Atlantis Word Processor

On 12/02/2014 10:23 PM, Mayayana wrote:

Lots of people give away some of their work, including
myself. I don't see it as "only fair" that people have to make
a buck on everything. What made the Internet so inspiring in
the early days was peoples' willingness to chip in -- whether
it was software, a brownie recipe, or directions for car repair.
A lot of people just contributed. Firefox was originally a small
OSS project on a shoestring budget, intended to provide a
credible alternative to IE's 90+% browser share. It became
almost a movement. And the effort succeeded.

Before the invention of the web browser, the Internet was beautiful. Had
the web browser never been invented and people been forced to use the
Internet as it was - through a shell - we could have avoided much of the
stupidity, spam, ads and what not currently populating the 'information
superhighway.'

Then they got carried away and went downhill. I don't know
the details. I suspect they were bloated with pride about their
noble quest and decided that with more funding they could
do even more good. What I do know is that for several years
now they've been getting more than $100 million/year from
Google, which is most of their income. It's a sham deal. Google
ostensibly pays to have their search bar in the main window,
but in reality they've essentially bought out Mozilla. Now the
Mozilla Foundation has developed a ridiculous 100-million-dollar
-a-year addiction, Firefox has become grossly overproduced,
and Google pretty much owns them. The result can be seen
in the steady move away from providing settings and options,
especially anything that might hamper Google's spying and
advertising. (The setting to block 3rd-part images was removed;
cookie settings were hidden; javascript settings have been
removed....) So the browser that saved us from corporate control
has itself become one of two browsers that now constitute
nearly a monopoly for Google, which is arguably a more generally
malefic force in computing and on the Internet than Microsoft
ever could have been.

I was using K-Meleon for awhile, which seemed to be picking
up where Firefox abandoned. But that project seems to have
dried up.

I can't help but notice that all of Internet Explorer's competitors in
the browser are either directly made by Google or influenced by them.
Firefox is bought-out by Google, as you say whereas Opera uses Google's
browser engine. It seems as though the only way of getting away from
Google is to use IE. Imagine being forced to use a browser developed by
a supposedly evil corporation to get away from an evil corporation.
--
Silver Slimer
'Linux ****' on google.ca = About 5,460,000 results (0.30 seconds)

On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:21:07 -0500, Silver Slimer
wrote:

Before the invention of the web browser, the Internet was beautiful. Had
the web browser never been invented and people been forced to use the
Internet as it was - through a shell - we could have avoided much of the
stupidity, spam, ads and what not currently populating the 'information
superhighway.'

Never underestimate the power of evil.

#telnet 180.546.xxx.xxx

#Login, but DO check out our new rates at 0800-6732-54**
:silverslimer

#password, after you've checked out our new Mint Diet Coke.
You are THIRSTY, right ?
:**********

#Hello Silver Slimer. Have you tried out new Munchit DIET
cheese cookies ? They are the best in the world. Ask at your local SM
store.
You have 125 messages in your inbox.
You must read them all, slowly, before your prompt is ready.
Press [enter] for the first message.
[ENTER}

MSG 1: Hi, your bank password is outdated. Please telnet
iam.awalrus.com enter your present password and account number to
avoid paying a fine for ...
..............................
[]'s

--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

| Before the invention of the web browser, the Internet was beautiful. Had
| the web browser never been invented and people been forced to use the
| Internet as it was - through a shell - we could have avoided much of the
| stupidity, spam, ads and what not currently populating the 'information
| superhighway.'
|

I'd be quite happy to get the information
superhighway back.

| I can't help but notice that all of Internet Explorer's competitors in
| the browser are either directly made by Google or influenced by them.
| Firefox is bought-out by Google, as you say whereas Opera uses Google's
| browser engine. It seems as though the only way of getting away from
| Google is to use IE. Imagine being forced to use a browser developed by
| a supposedly evil corporation to get away from an evil corporation.

Actually, Opera is now a webkit browser, which
comes from that other evil corporation: Apple

Google is using Apple's engine. Though I don't see
any particular problem with the different engines.
It's the implementations of the wrappers where the
sleaze comes in.

