Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.usage.english > #1149582 > unrolled thread

Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays

Back to article view | Back to alt.usage.english

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen@canonical.org> - 2026-08-28 22:45 -0300
    Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-29 15:52 +0800
      Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> - 2026-08-29 10:09 +0200
        Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-29 16:40 +0800
          Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-08-29 22:32 +1000
            Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-29 21:10 +0800
            Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> - 2026-08-29 16:34 +0200
    Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2026-08-29 08:43 -0400
      Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-29 21:16 +0800
        Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-08-29 18:30 +0000
          Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2026-08-29 21:43 +0100
        Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2026-08-29 23:12 +0100
      Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-08-30 10:08 +0000
    Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Peter Flynn <peter@silmaril.ie> - 2026-08-30 16:11 +0100
      Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-08-30 16:30 +0000
        Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> - 2026-08-30 19:18 +0200
          Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-08-30 17:45 +0000
            Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> - 2026-08-31 08:24 +0200
          Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-08-31 09:42 +1000
            Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-08-31 08:43 +0100
              Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-08-31 10:45 +0000
                Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2026-08-31 16:45 +0100
                  Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-08-31 16:08 +0000
                    Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2026-08-31 20:56 +0100
                  Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2026-08-31 16:54 +0000
              Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-31 13:36 +0200
                Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2026-08-31 12:09 -0700
                  Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-31 22:26 +0200
            Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> - 2026-08-31 10:11 +0200
              Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2026-08-31 20:48 +0100
                different iron alloys (was Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays) Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen@canonical.org> - 2026-08-31 21:00 -0300
                  Re: different iron alloys (was Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays) Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-09-01 10:29 +1000
                  Re: different iron alloys (was Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays) Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> - 2026-09-01 08:08 +0200
                    active and healthy newsgroups in 02026 (was Re: different iron alloys) Kragen Javier Sitaker <kragen@canonical.org> - 2026-09-01 10:15 -0300
                    Re: different iron alloys (was Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays) Richard Smith <null@void.com> - 2026-09-28 07:19 +0100
                      Re: different iron alloys (was Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays) "Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> - 2026-10-01 19:46 -0400
                  Re: different iron alloys (was Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-09-13 18:31 -0300
                Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> - 2026-09-01 07:59 +0200
        Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2026-08-30 13:33 -0400
          Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-08-30 19:45 +0000
      Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2026-08-30 21:32 +0100

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#1149582 — Re: What is the best free software for creating & editing PDFs nowadays

Marion <marion@facts.com> writes:
> it's kind of like when I ask people to use "lend" as a verb vs "loan"
> as a noun; or when I notice people using "further" for "farther" in
> terms of distances; or when people use "less" instead of "fewer" for
> things that can be counted; or when people use "dirt" when they really
> mean "soil"; or when they call a "stone" a "rock" when all of these
> things are actually not what people think.

- “Lend” is indeed not currently in use as a noun, outside of Scottish
  and northern English dialects, where it has been in use as a noun
  (meaning “loan”) since at least 01575, with attestations up to the
  present day.
  <https://archive.org/details/oed6aarch/page/n208/mode/1up>

- “Loan” has been in use as a verb (as well as a noun) meaning “to lend”
  since at least 01200, with attestations pretty continuously for 800
  years up to the present day.
  <https://archive.org/details/oed6aarch/page/n385/mode/1up>

- “Further” has been in use with the meaning “farther” in terms of
  distances since at least 01578, with attestations up to the present
  day except for the 18th century.
  <https://archive.org/details/oed04arch/page/n631/mode/1up>

- “Less” has been in use with the meaning “a smaller number of; fewer”
  since at least King Ælfred in 0888, making this 1138-year-old meaning
  the longest-standing one you ask people to refrain from using.
  <https://archive.org/details/oed6aarch/page/n221/mode/1up> (A.I.1.c,
  bottom of the left column)

    Additionally, “less” has the meaning “Of not so great size, extent,
    or degree”, a meaning which is not shared by “fewer”, and is
    eminently applicable to things that can be counted.  For example,
    driving to work at 90 kilometers per hour uses *less* resources than
    driving to work at 120 kilometers per hour, because your fuel
    consumption is lower, but it doesn’t use *fewer* resources; it uses
    *the same number* of resources (gasoline, the car, the brake pads,
    etc.), just to a smaller extent.

