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> |