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