Archives
Archives
| From: | Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl@×××××××××××.at> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-amd64@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-amd64] openoffice 2 compiles? | ||
| Date: | Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:17:07 | ||
| Message-Id: | 4370EB3D.708@getdesigned.at | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-amd64] openoffice 2 compiles? by Barry.SCHWARTZ@chemoelectric.org | ||
| 1 | Barry.SCHWARTZ@×××××××××××××.org wrote: |
| 2 | |
| 3 | >I speak programmer. This is jargon meaning the code is so complicated |
| 4 | >and/or so poorly understood that it might be easier, faster, more |
| 5 | >reliable, better in the long run, and more personally rewarding to |
| 6 | >rewrite. :) |
| 7 | > |
| 8 | > |
| 9 | > |
| 10 | I looked at this presentation. It makes me shudder. I'm aware of the |
| 11 | typical portability problems, but I didn't think OOo was THAT bad. |
| 12 | |
| 13 | Sebastian |
| 14 | -- |
| 15 | gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-amd64] openoffice 2 compiles? | Chris Smart <taskara@××××××××××××.net> |