early-mid 90s. PDoxWin lives on in WordPerfect Office; not sure if
> it still uses ObjectPAL. WP includes a limited VBA.

My first experience with Windows was using the Borland IDE and OWL. I
liked it better than MFC but when you're the 700 pound gorilla...

>> For a whil MS would dearly e VBA and Python coexisted, but VBA was
phased out.
>
> Of what?

Esri. Try to follow along.

>> Enjoy living in the past.
>
> VBA is thriving in Office 2024 and 365. Get with the present.

As I've mentioned many times I have never used Office so I haven't
followed VBA. I have a suspicion that like WinForms MS would dearly love
to drown VBA in a bathtub but there is too much baggage. I'm not sure
they've even managed to eradicate classic Visual Basic. There was a whole
cottage industry of VB controls that didn't transfer to VB .NET afaik.

On 31 Dec 2024 19:52:24 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Face it, there never have been such kind of artificial roadblocks,
> ever from NT via 2000, XP, Vista, 7 and 8[.1] all the way up to 10. That
> spans some 32 years. Not bad, I would say.

Microsoft had enough trouble with natural roadblocks just from its own
brain-dead design decisions, it didn’t need very many artificial ones.

But of course it had those, too: like the limit on the number of
simultaneous network shares that could be served up, which was higher in
the “Pro” version of Windows but not really lifted until you paid lots
extra for “Server”.

> FYI, please don't try to start a Windows versus Linux dispute with me.
> I started with Unix/UNIX systems when both memory sizes were expressed
> in KB and disk sizes were expressed in (a few) MB.

I’m sure you did. And I started with OSes that made Unix look big and
bulky.

On 2024-12-31 14:32, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-12-30 16:08, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>> On 2024-12-30 03:24, Chris wrote:
>>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>> Le 2024-12-21 à 03:52, Mr. Man-wai Chang a écrit :
>>>>> On 20/12/2024 9:03 am, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>> <https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/microsoft-365-users-
>>>>>> hit-by-random-product-deactivation-errors/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ​Microsoft is investigating a known issue triggering "Product
>>>>>> Deactivated" errors for customers using Microsoft 365 Office apps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not about "owning the software", but whether it requires a real-
>>>>> time online account to work. The usual words are "standalone" and
>>>>> "offline". :)
>>>>
>>>> The moment you require an online account to verify if you are the
>>>> person
>>>> who bought the software, you don't own it.
>>>
>>> You've never "owned" software, afaia. At best, you own a licence which
>>> allows you to use the software within the terms of the licence. If you
>>> break the terms then you can lose the right to use the software.
>>
>> It's pretty easy to own the software if you use open-source, to be
>> honest. You have access to the code and can do as you wish with it as
>> long as you agree to share your modifications with the people who
>> offered it to you. That's as good as it gets outside of producing your
>> own program.
>
> I think you can keep your modifications to yourself, as long as you
> don't share or publish or sell the binary. Just your own internal usage.

From what I read in Stallman's books and what I know about the GPL, all
of the above is correct.

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

On 12/28/24 1:34 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 07:04:57 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:23:49 +0800, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/12/2024 4:39 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As a programmer, I like to use powerful and versatile tools. That
>>>> includes the ability to automate workflow.
>>>>
>>>> Tools exist for this purpose, like odfpy for ISO 26300 files, which
>>>> are the native format of LibreOffice. And LibreOffice itself can run
>>>> Python code.
>>>
>>> My programming tasks has never ever needed to automate Office using
>>> VBA.
>>
>> So your needs are fairly simple. That’s nothing to be ashamed of.
>
> You do realize there is a whole world outside of Office?

Excel is a trick for business owners to use programming skills of their
employees, if there, but continue paying them the secretaries' salary
for doing it.

I did not fall for that.

On 12/29/24 2:56 PM, rbowman wrote:
> I was amazed when I plugged the USB Samsung into the Ubuntu box and it
> just worked. That definitely has not been my experience with printers.

Huh.. My Canon pixma wouldn't work with Mint, which is a Ubuntu, during
one whole day of trial and error.

rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 13:18:02 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> LaTeX is a buncha wrapper macros to simplify TeX, I think.
>
> All I know is 'Tex' is not pronounced like 'Tex Ritter'.

A friend of mine always chuckles when I mention "latex".

--
Life is both difficult and time-consuming.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 08:25:01 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have a colleague who's done some amazing stuff in Excel using Visual
>>> Basic Script (VBS); the PC I had at the time would fail just trying to
>>> load the files; his beefy machine he had would take literally hours to
>>> crunch through a set. A quick search shows that I still have an older
>>> copy: it takes up 14.34GB on disk. Youch.
>>
>> Sounds horribly inefficient and virtually impossible to debug. I'd bet a
>> decent python script would do it in minutes, with a tiny footprint and
>> be reliable.
>
> Even Microsoft realizes that now.

