Re: "Best Linux apps of 2019", a top 10

[Shadow]

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 16:02:45 +0200, Yrrah <Yrra...@acf.invalid>
wrote:

>I saw this in alt.os.linux:
>
>> https://www.techradar.com/best/best-linux-apps
>>
>> "Best Linux apps of 2019: free and open source software"
>>
>> Here's the top 10:
>>
>> 1. Synaptic
>> 2. VLC Media Player
>> 3. Mozilla Firefox
>> 4. GIMP
>> 5. Deluge
>> 6. Thunderbird
>> 7. LibreOffice
>> 8. Pidgin
>> 9. ClamAV
>> 10. Audacity
>
>I use 1, 2 (occasionally), 3 (occasionally), 7, 9 (occasionally), 10.
>My "also consider" applications: Double Commander, Claws Mail, ffmpeg,
>Audacious, SMPlayer, CopyQ, Sigil, Geany, CherryTree, Pale Moon,
>qBIttorrent. Perhaps a top 15 or top 20...
>

I gave up on Pidgin when I couldn't connect to anything.
MSN down, Yahoo down ....
Any public "free" services still available?
[]'s

PS I use 1,2,3,6,7,10
And Audacious (Winamp GUI), Cherrytree, qBittorrent,
youtube-dl (installed from site, the repo version is hopelessly
outdated), Wireshark, XnView MP, Lazarus IDE, FFmpeg and a variety of
other CLI utils.
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

[Shadow]

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 19:12:26 +0200, Yrrah <Yrra...@acf.invalid>
wrote:

>Shadow <S...@dow.br>:

>
>> >> "Best Linux apps of 2019: free and open source software"
>> >>
>> >> Here's the top 10:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Synaptic
>> >> 2. VLC Media Player
>> >> 3. Mozilla Firefox
>> >> 4. GIMP
>> >> 5. Deluge
>> >> 6. Thunderbird
>> >> 7. LibreOffice
>> >> 8. Pidgin
>> >> 9. ClamAV
>> >> 10. Audacity
>> >
>> >I use 1, 2 (occasionally), 3 (occasionally), 7, 9 (occasionally), 10.
>> >My "also consider" applications: Double Commander, Claws Mail, ffmpeg,
>> >Audacious, SMPlayer, CopyQ, Sigil, Geany, CherryTree, Pale Moon,
>> >qBIttorrent. Perhaps a top 15 or top 20...
>
>> I gave up on Pidgin when I couldn't connect to anything.
>> MSN down, Yahoo down ....
>> Any public "free" services still available?
>

>No idea. I don't use them.

>
>> PS I use 1,2,3,6,7,10
>> And Audacious (Winamp GUI), Cherrytree, qBittorrent,
>> youtube-dl (installed from site, the repo version is hopelessly
>> outdated), Wireshark, XnView MP, Lazarus IDE, FFmpeg and a variety of
>> other CLI utils.
>

>I use and like XnViewMP myself, but is it FOSS?

Frankly, what difference does it make? Most Windows freeware
isn't and people don't have an issue with that.
It's a pity he didn't make it open-source, I'm sure there
would be an updated version for 32 bit OS if he had. Not that the
older version has any obscene bugs.
The old version works. If it ain't broke....
[]'s

[p-0''0-h the cat (coder)]

Can't see any 'Linux apps', only cross platform applications. Are there
any Linux only desktop applications worth a do do? The only one I
remember was GNU Radio which now has a Windows version and is a piece of
a golden stream of fluid gushing from my nether regions to install in
comparison to the pain in the posterior I experienced on Fedora.

Linux is so limiting. Everything worth a do do is available on Windows
and bonus you can use all the class applications that Linux hasn't got.

It is what it is. I love Big Brother.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, no nothing innumerate religious maniac,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

[Shadow]

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 18:36:50 +0100, "p-0''0-h the cat (coder)"
<super...@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> wrote:

>Can't see any 'Linux apps', only cross platform applications.

