Re: [discuss] This is why we need a slim OOo

2005-09-22 Thread Joerg Barfurth
Lars D. Noodén wrote: Also, the $100 laptop would also be a good reason to try to make OOo more modular so that it is possible to install only the components that will be used. e.g. install only Writer or only Writer + Calc. Why, that is possible today and has been possible ever since OOo

Re: [discuss] This is why we need a slim OOo

2005-09-22 Thread Alexandro Colorado
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:23:43 +0100, Joerg Barfurth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lars D. Noodén wrote: Also, the $100 laptop would also be a good reason to try to make OOo more modular so that it is possible to install only the components that will be used. e.g. install only Writer or only

Re: [discuss] This is why we need a slim OOo

2005-09-21 Thread Lars D . Noodén
Less RAM would be good. Also, the $100 laptop would also be a good reason to try to make OOo more modular so that it is possible to install only the components that will be used. e.g. install only Writer or only Writer + Calc. Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Software patents harm

Re: [discuss] This is why we need a slim OOo

2005-09-21 Thread Rigel
Alexandro Colorado wrote: MIT want to release a cheap $100 laptop. http://laptop.media.mit.edu/ They will distribute it with FLOSS including linux... the only way to make it productive is to keep OpenOffice.org working under less than 64MB ram at a good speed. Poop. They aren't

Re: [discuss] This is why we need a slim OOo

2005-09-21 Thread Alexandro Colorado
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:23:46 +0100, Rigel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexandro Colorado wrote: MIT want to release a cheap $100 laptop. http://laptop.media.mit.edu/ They will distribute it with FLOSS including linux... the only way to make it productive is to keep OpenOffice.org working