On 2023-10-20, John Dallman <jgd@cix.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <ugu9da$16ff0$1@dont-email.me>, bliss@mouse-potato.com
> (Bobbie Sellers) wrote:
>
>> Does not LibreOffice have a Windows version?
>
> It does, and its popularity is growing quite nicely. Its UI is much
> closer to "classic" Word than the modern MS offerings.

Plus, it doesn't urge you to get on the SaaS treadmill (i.e. Office 365).

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | They don't understand Microsoft
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | has stolen their car and parked
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | a taxi in their driveway.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Mayayana

On 2023-10-20 18:13, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Fri, 20 Oct 2023 10:03:29 -0500 candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10/20/23 07:10, Robert Heller wrote:
>>> I have found that a lot of people when given access to a Word Processor,
>>> revert to a 3-year old composing a "letter" to his grandmother -- eg takes out
>>> is box of 128 crayons, jar of glitter, pile of animal stickers, etc. and
>>> proceeds to create a "work of art", suitable for sticking on his grandmother's
>>> 'fridge. Seriously, many *adults* make excessive use of colors, fonts, and
>>> other [unnecessary] typographical "magic" when using a Word Processor to
>>> create "documents".
>>
>> Just because you can use 10 different fonts, doesn't mean you should.
>> Highlighting and text color, I'm usually fine with if there's an actual
>> point.
>
> *Most* of the time there is no good reason for coloring text (unless you are a
> 3-year old). *I* find colored text very hard to read (esp. if every other word
> is in a different neon color). I *refuse* to use "modern" terminal programs
> and use old-school monochrome xterms only. Black text on a light background.
> (I've had more then enough of light colored text on a black (dark) background
> back in the day when I used glass-ttys.)

Back in the old times, that is, in the 80's, there were coloured
terminals and we used them :-P

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-07-19 20:36, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 7/19/23 03:29, Andy Burns wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is that PDFs are not editable.
>
>     They are in Master PDF Editor a Linux tool.

If you call that "edit"...

Last time I tried to edit a paragraph in a PDF, the text would not flow.
PDF are simply not designed to be edited, but as final presentation
stuff. You are supposed to edit the original and generate again the PDF.

Yeah, well, you can so call edit them if you insist... Specially if
somebody pays for the feature :-p

....
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

At Sat, 21 Oct 2023 02:56:47 +0200 "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>
> On 2023-10-20 18:13, Robert Heller wrote:
> > At Fri, 20 Oct 2023 10:03:29 -0500 candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 10/20/23 07:10, Robert Heller wrote:
> >>> I have found that a lot of people when given access to a Word Processor,
> >>> revert to a 3-year old composing a "letter" to his grandmother -- eg takes out
> >>> is box of 128 crayons, jar of glitter, pile of animal stickers, etc. and
> >>> proceeds to create a "work of art", suitable for sticking on his grandmother's
> >>> 'fridge. Seriously, many *adults* make excessive use of colors, fonts, and
> >>> other [unnecessary] typographical "magic" when using a Word Processor to
> >>> create "documents".
> >>
> >> Just because you can use 10 different fonts, doesn't mean you should.
> >> Highlighting and text color, I'm usually fine with if there's an actual
> >> point.
> >
> > *Most* of the time there is no good reason for coloring text (unless you are a
> > 3-year old). *I* find colored text very hard to read (esp. if every other word
> > is in a different neon color). I *refuse* to use "modern" terminal programs
> > and use old-school monochrome xterms only. Black text on a light background.
> > (I've had more then enough of light colored text on a black (dark) background
> > back in the day when I used glass-ttys.)
>
> Back in the old times, that is, in the 80's, there were coloured
> terminals and we used them :-P

By the 80s I was using VMS and UNIX workstations for the most part... We did
have one color "terminal" where I was working at UMass at one point.

>

--
Robert Heller -- Cell: 413-658-7953 GV: 978-633-5364
Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services

On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 02:56:47 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
> Back in the old times, that is, in the 80's, there were coloured
> terminals and we used them :-P

Framed with neon lights. ;-)
--
Andreas

On 20/10/2023 19:57, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:48:16 GMT Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2023-10-20, Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>> At Fri, 20 Oct 2023 06:30:09 -0400 Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I also stick with plain text for a lot of things. That makes it even
>>>> easier to work on files whether I'm on Linux or a Mac. My co-workers
>>>> tell me I'm old-fashioned for using plain text so much though. :-) I
>>>> figure that, if I could get my point across with plain text in 1980, I
>>>> can still get my point across in plain text today.
>>>
>>> +1
>>
>> +1 right back at ya, good buddy.
>>
>>> I have found that a lot of people when given access to a Word Processor,
>>> revert to a 3-year old composing a "letter" to his grandmother -- eg takes
>>> out his box of 128 crayons, jar of glitter, pile of animal stickers, etc.
>>> and proceeds to create a "work of art", suitable for sticking on his
>>> grandmother's 'fridge. Seriously, many *adults* make excessive use of
>>> colors, fonts, and other [unnecessary] typographical "magic" when using
>>> a Word Processor to create "documents".
>>
>> And that's how a simple shopping list turns into a coffee table book.
>> It reminds me of that post-apocalyptic monk in Walter M. Miller's
>> _A Canticle for Leibowitz_, who spends 20 years turning a schematic
>> of a simple transistorized gadget into a magnificent illuminated
>> document with gold leaf and all sorts of filigree.
>>
>> This goes in spades when creating web pages.
>>
>> Long ago I had an epiphany in a book store. I found myself standing
>> next to a rack of children's books, and I noticed common factors:
>> bright colours, large fonts, few words, and lots of pictures.
>> I contrasted that with "grownup books", like the Linux reference
>> I was shopping for: page after page of dense black text on a white
>> background, and few or no pictures (except for the occasional table
>> or line drawing) - but lots of useful information.
>>
>> To me, the ideal "user experience" is being able to quickly and easily
>> find the information I'm looking for, and to use it in an efficient
>> manner. I believe that computer systems should be ugly and boring:
>> ugly as in lacking the bells and whistles that just get in the way,
>> and boring as in Just Working without unpleasant surprises.
>>
>> Someone once described VMS as an operating system that does what
>> you want, then gets out of the way. If only more people wanted this...
>
> UNIX and Linux are also operating systems that do what you you want, then gets
> out of the way. At least once you get rid of the "eye candy" (read: gnome,
> etc.).
>
I like eye candy.
As long as it doesnt get in the way.
>>
>

--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

On 2023-10-21 03:38, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Sat, 21 Oct 2023 02:56:47 +0200 "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-10-20 18:13, Robert Heller wrote:
>>> At Fri, 20 Oct 2023 10:03:29 -0500 candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>>> On 10/20/23 07:10, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>>> I have found that a lot of people when given access to a Word Processor,
>>>>> revert to a 3-year old composing a "letter" to his grandmother -- eg takes out
>>>>> is box of 128 crayons, jar of glitter, pile of animal stickers, etc. and
>>>>> proceeds to create a "work of art", suitable for sticking on his grandmother's
>>>>> 'fridge. Seriously, many *adults* make excessive use of colors, fonts, and
>>>>> other [unnecessary] typographical "magic" when using a Word Processor to
>>>>> create "documents".
>>>>
>>>> Just because you can use 10 different fonts, doesn't mean you should.
>>>> Highlighting and text color, I'm usually fine with if there's an actual
>>>> point.
>>>
>>> *Most* of the time there is no good reason for coloring text (unless you are a
>>> 3-year old). *I* find colored text very hard to read (esp. if every other word
>>> is in a different neon color). I *refuse* to use "modern" terminal programs
>>> and use old-school monochrome xterms only. Black text on a light background.
>>> (I've had more then enough of light colored text on a black (dark) background
>>> back in the day when I used glass-ttys.)
>>
>> Back in the old times, that is, in the 80's, there were coloured
>> terminals and we used them :-P
>
> By the 80s I was using VMS and UNIX workstations for the most part... We did
> have one color "terminal" where I was working at UMass at one point.

I was thinking of the MsDOS world. There were many programs with text
interfaces, menus, text windows and dialogs (and mouse!). PC Tools /
Norton Utilities used colour. Integrated Development Interfaces from
Borland and others, used colour. Word processors, used colour to
indicate attributes of the text or font sizes. Spreadsheets used colour
in the tables, and in the graphics they produced.

Text interfaces were much fancier than they ever did in Linux.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-10-21 14:26, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2023-10-21 03:38, Robert Heller wrote:
>> At Sat, 21 Oct 2023 02:56:47 +0200 "Carlos E. R."
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2023-10-20 18:13, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>> At Fri, 20 Oct 2023 10:03:29 -0500 candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/20/23 07:10, Robert Heller wrote:

>> By the 80s I was using VMS and UNIX workstations for the most part...
>> We did have one color "terminal" where I was working at UMass at one point.
>
> I was thinking of the MsDOS world. There were many programs with text
> interfaces, menus, text windows and dialogs (and mouse!). PC Tools /
> Norton Utilities used colour. Integrated Development Interfaces from
> Borland and others, used colour. Word processors, used colour to
> indicate attributes of the text or font sizes. Spreadsheets used colour
> in the tables, and in the graphics they produced.
>
> Text interfaces were much fancier than they ever did in Linux.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_Pascal#Version_4>