Since they are open-source most of the popular ones were
ported to other OS's. I heard even BSD has some.

Not true for "Windows apps" which are by design are
Windows-only, unless you do a lot of reversing.

>Are there any Linux only desktop applications worth a do do?

You're too intelligent to ask such a stupid question. Yes,
they did exist but they were "stolen" and cross-compiled. Oh wait,
open source can't be "stolen".

>It is what it is. I love Big Brother.

We know. Thank doG he still hires humans to do the
surveillance:

http://asset-7.soupcdn.com/asset/7852/1911_798b.gif

PS you never did answer (nobody did). Are there any free
services for instant messaging (without installing a buttload of
spyware like WhatsApp for Windows Desktop) or do people have to buy
"Big Brother" dumbphones?
[]'s

[p-0''0-h the cat (coder)]

Skype. Windows application but I think there's a version for the one
perecenters.

[p-0''0-h the cat (coder)]

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 15:13:55 -0300, Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:

> Since they are open-source most of the popular ones were
>ported to other OS's. I heard even BSD has some.

Hmm, look at the history of web browsers. The first one was developed on
NeXTSTEP which included source from BSD. Before Linux even existed.
NeXTSTEP was bought by Apple.

Mosaic was developed for X Windows on Unix. It was ported to Windows,
Mac, Amiga, OpenVMS. Not Linux.

The rest is history.

Firefox is not GPL.

Neither Linux nor Microsoft invented the www.

Save yourself. Enter your cocoon and close the door. Follow the
instructions regarding deprogramming. Good luck.

OT up. Linux is Free Software not freeware.

[Wildman]

Don't know of any. I tried ICQ back in the 90's and quickly
got tired of it. Haven't used a chat program since.

> PS I use 1,2,3,6,7,10

I use all those plus number 4.

> And Audacious (Winamp GUI), Cherrytree, qBittorrent,
> youtube-dl (installed from site, the repo version is hopelessly
> outdated), Wireshark, XnView MP, Lazarus IDE, FFmpeg and a variety of
> other CLI utils.

I use ffmpeg also but rarely at the command line. I use a
couple of gui programs that use it, Handbrake and DVD Styler.
I have also been known to use mencoder although it is no
longer supported.

--
<Wildman> GNU/Linux user #557453
The cow died so I don't need your bull!

[Flasherly]

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 23:48:50 -0500, Wildman <best...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Don't know of any. I tried ICQ back in the 90's and quickly
>got tired of it. Haven't used a chat program since.

Used to play chess through a chess relay network, but don't know its
present status (subscription rates to be qualified or identified for a
rated player). MIRC was at one time vaguely interesting, earlier MS
OS, XP and 98 forums, which appears still functional today for
similarly labeled interests, although there's nothing else really left
there but a barren ghost town inhabited by scripted BOTS.

It's all social media, the dominant realization of a front for who you
say you think you are, for another front selling you, out of their
backdoor, for everything they can get, borrow or steal, on what they
think you're exactly worth. So, so much for a USENET, anarchism and
namesakes, and so much for The presiding President, whose idea of
statesmanship has been entirely conducted to conclude with another
thirty belligerent flurry of one-liner tweet-tweets(TM) last week.

Progress will obviously, though, continue;- is there's really another
choice. . . Give us your email or telephone, then, and we'll jerk
your chain when we're good and ready (when Today's whizkid
Entrepreneurs solve the climate crisis in timely notification from
settlement into their accustomed lifestyle from a greater planned
colonization of Uranus).

[John Corliss]

p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

> Shadow wrote:
>>
>> Since they are open-source most of the popular ones were
>> ported to other OS's. I heard even BSD has some.
>
> Hmm, look at the history of web browsers. The first one was developed on
> NeXTSTEP which included source from BSD. Before Linux even existed.
> NeXTSTEP was bought by Apple.
>
> Mosaic was developed for X Windows on Unix. It was ported to Windows,
> Mac, Amiga, OpenVMS. Not Linux.

