On 2024-12-31 15:40, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-12-31, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>
>> I would bet that it is AbiWord that is the issue, not any kind of bug
>> with ODT. If AbiWord couldn't handle DOCX though, I would blame the
>> format since it is closed despite its name.
>
> The original .doc format was closed too. You could get a look at
> the specs, but you had to sign a non-disclosure agreement first.
> I once heard from someone who signed the NDA and looked at the
> specs. He said you really didn't want to know what was in there.
> It was a real dog's breakfast - but I suppose the people who
> revese-engineered it knew that already.

I'm not entirely surprised. A lot of the formats Microsoft comes up with
seem to be a poor response to something that already exists rather than
anything that was properly planned. They seem to create the format
simply to make sure that anyone using it is tied to their software. It's
clever for business, but unethical if storing information for as long as
possible or sharing it with as many people as possible are your primary
concerns.

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

On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 01:40:33 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:

> Biggest assholes where I live are Tesla owners, Dodge Hemi and Mustang
> owners.
> It used to be Land/Range Rover people but things have changed.

When you pul up behind a F-250 with imitation bull testicles dangling from
the trailer hitch you have a good idea what you're dealing with.

On 2024-12-30, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2024, pH wrote:
>
>> On 2024-12-28, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-12-27 18:04, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 14:57:55 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I appreciate that I can get gratis a piece of software that is
>>>>>> that good.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think Free Software could be better, and you would rather not give
>>>>> money to a proprietary company, why not contribute some of that money to
>>>>> the development of the Free Software and help make it better?
>>>>
>>>> Especially since projects like KDE and LibreOffice really need it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Note that money is not the only way to contribute. Even by using the
>>> software you contribute, by making others aware of it, you contribute. I
>>> actually like projects that are not super wealthy. The linux foundation
>>> and firefox are excellent examples of how power corrupts. Would never
>>> dream of contributing with money to those two.
>>
>> This grabs my attention...as essentially a 'bystander' I've been totally
>> unaware of these types of sentiments.
>> Can someone give (or point me to) a thumbnail of why someone might have
>> these opinions?
>>
>> Just curious....
>>
>> Pureheart in Aptos
>
> Sure... https://lunduke.substack.com/ writes plenty about the corruption
> of firefox and the linux foundation.

Thank-you for the link...

pH

On Tue, 31 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 05:11:09 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> I'm not disputing whether BMWs are better vehicles, whether to drive or
>> for some other reason. What I do notice is that many people who drive
>> BMWs feel that the car confers some sort of superior class on the
>> driver, and they feel it is the God-given duty for us plebes who drive
>> lesser cars to get out of their way - to the point of making exasperated
>> hand gestures at those of us who don't.
>
> When I was trucking I was amused by BMW drivers who tried to play chicken
> with a 65' long 18 wheeled vehicle outweighing them by about 75,000
> pounds.
>

That reminds me... when I was in spain once, a big truck didn't look out
before changing lanes and almost pushed me off the road. He saw it in time
though and apologized. I had an elevated pulse for a while.

On Tue, 31 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 12:49:50 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> I think in northern europe and in the north east, BMW is still the king
>> of asshole cars. I had a BMW when young. I do not know what other
>> thought of my driving, but I've never been a car person and I do not
>> enjoy driving. My wife drives me most of the time. This is luxury! =D
>
> I think the title here belongs to crew cab (Dodge) Rams.
>

Dodge rams? Had no idea! I've seen one or two, but here they are very
rare. Do you think I would get many women if I bought a dodge ram in the
US?

On Tue, 31 Dec 2024, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2024-12-31, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>
>> I would bet that it is AbiWord that is the issue, not any kind of bug
>> with ODT. If AbiWord couldn't handle DOCX though, I would blame the
>> format since it is closed despite its name.
>
> The original .doc format was closed too. You could get a look at
> the specs, but you had to sign a non-disclosure agreement first.
> I once heard from someone who signed the NDA and looked at the
> specs. He said you really didn't want to know what was in there.
> It was a real dog's breakfast - but I suppose the people who
> revese-engineered it knew that already.

I'm not surprised. It is fascinating how the company culture is created to
turn out bad software. Makes one wonder if it would be possible to create
a kind of anti-Microsoft company culture that would produce gems?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 20:40:05 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> The original .doc format was closed too. You could get a look at the
>> specs, but you had to sign a non-disclosure agreement first. I once
>> heard from someone who signed the NDA and looked at the specs. He said
>> you really didn't want to know what was in there.
>> It was a real dog's breakfast - but I suppose the people who
>> revese-engineered it knew that already.
>
> You just to look at what was public in the ISO 29500 so-called spec to see
> that it was an accumulation of many years of dogs’ breakfasts, piled one
> on top of the other.

+1

Remember when Microsoft puts its stooges on the ISO standards bodies of various
countries in order to ram through their 6000-page standard?

--
The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday, but never jam today.
-- Lewis Carroll

On 2025-01-01 12:43, D wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 05:11:09 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not disputing whether BMWs are better vehicles, whether to drive or
>>> for some other reason.  What I do notice is that many people who drive
>>> BMWs feel that the car confers some sort of superior class on the
>>> driver, and they feel it is the God-given duty for us plebes who drive
>>> lesser cars to get out of their way - to the point of making exasperated
>>> hand gestures at those of us who don't.
>>
>> When I was trucking I was amused by BMW drivers who tried to play chicken
>> with a 65' long 18 wheeled vehicle outweighing them by about 75,000
>> pounds.
>>
>
> That reminds me... when I was in spain once, a big truck didn't look out
> before changing lanes and almost pushed me off the road. He saw it in
> time though and apologized. I had an elevated pulse for a while.

Was that recently, or long ago?

Lorry drivers in Spain, long ago, were known as gentlemen of the road.
Certainly not so in recent times. They are exploited, and it shows in
their tempers. They drive around tired.

They tend to change lane fast because otherwise a car comes and impedes
it. This forces the incoming traffic on the left lane to brake and swear
softly.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

-hh wrote:

> (snipped, unread)

The -highhorse snit sees an advocate or two admitting that they have
no experience with Photoshop. The snit sees an opportunity to attack.
He claims that advocate "haters" have been unreasonable. They have
been "loudly critical" of a product that they have no experience with.

When challenged, the snit moves the goal posts to advocates talking
about prices and values, which he asserts is being "loudly critical"
of the more-expensive product.

The snit also positively *gloats* about the fact that one advocate,
sdb, made a stupid argument in the course of one such discussion about
value.

But even if one accepts the snittish claim that calling Photoshop
"expensive" or whatever constitutes being "loudly critical" of it, the
initial attack was that we were unreasonably critical of something
that we had no experience with, and thus were ignorant of.

But the price has always been known! Being "critical" of the price is
*not* being critical of something we have no experience with and thus
are ignorant of!

So, -highhorse's attack *fails* even if one accepts his snittish claim
calling Photoshop "expensive" and comparing value is "loud" "criticism
on cost".

As usual, -highhorse attacked using nothing but idiocy and lies. As
usual, -highhorse failed.

And let's consider sdb's brain-fart of ten (or whatever) years ago.
This is about the best that -highhorse can do, apparently. Yes, sdb
arbitrarily assigned a one cent price to GIMP, to compare relative
values. Yes, it was stupid. Notice the absolute *pleasure*
-highhorse gets out of this single example. The guy is a genuine
fscking *asshole*, folks.

How many *stupid* things have freedom-hating assholes, like
-highhorse, spewed in here? I have hundreds of examples of -highhorse
and many others spewing mind-boggling stupidity.

And sdb's brain-fart was only that. He wasn't being an asshole. He
wasn't attacking anyone using idiocy and lies.

-highhorse attacks people using idiocy and lies. -highhorse has
claimed that advocates are "irrational" and "close minded", because
they "hate" Photoshop.

Do cola advocates really "hate" Photoshop, or did -highhorse attack
using idiocy and lies?

Between what sdb did, and what -highhorse did, which is worse?

-hh wrote:

> (snipped, unread)

Around your family, you like to pretend that you're a good person,
don't you, -highhorse.

If only they knew what an asshole you are, how eager to attack decent,
reasonable people you are.

On 01/01/2025 15:26, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> (snipped, unread)
>
> Around your family, you like to pretend that you're a good person,
> don't you, -highhorse.
>
> If only they knew what an asshole you are, how eager to attack decent,
> reasonable people you are.
>
I think the asshole round here, is you, chris

--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> (snipped, unread)

How about you keep your trap shut about things you have no idea about?

On 1/1/25 7:22 AM, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Again, I've never noticed any such thing.
>>>
>>> Many drivers are not given to noticing anything around them.
>>
>> Its also challenging to see the transgressions from inside the BMW. /s
>
> Being a motorcyclist, like myself, gets you in tune with what other
> vehicles are doing.

Only if one drives on roads. Plus it doesn't address the question of
how long a former BMW driver remains defensive about their reputation.

-hh

On 1/1/25 10:57 AM, chrisv wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> (snipped, unread)
>
> How about you keep your trap shut about things you have no idea about?

Butthurt chrisv needs to take his own advice.

Sorry, no "/s".

-hh

-hh wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> Being a motorcyclist, like myself, gets you in tune with what other
>> vehicles are doing.
>
>Only if one drives on roads.

Which I do.

>Plus it doesn't address the question of
>how long a former BMW driver remains defensive about their reputation.

Only a fscking dumbshit would think that being a former BMW driver
would motivate me to defend the reputation of BMW drivers in general.

It's not as if anyone has claimed, or would claim, that all BMW
drivers are bad.

-hh wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>> (snipped, unread)
>>
>> How about you keep your trap shut about things you have no idea about?
>
> (snipped, unread)

Let me guess: One asshole who attacks without basis supporting
another.

There's probably a snittish twist about me spouting-off about things
that I have no idea about. But that would be pure snittery, of
course.

After all, -highhorse is the guy who read my pro-choice arguments and
concluded that I didn't know that producing and offering more choices
increases costs.

I'm *that* stupid and clueless, or is -highhorse a snit?

--
"the COLA fanboys seem to never grok [that choice has costs]." -
lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly

On 1/1/25 10:25 AM, chrisv wrote (a butthurt double post)
> -hh wrote:
>
>> (snipped, unread)
>
> The -highhorse snit sees an advocate or two admitting that they have
> no experience with Photoshop. The snit sees an opportunity to attack.
> He claims that advocate "haters" have been unreasonable. They have
> been "loudly critical" of a product that they have no experience with.
>
> When challenged, the snit moves the goal posts to advocates talking
> about prices and values, which he asserts is being "loudly critical"
> of the more-expensive product.

Gosh, it couldn't have been for the reason that chrisv snipped:

[quote]
Unfortunately, the only way that this point actually becomes
"reasonable" is by finally admitting that many/most Linux fanboys are
chronic consummate cheapskates.
[/quote]

Nothing wrong being frugal, but with YA post today of YA Goodwill find
(this one a Optiplex 9020 Micro for $12), there is an undue amount of
attention paid in COLA on money.

> The snit also positively *gloats* about the fact that one advocate,
> sdb, made a stupid argument in the course of one such discussion about
> value.

No, I'm under no obligation to cite every COLA poster who's been a fool.

sbd wasn't the only one: merely a spectacularly dumb example. For
example, Homer was known for this with Photoshop too ("£600").

> But even if one accepts the snittish claim that calling Photoshop
> "expensive" or whatever constitutes being "loudly critical" of it, the
> initial attack was that we were unreasonably critical of something
> that we had no experience with, and thus were ignorant of.

Ignorance as a factor becomes relevant when they overstep, such as by
attempting to claim GIMP as an equivalent & suitable alternative.

Its no different than criticizing BMWs for being 'overpriced junk' when
being ignorant on how that product is differentiated in the market.

> But the price has always been known! Being "critical" of the price is
> *not* being critical of something we have no experience with and thus
> are ignorant of!

When you're ignorant, just how do you make an informed assessment on a
product's utility, for its potential Return on Investment (ROI)? Hmm?

TL;DR: dividing by zero (knowledge) is a fool's errand.

> So, -highhorse's attack *fails* even if one accepts his snittish claim
> calling Photoshop "expensive" and comparing value is "loud" "criticism
> on cost".
>
> As usual, -highhorse attacked using nothing but idiocy and lies. As
> usual, -highhorse failed.

No, its noting that 'dividing by zero' (ignorance) is a fool's errand.

> And let's consider sdb's brain-fart of ten (or whatever) years ago.
> This is about the best that -highhorse can do, apparently.

No, I'm under no obligation to cite every COLA poster who's been a fool.

> Yes, sdb arbitrarily assigned a one cent price to GIMP, to compare relative
> values. Yes, it was stupid. Notice the absolute *pleasure*
> -highhorse gets out of this single example. The guy is a genuine
> fscking *asshole*, folks.

But you *do* remember sbd; its why I chose a memorable example.

> And sdb's brain-fart was only that. He wasn't being an asshole. He
> wasn't attacking anyone using idiocy and lies.

Except that sbd came back briefly as butthurt sore luzer, just like
you're being ... again.

The difference between the two of you is that sbd learned the lesson
which you still haven't, namely: "if you don't like being called out
for saying stupid stuff, don't say stupid stuff".

-hh

On 01/01/2025 15:57, chrisv wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> (snipped, unread)
>
> How about you keep your trap shut about things you have no idea about?
>
How about you keep your trap shut about things you have no idea about?

--
There’s a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

On 01/01/2025 16:21, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> Being a motorcyclist, like myself, gets you in tune with what other
>>> vehicles are doing.
>>
>> Only if one drives on roads.
>
> Which I do.
>
>> Plus it doesn't address the question of
>> how long a former BMW driver remains defensive about their reputation.
>
> Only a fscking dumbshit would think that being a former BMW driver
> would motivate me to defend the reputation of BMW drivers in general.
>
> It's not as if anyone has claimed, or would claim, that all BMW
> drivers are bad.
>
No. Only a majority of them

--
There’s a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

On 01/01/2025 16:30, chrisv wrote:
> I'm*that* stupid and clueless

Yup!

--
There’s a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> (snipped, unread)

If you want to apologize, you'll need to change the subject so that
I'll see it.

Until then, all I know that you, despite having *no way* to know,
claims that I'm not given to noticing anything around me. Then, when
I told you that I do not fit that description, you called me a liar.

The fact is that I'm hyper aware of what's going on around me, and any
asshole who claims otherwise is a liar.

Your other two recent posts were deleted, unread.

-hh wrote:

>On 1/1/25 10:25 AM, chrisv wrote (a butthurt double post)
>> (snipped, unread)

Poor -highhorse.

Like all trolling assholes, he must to *lie* to attack, when faced
with our reasonable and correct points.

Who he thinks he's fooling, I have no idea.

On 01/01/2025 17:28, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> On 1/1/25 10:25 AM, chrisv wrote (a butthurt double post)
>>> (snipped, unread)
>
> Poor -highhorse.
>
> Like all trolling assholes, he must to *lie* to attack, when faced
> with our reasonable and correct points.
>
> Who he thinks he's fooling, I have no idea.
>
Oh FFS
*plonk*

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 11:44:29 -0500, -hh wrote:

>
> [quote]
> Unfortunately, the only way that this point actually becomes
> "reasonable" is by finally admitting that many/most Linux fanboys are
> chronic consummate cheapskates.
> [/quote]
>

You omit that many/most commercial software packages are
EXTORTIONATE in that they capture users via proprietary
formats and subscription accounts. The only difference
between them and the gangsters of old are the machine
guns.

I can pay $100 for a 1/2" power drill and I can expect it
to last 25-50 years or more. (I inherited a power drill
from my grandfather that is almost 70 years old. The
only problem is a loose connection in the power cable
that can be easily fixed.)

That same $100 won't even buy a 1 month subscription
for a desktop software package.

The situation is borderline criminality.

Both software and information want to be free (as in
"freedom" and not "beer"). We are seeing this happen.
Commercial software on the desktop is an endangered species.

I can understand the airline industry paying big bucks
for flight reservation software, or the nuclear power industry
paying big bucks for control software, but a desktop spreadsheet
or word processor is trivial and should cost nothing.

Everything done on the desktop has been standardized decades
ago. There is no need for commercial software in this arena.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 11:44:29 -0500, -hh wrote:
>
>> [quote]
>> Unfortunately, the only way that this point actually becomes
>> "reasonable" is by finally admitting that many/most Linux fanboys are
>> chronic consummate cheapskates.
>> [/quote]
>
>You omit that many/most commercial software packages are
>EXTORTIONATE in that they capture users via proprietary
>formats and subscription accounts. The only difference
>between them and the gangsters of old are the machine
>guns.
>
>I can pay $100 for a 1/2" power drill and I can expect it
>to last 25-50 years or more. (I inherited a power drill
>from my grandfather that is almost 70 years old. The
>only problem is a loose connection in the power cable
>that can be easily fixed.)
>
>That same $100 won't even buy a 1 month subscription
>for a desktop software package.
>
>The situation is borderline criminality.
>
>Both software and information want to be free (as in
>"freedom" and not "beer"). We are seeing this happen.
>Commercial software on the desktop is an endangered species.
>
>I can understand the airline industry paying big bucks
>for flight reservation software, or the nuclear power industry
>paying big bucks for control software, but a desktop spreadsheet
>or word processor is trivial and should cost nothing.
>
>Everything done on the desktop has been standardized decades
>ago. There is no need for commercial software in this arena.

Clearly you're just ranting nonsense, people will pay M$ and Adobe for
software if they really need it, the question is more whether the
average consumer needs them - I, for one, prefer LO and GIMP.

--
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.