Version 4

Released on 20 November 1987,[36] Version 4 was a total rewrite, with
both look and feel and internal operation much changed. The compiler
generated executables in .EXE format under DOS, rather than the simpler
but more restricted .COM executables. The by-then-obsolete CP/M and
CP/M-86 operating system versions were dropped when Turbo Pascal was
rewritten. Version 4 introduced units, and a full-screen text user
interface with pull-down menus; earlier versions had a text-based menu
screen and a separate full-screen editor. (Microsoft Windows was still
very experimental when the first version was released, and even mice
were rare.) An add on package, the Turbo Pascal Graphix Toolbox, was
available for Turbo Pascal V4.[37]

Photo:

https://winworldpc.com/product/turbo-pascal/4x

What I don't remember is if it had syntax highlight.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> Version 4
>
> Released on 20 November 1987,[36] Version 4 was a total rewrite, with
> both look and feel and internal operation much changed. The compiler
> generated executables in .EXE format under DOS, rather than the
> simpler but more restricted .COM executables. The by-then-obsolete
> CP/M and CP/M-86 operating system versions were dropped when Turbo
> Pascal was rewritten. Version 4 introduced units, and a full-screen
> text user interface with pull-down menus; earlier versions had a
> text-based menu screen and a separate full-screen editor. (Microsoft
> Windows was still very experimental when the first version was
> released, and even mice were rare.) An add on package, the Turbo
> Pascal Graphix Toolbox, was available for Turbo Pascal V4.[37]
>
> Photo:
>
> https://winworldpc.com/product/turbo-pascal/4x
>
> What I don't remember is if it had syntax highlight.

I had that version, circa 1988-1990 timeframe. I do not remember
syntax highighting in the built in editor that came with it.

Of course the PC I ran it on had only a monochrome CGA monitor, so if
there was syntax highlighting it would only have been in various shades
of green.

On 10/20/23 11:13, Robert Heller wrote:
> *Most* of the time there is no good reason for coloring text (unless you are a
> 3-year old). *I* find colored text very hard to read (esp. if every other word
> is in a different neon color). I *refuse* to use "modern" terminal programs
> and use old-school monochrome xterms only. Black text on a light background.
> (I've had more then enough of light colored text on a black (dark) background
> back in the day when I used glass-ttys.)
>

I do not care about colored terminals outside making sure the colors
contrast well.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 10/20/23 19:17, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2023-10-20, John Dallman <jgd@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <ugu9da$16ff0$1@dont-email.me>, bliss@mouse-potato.com
>> (Bobbie Sellers) wrote:
>>
>>> Does not LibreOffice have a Windows version?
>>
>> It does, and its popularity is growing quite nicely. Its UI is much
>> closer to "classic" Word than the modern MS offerings.
>
> Plus, it doesn't urge you to get on the SaaS treadmill (i.e. Office 365).
>

Double plus, it makes it slightly easier to migrate to Linux in the
future. Same thing happened to me with Krita, I was pleasantly surprised
realizing that it was made for Linux when I switched.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 2023-10-21, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> On 2023-10-21 03:38, Robert Heller wrote:
>
>> At Sat, 21 Oct 2023 02:56:47 +0200 "Carlos E. R."
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Back in the old times, that is, in the 80's, there were coloured
>>> terminals and we used them :-P
>>
>> By the 80s I was using VMS and UNIX workstations for the most part...
>> We did have one color "terminal" where I was working at UMass at
>> one point.

Yes, they existed. But they were more expensive and for the most part
didn't provide enough extra functionality to justify the cost.

> I was thinking of the MsDOS world. There were many programs with text
> interfaces, menus, text windows and dialogs (and mouse!). PC Tools /
> Norton Utilities used colour. Integrated Development Interfaces from
> Borland and others, used colour. Word processors, used colour to
> indicate attributes of the text or font sizes. Spreadsheets used
> colour in the tables, and in the graphics they produced.
>
> Text interfaces were much fancier than they ever did in Linux.

A lot of that was just a matter of programmer preference, not
operating system. I wrote decent curses-based interfaces in
MS-DOS, and it was a simple matter to port them to SCO Unix
(and later, Linux) - colours and all.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | The Internet is like a big city:
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | it has plenty of bright lights and
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | excitement, but also dark alleys
/ \ if you read it the right way. | down which the unwary get mugged.

On 2023-10-21 17:32, Rich wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> Version 4
>>
>> Released on 20 November 1987,[36] Version 4 was a total rewrite, with
>> both look and feel and internal operation much changed. The compiler
>> generated executables in .EXE format under DOS, rather than the
>> simpler but more restricted .COM executables. The by-then-obsolete
>> CP/M and CP/M-86 operating system versions were dropped when Turbo
>> Pascal was rewritten. Version 4 introduced units, and a full-screen
>> text user interface with pull-down menus; earlier versions had a
>> text-based menu screen and a separate full-screen editor. (Microsoft
>> Windows was still very experimental when the first version was
>> released, and even mice were rare.) An add on package, the Turbo
>> Pascal Graphix Toolbox, was available for Turbo Pascal V4.[37]
>>
>> Photo:
>>
>> https://winworldpc.com/product/turbo-pascal/4x
>>
>> What I don't remember is if it had syntax highlight.
>
> I had that version, circa 1988-1990 timeframe. I do not remember
> syntax highighting in the built in editor that came with it.
>
> Of course the PC I ran it on had only a monochrome CGA monitor, so if
> there was syntax highlighting it would only have been in various shades
> of green.

Yes, same here. Maybe on version 6, but that was 1990.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-10-21 20:05, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2023-10-21, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-10-21 03:38, Robert Heller wrote:
>>> At Sat, 21 Oct 2023 02:56:47 +0200 "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Back in the old times, that is, in the 80's, there were coloured
>>>> terminals and we used them :-P
>>>
>>> By the 80s I was using VMS and UNIX workstations for the most part...
>>> We did have one color "terminal" where I was working at UMass at
>>> one point.
>
> Yes, they existed. But they were more expensive and for the most part
> didn't provide enough extra functionality to justify the cost.

Depends for whom. A colour CGA display was somewhat more expensive, and
made a wonderful difference when playing :-p

As a student, I couldn't, but others did. And on 1990 I got a colour
display, EGA I think, maybe (S)VGA.

>
>> I was thinking of the MsDOS world. There were many programs with text
>> interfaces, menus, text windows and dialogs (and mouse!). PC Tools /
>> Norton Utilities used colour. Integrated Development Interfaces from
>> Borland and others, used colour. Word processors, used colour to
>> indicate attributes of the text or font sizes. Spreadsheets used
>> colour in the tables, and in the graphics they produced.
>>
>> Text interfaces were much fancier than they ever did in Linux.
>
> A lot of that was just a matter of programmer preference, not
> operating system. I wrote decent curses-based interfaces in
> MS-DOS, and it was a simple matter to port them to SCO Unix
> (and later, Linux) - colours and all.

Curses in MS-DOS? I never saw that. Direct memory write into video
memory was the rule, astonishingly fast interfaces.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

In <uh0va6$1rhcn$2@dont-email.me> candycanearter07:

[Snip...]

> I do not care about colored terminals outside making sure the colors
> contrast well.

+NAN

FWIW, that's one of my pet peeves about text interfaces on these
terminals (either actual glass screen, or virtual like xterm).

Worst (IMO): red foreground, on black or blue background. Almost
completely unusable for me in most cases (especially red/black).

--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at att, dotted with net. * DO NOT SPAM IT. *
I toss GoogleGroup (http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/).

On 22/10/2023 10:07, Harold Stevens wrote:
> In <uh0va6$1rhcn$2@dont-email.me> candycanearter07:
>
> [Snip...]
>
>> I do not care about colored terminals outside making sure the colors
>> contrast well.
>
> +NAN
>
> FWIW, that's one of my pet peeves about text interfaces on these
> terminals (either actual glass screen, or virtual like xterm).
>
> Worst (IMO): red foreground, on black or blue background. Almost
> completely unusable for me in most cases (especially red/black).
>
Human eye peaks around the yellow-green part of the spectrum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_sensitivity

--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 10/22/23 04:07, Harold Stevens wrote:
> In <uh0va6$1rhcn$2@dont-email.me> candycanearter07:
>
> [Snip...]
>
>> I do not care about colored terminals outside making sure the colors
>> contrast well.
>
> +NAN
>
> FWIW, that's one of my pet peeves about text interfaces on these
> terminals (either actual glass screen, or virtual like xterm).
>
> Worst (IMO): red foreground, on black or blue background. Almost
> completely unusable for me in most cases (especially red/black).
>

Yeah. If there's no settings to modify the colors or set it to
grayscale, you can use xterm -cm to start a true grayscale terminal.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

In Message-ID: <uh37j1$2dukq$4@dont-email.me> candycanearter07:

[Snip...]

> If there's no settings to modify the colors or set it to
> grayscale, you can use xterm -cm to start a true grayscale terminal.

Thanks for the tip. I thought I knew my xterm options reasonably
well, but I missed that very helpful one. :)

--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at att, dotted with net. * DO NOT SPAM IT. *
I toss GoogleGroup (http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/).

On 10/22/23 10:05, Harold Stevens wrote:
> In Message-ID: <uh37j1$2dukq$4@dont-email.me> candycanearter07:
>
> [Snip...]
>
>> If there's no settings to modify the colors or set it to
>> grayscale, you can use xterm -cm to start a true grayscale terminal.
>
> Thanks for the tip. I thought I knew my xterm options reasonably
> well, but I missed that very helpful one. :)
>

Well, I didn't know either until I Googled it ^^
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom