| 1 |
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 08:10:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> Apparently, though unproven, at 16:38 on Sunday 22 May 2011, Indi did opine |
| 3 |
> thusly: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > It's unfortunate that we don't have small, fast, light, standalone |
| 6 |
> > programs to deal with the formats of word, excel, powerpoint, etc but |
| 7 |
> > if we did odds are most people would shun them for a big, bloaty |
| 8 |
> > office suite anyway. Personally, I'd love it if I could open and edit |
| 9 |
> > those office formats in vim... |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> What makes you think they don't *already* exist? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The fact that none of your examples fit the bill. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> Small, fast, light, standalone: yeah, they are all there. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Your definition of "small, fast, and light" strikes me as most |
| 21 |
peculiar. Anything that requires a full-bloat DE (or enoough of its libs |
| 22 |
it might as well do so) is not "standalone" by any definition, and is unlikely |
| 23 |
to be "small, fast, and light". I know all things are relative, but be |
| 24 |
real. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
caveat utilitor |
| 28 |
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ |
Archives