I presume you're referring to excel now including a python interpreter. I
don't think it's much of an improvement.

Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-12-30 03:24, Chris wrote:
>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>> Le 2024-12-21 à 03:52, Mr. Man-wai Chang a écrit :
>>>> On 20/12/2024 9:03 am, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>> <https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/microsoft-365-users-
>>>>> hit-by-random-product-deactivation-errors/>
>>>>>
>>>>> ​Microsoft is investigating a known issue triggering "Product
>>>>> Deactivated" errors for customers using Microsoft 365 Office apps.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not about "owning the software", but whether it requires a real-
>>>> time online account to work. The usual words are "standalone" and
>>>> "offline". :)
>>>
>>> The moment you require an online account to verify if you are the person
>>> who bought the software, you don't own it.
>>
>> You've never "owned" software, afaia. At best, you own a licence which
>> allows you to use the software within the terms of the licence. If you
>> break the terms then you can lose the right to use the software.
>
> It's pretty easy to own the software if you use open-source, to be
> honest. You have access to the code and can do as you wish with it as
> long as you agree to share your modifications with the people who
> offered it to you. That's as good as it gets outside of producing your
> own program.

You still don't own it, but now it's purely semantics.

On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 16:47:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> You still don't own it, but now it's purely semantics.

“Semantics” means "meaning”. So “now it’s purely meaning”?

On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 16:45:04 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 08:25:01 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>
>>> I'd bet a decent python script would do it in minutes, with a tiny
>>> footprint and be reliable.
>>
>> Even Microsoft realizes that now.
>
> I presume you're referring to excel now including a python interpreter.
> I don't think it's much of an improvement.

Obviously Microsoft is expecting its users to think otherwise. And it
wants to charge them for the privilege, so it must be expecting them to
believe it’s an improvement worth paying extra money for.

So either Python is that much better than VBA, or VBA is that much worse
than Python. Take your pick. ;)

On 1/1/2025 2:31 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 16:45:04 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 08:25:01 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd bet a decent python script would do it in minutes, with a tiny
>>>> footprint and be reliable.
>>>
>>> Even Microsoft realizes that now.
>>
>> I presume you're referring to excel now including a python interpreter.
>> I don't think it's much of an improvement.
>
> Obviously Microsoft is expecting its users to think otherwise. And it
> wants to charge them for the privilege, so it must be expecting them to
> believe it’s an improvement worth paying extra money for.
>
> So either Python is that much better than VBA, or VBA is that much worse
> than Python. Take your pick. ;)

I figured you were lying about MS (your mouth was moving). Python in
Excel costs NOTHING.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/python-in-excel#pricing-plans

On Mon, 12/30/2024 8:52 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
> On 2024-12-30 19:12, Paul wrote:
>> On Mon, 12/30/2024 8:31 AM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>> On 2024-12-29 21:49, Joel wrote:
>>>> sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> "Precious hardware"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's funny
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's my baby, yes, I have an emotional attachment to my computer, I
>>>>>> assembled it.  M$ crapware, other than such for Linux, can step off.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fine, you obviously have some emotional issues.  I don't really give a
>>>>> shit what you call or how you feel attached to your computer.  Have at
>>>>> it weirdo.  I'm still laffing at you.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> I Stand With Israel!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "That's funny."
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that you Linux guys have completely taken a shit on the win11 group,
>>>>> you're now stooping to commenting on sig files.  I manage to only use 4
>>>>> words to get my point across.  You on the other hand have written a
>>>>> short essay for yours.  Kinda fits your character.
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW, I got no problem with the way the normal people talk about Linux
>>>>> here.  One of our favorites in this group regularly uses it for things
>>>>> and shares his experiences.  He even manages to point out the flaws and
>>>>> problems with the various microsoft operating systems.  Everybody
>>>>> appreciates the education a handful of people in these groups give us.
>>>>>
>>>>> What they don't do is rave on an on about how horrible microsoft is at
>>>>> every chance they get and advocate Linux above all else in a fucking
>>>>> windows newsgroup.  We're here to learn about Windows 11 and if Linux
>>>>> can be of use in sorting things out great.  But you can take your Linux
>>>>> pom poms and wear yourself out in your advocacy group.  It's just
>>>>> getting a little old around here IMO.  Other than that....Fuck Off!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "You obviously have some emotional issues."
>>>
>>> Ignore him. Looking back, I had an emotional attachment to the Powerbook G4 I used in the early 2000s and still remember my MSI GT72 very fondly.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, he wants to learn about Windows 11. Good for him. The rest of us want to be educated on why a majority of AMD-powered computers in the wild will be forced to suffer fTPM stuttering even three years after the problem surfaced because Microsoft won't ease up on the TPM requirement and manufacturers don't want to deploy an update for the machines they've sold.
>>>
>>
>> We wave "Hi" from the Windows group :-)
>>
>> https://www.ghacks.net/2022/06/27/bypass-windows-11-microsoft-account-requirement-and-deny-privacy-questions-during-setup-with-rufus/
>>
>>     "Remove requirement for Secure Boot and TPM 2.0"
>>
>> Happy motoring!
>
> It's great that such a solution is available, but I'm afraid that won't fix the fTPM stuttering problem because it happens even when secure boot and TPM aren't used by Windows. Unless you can disable fTPM in general from the BIOS, you're still going to suffer from periodic stutters.
>