You're referring to a browser with a graphical UI then. Before Mosaic
appeared on the scene, I was using "Archie" and "Veronica" to surf the
internet.

> The rest is history.
>
> Firefox is not GPL.
>
> Neither Linux nor Microsoft invented the www.
>
> Save yourself. Enter your cocoon and close the door. Follow the
> instructions regarding deprogramming. Good luck.
>
> OT up. Linux is Free Software not freeware.

OT removed because I believe that Linux is indeed freeware.

Pooh, it would help a lot if you explained what you think are the
differences between the two. I'm not saying that there are none, just
that it seems to be apples and oranges to me.

Andrew Fluegelman's definition of freeware has been used in the past,
but it's also been described as the foundation of shareware. Most people
in this newsgroup would actually call it a description of "donationware"
though.

Linux doesn't cost anything to use, either monetarily or otherwise so it
matches the description most people in this newsgroup use to define the
term "freeware", which is pretty much:

"Freeware is programming that is offered for your use at no cost,
monetary or otherwise."

Most people here aren't programmers and could care no less about whether
or not a program is GPL, open source or proprietary. All they care about
is whether or not it costs anything to install and use.

Why do you think Linux isn't freeware? And yes, I know the difference
between Linux itself and all the various distros that use it as a kernel.

If you're going to make the assertion that Linux isn't freeware, then it
would be a good idea for you to clarify why you think that this is the
case. Obviously you must be using another definition of the term
"freeware" than most other people in this newsgroup.

--
John Corliss BS206. No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, pirated,
share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares for me please. I filter out
posts made from Google Groups and recommend you do likewise. I also
filter out all posts from »Q« (a consummate troll) and Kasey, who
doesn't believe in two-way firewalls.

[Spamblk]

"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)" <super...@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> wrote in
<news:f3q1pephopesfi9b0...@4ax.com>:

> Can't see any 'Linux apps', only cross platform applications. Are there
> any Linux only desktop applications worth a do do? The only one I
> remember was GNU Radio which now has a Windows version and is a piece of
> a golden stream of fluid gushing from my nether regions to install in
> comparison to the pain in the posterior I experienced on Fedora.

IME the cross platform apps Gimp and Firefox (and its various derivatives
such as K-Meleon, Palemoon etc) seem to work quite well under WINE.

MP3Directcut and the PDF-Xchange viewer work so well under WINE, it is
tempting to think of those apps as cross-platform as well. Strictly, though,
this is not true. But the development of WINE and cross platform frameworks
such as the QT framework does seem to have blurred the distinction between
Windows and *Nix systems somewhat.
Not necessarily a bad thing.

> Linux is so limiting. Everything worth a do do is available on Windows
> and bonus you can use all the class applications that Linux hasn't got.
>

Certain devices, for example certain 35mm film scanners, are only supported
under Windows. AFAIK WINE does not have a layer to support any software at
the device driver level. In a nutshell, its useful to have a multi boot
option for a choice of OSes.

[John Corliss]

The silence is deafening, Pooh. If you can't answer my questions, then
it tends to make me think you're just fucking with people regarding GNU,
the GPL, freeware and "free software". But then, why doesn't that
surprise me.

[p-0''0-h the cat (coder)]

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 01:16:14 -0700, John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Jeese John. How many times have I written about this. Restricted Freedom
software is like a virus dedicated to reproducing itself. It does not
work for the benefit of society as a whole and benefits larger
businesses over smaller business and the little people. Who gave birth
to this stuff. Everyone. So everyone should benefit. I'm not interested
in being thrown a bone. I want to see everyone getting a piece of the
pie and I encourage every developer who chooses to give away their work
to consider the common good over the holy facade hiding software's
equivalent of non-secular fanaticism.

In short, permissive licences are good, copyleft is bad.

[John Corliss]

p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

> In short, permissive licenses are good, copyleft is bad.

Sorry Pooh, but you still haven't answered my questions. Here they are
again, clarified:

1. How do you define freeware?

2. It would help a lot if you explained what you think are the
differences between "free software" and freeware.

3. Why do you say that Linux isn't freeware?

[p-0''0-h the cat (coder)]

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 23:43:28 -0700, John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com>

"legally obtainable software that you may use at no cost, monetary or
otherwise, for as long as you wish"

>2. It would help a lot if you explained what you think are the
>differences between "free software" and freeware.

Free software is not freeware because there's a cost. Remember, it's all
about freedom and not free. In fact even that is a lie because those
freedoms have restrictions placed upon them. That's a contradiction in
terms is it not?

>3. Why do you say that Linux isn't freeware?

See above. The GPL is full of shit.

[John Corliss]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. You seem to be seeing the issue as
the difference between the terms "use" and "run". Perhaps a better
definition of freeware for this group would replace the former term with
the latter, which is more specific. It's certainly the definition I
would prefer since, like a lot of the people who frequent this group,
I'm not a programmer.

I've always just assumed that the term "use" in this situation simplyh
means to /run/ a program in order to obtain the results on data that the
program is intended for. Apparently you have a different meaning for the
term "use" though. Am I correct? If so, how do you define the term "use"
as it applies to a program?

[p-0''0-h the cat (coder)]

On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 21:56:24 -0700, John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com>

No, this is not about words it's about the spirit of freeware. Think
back to the days when people just shared whatever they were working on.
No one cared about empire building and licences were simple. "Use it at
your own risk". It was a fun time but enter the 'cultists' and look
where we are. You have waffled on about the 'purity' of freeware and
standards for as long as I can remember but now you cannot see what is
in front of your eyes. Enter the Linux mob and you fall for their
religious propaganda. Didn't I tell you that Linux isn't for you but the
lure of their rhetoric and promise of a home among the chosen I guess
was too much but their God didn't serve you. They lied. Look at the
advocacy lot. When I challenged them it was obvious that none had read
the licence let and lo questioned it. It's the usual story. They snip
anything they don't want to hear and spread their 'good' fake news like
a bunch of demented devotees. Linux doesn't belong here. It's not
freeware. If you want the 'purity' that you crave there's BSD and the
old style real freeware licences. If you want real freedom choose
freeware and most importantly developers should consider what harm there
really is in just giving it away with a simple disclaimer. Don't
restrict your code. freeware is true charity, true purity, it's a really
good thing. it can help everyone, not just those for whom the licence
favours. Think about it. Own yourself. Don't be owned by a cult. Think
about using a permissive licence.

[Shadow]

On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:20:19 +0100, "p-0''0-h the cat (coder)"
<super...@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> wrote:

>No, this is not about words it's about the spirit of freeware. Think
>back to the days when people just shared whatever they were working on.
>No one cared about empire building and licences were simple. "Use it at
>your own risk". It was a fun time but enter the 'cultists' and look
>where we are. You have waffled on about the 'purity' of freeware and
>standards for as long as I can remember but now you cannot see what is
>in front of your eyes. Enter the Linux mob and you fall for their
>religious propaganda. Didn't I tell you that Linux isn't for you but the
>lure of their rhetoric and promise of a home among the chosen I guess
>was too much but their God didn't serve you. They lied. Look at the
>advocacy lot. When I challenged them it was obvious that none had read
>the licence let and lo questioned it. It's the usual story. They snip
>anything they don't want to hear and spread their 'good' fake news like
>a bunch of demented devotees. Linux doesn't belong here. It's not
>freeware. If you want the 'purity' that you crave there's BSD and the
>old style real freeware licences. If you want real freedom choose
>freeware and most importantly developers should consider what harm there
>really is in just giving it away with a simple disclaimer. Don't
>restrict your code. freeware is true charity, true purity, it's a really
>good thing. it can help everyone, not just those for whom the licence
>favours. Think about it. Own yourself. Don't be owned by a cult. Think
>about using a permissive licence.

Sorry, I must be thick. What is the difference to the end USER
between BSD freeware, Linux freeware and any other freeware? By USER I
mean the 99.9% that don't even bother to download the source code?
(if in doubt, look at the stats for downloads at Sourceforge.
Very few download the source, unless the program is tiny).
I classify software by what it does. If it has a nagscreen for
donations, it's donationware. If it shows ads, or bundles payware,
it's adware. If it's knackered(like "save" disabled), it's a demo. If
it stops working after a while (unless you pay) it's shareware. If you
have to pay for it before you use it, it's retail. And if it datamines
or profiles you in any way (e.g. telemetry) it's spyware.
"Freeware" means no costs (monetary/nags/relaying personal
data) for the user other than the cost of the download.
De acordo?

[p-0''0-h the cat (coder)]

A good question and why didn't you ask that of the Linux mob when they
played holier than thou about 'freeware' produced by Microsoft which
they declared wasn't freeware because you had to buy a Microsoft OS to
use it which I pointed out was hypocritical bullshit at the time. GPL
licensed software is not freeware either. The problem here is that
because it's free to you it's freeware unless it's produced by Microsoft
or Google or some other arbitrary bollocks comes into play of course
lobbied for by a poorly educated fundamentalist religious underclass of
brainwashed bigots who offer us a warm bed and a way to differentiate
ourselves from an imaginary ignorant herd. Well fuck them I say. This
was way more fun when altruism trumped their continual dilution of what
freedom in relation to freeware really is. A convoluted and confusing
licence obfuscating a complex "set of rules" isn't the route to freedom
is it? It's a nonsense. A logical fallacy.

In short, I'm sick of their shit. I remember the halcyon days of
freeware and I don't need a bunch of two bit 1st line helpdesk jockeys
to lecture me about this. In fact, contrary to the shit these nobheads
spew out real UNIX gurus are usually really smart, really friendly,
practical people who have no interest in cultism at all in my
experience.

I'm sorry but if these cultists want to spread their propaganda in this
newsgroup, a freeware newsgroup that has traditionally favoured
Microsoft OS then I'm going to speak up. I will not stand by and be
painted as some kind of barbaric pagan by a bunch of cultural misfits
sucking the life out my hobby with their nobby little decisive ideas. No
fricken' way.

Long live BSD and permissive licences and true freeware. Bring back the
barbarism!

> By USER I
>mean the 99.9% that don't even bother to download the source code?
> (if in doubt, look at the stats for downloads at Sourceforge.
>Very few download the source, unless the program is tiny).
> I classify software by what it does. If it has a nagscreen for
>donations, it's donationware. If it shows ads, or bundles payware,
>it's adware. If it's knackered(like "save" disabled), it's a demo. If
>it stops working after a while (unless you pay) it's shareware. If you
>have to pay for it before you use it, it's retail. And if it datamines
>or profiles you in any way (e.g. telemetry) it's spyware.
> "Freeware" means no costs (monetary/nags/relaying personal
>data) for the user other than the cost of the download.
> De acordo?
> []'s

[Shadow]

On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 12:41:13 +0100, "p-0''0-h the cat (coder)"

I dual boot, and spend much more time in Win XP than Devuan,
so I'm not sure if I qualify as "the mob". I was one of the first to
complain when people started bullshitting about Win10 being "freeware"
here "because your previous retail license was valid". Win 10 is
retail ad/spyware. And some of it is demo software ("if you want the
features you had before, you can buy the full version at our
Sapp-store")
I'll just pretend that when I download a Linux distro, install
the software I need though synaptic and use it that it's not freeware.
Where do I send the bitcoins?
[]'s
PS Fsck the "poorly educated fundamentalist religious
underclass of brainwashed bigots". I don't have to agree with them to
use their freeware.

[John Corliss]

>> means to /run/ a program in order to obtain the results on data that the
>> program is intended for. Apparently you have a different meaning for the
>> term "use" though. Am I correct? If so, how do you define the term "use"
>> as it applies to a program?
>
> No, this is not about words it's about the spirit of freeware.

Says you. Words define things, allow exchange of ideas. If you don't
tell me explicitly and clearly why you believe that Linux isn't
freeware, then what am I do do? I'm not a telepath.

> Think back to the days when people just shared whatever they were working

> on. No one cared about empire building and licenses were simple. "Use it

> at your own risk". It was a fun time but enter the 'cultists' and look
> where we are. You have waffled on about the 'purity' of freeware and
> standards

? I've never "waffled" about the definition at all. I've always been as
clear as I could be about it and haven't budged an inch on what I
believe yet.

> for as long as I can remember but now you cannot see what is
> in front of your eyes. Enter the Linux mob and you fall for their
> religious propaganda. Didn't I tell you that Linux isn't for you but the
> lure of their rhetoric and promise of a home among the chosen I guess
> was too much but their God didn't serve you.

Now, don't work yourself into a menstrual cycle or anything. I just gave
it a try and it didn't work for me. Why would I not try it? It didn't
cost me anything but time and effort.

> They lied. Look at the advocacy lot. When I challenged them it was
> obvious that none had read the licence let and lo

Sorry, "let and lo"?

> questioned it. It's the usual story. They snip anything they don't want
> to hear and spread their 'good' fake news like a bunch of demented
> devotees. Linux doesn't belong here. It's not freeware.

By which definition? That's what I'm trying to get out of you, but you
keep replying both emotionally and vaguely, not actually answering the
questions I have.

> If you want the 'purity' that you crave there's BSD and the

> old style real freeware licenses.

Such as?

> If you want real freedom choose freeware

According to which definition of freeware?

> and most importantly developers should consider what harm there
> really is in just giving it away with a simple disclaimer. Don't
> restrict your code. freeware is true charity, true purity, it's a really

> good thing. it can help everyone, not just those for whom the license
> favors. Think about it. Own yourself. Don't be owned by a cult. Think
> about using a permissive license.

My personal definition of freeware is:

"...programming that is offered for your use at no cost, monetary or
otherwise that you can install on your computer to use as long as you wish."

That some software is restricted regarding what can be done with its
code isn't of any concern to me since I'm not a programmer. And I think
most of the people who frequent this group are just end users as well.

[Flasherly]

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 11:11:47 -0700, John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>My personal definition of freeware is:
>
>"...programming that is offered for your use at no cost, monetary or
>otherwise that you can install on your computer to use as long as you wish."

It's ancient Greek, actually, although still conversantly spoken.

Greeks open a nearby restaurant. Flames gush to the ceiling from an
open pit crackling with fats which permeate to fill the air with
succulent broiled octopussy caught fresh in a three-gallon jar.

Six, nine months later, these enterprising Greeks are largely gone --
but for an occasional guy, hanging-out occasionally, with a big, fat
cigar in mouth to check-in on the Mexican staff -- as replacements now
hired-on to run menu items over extended hours. The food is varied in
taste and no longer is the same nor nearly so good.

Now, along comes Microsoft to develop a NT-Core XP/SP2. Along with
Freeware developers, who arrive in hordes to seek out their fortune
and fame, contributors . . . yes, even for a few vainly to enter where
the gates are open to everything which counts in large amounts. And
Bill, well, off he goes, merely to retire to the shade under his
select wine vines, to drink Château Margaux, with a hearty toast
raised for the peons working his field and reminder how far he's
brought them. All hail, now, The Benefactor and Humanitarian!

-
Q: 'What have we so far learned?', asks Socrates.
A: "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes". -Aeneid (Virgil)

[p-0''0-h the cat (coder)]

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 11:11:47 -0700, John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Sorry, "let and lo"?

let alone