| 1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 20:26 on Sunday 22 May 2011, Indi did opine |
| 2 |
thusly: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 08:10:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Apparently, though unproven, at 16:38 on Sunday 22 May 2011, Indi did |
| 6 |
> > opine |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > thusly: |
| 9 |
> > > It's unfortunate that we don't have small, fast, light, standalone |
| 10 |
> > > programs to deal with the formats of word, excel, powerpoint, etc but |
| 11 |
> > > if we did odds are most people would shun them for a big, bloaty |
| 12 |
> > > office suite anyway. Personally, I'd love it if I could open and edit |
| 13 |
> > > those office formats in vim... |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > What makes you think they don't *already* exist? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> The fact that none of your examples fit the bill. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
s/the/my/ |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
there you go. Fixed that little oversight you made there. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> > Small, fast, light, standalone: yeah, they are all there. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Your definition of "small, fast, and light" strikes me as most |
| 27 |
> peculiar. Anything that requires a full-bloat DE (or enoough of its libs |
| 28 |
> it might as well do so) is not "standalone" by any definition, and is |
| 29 |
> unlikely to be "small, fast, and light". I know all things are relative, |
| 30 |
> but be real. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
No, I think you need to get real. It's 2011, what did you expect? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Any such project as a small light fast office suite has to include Gnome |
| 35 |
and/or KDE support to some degree. Without it, it's just dead in the water. |
| 36 |
And it's of sufficient complexity that scratch one's itch is unlikely to go |
| 37 |
anywhere - it's not a one person project. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
If we have to discuss this logically, you are going to have to define your |
| 40 |
terms. What are your requirements? |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives