Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-11 > #15495 > unrolled thread
| Started by | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-12-19 20:03 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-12-25 16:19 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 199 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-11
The problem with not owning the software CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-19 20:03 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2024-12-19 19:55 -0700
Re: The problem with not owning the software "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2024-12-21 16:52 +0800
Re: The problem with not owning the software CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-21 07:26 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2024-12-23 23:15 +0800
Re: The problem with not owning the software ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2024-12-23 23:24 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2024-12-25 11:48 +0800
Re: The problem with not owning the software ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2024-12-25 06:54 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-25 20:39 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2024-12-27 22:23 +0800
Re: The problem with not owning the software Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2024-12-27 11:31 -0600
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-28 07:04 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2024-12-28 16:53 +0800
Re: The problem with not owning the software rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-28 19:34 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-28 15:07 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-28 15:12 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-28 17:11 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-28 17:17 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-29 13:16 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-29 14:24 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-29 15:39 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-29 16:06 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-29 17:10 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-29 17:39 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-29 18:58 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-29 19:10 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-29 19:21 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-29 22:55 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-29 18:02 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2024-12-29 18:35 -0600
Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-29 19:51 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2024-12-29 20:00 -0600
Re: The problem with not owning the software knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> - 2024-12-29 22:34 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-30 03:48 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-29 19:55 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2024-12-29 20:15 -0600
Re: The problem with not owning the software Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-29 21:49 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Jack Sovalot <hee-cawkforme@jack.sovalot> - 2024-12-30 04:06 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-30 08:31 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-12-30 19:12 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-31 00:53 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-30 21:06 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-12-31 11:01 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-31 19:00 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-31 19:52 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-01 01:46 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-30 20:52 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-01 17:02 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-01-18 11:54 -0600
Re: The problem with not owning the software -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-29 18:46 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-30 04:51 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-30 09:34 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-29 00:53 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2024-12-29 19:42 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-29 21:09 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2024-12-29 19:44 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-29 21:05 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-29 23:14 +0100
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-12-30 08:25 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-12-30 08:24 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-30 10:09 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-29 00:32 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2024-12-29 01:43 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-28 20:52 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-29 07:05 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-29 06:58 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-29 21:17 +0100
Re: The problem with not owning the software Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-29 20:41 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-29 23:31 +0100
Re: The problem with not owning the software Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-30 10:56 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-31 03:24 +0100
Re: The problem with not owning the software Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-31 13:50 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-12-31 13:18 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-31 19:14 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-01-01 07:44 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-02 00:22 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-02 12:09 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-02 19:36 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-04 02:09 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-31 20:27 +0100
Re: The problem with not owning the software rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-29 21:16 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-29 22:57 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-29 18:50 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-30 02:30 +0100
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-30 04:55 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-30 07:05 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-12-30 08:24 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-31 01:00 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-12-31 16:15 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-29 16:39 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-29 21:00 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-29 19:08 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2024-12-29 22:30 -0600
