7 Best Alternatives To Microsoft Office Suite — 2019 Edition

Apd wrote:
"Mayayana" wrote:
** I may be reaching the limit on my posting ability.
Everyone will make fun of me, of course, but I'm using
OE6 and at some point it just rejects the header length
if a thread goes too deep. I've never found a way to
fix it. But I love OE for most things and don't much like
TBird, so I put up with it.

OE is a fine mail & news client but does have its problems like the
one you mention. The line length limit is 998 chars (RFC 2822) and
OE should really be wrapping the "references" header line like other
newsreaders do. Currently, you are about half way to the limit.

If you get the "line to long" error, save your unsent reply as a
".nws" file, open in notepad and delete all but the last MID in the
"references" line.

One should also keep the very first MID, so the (to be generated)
article can still be properly threaded, all the way from the OP of the
thread.

Then add the header "X-Unsent: 1" and save. Now you
can open in OE and treat as any normal message in composition.

I've done it with this message as an example.

On 09/12/2019 17.58, Ken Springer wrote:
On 12/9/19 7:11 AM, Mayayana wrote:
"Dan Purgert" wrote

| Â*Â* I explored it a fair amount but ended up feeling that
| it was a big time sucker. Everything changes. Everything
| requires tweaking.

| So, your basic progression of "new stuff changes". I mean, it's not
like
| Windows behaves the same as XP (or 7) these days.
|
Â*Â* Big difference. Microsoft is religious about backward
compatibility. They provide support for 10 years and
lots of docs. (Though the end-user docs are pretty bad.)

Does this include the new support policy as stated he

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/...cle-fact-sheet

snip

Â*Â* Linux support is typically 18 months. When I want
to install anything it needs numerous updates of system
files. Ridiculous stuff like 6.143.213.77 isn't good enough.
It has to be 6.143.213.88.

What about the Linux distros that are "Long Term Support"?

snip

Well, openSUSE (which is the one I know well) has an hybrid model with
Leap. Can not be explained in a single line.

The core of the distribution, something about 3000 packages, come from
the commercial distribution, SLE, while the rest (say 10000 packages)
come from the community. The core packages (like the kernel and main
libraries) stay on the same version during the life cycle (~3..4 yrs),
while the community packages try to keep current. For example, Gnome is
core, while KDE (Plasma) is not. We can say that the core is LTS.

There is a major version release linked to the commercial SLE version
(currently 15.x), and then several minor releases, tied to the
commercial version service packs. We had 15.0 and 15.1, and the update
was trivial. 15.2 is expected next spring, 15.3 about a year later, and
the next it could be 15.4 or 16.0 (unknown yet).

Thus we have something like 3 or 4 year major release cycle, with the
core being LTS.


On the other hand, if I want to install, say, Thunderbird or
LibreOffice, I would simply select them in the YaST "software
management" module, click install, and just wait for the download and
install. I don't really have to worry about anything extra they need,
that's automatic. Single point of distribution.



--
Cheers, Carlos.

Corrected the typo in the subject line...

"Dan Purgert" wrote

| I've never used Mandrake/Mandriva; but I know that SUSE is ... weird.
| They remind me of like IBM or HP -- "release 1.2.3.1 is to be released
| on January 13, 2020; our standard lifecycle will apply to this release.
| Long-term contract holders can obtain 1.2.3.1.LT on January 20."
|
| I think the whole gimmick with them is that you buy a SUSE support
| contract.
|

I'd never heard of that. I mainly picked those because
they supported KDE and because they seemed to have to
most package support for various software programs.

| Sounds like you really wanted Ubuntu (or these days, maybe Mint?).

People often say that. But why move from Windows
adware to Linux adware? I don't want something that
cuts off control. I'd only be interested if it were as
functional and controllable as Windows.
I often think of Window/Mac/Linux as a decent car,
a sportscar with the hood welded shut, and a car kit.
There's no sense moving from a decent sedan to a sedan
with the hood welded shut. It would only make sense
if the new sedan had better/more features.

| That being said, I'm not entirely sure linux firewalls necessarily care
| about "per application" in the same way that Windows does. Then again,
| I always hated that approach.

And Carlos replied to you with the classic Linux
salespitch: "If we ain't got it, you don't need it."

Linux people don't seem to get the irony of a system
that stresses freedom yet provides none. The religious
peer pressure can be intense. Especially with the young
devotees.

But the ability to block processes is very useful on
Windows. It provides a warning if malware gets onto
the system. Also, these days a large percentage of
software tries to call home without asking. Some of
it is harmless update checks. Some of it is spyware.
Either way, they have no business. The Linux answer
to that? "On Linux we don't have sleazy spyware, so
it's OK for it to call home." No, it isn't. I'm not subscribing
to any online service. This is my personal office.

When I tried SR Iron, which is supposed to be a
clean version of Chromium, even that tried to call
home. When the call failed it tried to call Google.
Yet their whole selling point is no Google spyware!

The first time a firewall ever asked me about
something outgoing was in '99, with AtGuard. I
accidentally clicked an ad for Visual Studio, trying
to drag the ad to AtGuard's "trash can" so it could
learn this image was an ad. Suddenly a warning came
up: Did I want to allow DCOM outbound? Huh? I'd
never heard of DCOM. Microsoft was trying to get
into my system via ActiveX because I'd clicked
their ad.

The first software program I saw try to go online was
Norton System Works. When it was blocked it just
sat there, trying repeatedly, pretending the install
was slow. Finally it gave up and finished installing.
Never did it indicate onscreen what it was trying to do.
This was back when SW was system software. No
AV or anything like it. No excuse for going online.

So one of my basic requirements for an OS is the
ability to control what goes in and out. You may
"hate" it. Maybe you're on an intranet where that's
a problem. I'm on a non-networked, standalone
computer. There's no excuse for anything going in
or out that I didn't ask for.


| Not that I didn't blow a friday or saturday night playing something.
| The other side of it was we grew up with "the internet", and so it
| wasn't exactly uncommon to just sit on ICQ / AIM and chat with everyone
| for a couple of hours...
|

Now that *is* weird.

But I know how addictive games can be. I have a neice
who keeps me informed about tech developments from
a Millennial point of view. (She has different names for all
of her Alexas.) Last time I tried her Grand Theft
Auto game I was astonished. That fantasy world was so
convincing that it held a powerful allure. And young people
are surrounded by that now. Unfortunately, I don't think
that's giving them any immunity. They're becoming tech
crackheads before they're old enough to protect themselves.
Reaching adulthood with no experience of solitude, basic
boredom, or dealing with loneliness. They can no longer
have a boredom tantrum, like a 2-year-old, so they just take
out their cellphone pacifier. I watch them on the subway.
They put the phone away in a pocket. 2-3 seconds go by.
They take the phone out and start scrolling again. Clearly
unaware of the cycle they're stuck in. Like a chain smoker
who lights the next cigarette off of the last.

"Carlos E.R." wrote

| On the contrary. You refusing to use unicode
| is what is causing the problem.
|

Problem? I've never seen you get worked up
like this. You're usually so cool-headed.

If I ever get appointed to an EU ambassadorship
then I'll certainly use UTF-8 as needed. I try to be
considerate and respectful with people I deal with.
But on my own machine? No.

It's not just a refusal to use UTF-8.
It's an avoidance of anything other than ASCII,
because none of that is necessary and only complicates
matters. There's no need to use long dashes or
curly quotes in English.

I understand that you don't have that luxury
because you need tildes. But that's no excuse that
I should have to convert my files to UTF-8. That's like
the woman who complains that men should have to
put down the toilet seat after use, when she herself
never even closes the toilet cover. I didn't believe in
the idea of "penis envy" until I saw women obsessed
with that issue. So maybe there's also "ASCII-envy"?

On 09/12/2019 17.45, Dan Purgert wrote:
Mayayana wrote:
"Dan Purgert" wrote


Meanwhile, WINE took 20 years to get to v. 1, with
updates every 10 days. It was a training camp for
college students, not a professional piece of software.
GIMP is similar. And that pretty much covers Linux
software for people who are not programmers or scientists.

I don't think their choice to not go to a v1.0 necessarily implies what
you're trying to say it does. Especially when it comes to writing a
compatibility layer for a closed-source system that has zero interest in
actually allowing it...

Correct.

On the other hand, there are many projects with version numbers below
"1", because their people like it so, yet the applications are really
finished and stable. There is no a single strategy related to version
numbers. They may start at zero and not change to one unless they do a
major change to the API. Others love to change numbers fast.

You can not deduct much from a version number till you learn how that
particular project works.