I suppose it's also helpful to remember the roots.
IE was designed to cater to corporate IT. Thus its
great flexibility, it's unique vulnerabilities, and it's
unusable settings, which were never meant to be
understandable or accessible outside the IT dept of
corporations. Chrome was designed to be a "consumer"
services interface for the "social web" set who are
perfectly happy having their online lives corporate-
mediated. Firefox was designed to be the peoples'
browser but got sold out, which accounts for its still
being flexible for those who care to fiddle with it.
Opera.... that one always seemed like an oddball to
me. I used to try it once in awhile, but it was never
the best option.
And Safari.... I haven't really tried that. I've heard
that it blocks 3rd-party cookies by default. That sounds
about right. Apple is really the AOL of this decade.
Like AOL they do a good job of protecting their non-
techy flock while taking their money.

Silver Slimer has written on 2/13/2014 1:21 PM:

Before the invention of the web browser, the Internet was beautiful. Had
the web browser never been invented and people been forced to use the
Internet as it was - through a shell - we could have avoided much of the
stupidity, spam, ads and what not currently populating the 'information
superhighway.'

Before the web browser, we had email, so spam was possible back then.
Also, "they" would have found a way to attach ads (maybe not the ones
tailored to the user via cookies) that you would have seen using archie,
veronica, lynx, etc.

Stupid? Maybe by making it a requirement that an Internet user needed
some computer skills, they would have kept a lot of people away, but
younger people would have picked up the "new" technology, just as
they've done with the web, mobile devices, etc.

BillW50 has written on 2/13/2014 8:02 AM:

I got curious and revisited MS Works once again. MS Works is on this
machine and it is at v8.0. I do know one can upgrade to v8.5 for free,
but you loose Word Art, remember that one? Both Works and Office used in
the earlier versions. Anyway I am surprised how many features are packed
into this product.

For example, many of the features we chatted about that we use all of
the time is there too under MS Works, even tables. Surprisingly it also
has a grammar checker, plus it has a real dictionary (The American
Heritage). Yes, it has the definition of many commonly used words.


Does it have file-format compatibility with Office?

In ,
Juan Wei typed:
BillW50 has written on 2/13/2014 8:02 AM:

I got curious and revisited MS Works once again. MS Works is on this
machine and it is at v8.0. I do know one can upgrade to v8.5 for
free, but you loose Word Art, remember that one? Both Works and
Office used in the earlier versions. Anyway I am surprised how many
features are packed into this product.

For example, many of the features we chatted about that we use all of
the time is there too under MS Works, even tables. Surprisingly it
also has a grammar checker, plus it has a real dictionary (The
American Heritage). Yes, it has the definition of many commonly used
words.

Does it have file-format compatibility with Office?

Yes! I don't see a way yet to create Power Point files (I don't think it
can), but it can view them too. Works can't do everything that Office
can do, but surprisingly it can do what most people do anyway. That
American Heritage dictionary and thesaurus blew me away. I wasn't
expecting anything that good. :-)

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:26:07 -0500, Juan Wei wrote:

Before the web browser, we had email, so spam was possible back then.

Before the web browser we had Gopher and Veronica. Gopher still
supported through addons in Firefox at least.

In message , Ken Springer
writes:
[]
I've never used Works, nor had a copy past vers. 4, but I've always
felt the later versions of Works had about the same abilities of Word
6, more or less.

Well, the very last few versions, I think, actually came with Word,
rather than the Works word processor.

Some have speculated about the reasons MS dropped Works, usually
speculating they didn't want to draw sales away from Office. I suspect
there is some truth to that, but possibly MS saw no reason to develop

I think it may also have impacted their revenue in another way: it was
pretty undemanding in terms of hardware requirements compared to Office,
so people could put off upgrading their computer: a new computer would
have come with a new copy of Windows, of course.

competing products, even though I think they could have sold a lot more
copies of Works than they were had they seriously marketed it. Which
leads me to wonder how many sales to MS were lost because people
didn't want to pay the price for Office, and since there was no Works,
they went elsewhere.

But I think not in large numbers; I don't think the competing prog.s
were much cheaper (mainly WordPerfect at that time IIRR).
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you are afraid of being lonely, don't try to be right. - Jules Renard,
writer (1864-1910)

On 13/02/2014 2:29 PM, Mayayana wrote:

Actually, Opera is now a webkit browser, which
comes from that other evil corporation: Apple

Google is using Apple's engine. Though I don't see
any particular problem with the different engines.
It's the implementations of the wrappers where the
sleaze comes in.