You can. My Asus board has a disable. It also has
BIOS support for a TPM header, even though the motherboard
has no TPM header. The BIOS is generic and they do one
version of BIOS and it runs on six of their motherboards
of the same generation. I was pissed, when I discovered
the damn board didn't have a header. Who would have thought
they would delete such a thing.

Paul

On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 14:50:25 -0500, DFS wrote:

> On 1/1/2025 2:31 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 16:45:04 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 08:25:01 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd bet a decent python script would do it in minutes, with a tiny
>>>>> footprint and be reliable.
>>>>
>>>> Even Microsoft realizes that now.
>>>
>>> I presume you're referring to excel now including a python
>>> interpreter. I don't think it's much of an improvement.
>>
>> Obviously Microsoft is expecting its users to think otherwise. And it
>> wants to charge them for the privilege, so it must be expecting them to
>> believe it’s an improvement worth paying extra money for.
>>
>> So either Python is that much better than VBA, or VBA is that much
>> worse than Python. Take your pick. ;)
>
> Python in Excel costs NOTHING.
>
> https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/python-in-excel#pricing-plans

Read the fine print.

On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 07:44:55 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 13:18:02 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> LaTeX is a buncha wrapper macros to simplify TeX, I think.
>>
>> All I know is 'Tex' is not pronounced like 'Tex Ritter'.
>
> A friend of mine always chuckles when I mention "latex".

Do purists pronounce that like the Hawk Tuah girl?

On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 19:31:52 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> Obviously Microsoft is expecting its users to think otherwise. And it
> wants to charge them for the privilege, so it must be expecting them to
> believe it’s an improvement worth paying extra money for.

That's only fair. It helps pay von Rossum's salary.

On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 14:50:25 -0500, DFS wrote:

> I figured you were lying about MS (your mouth was moving). Python in
> Excel costs NOTHING.
>
> https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/python-in-excel#pricing-
plans

with a few caveats.... Even with an enterprise subscription if you want
the full meal deal pony up.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/python-in-excel-
availability-781383e6-86b9-4156-84fb-93e786f7cab0

On Wed, 1/1/2025 2:31 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 16:45:04 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 08:25:01 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd bet a decent python script would do it in minutes, with a tiny
>>>> footprint and be reliable.
>>>
>>> Even Microsoft realizes that now.
>>
>> I presume you're referring to excel now including a python interpreter.
>> I don't think it's much of an improvement.
>
> Obviously Microsoft is expecting its users to think otherwise. And it
> wants to charge them for the privilege, so it must be expecting them to
> believe it’s an improvement worth paying extra money for.
>
> So either Python is that much better than VBA, or VBA is that much worse
> than Python. Take your pick. ;)
>

"Python in Excel is available in preview for Education users running the
Current Channel (Preview) through the Microsoft 365 Insider Program. It's
not currently available for the Semi-Annual Enterprise Channel.

It's rolling out to Excel for Windows first, and then to other platforms
at a later date.
"

And like the current Thunderbird rewrite activity, it's based on the notion
that "users want New and Shiny" and "abhor boomers and all they stand for".
Thus, the desired market demographic, is to shift to the younger crowd,
to keep the business running.

Python then, is just grabbing at the first shiny thing they can see.
There is an expectation that all the users have taken a Python course
at least once in their lives. Or, at least the people that count, have.

One of the benefits of using Python, is then LibreOffice can add that,
and files with scripting can be interchanged. It would solve a certain class
of problem we have with Excel, which is the exclusivity of VBA.

