What's a good free Windows video editor that crops out data in the MP4 video frame?

He who is harry newton said on Fri, 6 Oct 2017 12:37:56 +0000 (UTC):

Does anyone know of a no-registration video (i.e., large file) upload site?

On the Windows ng, I already posted the first video using the suggested
Shotcut freeware to upload the "Fritz! App" demonstration for iOS users
that on iOS such things as graphing signal strength over time are
apparently prohibited by Apple (for God knows what reason).

Today I just made a second video using Shotcut freeware, where I learned a
ton and where the second video took an order of magnitude less time to
create than the first, simply due to the lessons inevitably learned.

Here's the second video for review of results where the goal was simply:
a. Record video/audio on Android of the screen running an app
b. Copy that MP4 video from Android to Windows over the WiFi LAN
c. Edit the video by adding text callouts and redacting private information
d. Post the video to a no-registration upload site for others to view

The no-registration site of the first video of Fritz! WiFi signal strength
monitoring was "sendspace.com"; but people didn't like that site all that
much so I'm trying out filedropper.com for this second video of the Android
capabilities that iOS will never have (for God knows what reason Apple
restricts iOS functionality so much).

Here is the second video showing "redaction" using opensource Shotcut:
http://www.filedropper.com/wifianalyzersignalstrength

The first video showing Shotcut redaction was prior posted to sendspace:
https://www.sendspace.com/file/gvckbe

What do you think of the Shotcut redaction results?
What do you think of those no-registration video upload/download sites?

In message , the capital-hater harry newton
writes:
[]
As with most software - freeware included - finding the best at task is
where all the effort lies.

One factor is overcoming familiarity-prejudice, too - some people
(probably most of us; I know I'm guilty) think the "best" is the one
they've been using for years, if not decades, and they overcome the
shortcomings (inefficiencies, but not just those) by habit that's so
ingrained they don't realise they're doing it.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If you're playing a killer monster, be very quiet. -
Anthony Hopkins, RT 2016/10/22-28

In article , J. P. Gilliver
(John) wrote:


One factor is overcoming familiarity-prejudice, too - some people
(probably most of us; I know I'm guilty) think the "best" is the one
they've been using for years, if not decades, and they overcome the
shortcomings (inefficiencies, but not just those) by habit that's so
ingrained they don't realise they're doing it.

true.

another effect is that if another system does what they want, but in a
slightly different way, it's automatically worse, even if it's
objectively simpler and more effective.

He who is nospam said on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:31:18 -0400:

One factor is overcoming familiarity-prejudice, too - some people
(probably most of us; I know I'm guilty) think the "best" is the one
they've been using for years, if not decades, and they overcome the
shortcomings (inefficiencies, but not just those) by habit that's so
ingrained they don't realise they're doing it.

true.

another effect is that if another system does what they want, but in a
slightly different way, it's automatically worse, even if it's
objectively simpler and more effective.

I must agree with both JP Gilliver and nospam that there are many people
who make emotional decisions where they no longer can look objectively at
the problem set.

For an on-topic example, I already noted that most of the Shotcut videos
started with a *customized* user interface. While it's noble that Shotcut
is so customizable, no noob is going to have that customized user interface
right off the bat. Luckily Shotcut has a button to return the GUI to the
defaults, but I haven't found a single tutorial video that starts from the
defaults.

Worse, highly graphically intensive GUIs such as Shotcut aren't really very
explainable in text, so you *need* the videos more so than you do with
command line conversion tools.

Having said all that, I can easily see now that as people have expended the
energy to learn how Shotcut does things, that they may be resistant to
accept another freeware program that does the same things - only
differently.

When taking into account comparisons, many factors come into play.
Often the best program may turn out to be the most portable for example,
which generally is found in open-source programs more so than in
proprietary incarnations of the same functionality.

In the end, at the moment anyway, I think Shotcut does most of what I
needed a freeware video editor to do, which enabled me to make this set of
videos yesterday and today:

Videos:
WiFi Analyzer: http://www.filedropper.com/wifianalyzersignalstrength
Fritz: https://www.sendspace.com/file/gvckbe
Screenshots:
Fritz WLAN: http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/fritz_wlan.jpg
WiFi Analyzer: http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/wifianalyzerbbb1c.jpg

Which soundly refuted this video "claiming" non-existent iOS capabilities:
Videos:
https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo
http://www.filedropper.com/iosshowingwi-fiovertime-7qaaba6dfio
Screenshots:
http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/wifi_sweetspots.jpg
http://wetakepic.com/images/2017/10/11/wifisweetspot_video_by_snit.jpg

I realize that to most normal people, the app web site and the screenshots
by the users would have proven the point, but the iOS apologists repeatedly
insisted (dozens of times) that only a video would prove the point. Sigh.

--
And so, a video was made... thanks to you!

He who is harry newton said on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 01:36:53 +0000 (UTC):

I realize that to most normal people, the app web site and the screenshots
by the users would have proven the point, but the iOS apologists repeatedly
insisted (dozens of times) that only a video would prove the point. Sigh.

OOOps. I apologize for not being complete...