I suppose it's also helpful to remember the roots.
IE was designed to cater to corporate IT. Thus its
great flexibility, it's unique vulnerabilities, and it's
unusable settings, which were never meant to be
understandable or accessible outside the IT dept of
corporations. Chrome was designed to be a "consumer"
services interface for the "social web" set who are
perfectly happy having their online lives corporate-
mediated. Firefox was designed to be the peoples'
browser but got sold out, which accounts for its still
being flexible for those who care to fiddle with it.
Opera.... that one always seemed like an oddball to
me. I used to try it once in awhile, but it was never
the best option.
And Safari.... I haven't really tried that. I've heard
that it blocks 3rd-party cookies by default. That sounds
about right. Apple is really the AOL of this decade.
Like AOL they do a good job of protecting their non-
techy flock while taking their money.

So which browser would you recommend that people use?
--
Silver Slimer
'Linux ****' on google.ca = About 5,460,000 results (0.30 seconds)

On 13/02/2014 4:26 PM, Juan Wei wrote:

Before the web browser, we had email, so spam was possible back then.
Also, "they" would have found a way to attach ads (maybe not the ones
tailored to the user via cookies) that you would have seen using archie,
veronica, lynx, etc.

Spam's been around forever but while the Internet population was small,
sending spam wasn't very profitable and there was a much smaller amount
of it.

Stupid? Maybe by making it a requirement that an Internet user needed
some computer skills, they would have kept a lot of people away, but
younger people would have picked up the "new" technology, just as
they've done with the web, mobile devices, etc.

And the young generation would be a lot smarter than it is today. Rather
than learning how to access the latest and greatest cat pictures and
posting about their bowel movements on a social network, they would be
learning how to crack systems, improve security and how every technology
at their disposal actually works.
--
Silver Slimer
'Linux ****' on google.ca = About 5,460,000 results (0.30 seconds)

On 2/13/14 11:21 AM, Silver Slimer wrote:
On 12/02/2014 10:23 PM, Mayayana wrote:

Lots of people give away some of their work, including
myself. I don't see it as "only fair" that people have to make
a buck on everything. What made the Internet so inspiring in
the early days was peoples' willingness to chip in -- whether
it was software, a brownie recipe, or directions for car repair.
A lot of people just contributed. Firefox was originally a small
OSS project on a shoestring budget, intended to provide a
credible alternative to IE's 90+% browser share. It became
almost a movement. And the effort succeeded.

Before the invention of the web browser, the Internet was beautiful. Had
the web browser never been invented and people been forced to use the
Internet as it was - through a shell - we could have avoided much of the
stupidity, spam, ads and what not currently populating the 'information
superhighway.'

No, you wouldn't. As more and more "consumers", ordinary users,
purchased computers, there would have been a demand for something
"better", what ever that may have been. Who knows, whatever was an
option to the early browsers may have evolved in one anyway, to meet the
demand/expectations of those new users. Ad for the marketplace to
provide something better and/or different to set one program apart from
the others.

Remaining the way it was is stagnation, no evolution to becoming more
powerful. And that stagnation would mean eventual failure, because
someone would have produced something that was easier to user, and far
more powerful. As I said, someone would have provided something.

snip


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 24.0
Thunderbird 24.0

On 2/13/14 6:03 PM, Silver Slimer wrote:
On 13/02/2014 4:26 PM, Juan Wei wrote:

Before the web browser, we had email, so spam was possible back then.
Also, "they" would have found a way to attach ads (maybe not the ones
tailored to the user via cookies) that you would have seen using archie,
veronica, lynx, etc.

Spam's been around forever but while the Internet population was small,
sending spam wasn't very profitable and there was a much smaller amount
of it.

At least since World War II. Made by Hormel. LOL

Sorry folks, couldn't resist!

Stupid? Maybe by making it a requirement that an Internet user needed
some computer skills, they would have kept a lot of people away, but
younger people would have picked up the "new" technology, just as
they've done with the web, mobile devices, etc.