Re: The problem with not owning the software rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-30 07:00 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-30 12:53 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-30 04:52 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-30 13:01 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-31 00:56 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-12-30 08:25 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-31 00:57 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 16:45 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-01 19:31 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-02 00:33 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-02 00:15 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-02 05:33 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-02 12:09 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-02 22:03 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-04 02:32 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-04 04:50 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-04 08:52 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-05 00:42 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-05 01:05 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-05 02:59 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-04 10:01 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-04 21:13 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-01-04 21:50 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-05 00:39 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-05 00:59 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-01-05 01:52 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-05 03:04 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-05 16:07 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-06 00:22 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-06 08:23 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-06 22:47 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-07 00:12 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-07 02:10 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-07 14:12 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-08 02:26 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-08 13:28 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-08 21:28 +0000
[OT] Re: The problem with not owning the software snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-01-05 01:50 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-05 03:01 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The problem with not owning the software snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-01-05 03:25 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-05 06:47 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-05 08:20 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-04 21:18 -0500
[OT] Re: The problem with not owning the software snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-01-05 02:34 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-04 22:08 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: The problem with not owning the software -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-04 22:34 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-01-05 07:19 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: The problem with not owning the software -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-05 10:39 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: The problem with not owning the software snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-01-05 03:39 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-05 08:13 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: The problem with not owning the software chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-01-05 08:52 -0600
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-05 16:32 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-04 20:53 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-28 21:26 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-29 06:38 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-29 07:17 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2024-12-29 13:19 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-29 08:48 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2024-12-29 08:02 -0600
Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-29 09:08 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2024-12-29 19:32 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2024-12-29 19:46 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-29 20:56 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-29 17:03 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2024-12-31 23:32 -0600
Re: The problem with not owning the software -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-29 13:21 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2024-12-29 07:41 -0700
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-02 12:09 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-02 22:05 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-03 09:09 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-03 20:33 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-01-03 21:00 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-03 23:28 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-04 21:17 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-05 02:57 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-04 22:25 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-04 02:19 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-04 04:49 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-05 01:10 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-05 02:52 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-05 15:55 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-06 00:20 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-06 08:11 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2024-12-31 23:20 -0600
Re: The problem with not owning the software "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2024-12-25 11:53 +0800
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-12-30 08:24 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-30 10:08 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-31 20:32 +0100
Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-31 21:34 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 16:47 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-01 19:29 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-02 12:09 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-02 21:59 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-02 18:01 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-03 11:26 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-03 08:55 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-03 14:33 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-04 19:32 -0500
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-05 02:46 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-05 15:46 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-06 00:17 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-06 14:57 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-05 02:47 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-04 02:14 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-04 02:09 +0000
Re: The problem with not owning the software bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-12-25 16:19 -0500
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-02 12:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl5vln$3b63u$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15701 |
Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote: > On 2024-12-28 14:34, rbowman wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 07:04:57 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:23:49 +0800, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: >>> >>>> On 26/12/2024 4:39 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>> >>>>> As a programmer, I like to use powerful and versatile tools. That >>>>> includes the ability to automate workflow. >>>>> >>>>> Tools exist for this purpose, like odfpy for ISO 26300 files, which >>>>> are the native format of LibreOffice. And LibreOffice itself can run >>>>> Python code. >>>> >>>> My programming tasks has never ever needed to automate Office using >>>> VBA. >>> >>> So your needs are fairly simple. That’s nothing to be ashamed of. >> >> You do realize there is a whole world outside of Office? > > Yeah, it sometimes pains me that it is brought up as often as it is as > some sort of must-have piece of software. It suggests that people don't > do much other than open up Word and Excel. In the professional world that's pretty accurate. If you include outlook then you've got 95% of people's "productivity".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-02 22:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl72j1$3h9eh$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15963 |
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 12:09:28 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: >> ... suggests that people don't do much other than open up Word and >> Excel. > > In the professional world that's pretty accurate. Doesn’t sound like that adjective “professional” extends to the actual quality of results, then.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 09:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vl8r30$3u9jq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15998 |
On Thu, 1/2/2025 5:05 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 12:09:28 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: > >>> ... suggests that people don't do much other than open up Word and >>> Excel. >> >> In the professional world that's pretty accurate. > > Doesn’t sound like that adjective “professional” extends to the actual > quality of results, then. > People using Office, there is an amazing range of skills. We make fun of the people, who can barely tie their own shoe laces using computers. But there are also those, who win programming contests, who can run circles around you. Sales people sending materials to me at work, they always sent them in .docx (not PDF) and the documents were always three pages long. You had to wonder why all the documents were three pages long... I bet there is a funny story involved there. We had a senior manager, who could rewrite any procedural language problem you brought to him, in Excel. One of our guys, a masters grad, was using Fortran and Numerical Recipes and had been at that for six weeks, and was having trouble finishing it. The senior manager overheard the conversation, about how hard this was to do in Fortran, he came out of his office, got the details (he's actually a Radio/Microwave engineer) and in *two days* he wrote an Excel spreadsheet following the requirements, and the spreadsheet added datapoints to an electrical waveform plot, as the program calculated them (in real time). I didn't watch this, but someone who got a demo of this, was blown away by it. These are the people we waste in offices, shuffling papers. That's also the kind of person, who could put an AI into an Excel spreadsheet. That would be a perfect problem for our guy. I bet he'd enjoy that. (There was a Tomshardware article about someone releasing an AI demo, which was controlled from Excel, but it used VBA so I couldn't run it in LO.) Portions of Excel, can run on more than one thread, so you can get a slight speedup from your multi-core processor. But it can't use all your cores, so it does not have infinite scaling. As far as I know, the capability is "two core max". It then depends on the characteristics of the spreadsheet (VBA or no VBA maybe), as to whether it will switch to two core mode. Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 20:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ltqvtlFbm03U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #16037 |
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:09:35 -0500, Paul wrote: > Sales people sending materials to me at work, they always sent them in > .docx (not PDF) and the documents were always three pages long. You had > to wonder why all the documents were three pages long... I bet there is > a funny story involved there. A little paranoid but our FSDs were docx in house but were converted to a read-only PDF when sent to the clients. I'm not sure anyone read them let alone tried to alter them. That fight came later when what we said we were going to provide wasn't what they thought we were going to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 21:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl9j50$2ofr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16046 |
On 2025-01-03, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:09:35 -0500, Paul wrote: > >> Sales people sending materials to me at work, they always sent them in >> .docx (not PDF) and the documents were always three pages long. You had >> to wonder why all the documents were three pages long... I bet there is >> a funny story involved there. > > A little paranoid but our FSDs were docx in house but were converted to a > read-only PDF when sent to the clients. I'm not sure anyone read them let > alone tried to alter them. That fight came later when what we said we were > going to provide wasn't what they thought we were going to do. Everything I have ever had to do regarding lawyers and legal or government documents was requested to be in PDF. I haven't done anything like this in a few years so maybe things have changed. -- pothead "Give a man a fish and you turn him into a Democrat for life" "Teach a man to fish and he might become a self-sufficient conservative Republican" "Don't underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up," --- Barack H. Obama