In that last post, I forgot to link to the proof of that statement above
that only a video would satisfy the iOS apologists who crafted this
entirely erroneous video where not a single statement is factually correct:
https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo

In that video (and dozens of times on numerous Apple and iOS newsgroups),
you hear that iOS apologist tell iOS gullibles that only a video will prove
him wrong.

So a video was made...

Here's the related thread with all the gory details, but all you have to
read is the opening post to get the incontrovertible facts which the
Shotcut-edited video further proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/-T7FEXIdU9Q/Dhy-LFH3AwAJ

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 01:36:53 +0000 (UTC), harry newton
wrote:

He who is nospam said on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:31:18 -0400:

One factor is overcoming familiarity-prejudice, too - some people
(probably most of us; I know I'm guilty) think the "best" is the one
they've been using for years, if not decades, and they overcome the
shortcomings (inefficiencies, but not just those) by habit that's so
ingrained they don't realise they're doing it.

true.

another effect is that if another system does what they want, but in a
slightly different way, it's automatically worse, even if it's
objectively simpler and more effective.

I must agree with both JP Gilliver and nospam that there are many people
who make emotional decisions where they no longer can look objectively at
the problem set.

I wonder if Gvim text editor would be an example of that. ;-)

Naw, probably not.

--

Char Jackson

He who is Char Jackson said on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:48:33 -0500:

I must agree with both JP Gilliver and nospam that there are many people
who make emotional decisions where they no longer can look objectively at
the problem set.

I wonder if Gvim text editor would be an example of that. ;-)

Naw, probably not.

I smiled with pleasure when I saw your note because you understood that I
am extremely efficient at typing with gvim (which I'm using at this very
moment to type my Usenet posts).

I consider myself "decent" in finding the canonical freeware to perform any
particular task, and, as you may note, there rarely (if ever) is a task
where freeware doesn't suffice.

For example, as you know, Shotcut "worked" (although it would have been
nicer if Shotcut could have intelligently "followed" the MAC addresses and
SSID's that I had needed to crop out in the aforementioned videos).

The thing is that I've now invested a lot of time (compared to the
two-minute length of the video anyway) in learning Shotcut, right?

Once I've invested that time, it's almost like it's a barrier to investing
*more* time in testing out other video freeware editors such as avidemux,
ffmpeg, imagemagick, virtualdub, etc.

I think of freeware selection similar to how an employee is selected out of
a stack of resumes.

The first phase is to weed out the crap in the resumes.
The second phase is to run a quick phone call to weed out more crap.
The third phase is to run the first interview and make quick decisions.
The fourth phase is to run the second (perhaps day long) interview.
Then the fifth phase is to pick the best out of the short list to hire.
Once hired, the sixth (longest) phase is working with that person.

Here's the analogy to the point you're making which is that once you've
worked with that person for a decade or two, you don't just drop them for
the next pretty face that comes along.

You work with the person to fix the flaws (if possible).

Of course, if that person/software turns out to be a dinosaur where the new
person/software does the job better/faster/cheaper, then, of course, you
fire the person/software and hire the new person/software.

But you give the existing employee/software the chance to do the job first.

The trick (and the whole expense, really) in freeware, is in choosing the
canonical freeware for the job. All the work is mostly in figuring out
which is the best software to invest your energy into making it work.

This is no different, conceptually, than investing training and other
efforts in your most adaptable employees, to help them work better.

In the case of video editors, I thank whomever it was that suggested
Shotcut, because it seems to have the right attitude, which is that it's a
cross-platform open-source freeware intended to do what it takes to get the
job done.

The only failing, so far, of shotcut is that it's a bit hard to use (but I
don't know if all video editing software has similar quirks), and that it
doesn't seem to "follow" blurs, which would be a nice feature if it had
that.

I do agree though, that once I've invested a few dozen hours into Shotcut,
I feel less inclined to invest more hours in, say, Video Pad Editor,
especially since the hallmarks of Video Pad Editor are of crippleware while
the hallmarks of Shotcut are open-source freeware.

As with choosing employees based on first interviews, there are pros and
cons which are obvious, to wit...

Shotcut: Sure seems like classic good freeware - but - the interface takes
getting used to.

VideoPad: Sure seems like crippleware - but - the interface is clean and
simpler.

At the moment, I've hired Shotcut who is in the probationary period of
about a year before I can declare that "employee" tenured in my software
repository.

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 01:36:53 +0000 (UTC), harry newton
wrote:

He who is nospam said on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:31:18 -0400:

One factor is overcoming familiarity-prejudice, too - some people
(probably most of us; I know I'm guilty) think the "best" is the one
they've been using for years, if not decades, and they overcome the
shortcomings (inefficiencies, but not just those) by habit that's so
ingrained they don't realise they're doing it.

true.

another effect is that if another system does what they want, but in a
slightly different way, it's automatically worse, even if it's
objectively simpler and more effective.

I must agree with both JP Gilliver and nospam that there are many people
who make emotional decisions where they no longer can look objectively at
the problem set.

I wonder if Gvim text editor would be an example of that. ;-)

Naw, probably not.

What do you think prompted me to write the first paragraph above (-:?
(To which nospam's contribution is a worthy addition.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is.

In message , harry newton
writes:
[]
When taking into account comparisons, many factors come into play.
Often the best program may turn out to be the most portable for example,
which generally is found in open-source programs more so than in
proprietary incarnations of the same functionality.
[]
Before this (very interesting) discussion started, I'd probably have
agreed (assuming by "portable" you mean "cross-platform" rather than "a
'portable' version is available"), because I too like the _principle_ of
cross-platform. However, you've caused me to think about it, and I
suspect that (a) it's not that important to many people (especially
Windows users, of whom I suspect its a relatively small number who are
familiar with another OS), and (b) that - given that in almost all cases
the software will have been mostly _developed_ on one platform - its way
of _doing_ things will not be intuitive to one of the potential user
bases. (Unless its way of doing things isn't the intuitive way for
_either_ platform! In which case it has a lot of persuading to do -
though that may still be the best in the end.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is.

He who is J. P. Gilliver (John) said on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 10:32:01 +0100:

What do you think prompted me to write the first paragraph above (-:?
(To which nospam's contribution is a worthy addition.)

I (think I) understood both yours and nospam's intent.

While nospam almost always (if not always) get the point wrong, I assume
you understood full well the power of Gvim but also the inherent
complexity.

Nospam has a huge bias for Apple products, where he *thinks* (erroneously)
that I have a bias against them - but I actually don't. I just *understand*
them for what they are, and more importantly, I understand that Apple isn't
in the business of making the best products - they're in the business of
making the most money off their customers - which they do very well.

As an avowed freeware and freedom junkie, Apple's business and technical
models are the antithesis of mine. However, I use Apple products in the
schools that I teach at, and I give Apple phones as gifts, and I've
jailbroken an Apple phone (as nospam knows) to install Cydia freeware,
etc., so I'm knowledgeable on Apple products to some extent (e.g., I know
far better what they can and cannot do than most iOS users seem to know, as
witnessed just today in this thread - where *all* the Apple apologists-
including nospam - were bamboozled such that they are too emotionally
attached to Apple to think logically).
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/-T7FEXIdU9Q/Dhy-LFH3AwAJ

Back to gvim versus something else, gvim, to me, is like a wife whom I've
grown up with since childhood, who has enabled me to do things I wouldn't
have been able to do with any other text editor as quickly or as
efficiently.

You don't seem to appreciate the efficiency of vi, but I do.
It just means we place different values on different things.

It's almost like the classic arguments in society today, whether they be
gun control versus gun owners' rights or abortion control versus woman's
rights to their bodies or gay rights versus marriage contracts, etc.

Each side has a *completely* different argument, where there is zero
one-to-one lineup, where there is always a "childish" side of the argument
and a "more refined" side of the argument.

For example...

The childish side of the gun-control argument is that guns kill people so
if you got rid of guns, you'd have fewer dead people, whereas the more
refined side of the argument is that guns kill people and that's exactly
why the founding fathers put the right into the second amendment as a
fourth power against oppressive government.

The childish side of the abortion-rights argument is that abortions are
killing babies whereas the more refined side of the argument is that
abortions are killing babies but it's actually better for society and the
mother to kill the baby.

The childish side of the gay-rights argument is that homosexuals should be
allowed the same rights as heteronormal people while the more refined side
of the argument is that homosexuals should be allowed the same rights as
heteronormal people but that marriage is something that is so complex and
engrained in our society that changing the definition of marriage isn't as
simple as a bunch of wackos in California would like to think it is (and
yes, I live in California, in Silicon Valley, so I know plenty of wackos).

Suffice to say that the childish side *never* understands the more refined
side of the argument - while the refined side *always* understands the
childish side of the argument.

Such is how things work. In the case of the iOS apologists, they *never*
seem to understand the reality of the argument (nospam being a classic iOS
apologist) while the more refined argument takes into account the inherent
capabilities and costs of the issue in question.

It is my supposition that almost all, if not all, the Apple-versus-Windows
arguments, for example, are initiated, propagated, and perpetuated simply
by this propensity of the Apple owners to never see facts as they are,
while the more refined argument shows facts as they exist. Certainly this
thread today where the edited video was needed *proves* the closed
mindedness of the iOS apologists in spades.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/-T7FEXIdU9Q/Dhy-LFH3AwAJ

As for gvim versus some other editor, I forget which is the editor you
propose. Was it Notepad++? Or was it something else?

If it was Notepad++, the lack of cross-platform capabilities is a killer
out of the box, where the childish side only sees the Windows performance
which the more refined side will grant, but the more refined side of the
argument sees so much more than just the Windows capabilities of a text
editor.

--
I realize this argument is philosophical so please understand that concept.

In message , harry newton
writes:
He who is Char Jackson said on Wed, 11 Oct 2017 23:48:33 -0500:

I must agree with both JP Gilliver and nospam that there are many people
who make emotional decisions where they no longer can look objectively at
the problem set.
I wonder if Gvim text editor would be an example of that. ;-)
Naw, probably not.

I smiled with pleasure when I saw your note because you understood that I
am extremely efficient at typing with gvim (which I'm using at this very
moment to type my Usenet posts).

I'm glad you didn't mind my little dig (-:. [My name's John by the way.]

I consider myself "decent" in finding the canonical freeware to perform any
particular task, and, as you may note, there rarely (if ever) is a task
where freeware doesn't suffice.

