Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Indi]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 04:30:02PM +0200, Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Indi <thebeelzebubtrigger@gmail.com> wrote:
> > For people already running kde it's ok, but for the rest of us
> > it's a bit ridiculous, isn't it?
> 
> If he was already using Qt4, it might not have seemed so bad. ;) I
> think much of that list are from Qt4 and its dependencies. Other than
> kdelibs, kde-env, kdepimlibs, oxygen-icons I don't see much generic
> KDE stuff (not counting koffice since that's what he was installing).

Last I tried it, you can't run much of that stuff without the
whole "kdeinit" thing, which is a giant resource hog (relatively
speaking, for those of us accustomed to running trim, fast, light 
systems). That why I said it's become like an OS unto itself. 
I remember when people used to carry on about bloaty GNUstep libs, 
and I said "but those *are* small, fast, and light" and people 
responded to me in the manner I've responded to kde people who say 
that about kde. So it really is all quite relative...
:)

My standard is simple: it has to be able to work without a mouse, 
and when I hit the keys, I want to see results *immediately* -- 
real results, not a "wait" dialog or spinny thing.

-- 
caveat utilitor
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ 

[gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Hartmut Figge]

Indi:

> Last I tried it, you can't run much of that stuff without the
> whole "kdeinit" thing, which is a giant resource hog (relatively
> speaking, for those of us accustomed to running trim, fast, light 
> systems).

If i will try knode, i get this result:

Total: 69 packages (65 new, 2 in new slots, 2 reinstalls), Size of
downloads: 361,274 kB

Hart ;) mut
-- 
Usenet-ABC-Wiki http://www.usenet-abc.de/wiki/
Von Usern fuer User  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Indi]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 07:20:01PM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> 
> and have you ever heard of 'code reuse' or 'modularity'?
> 
> It seems - no.
> 
> Because KDE itself might be huge. But once loaded the apps are pretty small - 
> because they reuse code. kmail does not have its own html engine. It does not 
> matter where you type your text etc pp.
>

I'm sorry, but the "once you load this GB of libs" argument is 
missing the point entirely...

> Overall KDE uses LESS ram then most 'lightweight' solutions.
>

No. 

Been around the block investigating this, it's BS.
I've investigated this quite thoroughly because I have to support 
users who need everything to be easy and automatic and pointy-clicky 
(and preferably shiny too). 

Frankly, arguing that kde4 is a "lighter weight" solution is something 
only a hardcore zealot or someone who's not used a WM without a DE could do with a straight face.

-- 
caveat utilitor
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Indi]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 07:20:01PM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> 
> Oh - and you should spend some time on Alan's postings. He is not only a 
> certified OLD FART, he has some serious first hand, real world experience that 
> makes most of the other OLD FARTs on this list look like noobs.

Sorry, I meant to address this as well:
Don't get caught in the approval/disapproval trap.
My preferences and opinions have nothing to do with personal stuff.
I read everyone's posts, regardless of whether or not I agree with 
them on anything, and have no enemies, because I'm not interested 
in that sort of thing.

There are occasionally people who dislike me, and that's fine.
I don't like everybody either.
But generally speaking, what others think is none of my business 
until they try to convince me I should also think that way.
Then it seems appropriate to address it.

You know, Linus uses gnome last I heard.
So I'm well aware that my personal preferences have nothing to do 
with whether or not I am proficient or knowledgeable.
Maybe I'm pushing peoples' buttons by sounding like some inflexible, 
judgemental old fart you met before. If so, sorry! I'm more of a 
"live and let live", yet strongly opinionated old fart. :)

-- 
caveat utilitor
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Indi]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 07:00:02AM +0200, Walter Dnes wrote:
> 
>   I don't know how good "exmap" is, but my personal experience is quite
> different.  Between Fall 1999 and Summer 2007 I had a Dell Dimension
> with a 450 mhz PIII and 128 megs of *SYSTEM RAM* (no not the video card).
> It was actually quite usable to the very end, with Blackbox WM, and
> running a few apps.  Meanwhile, KDE (and GNOME for that matter) would
> take forever to load and make the system crawl after that, even with 1
> or 2 apps loaded.
> 

It's always like that with hardware though. My first computer 
was a 1987 Mac SE, eight (8) MHz CPU, maxed out to 4 MB RAM.
Two 800MB floppies plus an external 250MB HDD (huge for the time). 
Ran Mac System 6.0.8, I used it for multitrack audio recording and 
"desktop publishing" (sounds quaint now, huh?) into the '90s.
Of course, it had absolutely no security and only a poor illusion of 
multitasking... :)

For the time it was great, but what we have now is much more 
flexible, capable, and secure. The business of ever-increasng 
consumption of computing resources is probably unavoidable, barring 
some major advance in coding.  