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 23:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl9rq0$484n$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16037 |
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:09:35 -0500, Paul wrote: > People using Office, there is an amazing range of skills. > > We make fun of the people, who can barely tie their own shoe laces using > computers. But there are also those, who win programming contests, who > can run circles around you. Using Excel? I’d go up against a champion Excel user, armed only with Python and Jupyter, and I would likely show them a thing or two.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-04 21:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vlcq4b$nh5m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16055 |
On Fri, 1/3/2025 6:28 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:09:35 -0500, Paul wrote: > >> People using Office, there is an amazing range of skills. >> >> We make fun of the people, who can barely tie their own shoe laces using >> computers. But there are also those, who win programming contests, who >> can run circles around you. > > Using Excel? I’d go up against a champion Excel user, armed only with > Python and Jupyter, and I would likely show them a thing or two. > The masters graduate had been working on some sort of behavioral electrical model and doing convolution, and had been at it for six weeks. The senior manager, finished the project in two days and had the program deliver the results as a graph with the electrical waveform in it. And the waveform was updating as the data became available in the spreadsheet. I doubt the objective of the Fortran program, was to draw a graph of the results. It was just to calculate the data points for further post-analysis. One of the reasons we occasionally wrote things in Fortran, was hardware engineers would get together and compare notes, and if they needed to collaborate on programming something, many times Fortran was the only thing they had in common. This happened, because the Universities at the time, taught Fortran. We were the Fortran generation. And we used to laugh about this, the absurdity of "well, we don't have any language other than Fortran, so Fortran it is". At another place I worked, it was PERL. The CAD tools had a few shortcomings, and on some days, if you walked by desks, everyone was coding in PERL to make up for the productivity shortfall of the CAD tool. The funny part, was when one of our engineers won the award with that brand of software, for the "most complex design of the year" using the stuff. The potential customers would think the CAD tool had done the work, when it was something like a hundred individual PERL scripts that managed the design (the PERL updated signal lists on wide buses in the design -- the CAD tool expected you to "click each one and edit it", which is idiotic). Necessity is the mother of invention. The people I worked with, didn't care what they had for tools. If a manager didn't "enable" your productivity, then tough. You'd "find a way". Like one day, I was doing something at work, with a 6MHz PC from the warehouse (in other words, worn out computer from storage). I didn't particularly care how fast it was, as long as the answers kept coming out of the thing. Nobody is going to be curious later, how you got the job done, just that the job was finished. Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 02:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vlcsf3$nnc8$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16101 |
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 21:17:47 -0500, Paul wrote: > At another place I worked, it was PERL. The CAD tools had a few > shortcomings, and on some days, if you walked by desks, everyone > was coding in PERL to make up for the productivity shortfall of > the CAD tool. The funny part, was when one of our engineers won > the award with that brand of software, for the "most complex design > of the year" using the stuff. The potential customers would think > the CAD tool had done the work, when it was something like a hundred > individual PERL scripts that managed the design (the PERL updated > signal lists on wide buses in the design -- the CAD tool expected > you to "click each one and edit it", which is idiotic). Were your Perl scripts able to access the CAD files directly? Were they in some non-proprietary format? On the one hand, this kind of labour-saving operation is exactly why programmable computers were invented. On the other hand, as you mentioned, too much of the credit tends to go to the name-brand proprietary tool at the most conspicuous point of your workflow, instead of the generalized open-source toolkit operating in the background, that greatly simplified the major part of the work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-04 22:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vlcu31$ndi8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16109 |
On 1/4/25 9:57 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 21:17:47 -0500, Paul wrote: > >> At another place I worked, it was PERL. The CAD tools had a few >> shortcomings, and on some days, if you walked by desks, everyone >> was coding in PERL to make up for the productivity shortfall of >> the CAD tool. The funny part, was when one of our engineers won >> the award with that brand of software, for the "most complex design >> of the year" using the stuff. The potential customers would think >> the CAD tool had done the work, when it was something like a hundred >> individual PERL scripts that managed the design (the PERL updated >> signal lists on wide buses in the design -- the CAD tool expected >> you to "click each one and edit it", which is idiotic). > > Were your Perl scripts able to access the CAD files directly? Were they in > some non-proprietary format? > > On the one hand, this kind of labour-saving operation is exactly why > programmable computers were invented. On the other hand, as you mentioned, > too much of the credit tends to go to the name-brand proprietary tool at > the most conspicuous point of your workflow, instead of the generalized > open-source toolkit operating in the background, that greatly simplified > the major part of the work. Not necessarily a question of generalized vs proprietary, because before even taking that step, the workflows are what matters. If your assignments are pretty clearly delineated and more consistently fixed for inputs/outputs, then with repetition & definition, they're quite conducive to automation through such scripting/macro/etc tools and these are then a boon. OTOH, if you're in a knowledge worker whose steps are less rigorously defined ... the tasks are more "squishy" ... workflows can have "rhymes & echos" on fundamental principles, but vary widely enough such that they're not sufficiently similar enough to make scripting/automation be viable: the lack of applied value-added makes the same automation capability become more of a curiosity for that workflow use case need, regardless of the open source vs proprietary fanboy debates. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-04 02:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vla5qr$5tqv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15998 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 12:09:28 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: > >>> ... suggests that people don't do much other than open up Word and >>> Excel. >> >> In the professional world that's pretty accurate. > > Doesn’t sound like that adjective “professional” extends to the actual > quality of results, then. Based on what, exactly?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-04 04:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vlaelm$au6q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16064 |
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:19:07 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >> On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 12:09:28 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: >> >>>> ... suggests that people don't do much other than open up Word and >>>> Excel. >>> >>> In the professional world that's pretty accurate. >> >> Doesn’t sound like that adjective “professional” extends to the actual >> quality of results, then. > > Based on what, exactly? Based on the known issues with over-reliance on Microsoft products.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 01:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vlcm6h$mvt4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16066 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:19:07 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: > >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 12:09:28 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: >>> >>>>> ... suggests that people don't do much other than open up Word and >>>>> Excel. >>>> >>>> In the professional world that's pretty accurate. >>> >>> Doesn’t sound like that adjective “professional” extends to the actual >>> quality of results, then. >> >> Based on what, exactly? > > Based on the known issues with over-reliance on Microsoft products. Such as? Excluding the gene name issue, which is pretty niche.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 02:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vlcs4m$nnc8$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16093 |
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 01:10:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:19:07 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: >> >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 12:09:28 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: >>>> >>>>>> ... suggests that people don't do much other than open up Word and >>>>>> Excel. >>>>> >>>>> In the professional world that's pretty accurate. >>>> >>>> Doesn’t sound like that adjective “professional” extends to the actual >>>> quality of results, then. >>> >>> Based on what, exactly? >> >> Based on the known issues with over-reliance on Microsoft products. > > Such as? Excluding the gene name issue, which is pretty niche. It’s affecting a whole lot of research work <https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-016-1044-7>. Then there was the massive screwup over underreporting of COVID-19 figures in the UK, which went undetected for months <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/10/excel-glitch-may-have-caused-uk-to-underreport-covid-19-cases-by-15841/>. The Austrian Social Democratic Party’s botched election of a new leader <https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/06/austria_election_excel_blunder/>. How many Excel screwups can you commit in just one job? <https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/12/excel_anesthetist_recruitment_blunder/>. Is it a good idea for a Formula 1 team to use Excel to manage its parts inventory? <https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/03/formula-1-chief-appalled-to-find-team-using-excel-to-manage-20000-car-parts/>. There are entire websites devoted to compiling errors caused by using Microsoft Excel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 15:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vlea1a$13l66$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16108 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 01:10:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: > >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:19:07 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: >>> >>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 12:09:28 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> ... suggests that people don't do much other than open up Word and >>>>>>> Excel. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the professional world that's pretty accurate. >>>>> >>>>> Doesn’t sound like that adjective “professional” extends to the actual >>>>> quality of results, then. >>>> >>>> Based on what, exactly? >>> >>> Based on the known issues with over-reliance on Microsoft products. >> >> Such as? Excluding the gene name issue, which is pretty niche. > > It’s affecting a whole lot of research work > <https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-016-1044-7>. > > Then there was the massive screwup over underreporting of COVID-19 > figures in the UK, which went undetected for months > <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/10/excel-glitch-may-have-caused-uk-to-underreport-covid-19-cases-by-15841/>. > > The Austrian Social Democratic Party’s botched election of a new > leader > <https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/06/austria_election_excel_blunder/>. > > How many Excel screwups can you commit in just one job? > <https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/12/excel_anesthetist_recruitment_blunder/>. > > Is it a good idea for a Formula 1 team to use Excel to manage its > parts inventory? > <https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/03/formula-1-chief-appalled-to-find-team-using-excel-to-manage-20000-car-parts/>. > > There are entire websites devoted to compiling errors caused by using > Microsoft Excel. I'm the first to admit that poor use of excel can have serious implications. It is part of my lectures to University students. My "favourite" example is the misapplication of economic austerity during a recession: https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/lifestyle/george-osborne-plunged-uk-into-austerity-due-to-an-error-on-a-spreadsheet-335732/ The error caused a reverse in the sign of the outcome meaning that austerity was actually harmful to the economy rather than beneficial as was originally claimed. Having said all that, claiming that using MS Office is "unprofessional" is laughable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-06 00:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vlf7k4$197h8$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16130 |
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 15:55:22 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: > Having said all that, claiming that using MS Office is "unprofessional" > is laughable. What else do you call it, when “professionals” who should know better, continue to use it to make the same old mistakes? A research paper on the lessons learned <https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008984> since the mass-renaming of genes to avoid Excel mistakenly converting them to dates: none. No lessons were learned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-06 08:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vlg37p$1hall$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16143 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 15:55:22 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: > >> Having said all that, claiming that using MS Office is "unprofessional" >> is laughable. > > What else do you call it, when “professionals” who should know better, > continue to use it to make the same old mistakes? > > A research paper on the lessons learned > <https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008984> > since the mass-renaming of genes to avoid Excel mistakenly converting > them to dates: none. > > No lessons were learned. You've ignored my previous response where HUPO has changed the official names for the problematic genes. Although, I do agree not enough scientists know the limitations and pitfalls of depending too much on excel or other spreadsheet programmes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-31 23:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <vl2jbf$1lbtk$3@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #15700 |
On 12/28/24 1:34 PM, rbowman wrote: > On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 07:04:57 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:23:49 +0800, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: >> >>> On 26/12/2024 4:39 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>> >>>> As a programmer, I like to use powerful and versatile tools. That >>>> includes the ability to automate workflow. >>>> >>>> Tools exist for this purpose, like odfpy for ISO 26300 files, which >>>> are the native format of LibreOffice. And LibreOffice itself can run >>>> Python code. >>> >>> My programming tasks has never ever needed to automate Office using >>> VBA. >> >> So your needs are fairly simple. That’s nothing to be ashamed of. > > You do realize there is a whole world outside of Office? Excel is a trick for business owners to use programming skills of their employees, if there, but continue paying them the secretaries' salary for doing it. I did not fall for that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-25 11:53 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <vkfviv$28j6f$1@toylet.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #15653 |
On 24/12/2024 7:24 am, Ant wrote: > In alt.comp.os.windows-11 Mr. Man-wai Chang <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: >> If you really paid for it, the online check should still tell you that >> you own it, or at least, you have a "digital entitlement". :) > > And if this company goes away... :( So you wanna talk about real and virtual? Well... :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-30 08:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vktlcp$1i26p$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15554 |
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: > Le 2024-12-21 à 03:52, Mr. Man-wai Chang a écrit : >> On 20/12/2024 9:03 am, CrudeSausage wrote: >>> <https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/microsoft-365-users- >>> hit-by-random-product-deactivation-errors/> >>> >>> Microsoft is investigating a known issue triggering "Product >>> Deactivated" errors for customers using Microsoft 365 Office apps. >>> >> >> It's not about "owning the software", but whether it requires a real- >> time online account to work. The usual words are "standalone" and >> "offline". :) > > The moment you require an online account to verify if you are the person > who bought the software, you don't own it. You've never "owned" software, afaia. At best, you own a licence which allows you to use the software within the terms of the licence. If you break the terms then you can lose the right to use the software.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-30 10:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <4IycP.183255$DYF8.173507@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #15783 |
On 2024-12-30 03:24, Chris wrote: > CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >> Le 2024-12-21 à 03:52, Mr. Man-wai Chang a écrit : >>> On 20/12/2024 9:03 am, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>> <https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/microsoft-365-users- >>>> hit-by-random-product-deactivation-errors/> >>>> >>>> Microsoft is investigating a known issue triggering "Product >>>> Deactivated" errors for customers using Microsoft 365 Office apps. >>>> >>> >>> It's not about "owning the software", but whether it requires a real- >>> time online account to work. The usual words are "standalone" and >>> "offline". :) >> >> The moment you require an online account to verify if you are the person >> who bought the software, you don't own it. > > You've never "owned" software, afaia. At best, you own a licence which > allows you to use the software within the terms of the licence. If you > break the terms then you can lose the right to use the software. It's pretty easy to own the software if you use open-source, to be honest. You have access to the code and can do as you wish with it as long as you agree to share your modifications with the people who offered it to you. That's as good as it gets outside of producing your own program. -- Andrzej (Andre) Matuch Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Fedora 41 KDE supporting member
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-11
csiph-web