I don't consider you "indecent" at all, though perhaps a little
over-evangelical in your choice(s) once you've made it/them!
[]
The thing is that I've now invested a lot of time (compared to the
two-minute length of the video anyway) in learning Shotcut, right?
Once I've invested that time, it's almost like it's a barrier to investing
*more* time in testing out other video freeware editors such as avidemux,
ffmpeg, imagemagick, virtualdub, etc.

Yes. (And we're all guilty of that to some extent too.) Applies at all
levels - I'd say, probably, above all to the OS itself (whether between
various versions of Windows, or of Linux - or even of others).

I think of freeware selection similar to how an employee is selected out of
a stack of resumes.

I wasn't going to respond to this comparison, but since you've brought
it up again, I will. I take it you are or have been involved in
recruitment decisions. (It is a good analogy though.)

The first phase is to weed out the crap in the resumes.

That phase also eliminates those who might be excellent at the job but
are crap at presenting themselves in resumes - unless it is a broad
stage which only eliminates a small proportion. I suppose the software
equivalent is looking at the webpages about the (potential) product, and
the equivalent of my objection is that the author may not be that great
at (or have expended much time on) the webpages. Actually, I can think
of several softwares I use ... certain utility authors have a rather
plain website (I like those, but they're a lot less flashy than many)
but produce excellent utilities, and the home site of IrfanView hasn't
_changed_ much for ages, but that's a prog. I'd certainly not be without

The second phase is to run a quick phone call to weed out more crap.
The third phase is to run the first interview and make quick decisions.

Again, risks eliminating the candidates who are not good at interviews,
unless the job is one in which people interaction is important. (I know
it is, in theory, for all jobs, but some are more customer-facing than
others: technician/machinist versus salesman, for example.)

The fourth phase is to run the second (perhaps day long) interview.
Then the fifth phase is to pick the best out of the short list to hire.
Once hired, the sixth (longest) phase is working with that person.

Here's the analogy to the point you're making which is that once you've
worked with that person for a decade or two, you don't just drop them for
the next pretty face that comes along.
You work with the person to fix the flaws (if possible).
Of course, if that person/software turns out to be a dinosaur where the new
person/software does the job better/faster/cheaper, then, of course, you
fire the person/software and hire the new person/software.

Or, if your company has the resources, you keep both employees but have
them do different tasks. In the case of software, the resources required
are less: as I've mentioned in the other thread, I have one text editor
I use just for one file, and it doesn't take a lot of my mind to do so.

But you give the existing employee/software the chance to do the job first.

The trick (and the whole expense, really) in freeware, is in choosing the
canonical freeware for the job. All the work is mostly in figuring out
which is the best software to invest your energy into making it work.

And keeping an open mind even after you've made the decision. (Unlike
with employees, nobody - other than you who has to invest time again! -
gets hurt when you "fire" the old software. Which as I've just said you
don't have to do anyway.)

This is no different, conceptually, than investing training and other
efforts in your most adaptable employees, to help them work better.

In the case of video editors, I thank whomever it was that suggested
Shotcut, because it seems to have the right attitude, which is that it's a
cross-platform open-source freeware intended to do what it takes to get the
job done.

Can't comment. The only video editing I do is in VirtualDub, but I very
much doubt that's anywhere near the optimum (it doesn't AFAIK allow
chopping into segments and working on them individually): I _think_ I
originally installed it as a format converter, and (at least the version
I have) it isn't even very versatile at that. I can remove segments and
trim, which are about all I do.

The only failing, so far, of shotcut is that it's a bit hard to use (but I
don't know if all video editing software has similar quirks), and that it

I suspect they mostly do; it's a complex thing to do.
[]
At the moment, I've hired Shotcut who is in the probationary period of
about a year before I can declare that "employee" tenured in my software
repository.

You might at some point allow VideoPad (or something else) to "join" as
probationer while not "firing" Shotcut.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

31.69 nHz = once a year. (Julian Thomas)

He who is J. P. Gilliver (John) said on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 10:42:24 +0100:

Before this (very interesting) discussion started, I'd probably have
agreed (assuming by "portable" you mean "cross-platform" rather than "a
'portable' version is available"), because I too like the _principle_ of
cross-platform.

You are correct, as you seem to often be correct, in that I had meant
"portable" as in "cross-platform" portability. However, and this is the key
point, not everyone needs/wants/desires cross platform portability.

It is however, a *hallmark* of good software that it is cross platform
portable, open source (for example, so that plugins can be made by others),
extensible, adheres to standards, etc.

When choosing software, as in choosing someone to hire, you don't have the
luxury of using *all* software (nor the luxury of choosing all people to
hire). You have to make decisions.

How do you make those decisions?
There really are only three ways.

1. You get references and recommendations.
2. You interview the person/software for hallmarks you care about.
3. You hire the person/softare & give it a probationary period

My assertion is that I have rarely, if ever, not found freeware sufficient
for any "home" task I ever needed to do on a computer (bearing in mind that
I'm not talking about commercial tasks and bear in mind I worked in the
software industry for decades in the Silicon Valley using complex software
that costs upwards of very many tens of thousands of dollars per seat).

The admittedly high cost of freeware is in making those decisions of which
is the best for your particular needs.

To your point, once you've expended the effort in making that decision, in
a way, that effort having been expended as NRE of sorts, can be construed
as a barrier to new software.