And the young generation would be a lot smarter than it is today. Rather
than learning how to access the latest and greatest cat pictures and
posting about their bowel movements on a social network, they would be
learning how to crack systems, improve security and how every technology
at their disposal actually works.

No, I disagree. As been pointed out to me many times by a good friend,
to gather that knowledge and learn to use it means there's an interest
in the technology. Most people do not have that interest in the "nuts
and bolts" like many here. They just want to use it, and have it work.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 24.0
Thunderbird 24.0

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:55:52 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Ken Springer
writes:
[]
I've never used Works, nor had a copy past vers. 4, but I've always
felt the later versions of Works had about the same abilities of Word
6, more or less.

Well, the very last few versions, I think, actually came with Word,
rather than the Works word processor.


Last few versions of what? Windows?

Neither Windows 7, nor any other version of Windows (except Windows 8
RT), has ever included Works, Excel, Word, PowerPoint, Access, nor any
other significant application software. Such programs have to be
bought, either by themselves or as part of Microsoft Office.

| So which browser would you recommend that people use?

I don't know. As I was saying earlier, I feel that
there just isn't any good option now. I'm just
hoping that more people will begin to stop and
decide that all the commercialization and intrusion
of privacy has gone too far. Then maybe the whole
medium could be improved.

I usually install Firefox or Pale Moon for friends, but
I think of those as the lesser of the evils. I would
never use IE online, and would never use Chrome at
all. (I know a great deal about IE. I know very little
about Chrome. But Google clearly doesn't want to
protect privacy or serve the public good. To a great
extent they're responsible for the Internet being
reduced to a retail shopping venue. By ranking sites
based partly on incoming links they've essentially
removed small, non-commercial sites from the Web.
I rarely even use their search engine any more. The
links now all go through the Google server as a proxy,
to allow full tracking of all activity on their page and
to send ahead ID data to the destination website.
And for anyone who allows Google to track them,
even the search results themselves are skewed by
Google.)

FF and PM are pretty good for me personally, but I
know a lot about how to customize them and control
their behavior, despite that the Mozilla people keep
changing it. For the average person who doesn't deal
with browser settings at all, much less Mozilla prefs
settings, HOSTS, or userContent.css, I just think of
FF/PM as currently being the least bad in terms of
privacy and security.

I'd certainly be interested to hear if someone knows
a better option. I'm not aware of any.

On 2/13/14 7:37 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| So which browser would you recommend that people use?

I don't know. As I was saying earlier, I feel that
there just isn't any good option now. I'm just
hoping that more people will begin to stop and
decide that all the commercialization and intrusion
of privacy has gone too far. Then maybe the whole
medium could be improved.

I usually install Firefox or Pale Moon for friends, but
I think of those as the lesser of the evils. I would
never use IE online, and would never use Chrome at
all. (I know a great deal about IE. I know very little
about Chrome. But Google clearly doesn't want to
protect privacy or serve the public good. To a great
extent they're responsible for the Internet being
reduced to a retail shopping venue. By ranking sites
based partly on incoming links they've essentially
removed small, non-commercial sites from the Web.
I rarely even use their search engine any more. The
links now all go through the Google server as a proxy,
to allow full tracking of all activity on their page and
to send ahead ID data to the destination website.
And for anyone who allows Google to track them,
even the search results themselves are skewed by
Google.)

FF and PM are pretty good for me personally, but I
know a lot about how to customize them and control
their behavior, despite that the Mozilla people keep
changing it. For the average person who doesn't deal
with browser settings at all, much less Mozilla prefs
settings, HOSTS, or userContent.css, I just think of
FF/PM as currently being the least bad in terms of
privacy and security.

I'd certainly be interested to hear if someone knows
a better option. I'm not aware of any.

I don't have any recommendations for browsers, but a quick search, using
Ixquick, got me this page,
http://www.webdevelopersnotes.com/de...r_windows.php3
listing around 75 windows browsers.

And CNET, http://download.cnet.com/windows/web-browsers/ shows 103 pages
of web browsers. I didn't check each and every page.

Softpedia has31 pages of browsers.
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/Browsers/

Might be an alternative there for you.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 24.0
Thunderbird 24.0