- “Soil” and “dirt” are both fairly polysemous.  Maybe you can explain
  which usage you are taking issue with?  For reference, the meanings of
  “dirt” given in
  <https://archive.org/details/oed03arch/page/n409/mode/1up> are
  excrement; filth; worthless things; land; people you don’t like;
  mud/soil; gangue; washdirt; dirtiness; meanness; bad weather; poison
  gas in a mine; and to make dirty.  The meanings of “soil” given in
  <https://archive.org/details/oed9aarch/oed9aarch/page/n384/mode/1up>
  are the ground; plains; site; estate; land/region; place of one’s
  nativity; domicile; materials of the ground such as sand and clay;
  mould/earth; sill; and lintel.

Similar remarks surely apply to the historical meanings of “stone” and
“rock”, but it is getting to be my bedtime, and I think this adequately
makes the point that, in general, you seem to be taking up arms against
the Oxford English Dictionary and centuries of established English
usage.  Perhaps you have access to an arbiter of English meanings more
authoritative than the OED and the English-language literary corpus?
What might that be?

Kragen

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1149609

On 29/08/2026 9:45 AM, Kragen Javier Sitaker wrote:
> Marion <marion@facts.com> writes:
>> it's kind of like when I ask people to use "lend" as a verb vs "loan"
>> as a noun; or when I notice people using "further" for "farther" in
>> terms of distances; or when people use "less" instead of "fewer" for
>> things that can be counted; or when people use "dirt" when they really
>> mean "soil"; or when they call a "stone" a "rock" when all of these
>> things are actually not what people think.
> 
> - “Lend” is indeed not currently in use as a noun, outside of Scottish
>    and northern English dialects, where it has been in use as a noun
>    (meaning “loan”) since at least 01575, with attestations up to the
>    present day.
>    <https://archive.org/details/oed6aarch/page/n208/mode/1up>
> 
> - “Loan” has been in use as a verb (as well as a noun) meaning “to lend”
>    since at least 01200, with attestations pretty continuously for 800
>    years up to the present day.
>    <https://archive.org/details/oed6aarch/page/n385/mode/1up>
> 
> - “Further” has been in use with the meaning “farther” in terms of
>    distances since at least 01578, with attestations up to the present
>    day except for the 18th century.
>    <https://archive.org/details/oed04arch/page/n631/mode/1up>
> 
> - “Less” has been in use with the meaning “a smaller number of; fewer”
>    since at least King Ælfred in 0888, making this 1138-year-old meaning
>    the longest-standing one you ask people to refrain from using.
>    <https://archive.org/details/oed6aarch/page/n221/mode/1up> (A.I.1.c,
>    bottom of the left column)
> 
>      Additionally, “less” has the meaning “Of not so great size, extent,
>      or degree”, a meaning which is not shared by “fewer”, and is
>      eminently applicable to things that can be counted.  For example,
>      driving to work at 90 kilometers per hour uses *less* resources than
>      driving to work at 120 kilometers per hour, because your fuel
>      consumption is lower, but it doesn’t use *fewer* resources; it uses
>      *the same number* of resources (gasoline, the car, the brake pads,
>      etc.), just to a smaller extent.
> 
> - “Soil” and “dirt” are both fairly polysemous.  Maybe you can explain
>    which usage you are taking issue with?  For reference, the meanings of
>    “dirt” given in
>    <https://archive.org/details/oed03arch/page/n409/mode/1up> are
>    excrement; filth; worthless things; land; people you don’t like;
>    mud/soil; gangue; washdirt; dirtiness; meanness; bad weather; poison
>    gas in a mine; and to make dirty.  The meanings of “soil” given in
>    <https://archive.org/details/oed9aarch/oed9aarch/page/n384/mode/1up>
>    are the ground; plains; site; estate; land/region; place of one’s
>    nativity; domicile; materials of the ground such as sand and clay;
>    mould/earth; sill; and lintel.
> 
> Similar remarks surely apply to the historical meanings of “stone” and
> “rock”, but it is getting to be my bedtime, and I think this adequately
> makes the point that, in general, you seem to be taking up arms against
> the Oxford English Dictionary and centuries of established English
> usage.  Perhaps you have access to an arbiter of English meanings more
> authoritative than the OED and the English-language literary corpus?
> What might that be?
> 
> Kragen

In my opinion, language belongs to the living.  And words change meaning
every now and than.  That said, I reject most of the politically moti-
vated changes of meaning, because it's not about the word, and the com-
munication at that point, but power over people.

Anyway, what I meant to comment on in this followup was the usage of
"further" and "farther."  As far as my research into the matter some
years ago, and I hope the historical usages have not changed since,
it's simply a difference of spelling.  I tend to like "further" over
"farther" because I can hear a difference in my head, but not sure
that difference is audible when I speak.

There has been some /systematic/ effort to /correct/ spellings since
the 19th century, at least.  And the further back in time you go, some
words are indeed spelled differently.  At the moment, I'm not in a pos-
ition to look into which 17th century book I was reading -- or was it
older? -- and the major difference I had to get used to was the elong-
ated Ss.  I'll refrain to try to draw them with ASCII art for now, but
they're the pre-cursor to the modern symbol of integrals.

I take the view that if a spelling was good enough for the people of the
17th century, or potentially earlier, it's good enough for me, and some-
times make an effort to write certain words as such.  "Vampyre" comes to
mind, but I don't write much about those creatures.


Thank you for coming to my TED talk in alt.usage.english!
-- 
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com
https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1149610

Den 29.08.2026 kl. 09.52 skrev Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson:

> I take the view that if a spelling was good enough for the people of the
> 17th century, or potentially earlier, it's good enough for me,

Why not go back to runes then?

Writing is not for the writer. It's for the readers. Therefore I do my 
best to write in a way that presents the least number of obstacles for 
the targeted readers.

When I write German, I write the substantives with an uppercase first 
letter though I find that habit unnessecary and ridiculous, but not 
doing it would disturb the readers that are used to it.

That section also covers what I do with English words for countries, 
languages or people.

-- 
Bertel, Kolt, Danmark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1149612

On 29/08/2026 4:09 PM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Den 29.08.2026 kl. 09.52 skrev Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson:
> 
>> I take the view that if a spelling was good enough for the people of the
>> 17th century, or potentially earlier, it's good enough for me,
> 
> Why not go back to runes then?

That's a good question.  Even better question is /which runes/?  Do you
read the elder futhark, or the younger futhark?  Does it bother you that
by all accounts both are a derivative of an older Greek script?  See for
instance Bernal's /Cadmean Letters/, which is sadly out of print; I
expect you have your own copy in your library.

> 
> Writing is not for the writer. It's for the readers. Therefore I do my 
> best to write in a way that presents the least number of obstacles for 
> the targeted readers.

Well, that's a good question.  Who are my targetted readers?  Do I read
for the erudite members of alt.usage.english, or the general public?  I
do make a distinction, and write accordingly, because sometimes I do
write for public amusement.  Do you think my /dad jokes/ in alt.folk-
lore.computers hits the mark?

> 
> When I write German, I write the substantives with an uppercase first 
> letter though I find that habit unnessecary and ridiculous, but not 
> doing it would disturb the readers that are used to it.

I have to say I don't habitually write German; not anymore, or not yet.

On the other hand, when I write Latin -- in which I am a mere beginner
-- I tend to write with the omicrons intact.  This bothers some people,
who claim learned people of Latin know the words anyway, but I think it
is just a coping mechanism for people who find it hard to write accented
letters in Latin.  See my recent post in alt.language.latin for an exam-
ple.
> 
> That section also covers what I do with English words for countries, 
> languages or people.
> 

I tend to follow the general usage of English too, more or less.  I mean
does it bother you when I write english for the English, but rather Eng-
lish for the Americans?  I mean, what's in an upper case letter?  So
named because it was originally in the /upper case/ of typesetters, who
presumably had to stretch further, or should we say /capital letter/ in-
stead?  And who made a letter out of a capital in the first place?  Was
that a Roman Emperor, or merely an imperator of the roman army?  Should
I capitalize the /roman/ in the Roman army, or is it a mere adjective?

I'm not sure.  And I'm fairly certain any member of the roman army is
not going to comment on that here on Usenet.


Thank you for coming to my TED talk in alt.usage.english!
-- 
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com
https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1149639

On 29/08/26 18:40, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:

> And who made a letter out of a capital in the first place?  Was that
> a Roman Emperor, or merely an imperator of the roman army?  Should I
> capitalize the /roman/ in the Roman army, or is it a mere adjective?

You should rather ask who invented lower case. The Romans got their
writing from the Etruscans, who got it from the Greeks, and I believe
the Greek alphabet was originally upper case only. To the best of my
knowledge, lower-case Greek is just sloppy writing for speed, with
inadequate care taken to form the letters properly.

-- 
Peter Moylan       peter@pmoylan.org    http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1149642

On 29/08/2026 8:32 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 29/08/26 18:40, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
> 
>> And who made a letter out of a capital in the first place?  Was that
>> a Roman Emperor, or merely an imperator of the roman army?  Should I
>> capitalize the /roman/ in the Roman army, or is it a mere adjective?
> 
> You should rather ask who invented lower case. The Romans got their
> writing from the Etruscans, who got it from the Greeks, and I believe
> the Greek alphabet was originally upper case only. To the best of my
> knowledge, lower-case Greek is just sloppy writing for speed, with
> inadequate care taken to form the letters properly.
> 

I believe that's inaccurate, but as I'm not a /scholar/, and don't have
access to raw original documents, I'm only theorizing.  Please feel free
to correct any of the following.

The lower case -- again so named because the cases for the early typo-
graphers were lower -- as we know it today, was more or less invented
by Carolingian monks.  They in turn were -- as I've come to understand,
but please re-read the paragraph above -- working with an older Roman
tradition.

And if you read Egyptian demotic, you'll see it very much like current
era Arabic script.  So it's highly likely -- but I have not done any
comparison in person, so could be wrong -- that the Arabic script and
handwriting is an older Egyptian tradition.

Now, I have not seen any direct influence between Egyptian script and
the later Roman, and Greek.  We can throw in Phoenician, and Etruscan,
and general /Italic/ scripts for that matter, because they all seem to
come from the same source.  The very same source as the runes, for that
matter, but Bernal in his /Cadmean Letters/ did not dare to talk about
the runes because of -- at a guess -- religious fanatics.  Now, as a
native of Iceland, I just make use of the current era /representation-
ism/, and don't care.  I see runes in the book /Cadmean Letters/, and
you're welcome to prove me wrong.  I believe a positive proof will re-
quire a time machine, but that's a minor detail.

Anyway, flowing handwriting was well established in Egypt, as far as I
know, well before 1000 BC.  That's over three thousand years ago, for
people who don't understand BC years.  But that's all right, lots of
people don't understand the difference between AC and DC, nor AC/DC
music; AD and BC is no different, as seen by idiots.

So, I was saying, because educated Romans, and Greeks, and Phoenicians,
and other people of the wider world of the Mediterranian -- that's an
inner sea, and not an ocean if I understand the current English termi-
nology correctly; we are after all in alt.usage.English -- knew and saw
the Egyptian version of flowing script, it's unlikely they did not de-
velop one of their own.

Now, whether that's the same script as the Carolingian monks were using
to base their handwriting on, I cannot say, because again, I lack access
to raw manuscripts of Latin from before 1 BC.  I know there are pictures
of later manuscripts online, but I have not read all of them.  As I was
writing this paragraph, I stopped to take a look at pictures of the Vul-
gate bible.  That's the oldest version of the bible in Latin that we
have, and I gave up on finding a good picture of the typography.  I
guess people posting pictures of that book don't care about the typogra-
phy in it.  So, I'm uncertain if the copies we have online show lower
case letters as we kind of know them, or not.

You're welcome to do some original research of your own, and find the
oldest manuscript of the Vulgate bible, and we can be reasonably sure
that people did not change the script much from the original.

In any case, I find it completely ridiculous that scribes of the Roman
empire didn't have some sort of /business script/ and /every day lett-
ers/ that they wrote fast, with precision, and took care not to over
use the parchment, vellum, or papyrus.  I believe they did not have our
modern day paper.

Anyway, the best thing you can do, is to find Greek writings from ca.
600 BC -- or whenever people believe the Greeks developed their modern
alphabet -- and show us.  Personal letters are best, but business corre-
spondence will do in a pinch.


Happy original research!
-- 
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com
https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1149645

Den 29.08.2026 kl. 14.32 skrev Peter Moylan:

> You should rather ask who invented lower case. The Romans got their
> writing from the Etruscans, who got it from the Greeks, and I believe
> the Greek alphabet was originally upper case only.

When Roman text appears in "Asterix", it's all uppercase. I think that 
the two writers are true to historic facts - at least the few that I can 
confirm.

-- 
Bertel, Kolt, Danmark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1149641

On 8/28/26 9:45 PM, Kragen Javier Sitaker wrote:

> 
> Kragen

What ever does this have to do with Windows 11?!!!

-- 
Mint 22.3,  Thunderbird 153.1.0esr,  Firefox 154.0
     Alan K.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1149643

On 29/08/2026 8:43 PM, Alan K. wrote:
> On 8/28/26 9:45 PM, Kragen Javier Sitaker wrote:
> 
>>
>> Kragen
> 
> What ever does this have to do with Windows 11?!!!
> 

Dear Alan K.,

You seem to have removed all the context, so I have no idea what in the
eleven Windows this relates to.  Could you please repeat the followup
with all the context intact, and please restore the cross posting, so
people of alt.comp.os.windows-11 can comment?


Thank you,
-- 
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com
https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1149655

On 29/08/2026 14:16, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
> On 29/08/2026 8:43 PM, Alan K. wrote:
>> On 8/28/26 9:45 PM, Kragen Javier Sitaker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Kragen
>>
>> What ever does this have to do with Windows 11?!!!
>>
> 
> Dear Alan K.,
> 
> You seem to have removed all the context, so I have no idea what in the
> eleven Windows this relates to.  Could you please repeat the followup
> with all the context intact, and please restore the cross posting, so
> people of alt.comp.os.windows-11 can comment?
> 
> 
> Thank you,

The Windows operating system has now reached version 11

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1149671

On Sat, 29 Aug 26 18:30:05 UTC
Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> On 29/08/2026 14:16, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
> > On 29/08/2026 8:43 PM, Alan K. wrote:
> >> On 8/28/26 9:45 PM, Kragen Javier Sitaker wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Kragen
> >>
> >> What ever does this have to do with Windows 11?!!!
> >>
> > 
> > Dear Alan K.,
> > 
> > You seem to have removed all the context, so I have no idea what in the
> > eleven Windows this relates to.  Could you please repeat the followup
> > with all the context intact, and please restore the cross posting, so
> > people of alt.comp.os.windows-11 can comment?
> > 
> > 
> > Thank you,
> 
> The Windows operating system has now reached version 11
> 
> 
I was promised W10 was the last one; oh and a bit earlier that 640k was
good enough for anyone. Sorry wrong NG. 

-- 
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1149674

On 29/08/2026 14:16, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
> On 29/08/2026 8:43 PM, Alan K. wrote:
>> On 8/28/26 9:45 PM, Kragen Javier Sitaker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Kragen
>>
>> What ever does this have to do with Windows 11?!!!
>>
> 
> Dear Alan K.,
> 
> You seem to have removed all the context, so I have no idea what in the
> eleven Windows this relates to.  Could you please repeat the followup
> with all the context intact, and please restore the cross posting, so
> people of alt.comp.os.windows-11 can comment?
> 
> 
> Thank you,

Obviously it's a typo for Oceans 11.
A film so good they made it twice - err five times?

-- 
Sam Plusnet

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1149709

"Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> posted:

> On 8/28/26 9:45 PM, Kragen Javier Sitaker wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Kragen
> 
> What ever does this have to do with Windows 11?!!!
> 
Or with English usage, for that matter.

-- 
athel

Living in Marseilles for 39 years; mainly in England before that,
with long periods in Singapore, California, Chile and Canada 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1149716

On 29/08/2026 02:45, Kragen Javier Sitaker wrote:
> Marion <marion@facts.com> writes:
>> it's kind of like when I ask people to use "lend" as a verb vs
>> "loan" as a noun; or when I notice people using "further" for
>> "farther" in terms of distances; or when people use "less" instead
>> of "fewer" for things that can be counted; or when people use
>> "dirt" when they really mean "soil"; or when they call a "stone" a
>> "rock" when all of these things are actually not what people think.

Many of these are normal usage in various dialects other than your own, 
so they are perfectly acceptable in many circumstances.

But their use IS registered by (for example) interviewers for jobs as a 
marker or evidence of a certain level or degree of education or social 
origin. People will rail against this, but it remains a fact that your 
use of language marks you as belonging to a specific segment of the 
English-speaking community, and that may work for you or against you.

> - “Less” has been in use with the meaning “a smaller number of; fewer”

Often the target of mockery, this one is often taken as a prime 
candidate for detecting an individual's level of literacy in present-day 
English, despite its antecedents.

> Similar remarks surely apply to the historical meanings of “stone” and
> “rock”,
Another classic marker, this time to distinguish Americans from British.

Peter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1149722

On 30/08/2026 16:11, Peter Flynn wrote:
> On 29/08/2026 02:45, Kragen Javier Sitaker wrote:
>> Marion <marion@facts.com> writes:
>>> it's kind of like when I ask people to use "lend" as a verb vs
>>> "loan" as a noun; or when I notice people using "further" for
>>> "farther" in terms of distances; or when people use "less" instead
>>> of "fewer" for things that can be counted; or when people use
>>> "dirt" when they really mean "soil"; or when they call a "stone" a
>>> "rock" when all of these things are actually not what people think.
> 
> Many of these are normal usage in various dialects other than your own, 
> so they are perfectly acceptable in many circumstances.
> 
> But their use IS registered by (for example) interviewers for jobs as a 
> marker or evidence of a certain level or degree of education or social 
> origin. People will rail against this, but it remains a fact that your 
> use of language marks you as belonging to a specific segment of the 
> English-speaking community, and that may work for you or against you.
> 
>> - “Less” has been in use with the meaning “a smaller number of; fewer”
> 
> Often the target of mockery, this one is often taken as a prime 
> candidate for detecting an individual's level of literacy in present-day 
> English, despite its antecedents.
> 
>> Similar remarks surely apply to the historical meanings of “stone” and
>> “rock”,
> Another classic marker, this time to distinguish Americans from British.
> 
> Peter
another one I've recently come across is "iron" where I'd say "steel"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1149724

Den 30.08.2026 kl. 18.30 skrev Charles Hope:

> another one I've recently come across is "iron" where I'd say "steel"

I'd like to see some context. Iron is an element. Steel is an alloy.

-- 
Bertel, Kolt, Danmark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1149728

On 30/08/2026 18:18, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Den 30.08.2026 kl. 18.30 skrev Charles Hope:
> 
>> another one I've recently come across is "iron" where I'd say "steel"
> 
> I'd like to see some context. Iron is an element. Steel is an alloy.
> 
The context is a metal sign

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1149757

Den 30.08.2026 kl. 19.45 skrev Charles Hope:

>>> another one I've recently come across is "iron" where I'd say "steel"
>>
>> I'd like to see some context. Iron is an element. Steel is an alloy.
>>
> The context is a metal sign

How do you know it's about steel and not iron?

-- 
Bertel, Kolt, Danmark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1149741

On 31/08/26 03:18, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Den 30.08.2026 kl. 18.30 skrev Charles Hope:
>
>> another one I've recently come across is "iron" where I'd say
>> "steel"
>
> I'd like to see some context. Iron is an element. Steel is an alloy.

To the people who produce the stuff the difference matters. When iron
ore is first smelted into metal you get pig iron. (The metal ingots are
called pigs.) That can be further processed to get different grades of
steel.

It's all about the impurities. Pig iron has a lot of carbon in it. Steel
has a different amount of carbon. They both contain other impurities. So
they're basically the same thing: iron plus impurities.

Ordinary people who don't run steel mills have picked up the habit of
distinguishing between iron and steel. But, really, they're much the
same thing.

-- 
Peter Moylan       peter@pmoylan.org    http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1149762

Le 31/08/2026 à 00:42, Peter Moylan a écrit :
> On 31/08/26 03:18, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> Den 30.08.2026 kl. 18.30 skrev Charles Hope:
>>>
>>> another one I've recently come across is "iron" where I'd say
>>> "steel"
>>
>> I'd like to see some context. Iron is an element. Steel is an alloy.
> 
> To the people who produce the stuff the difference matters. When iron
> ore is first smelted into metal you get pig iron. (The metal ingots are
> called pigs.) That can be further processed to get different grades of
> steel.
> 
> It's all about the impurities. Pig iron has a lot of carbon in it. Steel
> has a different amount of carbon. They both contain other impurities. So
> they're basically the same thing: iron plus impurities.
> 
> Ordinary people who don't run steel mills have picked up the habit of
> distinguishing between iron and steel. But, really, they're much the
> same thing.


Isn't there a notional difference between them? I see iron - pig, cast, 
and wrought - as an old, basic product, and steel as more advanced and 
controlled, developed for hardness and strength in tool steel, rust 
resistance in stainless, and so on.

(I saw an advert for Irn Bru a couple of days ago - "Made in Scotland 
from girders," is the claim. It's decades since I've tasted Irn Bru, but 
as I recall, it tastes of bubblegum, not iron. It's a perfectly foul 
concoction.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.usage.english

csiph-web