It's no different though than having worked with a person for ten years and
then someone suggests willy nilly a replacement that doesn't do the job as
well nor doesn't work as well on all the platforms.

The person suggesting the replacement is proposing what I term the
"childish argument" because they're completely ignorant (usually) of the
more refined argument (witness my previous argument about gun control,
abortion, and gay rights arguments following the same never-ending
pattern).

The person who only sees one side of the story is the one proposing the
childish side of the argument; whereas the person who sees both sides of
the picture is whom I am referring to as proposing the more refined
argument.

In the case of nospam, I've dealt with him for so long that I can read him
like a book - where I predicted his every move in that prior thread on the
iOS newsgroups - and where he fell into my trap hook line and sinker - just
as I had laid it out perfectly for him to fall into. I proved the point
that he can't see facts because he's blinded by his iOS apologism. I
actually laid the trap for Snit, who also fell into the trap as easily as
did nospam, which also caught Lewis, Jolly Roger and the rest of the iOS
apologists, all of whom are simply collateral collections. The true intent
was to trap Snit, which I did - and to Snit's credit - he admitted that he
completely misconstrued the facts - and to nospam's discredit, nospam will
*never* admit he completely misconstrued the facts.

The point here is that the iOS apologists proposed the classic childish
argument where the video I needed to create was necessary to prove *to
them* that their argument had zero factual merit. You can argue with me
that the video was unnecessary (and I would agree) but when you are dealing
with children, you have to sometimes drop to their level, so that *they*
understand that which they can't understand otherwise. There are some, like
nospam, who will *never* understand an adult argument; but that's just what
it is. At least the guy Snit, who literally forced the need for the video,
has admitted the facts, so I pull him out of the bucket of people who make
childish arguments.

Remember ... with software as with anything else ... there is always the
childish argument and the more refined argument - where all the argument is
in the refined person trying to explain to the child the situation and in
the case of people like Savageduck and nospam, no amount of fact will ever
matter but in the case of Snit ... he can actually comprehend facts so the
argument ends when he agrees on what was obvious to anyone from the start
who had eyes to see and a brain to comprehend facts.

The video simply helped him see facts that his brain didn't comprehend at
first (those same facts which nospam's brain will *never* comprehend).

However, you've caused me to think about it, and I
suspect that (a) it's not that important to many people (especially
Windows users, of whom I suspect its a relatively small number who are
familiar with another OS), and (b) that - given that in almost all cases
the software will have been mostly _developed_ on one platform - its way
of _doing_ things will not be intuitive to one of the potential user
bases. (Unless its way of doing things isn't the intuitive way for
_either_ platform! In which case it has a lot of persuading to do -
though that may still be the best in the end.)

I agree with you that *many* people are only on one platform, so, for
example, that would most likely be Windows, since Mac almost certainly has
a smaller base than does Windows, and Linux desktops certainly are smaller
still.

So, you are correct that software need only, for most people, work on a
single platform of *their* choice.

However, for me, I have used almost every major computing system since the
PDP11 days, so I value the ability of a text editor (of all things) to be
cross platform and always available on any machine.

I also use vi on Android, but not on iOS. I jokingly tell my friends that
the true test of the usability of software is whether you can use that
software while driving, where vi definitely fails that tongue-in-cheek
test!

Truth be told, I use "Jota" freeware on Android more often than I use vi,
where I only use vi on Android when I really need to use it, as I might for
a complex regular expression based search and replace editing activity.

To your point, many people have *easy* constraints, where, for example, a
platform-limited but otherwise perfectly fine proprietary program such as
Notepad++ works fine for them.

But being experienced in a large number of computer platforms, I have to
wonder how that Notepad++ person is going to do when/if they're ever
confronted with a Linux system?

The fact is that this person, like all iOS people who try to do things
outside of what Apple Marketing told them to do, will "just give up".

Since "just giving up" is the common hallmark of such people, then, for
them, Notepad++ is a perfectly good editor, since they will almost
certainly "just give up" when/if they're confronted with a technical
adversity.

You see ... this is a more refined argument - even as you might not like
the direction it's going in, which is that the childish argument could be
construed as saying "Notepad++ does everything someone needs it to do on
Windows", whereas the more refined argument can be that Notepad++ does do
everything we need it to do on Windows, but Notepad++ does absolutely
nothing on Linux (sans Wine, anyway).


--
Again, we're talking philosophically ... so allow some creative license.

(Any chance you could drop me an email reply rather than post a
response? I'm really enjoying this discussion, but I fear it may be
beginning to irritate some of those who come here to discuss W7 or photo
matters. My email is valid. I accept your choice not to release yours.)

In message , harry newton
writes:
He who is J. P. Gilliver (John) said on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 10:32:01
+0100:
[]
While nospam almost always (if not always) get the point wrong, I
assume
you understood full well the power of Gvim but also the inherent
complexity.

Yes, though see next post (-:

Nospam has a huge bias for Apple products, where he *thinks* (erroneously)
that I have a bias against them - but I actually don't. I just *understand*
them for what they are, and more importantly, I understand that Apple isn't
in the business of making the best products - they're in the business
of
making the most money off their customers - which they do very well.

Not _entirely_; they also want to keep tight control of things, so that
any one thing their users do doesn't break things for that user. I
personally don't like being subject to such control (Windows seems to be
going the same way), but I do see the advantages - for both Apple and a
(large?) proportion of their users. I _do_ also find their products
vastly overpriced, even allowing for the - probably not insignificant -
costs of maintaining the environment as I've just described.

As an avowed freeware and freedom junkie, Apple's business and
technical
models are the antithesis of mine. However, I use Apple products in the
schools that I teach at, and I give Apple phones as gifts, and I've

That's an interesting one - why do you? You can get an Android 'phone of
similar or better technical spec. for a lot less than any given iPhone;
I presume that you are giving them to people who you know need the
closed and safe environment already discussed.
[]
Back to gvim versus something else, gvim, to me, is like a wife whom I've
grown up with since childhood, who has enabled me to do things I wouldn't
have been able to do with any other text editor as quickly or as
efficiently.

Enabled _you_ to, yes. You maybe are forgetting your "muscle memory".

You don't seem to appreciate the efficiency of vi, but I do.
I do, actually - I just don't have much need for it these days.
It just means we place different values on different things.
Definitely! But we are all different, and that's probably good.

It's almost like the classic arguments in society today, whether they
be
gun control versus gun owners' rights or abortion control versus
woman's
rights to their bodies or gay rights versus marriage contracts, etc.

Now we're _really_ getting off-topic - those following stop here if
you're wanting to stay on computing matters (-: [Though there is a
_little_ about text editors at the end.]

Each side has a *completely* different argument, where there is zero
one-to-one lineup, where there is always a "childish" side of the argument
and a "more refined" side of the argument.

For example...

The childish side of the gun-control argument is that guns kill people so
if you got rid of guns, you'd have fewer dead people, whereas the more
refined side of the argument is that guns kill people and that's
exactly
why the founding fathers put the right into the second amendment as a
fourth power against oppressive government.

Yes, for militias, not individuals, I think. (I'm in the UK, where there
have been recent years where the number of people shot dead by the
police _nationally_ have been in single figures - I think some years
zero. I present that just for interest, not saying it's better than the
US situation!)

The childish side of the abortion-rights argument is that abortions are
killing babies whereas the more refined side of the argument is that
abortions are killing babies but it's actually better for society and the
mother to kill the baby.

Ooh, you're on hot coals there! (You're also not considering the
argument about when it becomes a sentient entity - I won't use the
emotive word "baby" - which argument also requires consideration.)

The childish side of the gay-rights argument is that homosexuals should be
allowed the same rights as heteronormal people while the more refined side
of the argument is that homosexuals should be allowed the same rights
as
heteronormal people but that marriage is something that is so complex and
engrained in our society that changing the definition of marriage isn't as
simple as a bunch of wackos in California would like to think it is
(and
yes, I live in California, in Silicon Valley, so I know plenty of wackos).

You've summed that one up well. (Though the antis are not _all_ wackos.)

Suffice to say that the childish side *never* understands the more refined
side of the argument - while the refined side *always* understands the
childish side of the argument.

Yes. Which makes things more difficult for we who see both sides, as we
find it more difficult to argue: those who only see one side are much
quicker to respond, which is often to their advantage. (I hate and fear
mobs of all kinds.)

Such is how things work. In the case of the iOS apologists, they
*never*
seem to understand the reality of the argument (nospam being a classic iOS
apologist) while the more refined argument takes into account the inherent
capabilities and costs of the issue in question.

I'd be wary of using the term "apologist" quite so freely: in my
experience, the person using the term in any argument is the one who
usually goes down in my estimation, _even if it is true_. Probably, the
same applies to _any_ name-calling.

It is my supposition that almost all, if not all, the Apple-versus-Windows
arguments, for example, are initiated, propagated, and perpetuated simply
by this propensity of the Apple owners to never see facts as they are,

You're casting aspersions at _all_ Apple owners (yes, I saw you use the
word "propensity", but still). _Some_ Apple owners - I suspect it's a
minority, but perhaps a bigger one than you think - are willing to pay
the extra, for the convenience of knowing it will all work together
properly: they value their _time_ (not) spent on the matter highly. To
give a very imperfect analogy, you (assuming you drive) buy fuel for
your car without worrying whether it's appropriate: I'm not talking
about whether it's contaminated, but it could be fuel that would work
fine in a differently-set-up engine than yours but wouldn't in yours,
but you don't worry about that, you just buy it. (Don't analyse that
analogy - I said it's imperfect; it just came to mind, as car analogies
are popular.)

while the more refined argument shows facts as they exist. Certainly this

Though I agree with you (I think) on the three examples above, you've
got to be careful not to be saying "the more refined argument is the one
that agrees with me" (-:

thread today where the edited video was needed *proves* the closed
mindedness of the iOS apologists in spades.

"closed-mindedness", "apologists" - see above.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.ipad/-T7FEXIdU9Q/Dhy-LFH3AwAJ

As for gvim versus some other editor, I forget which is the editor you
propose. Was it Notepad++? Or was it something else?

No, it wasn't/isn't. As it happens, I don't _have_ a preferred one; I
have Notepad+ (one +; version 1.11; by RogSoft; I _think_ no longer
being developed and not easy to find) installed on this machine as a
replacement for the basic Notepad, probably because I once wanted
something it did better than the basic one and have left it in place. I
also have 1-Word; I also, I suppose, have the editor built into
Turnpike, which is my internet suite, and which I'm using now to type
this, in the same way as a Thunderbird user would be using the one built
into Thunderbird to type his/her emails and posts, without really
thinking that that's what s/he is doing. I have "muscle memory" for all
of them, though can't at the moment think of _much_ that requires it in
any of them. I also use Word for word processing (the 2003 version),
where I might want the versatility of fonts, justification,
underline/bold/italic, and so on, though I wouldn't buy it (I bought a
1998 - yes, 1998 version, it was a "Burgundy release" version of the
1997 one - cheaply at a computer fair; my 2003 one was legally obtained
though not paid for).

If it was Notepad++, the lack of cross-platform capabilities is a
killer
out of the box, where the childish side only sees the Windows performance
which the more refined side will grant, but the more refined side of
the
argument sees so much more than just the Windows capabilities of a text
editor.

For those who do not _use_ other platforms, such is not of relevance
(and we _slightly_ do not like the implication that we're not "refined")

--
I realize this argument is philosophical so please understand that concept.

See request at top (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

31.69 nHz = once a year. (Julian Thomas)

(Again, probably better for the 'groups if we continue by email?)

In message , harry newton
writes:
He who is J. P. Gilliver (John) said on Thu, 12 Oct 2017 10:42:24 +0100:

Before this (very interesting) discussion started, I'd probably have
agreed (assuming by "portable" you mean "cross-platform" rather than
"a 'portable' version is available"), because I too like the
_principle_ of cross-platform.

You are correct, as you seem to often be correct, in that I had meant

Thanks. Precision of language (which comes across as pedantry to many
people) is one of my traits (faults some would say). Both my parents
were language teachers, and my brother is Associate Editor at (and
unofficial historian - he's just brought a book out about it, "The
Making Of ...") the OED, so I can perhaps be forgiven (-:.

"portable" as in "cross-platform" portability. However, and this is the key
point, not everyone needs/wants/desires cross platform portability.
Glad you see that.

It is however, a *hallmark* of good software that it is cross platform

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree there - if by hallmark you
mean prerequisite. I thought of an interesting analogy when I first read
this: would you say Shakespeare was a lesser artist because (AFAIK) he
couldn't write in German? [Actually, I personally don't consider
Shakespeare to be on a level above all others, as many - at least in UK
academia - do; substitute any other author in the previous sentence to
consider my point. I just picked him because, without my prejudice
against him, most would not have queried the choice.]

portable, open source (for example, so that plugins can be made by others),
extensible, adheres to standards, etc.

I agree with those, to some extent. Though it doesn't _have_ to be open
source to be open to plugins: all that needs is for an API to be
published (and for the software to adhere to it!) - consider for example
Firefox. (Although I think that _is_ open source, come to think of it -
but I don't think you need its source code to write plugins for it.)
IrfanView might be another - the download page certainly mentions
plugins, though I don't know any details (I just download the package
that contains all of them).

When choosing software, as in choosing someone to hire, you don't have the
luxury of using *all* software (nor the luxury of choosing all people to
hire). You have to make decisions.

How do you make those decisions?
There really are only three ways.

1. You get references and recommendations.

That's what you were doing, at the start of this thread. And, I consider
that to be a good thing to do. (Though - as you originally asked, it's
still in the subject - "what's a good" is a better starting question
than "what's the best", and as I've subsequently realised, "and what
should I avoid" is probably worth adding to the initial question.)

2. You interview the person/software for hallmarks you care about.
3. You hire the person/softare & give it a probationary period

My assertion is that I have rarely, if ever, not found freeware sufficient
for any "home" task I ever needed to do on a computer (bearing in mind that
I'm not talking about commercial tasks and bear in mind I worked in the
software industry for decades in the Silicon Valley using complex software
that costs upwards of very many tens of thousands of dollars per seat).

Even there, the freeware - or, low-cost (say up to $50) - authors
sometimes come up with surprising stuff! (I'm thinking - I work in
electronics - of the stuff to program microcontrollers, or circuit
simulation stuff. I'm sure others abound in other fields.) I agree, for
most "home" cases, there is _usually_ freeware that can do it.
Sometimes, though I can't remember the last time for me, there is
moderate payware that is so much easier to use - or, to learn to use -
that I don't mind paying for it; if I can get onto using it straight
away, then it can be worth the money for the learning time saved.
Sometimes, certainly for cases where it's up to say $5, if it's
unlimited trialware - i. e., it works for ever but the download site
says you should pay for it if you do keep using it - I do, if I find it
good. (Sometimes even if its freeware but the author accepts
contributions, I'll bung him a couple of pounds if I find it good and I
use it a lot; I hope most people do, though I suspect not.)

The admittedly high cost of freeware is in making those decisions of which
is the best for your particular needs.
To your point, once you've expended the effort in making that decision, in
a way, that effort having been expended as NRE of sorts, can be construed
as a barrier to new software.

Yes.

It's no different though than having worked with a person for ten years and
then someone suggests willy nilly a replacement that doesn't do the job as
well nor doesn't work as well on all the platforms.