Paul

On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 00:15:11 -0500, Paul wrote:

> One of the benefits of using Python, is then LibreOffice can add that,
> and files with scripting can be interchanged. It would solve a certain
> class of problem we have with Excel, which is the exclusivity of VBA.

I wouldn’t hold your breath about that. I don’t think Microsoft is
offering an API for accessing Office from Python comparable with
LibreOffice’s PyUNO. Certainly nothing like that was mentioned on the
referenced page.

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 1/1/2025 2:31 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 16:45:04 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 08:25:01 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd bet a decent python script would do it in minutes, with a tiny
>>>>> footprint and be reliable.
>>>>
>>>> Even Microsoft realizes that now.
>>>
>>> I presume you're referring to excel now including a python interpreter.
>>> I don't think it's much of an improvement.
>>
>> Obviously Microsoft is expecting its users to think otherwise. And it
>> wants to charge them for the privilege, so it must be expecting them to
>> believe it’s an improvement worth paying extra money for.
>>
>> So either Python is that much better than VBA, or VBA is that much worse
>> than Python. Take your pick. ;)
>>
>
> "Python in Excel is available in preview for Education users running the
> Current Channel (Preview) through the Microsoft 365 Insider Program. It's
> not currently available for the Semi-Annual Enterprise Channel.
>
> It's rolling out to Excel for Windows first, and then to other platforms
> at a later date.
> "
>
> And like the current Thunderbird rewrite activity, it's based on the notion
> that "users want New and Shiny" and "abhor boomers and all they stand for".
> Thus, the desired market demographic, is to shift to the younger crowd,
> to keep the business running.

This has been MS's model for at least 30 years. Introducing features that
99% of people won't use and not fix bugs.

> Python then, is just grabbing at the first shiny thing they can see.
> There is an expectation that all the users have taken a Python course
> at least once in their lives. Or, at least the people that count, have.

Doubtful it'll be useful as python for excel won't be standard, but
definition.

> One of the benefits of using Python, is then LibreOffice can add that,
> and files with scripting can be interchanged. It would solve a certain class
> of problem we have with Excel, which is the exclusivity of VBA.

Sorry, but that's hopelessly naive.

LO should have stopped copying excel long ago and taken its users to a
better spreadsheet experience.

LO should work with Posit and build a proper analytical/statistical data
platform based around R.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 16:47:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> You still don't own it, but now it's purely semantics.
>
> “Semantics” means "meaning”. So “now it’s purely meaning”?

Correct. With FLOSS you don't own the software, as it's still just a
license, but you can do with it more or less whatever you want. Meaning in
practice it is indistinguishable from ownership.

Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
> On 2024-12-28 14:34, rbowman wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 07:04:57 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:23:49 +0800, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26/12/2024 4:39 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> As a programmer, I like to use powerful and versatile tools. That
>>>>> includes the ability to automate workflow.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tools exist for this purpose, like odfpy for ISO 26300 files, which
>>>>> are the native format of LibreOffice. And LibreOffice itself can run
>>>>> Python code.
>>>>
>>>> My programming tasks has never ever needed to automate Office using
>>>> VBA.
>>>
>>> So your needs are fairly simple. That’s nothing to be ashamed of.
>>
>> You do realize there is a whole world outside of Office?
>
> Yeah, it sometimes pains me that it is brought up as often as it is as
> some sort of must-have piece of software. It suggests that people don't
> do much other than open up Word and Excel.

In the professional world that's pretty accurate. If you include outlook
then you've got 95% of people's "productivity".

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 07:44:55 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>
>>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 13:18:02 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> LaTeX is a buncha wrapper macros to simplify TeX, I think.
>>>
>>> All I know is 'Tex' is not pronounced like 'Tex Ritter'.
>>
>> A friend of mine always chuckles when I mention "latex".
>
> Do purists pronounce that like the Hawk Tuah girl?

Very few people pronounce anything like her. Other than perhaps "crypto
scam".

On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 12:09:28 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Very few people pronounce anything like her. Other than perhaps "crypto
> scam".

That was interesting. My mind hasn't quite unraveled the whole crypto that
doesn't really have any crypto behind it but then I never understood NFTs
either. I guess there is an unlimited supply of greater fools.

On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 12:09:27 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 16:47:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>
>>> You still don't own it, but now it's purely semantics.
>>
>> “Semantics” means "meaning”. So “now it’s purely meaning”?
>
> Correct. With FLOSS you don't own the software, as it's still just a
> license, but you can do with it more or less whatever you want. Meaning
> in practice it is indistinguishable from ownership.

So the distinction from actual ownership ... is that meaningful or not?