....

Linux support is typically 18 months. When I want
to install anything it needs numerous updates of system
files. Ridiculous stuff like 6.143.213.77 isn't good enough.
It has to be 6.143.213.88.

That sounds very much like your only experience is with either "rolling
release" distros, or the "testing" releases of otherwise "stable"
distros (such as the three "short-term" releases Ubuntu puts out between
their 5-year-support "LTS" ones).


Docs? If you're lucky it's a man page. Ask the programmer
why there are no docs. The answer will probably be something
like, "I don't like to write." They say that with diffident pride:
"I'm a programmer, not a lackey!"

Yeah, those types are awful people.

On the other hand, most are community project. It is up for a volunteer
to appear who writes more documentation.

Actually, when a programmer writes the documentation, it is often horrible.

On the other hand, an application with money can pay a team of
documentation writers. What was the saying, don't look a gift horse on
the teeth? :-p

....

I actually came across something in WINE at one point
suggesting that programmers should put comments into
their code in a particular format. Those could later be
auto-converted to a help file without having to actually
write a help file. Any software sold for money has to be
far more dependable and complete than that.

It's probably something like doxygen. It's helpful, but not a silver
bullet.

That sort of documentation is not aimed at the user.


| Nothing is simple because the people who use it like to feel like
| coding commandos.
|
| I haven't run into that myself ... maybe I got lucky.
|

And you don't use console windows? Or end up digging

Of course I do, it's cleaner & faster to get things done (FOR ME). But
I was more commenting on not running into "coding commandos".

down into /etc to change a program setting? Or maybe you
just regard that as simple? In Windows it's been almost

I do regard that as simple :-P

Specially compared to digging in regedit.

As opposed to C:/PROGRA~1 ? Ultimately they're both the start of
hierarchies where you find config files.

I do like not having to navigate through C:/PROGRA~1/PROGRAM/directories
though (albeit, Win programs have gotten better in this regard too).

completely unnecessary to open console windows since
about 1995. The last time I did it was to swap out the HAL
file from single core to multi-core version.

When I google for how to repair or do something in Windows, I often find
commands to run on a Windows console. Far easier to apply than a a long
web page with photos and descriptions of the menus I have to navigate,
to reach a configuration item to change.


I think winXP was the first version that didn't absolutely require some
cmd.com magic in order to get *something* to work. But then again I
played a lot of older DOS-based games back then, so that might've been a
reason.


| So everyone brags about using a "shell", by which they mean a console
| window where they run DOS-esque commands.
|
| Which can be the "easier" approach (in terms of less effort on your
| part) than using a GUI.

Yes. Exactly the answer I'd expect from a Linux fan.
It can be highly efficient as a scripting system, to do
batch operations, but for normal computer use -- to
copy a file, find system info, read help, list directory
contents, and so on -- it makes no sense.

There is no need to do any of that in a console, but you can.

On the other hand, I do not see the advantage of printing system info in
a nice graphical message window to doing the same in a humble console.
The later I can copy paste to a email, for instance, the former not. Ok,
send a photo... much bigger. Can't be edited. Not on usenet, it is text
only.


Depends -- if I'm already in the terminal it may make more sense than
opening new windows to navigate around. Not to mention if I'm only
connected remotely (but that's its own case, of course).



| Even the OS itself gets very limited support.
|
| This certainly depends on the distro you choose. Some are better than
| others -- although if you're looking for "professional" support, that's
| pretty much limited to Red Hat.
|
I don't mean personal support. I mean supporting
their own product, so that necessary patches are
available and software will run on it for many years,
as with Windows. Many programmers use end of OS
support as an excuse to end their support, so if a
Linux version is only supported officially for 18 months
then whatever you set up initially is "all she wrote".
Once it no longer serves you'll have to start all over.

Those short-term versions are, for lack of a better word, beta releases.
Why should a developer support them after they've been dropped?

Best way to think of them is akin to those trash versions of Windows
(ME, Vista, 8...) that get released / everyone hates / replaced by
better (XP, 7, 10) options.


....

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


I often think of Window/Mac/Linux as a decent car,
a sportscar with the hood welded shut, and a car kit.
There's no sense moving from a decent sedan to a sedan
with the hood welded shut. It would only make sense
if the new sedan had better/more features.

none of those weld the hood shut.

On 10/12/2019 14.59, Mayayana wrote:
"Dan Purgert" wrote

| I've never used Mandrake/Mandriva; but I know that SUSE is ... weird.
| They remind me of like IBM or HP -- "release 1.2.3.1 is to be released
| on January 13, 2020; our standard lifecycle will apply to this release.
| Long-term contract holders can obtain 1.2.3.1.LT on January 20."
|
| I think the whole gimmick with them is that you buy a SUSE support
| contract.
|

I'd never heard of that. I mainly picked those because
they supported KDE and because they seemed to have to
most package support for various software programs.

| Sounds like you really wanted Ubuntu (or these days, maybe Mint?).

People often say that. But why move from Windows
adware to Linux adware? I don't want something that
cuts off control. I'd only be interested if it were as
functional and controllable as Windows.
I often think of Window/Mac/Linux as a decent car,
a sportscar with the hood welded shut, and a car kit.
There's no sense moving from a decent sedan to a sedan
with the hood welded shut. It would only make sense
if the new sedan had better/more features.

| That being said, I'm not entirely sure linux firewalls necessarily care
| about "per application" in the same way that Windows does. Then again,
| I always hated that approach.

And Carlos replied to you with the classic Linux
salespitch: "If we ain't got it, you don't need it."

I don't remember saying that :-?


Linux people don't seem to get the irony of a system
that stresses freedom yet provides none. The religious
peer pressure can be intense. Especially with the young
devotees.

But the ability to block processes is very useful on
Windows. It provides a warning if malware gets onto
the system. Also, these days a large percentage of
software tries to call home without asking. Some of
it is harmless update checks. Some of it is spyware.
Either way, they have no business. The Linux answer
to that? "On Linux we don't have sleazy spyware, so
it's OK for it to call home." No, it isn't. I'm not subscribing
to any online service. This is my personal office.

When I tried SR Iron, which is supposed to be a
clean version of Chromium, even that tried to call
home. When the call failed it tried to call Google.
Yet their whole selling point is no Google spyware!

The first time a firewall ever asked me about
something outgoing was in '99, with AtGuard. I
accidentally clicked an ad for Visual Studio, trying
to drag the ad to AtGuard's "trash can" so it could
learn this image was an ad. Suddenly a warning came
up: Did I want to allow DCOM outbound? Huh? I'd
never heard of DCOM. Microsoft was trying to get
into my system via ActiveX because I'd clicked
their ad.

The first software program I saw try to go online was
Norton System Works. When it was blocked it just
sat there, trying repeatedly, pretending the install
was slow. Finally it gave up and finished installing.
Never did it indicate onscreen what it was trying to do.
This was back when SW was system software. No
AV or anything like it. No excuse for going online.

So one of my basic requirements for an OS is the
ability to control what goes in and out. You may
"hate" it. Maybe you're on an intranet where that's
a problem. I'm on a non-networked, standalone
computer. There's no excuse for anything going in
or out that I didn't ask for.

We do it differently.

We have the source code, so anybody can go in and find out if something
calls home, why and how. No need to use forensic tools to find out as
with commercial closed source software.

Thus the typical Linux firewall is designed to protect from outside, not
from inside. No need.

Yet, I did use the firewall time ago to block an application (Adobe
reader) from calling home, in Linux. A proprietary application.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 10/12/2019 12:08, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 10/12/2019 12.25, Dan Purgert wrote:
I'm not 100% sure if the error is in your reader (for showing the
enveloping), or mine (for making it look like part of the message).
Though with the way my luck's gone over the past week ...

It is not an error, it is intentional.

Normally clients show the entire text, including the PGP "signature".
This is correct.
Only when the client is told to decode PGP (can be automatic) they hide
it and instead tell if the signature is right, wrong, or unkown.

Please ask him if he saw my post:-

"Oh dear!

Would you like to share? It may be of help, you never know!" :-)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Mayayana wrote:
"Dan Purgert" wrote

| I've never used Mandrake/Mandriva; but I know that SUSE is ... weird.
| They remind me of like IBM or HP -- "release 1.2.3.1 is to be released
| on January 13, 2020; our standard lifecycle will apply to this release.
| Long-term contract holders can obtain 1.2.3.1.LT on January 20."
|
| I think the whole gimmick with them is that you buy a SUSE support
| contract.
|

I'd never heard of that. I mainly picked those because
they supported KDE and because they seemed to have to
most package support for various software programs.

As this is a bit OT for the *win* groups, should we perhaps move to
email?

Well, I just read the SUSE page for a few minutes, and the language
reminded me of other "enterprise-y" stuff. I could be somewhat off the
mark there.

Ubuntu has a massive library of packages as well (I'm not sure they're
necessarily "top" in that count, but they're at the upper end).
Although their terminology (and slight name-alterations based on the
desktop setup of choice) does kind of get annoying.


| Sounds like you really wanted Ubuntu (or these days, maybe Mint?).

People often say that. But why move from Windows
adware to Linux adware? I don't want something that
cuts off control. I'd only be interested if it were as
functional and controllable as Windows.

I'm not sure what you mean with adware - Ubuntu gave up on that AMZN
integration about as fast as they recanted on killing 32-bit after Valve
told them off.

In my experience, Linux tends to trump Windows when it comes to
"controllability" in general terms. One side or the other may be better
in a specific "controllable thing" though (but I think that goes for
anything, be it software, a new car, etc.)


I often think of Window/Mac/Linux as a decent car,
a sportscar with the hood welded shut, and a car kit.
There's no sense moving from a decent sedan to a sedan
with the hood welded shut. It would only make sense
if the new sedan had better/more features.

Of course; but then I didn't say to get a mac, did I?

You can still find the "kit" distributions for Linux (and they're quite
fun) -- but realistically, the "for desktops / new users" type
distributions are more akin to hybrids these days. That is, they're a
bit of an oddity, when compared to "a standard car that everyone
has(tm)", but for most people the differences will rather quickly be
overcome and/or ignored.


| That being said, I'm not entirely sure linux firewalls necessarily care
| about "per application" in the same way that Windows does. Then again,
| I always hated that approach.

And Carlos replied to you with the classic Linux
salespitch: "If we ain't got it, you don't need it."

It's a difference in the underlying paradigms of the two OSes, and not
so much ... that line of thinking across the board.

As I recall (and probably incorrectly at that), "Per application"
firewalls grew out of the days when just looking at the internet could
get you all kinds of "fun(tm)" applications that would compromise your
host without you even knowing about it.

Linux systems, on the other hand, have tended to operate under the old
UNIX tradition of one admin handling many users; and the firewall
options have tended to reflect that. Now, iptables is being replaced
(more or less) with new things, so that paradigm may be changing as
well.


Linux people don't seem to get the irony of a system
that stresses freedom yet provides none. The religious
peer pressure can be intense. Especially with the young
devotees.

I don't follow how the differences in paradigms mean that there is no
"freedom".


But the ability to block processes is very useful on
Windows. It provides a warning if malware gets onto
the system. Also, these days a large percentage of
software tries to call home without asking. [...]

Software making unauthorized calls home is never fun. I haven't
personally seen that happening with the stuff I have installed (not that
the statement means it doesn't happen, of course).

That being said, I think many people follow your train of thought on the
linux side.


When I tried SR Iron, which is supposed to be a
clean version of Chromium, even that tried to call
home. When the call failed it tried to call Google.
Yet their whole selling point is no Google spyware!

Dunno about that one. Many browsers nowadays have some form of a DNS
check built in though, which may simply use their site to check that DNS
is working.


Did I want to allow DCOM outbound? Huh? I'd
never heard of DCOM. Microsoft was trying to get
into my system via ActiveX because I'd clicked
their ad.

Probably more likely the sleazy ad company .


The first software program I saw try to go online was
Norton System Works. [...]

This was back when SW was system software. No
AV or anything like it. No excuse for going online.

Dunno what SystemWorks is, so I can't say there. I know many of their
installers phoned home to get the latest patches as part of the install
process (to avoid "great you installed 1.0.0, download 1.0.9 now!").

So one of my basic requirements for an OS is the
ability to control what goes in and out. You may
"hate" it. Maybe you're on an intranet where that's
a problem. I'm on a non-networked, standalone
computer. There's no excuse for anything going in
or out that I didn't ask for.

I control it a bit on the machine; but more typically handle that at the
edge of my network (be it home or otherwise).

How does your "standalone computer" get online? Internal modem directly
to your ISP?



| Not that I didn't blow a friday or saturday night playing something.
| The other side of it was we grew up with "the internet", and so it
| wasn't exactly uncommon to just sit on ICQ / AIM and chat with everyone
| for a couple of hours...
|

Now that *is* weird.

Yeah, IRC would've been a lot better


But I know how addictive games can be. I have a neice
who keeps me informed about tech developments from
a Millennial point of view. (She has different names for all
of her Alexas.)

Yeah, I name "Alexa" "not in my house!" (like hell I'm gonna put one
in here)


Last time I tried her Grand Theft
Auto game I was astonished. That fantasy world was so
convincing that it held a powerful allure. And young people
are surrounded by that now.

Yeah, I have my fair set of games - the big time sink having been Eve
Online (basically a chat program / great UI for Excel). But then I got
a real job / bills / etc

Unfortunately, I don't think
that's giving them any immunity. They're becoming tech
crackheads before they're old enough to protect themselves.

That's poor parenting right there... I mean, sure, I "grew up with"
computers (early 1990s), but it wasn't until I was in high-school /
college that I could use the computer "unregulated(tm)".

Reaching adulthood with no experience of solitude, basic
boredom, or dealing with loneliness. They can no longer
have a boredom tantrum, like a 2-year-old, so they just take
out their cellphone pacifier. I watch them on the subway.
They put the phone away in a pocket. 2-3 seconds go by.
They take the phone out and start scrolling again. Clearly
unaware of the cycle they're stuck in. Like a chain smoker
who lights the next cigarette off of the last.

Ha, yeah. In my case though, it's because it's too much of a pain to
carry a kindle (much less a book) everywhere. So I just use the kindle
app on my phone (albeit somewhat begrudgingly).


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAl3vtz kACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooGxWwgAgwxeS8aGRUdOFXNOilkA3Vw1GtbAj7cLRqI1gYpSWA bgZGY+J4EHsXGd
Naduxpua15mzMmo42qiq6H8N8QH+pHJkAhVuZENh4YUStfbBWP SmAh9uDl1MUFWG
r1PgVpysoJp6AjVqbSZ1+0xnGG0pnV7BUT6ROaaKnFLADIt0Jw aJ56CANaztEBbn
Q7smj+GowPK6Gcr7OxupikJByEo0ErAD3OMYXdEtihe8sF2YEz JgUPFG0VvpdM2F
zeRcUI2TX6SNtVGWr4ssnnczl/xEfsDRMxpHUMOQ16RDlN8sTsT8aY4R6tduxTMy
glUTSWOX0Vy/GP1/z0sgDomaEx0tHg==
=vaB3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

On 12/10/19 7:13 AM, Mayayana wrote:
"Carlos E.R." wrote

| On the contrary. You refusing to use unicode
| is what is causing the problem.
|

Problem? I've never seen you get worked up
like this. You're usually so cool-headed.

If I ever get appointed to an EU ambassadorship
then I'll certainly use UTF-8 as needed. I try to be
considerate and respectful with people I deal with.
But on my own machine? No.

It's not just a refusal to use UTF-8.
It's an avoidance of anything other than ASCII,
because none of that is necessary and only complicates
matters. There's no need to use long dashes

With all due respect, Mayayana, the long dash comment is incorrect.

In another message where you expressed a similar opinion, nospam replied
it was for correct typography. And I agreed. Technologically that may
be correct, but it doesn't explain the "why".

The reason for the 3 lengths of dashes in the English language is to
ensure *accurate* written communication. Which, in turn, helps prevent
misunderstandings.

Here's some links you can read if you wish.

http://site.uit.no/english/punctuation/hyphen/
https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org...s/faq0002.html
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/dash/
https://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tp...hyphens_dashes

These are skills we no longer teach in school. :-(

There are a lot of writing skills we no longer teach, and it's to our
detriment. Over the years, I've read this has happened because the
early typewriters could not do things like things like this. That's
true. And early computers, when it came to these skills, are little
more than fancy typewriters.

But, with modern computers, there's no real excuse for it. None,
whatsoever, other than a willingness to improve your work and do things
correctly. :-)

In fact, we fail to teach a lot of facts we probably should. I think
most of us have seen this test:

https://newrepublic.com/article/7947...s-it-could-you

or
curly quotes in English.

I didn't dig into curly quotes, but I suspect I'd find similar information.

I understand that you don't have that luxury
because you need tildes.

I know there are other situations besides tildes that Carlos has to deal
with for written Spanish. Such as upside down question marks and upside
down exclamation marks. :-)

But that's no excuse that
I should have to convert my files to UTF-8. That's like
the woman who complains that men should have to
put down the toilet seat after use, when she herself
never even closes the toilet cover.

How about common courtesy for the opposite sex?

I never thought much about men standing up to pee in the pot. Until I
saw a video of how urine actually gets spread outside the pot due to
splashing in the water. Then, I started noticing the mess on the floor
around urinals in public bathrooms. And you end up carrying that out
the door when you walk. What are the health risks?

I didn't believe in
the idea of "penis envy" until I saw women obsessed
with that issue. So maybe there's also "ASCII-envy"?




--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Firefox 70.0.1
Thunderbird 60.9
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

In article , Ken Springer
wrote:


There are a lot of writing skills we no longer teach, and it's to our
detriment. Over the years, I've read this has happened because the
early typewriters could not do things like things like this. That's
true. And early computers, when it came to these skills, are little
more than fancy typewriters.

early typewriters didn't even have a full character set.

each character required its own hammer, so the fewer hammers there
were, the less expensive it was to manufacture and less to break or
jam.

typing the number 1 was via a lower case l and an exclamation mark (!)
was a sequence of apostrophe, backspace, period.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/46/ff...8712e0a3dee659
1.jpg

But, with modern computers, there's no real excuse for it. None,
whatsoever, other than a willingness to improve your work and do things
correctly. :-)

exactly.

On 10/12/2019 09:18, Diesel wrote:
You tried to hire me to crack into other peoples private computer
networks for your benefit.

That's where you went wrong, Dustin.

I did try to explain that my sole ambition is, and always has been, to
make the Internet a better and safer place for EVERYBODY.

Nothing was ever sought for my personal benefit.

How is that exposing me, David?

I'm fairly sure that most people have no idea that you are a criminal.

HTH
HAND

On 12/10/19 8:56 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Springer
wrote:


There are a lot of writing skills we no longer teach, and it's to our
detriment. Over the years, I've read this has happened because the
early typewriters could not do things like things like this. That's
true. And early computers, when it came to these skills, are little
more than fancy typewriters.

early typewriters didn't even have a full character set.

There wasn't even a standard keyboard layont.

each character required its own hammer, so the fewer hammers there
were, the less expensive it was to manufacture and less to break or
jam.

typing the number 1 was via a lower case l and an exclamation mark (!)
was a sequence of apostrophe, backspace, period.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/46/ff...8712e0a3dee659
1.jpg

But, with modern computers, there's no real excuse for it. None,
whatsoever, other than a willingness to improve your work and do things
correctly. :-)

exactly.



--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Firefox 70.0.1
Thunderbird 60.9
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 12/10/2019 5:03 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 09/12/2019 23.33, Ken Blake wrote:
On 12/9/2019 3:04 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 09/12/2019 22.12, Ken Blake wrote:
On 12/9/2019 1:53 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 09/12/2019 20.43, Mayayana wrote:
"Carlos E.R." wrote

| | Thar "basic English codepage" does not include the ? (euro)
symbol, for
| | instance.
| |
|
| Chr 128.
|
| You can see that it got back as a question mark. Problem proved :-p
|

Â*Â* Works for me. I don't know what all this talk is about IBM.
I think I have code page 1252.

But you can not write the euro symbol in here, it doesn't work.


I'm not sure what you mean by "in here," but I can write it here in this
message: €


Whether or not you can see it is another matter.

I can see yours perfectly "here" :-D

Here meant "usenet".


Sorry, I'm confused. What do you mean? I typed it in usenet and we can
both see it in usenet.

Of course I can see what you type correctly. But we can not see what
/he/ types correctly, because he insists on using an 8 bit codepage,
because it is good enough for English.

If you look above to the quotes, do you see "the ? (euro)" string? The
'?' was an € symbol I typed, his system changed it to '?'.



That has to do with what newsreader he uses and how it's set, not with
its being usenet.

Of course.


I'm glad we agree, but the reason I was confused is that you first said
"But you can not write the euro symbol in here, it doesn't work" and
then said "Here meant 'usenet.'" Put those two sentences together and
you said "you can not write the euro symbol in usenet," and that is
*not* correct. You can, I can, we all can, as I demonstrated.



--
Ken