The person suggesting the replacement is proposing what I term the
"childish argument" because they're completely ignorant (usually) of the
more refined argument (witness my previous argument about gun control,
abortion, and gay rights arguments following the same never-ending
pattern).

(I _think_ I'm following you, though the logic stream is getting a _bit_
tortuous!)

The person who only sees one side of the story is the one proposing the
childish side of the argument; whereas the person who sees both sides of
the picture is whom I am referring to as proposing the more refined
argument.

Though you must always remember that the person who has come down firmly
on the opposite side to you _may_ have looked at hoth sides, too - just
given different weightings. Otherwise, you're guilty of _appearing_ to
be saying "the person who doesn't agree with me is childish", even if
that's _not_ what you're saying.

[Section mentioning lots of other people snipped, as I don't know them.]

The point here is that the iOS apologists proposed the classic childish

"apologists", "childish" - see point in previous post about name-calling
(my opinion that it _usually_ - certainly for me - reflects badly more
on the caller than the callee, _even if the accusation is justified_).
[]
[more snip]
[]
I agree with you that *many* people are only on one platform, so, for
example, that would most likely be Windows, since Mac almost certainly has
a smaller base than does Windows, and Linux desktops certainly are smaller
still.

And Linux enthusiasts, I suspect, are mostly (not all - they have their
zealots too [there I am, name-calling!]) more familiar with Windows than
vice versa.

So, you are correct that software need only, for most people, work on a
single platform of *their* choice.
However, for me, I have used almost every major computing system since the
PDP11 days, so I value the ability of a text editor (of all things) to be
cross platform and always available on any machine.

The first computer (as opposed to programmable calculator - by my maths
master's definition [and he designed and built it]: that it can make a
program-flow jump that is dependent on data) I programmed had 16 (no,
not 16K, 16) memory locations, 7 bits each. (Each bit had a filament
bulb; that _looked_ like everyone's idea of what a computer was in those
days!) I progressed up through 6800 (SWTPC), Tangerine, Oric then Atmos,
BBC Master, then on to PCs (and at work BBC B, VAX, etc.). I don't
remember using a PDP11, though we certainly had them. (I worked at what
was when I joined it the Marconi Research Centre.) When I was at
university, I learnt I think it was EMACS, which I think is similar to
your VI (certainly the s/x/y/ syntax), on terminals to a mainframe
running Unix. (Most of those terminals were "glass teletypes", though a
few were real teletypes, i. e. mechanical terminals with paper!) So I
think we're of not dissimilar vintage (I'm 57).

I also use vi on Android, but not on iOS. I jokingly tell my friends that
the true test of the usability of software is whether you can use that
software while driving, where vi definitely fails that tongue-in-cheek
test!

I remember an odd saying back in the Unix days that all software
developed until it could do email.

Truth be told, I use "Jota" freeware on Android more often than I use vi,
where I only use vi on Android when I really need to use it, as I might for
a complex regular expression based search and replace editing activity.

[Not heard of Jota, but I use Android (i. e. my smartphone) so little as
to be near enough zero for the sake of this discussion.]

To your point, many people have *easy* constraints, where, for example, a
platform-limited but otherwise perfectly fine proprietary program such as
Notepad++ works fine for them.

But being experienced in a large number of computer platforms, I have to

_and using_.

wonder how that Notepad++ person is going to do when/if they're ever
confronted with a Linux system?

They probably never will be.

The fact is that this person, like all iOS people who try to do things
outside of what Apple Marketing told them to do, will "just give up".

Not "all". I appreciate you're only using it as shorthand, but such
generalisations can come back to bite you.

Since "just giving up" is the common hallmark of such people, then, for

"such people" ... (-:

them, Notepad++ is a perfectly good editor, since they will almost
certainly "just give up" when/if they're confronted with a technical
adversity.

You see ... this is a more refined argument - even as you might not like
the direction it's going in, which is that the childish argument could be
construed as saying "Notepad++ does everything someone needs it to do on
Windows", whereas the more refined argument can be that Notepad++ does do
everything we need it to do on Windows, but Notepad++ does absolutely
nothing on Linux (sans Wine, anyway).

"childish", "more refined" ... I know little of LPG-powered cars, only
petrol and diesel. I don't think that makes me childish - only that I
have _chosen_ to spend my learning time in other areas. Unless you are
also into the subject, I suspect I could research your family tree more
quickly than you could (certainly any part of it that's in England/Wales
between 1837 and 1911) - but I don't consider that makes you "childish".


(-: [I'm left-handed (-:]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A. Top-posters.
Q. What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

In article , harry newton
wrote:


While nospam almost always (if not always) get the point wrong, I assume
you understood full well the power of Gvim but also the inherent
complexity.

Nospam has a huge bias for Apple products, where he *thinks* (erroneously)
that I have a bias against them - but I actually don't.

yes you do, which is why you endlessly rant about all things apple.

I just *understand*
them for what they are,

no you definitely don't.

and more importantly, I understand that Apple isn't
in the business of making the best products

yes they are, something which apple has publicly stated on several
occasions.

- they're in the business of
making the most money off their customers - which they do very well.

all companies are in the business of making the most money off their
customers. to not do that is foolish, and for a public company, they're
legally obligated to do so.