-- 
caveat utilitor
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Indi]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 07:40:54AM -0400, Indi wrote:
> 
> Two 800MB floppies 
>

800 KB, sorry. Can't even think that small anymore...
;)
-- 
caveat utilitor
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Joost Roeleveld]

On Thursday 26 May 2011 07:45:09 Indi wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 07:40:54AM -0400, Indi wrote:
> > Two 800MB floppies
> 
> 800 KB, sorry. Can't even think that small anymore...
> ;)

Too bad, was just about to ask you where you found those back then :)

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Indi]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 07:10:01PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 14:46 on Wednesday 25 May 2011, Indi did opine 
> thusly:
> 
> > For people already running kde it's ok, but for the rest of us 
> > it's a bit ridiculous, isn't it?
> > I used to use a few "k" apps in the 3 days, they were small and 
> > easily integrated into the system. Now kde is like it's own OS, 
> > so they've basically eliminated their apps from consideration of 
> > non-kde users.
> > 
> > Not that it matters much to me, one of the strengths of gentoo 
> > is how many ways there are to do a given task.
> > But there are quite a few kde zealots who seem to be completely 
> > unaware of what we mean by "fast, light, standalone".
> > 
> > I guess some people didn't experience the 80s or 90s.
> > 
> > :)
> 
> It doesn't make sense running koffice without also running KDE, it's a hard 
> requirement.
> 
> And not only did I experience the 80s and 90s, but the 70s as well.
> 
> So now that you have defined what fast, light, standalone means by your 
> current needs, it is obvious that no such package exists and hence there is a 
> gap in the market.
> 
> Now we know what your next project will be.
> 

Writing a virus that destroys all msoffice installs once and for all 
so we can finally just use sane formats editable as text?
:D

(kidding, of course, I would never do malware)

Actually, writing an add-on for vim that can edit word documents 
is an idea I plan to look into when I get some time.  
Right now I use up all my poor little brain's ability to focus 
on other things, but maybe soon there'll be a break.

-- 
caveat utilitor
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Indi]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 06:40:01PM +0200, Hartmut Figge wrote:
> Indi:
> 
> > Last I tried it, you can't run much of that stuff without the
> > whole "kdeinit" thing, which is a giant resource hog (relatively
> > speaking, for those of us accustomed to running trim, fast, light 
> > systems).
> 
> If i will try knode, i get this result:
> 
> Total: 69 packages (65 new, 2 in new slots, 2 reinstalls), Size of
> downloads: 361,274 kB
> 

I like mutt with the nntp patch for usenet anyway.
Add rss2email and you have email, rss, and nntp 
all in mutt. Really nice. Quick and responsive, too. 
Using leafnode you can even have filters for nntp. 
Use elinks to open linked web content and feh for 
images, and you're all set. Well, until you want to watch 
something on hulu. But conkeror works well for that... 
:)

-- 
caveat utilitor
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Indi]

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:40:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> 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.
>

Expressing my opinion is not an "oversighjt", and I'm sorry you're so
defensive that you can't even tolerate opinions which aren't yours so
you have to "correct" them. Maybe you should just filter me out.

-- 
Caveat utilitor,
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ 
Elaine "Indulekha" Sharpe

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Indi]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:00:03AM +0200, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:31:40PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
> 
> > No, I think you need to get real. It's 2011, what did you expect? 
> 
>   Here's what I don't expect.  I run a tight ship on my machine.  I
> currently have gnumeric and AbiWord and libreoffice-bin running uncer
> icewm.  In order to get "emerge -p app-office/kword" to actually start,
> I had to...
> 
> !) remove "sys-apps/dbus" from /etc/portage/package.mask
> 
> 2) add the following to /etc/portage/package.use
> 
> x11-libs/qt-sql qt3support
> x11-libs/qt-core qt3support ssl exceptions
> x11-libs/qt-gui  qt3support accessibility dbus
> x11-libs/qt-qt3support accessibility kde
> x11-libs/qt-svg accessibility
> x11-libs/qt-opengl qt3support
> x11-libs/qt-webkit kde
> sys-block/parted device-mapper
> sys-fs/udev extras
> sys-auth/consolekit policykit
> x11-libs/qt-declarative qt3support
> 
> 3) and here is the 390 megabytes of stuff to emerge...
> gebuild  N    ] dev-libs/libgpg-error-1.10  USE="-common-lisp -nls -static-libs" 
> [ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/libical-0.43 
> [ebuild  N    ] dev-util/boost-build-1.42.0  USE="-examples -python" 
> [ebuild  N    ] sys-apps/sdparm-1.03 
> [ebuild  N    ] sys-power/pm-quirks-20100619 
> [ebuild  N    ] sys-block/eject-2.1.5-r2  USE="-nls" 
> [ebuild  N    ] kde-base/oxygen-icons-4.6.2  USE="(-aqua) (-kdeenablefinal) (-kdeprefix)" 
> [ebuild  N    ] sys-apps/dbus-1.4.6  USE="X -debug -doc (-selinux) -static-libs -test" 
> [ebuild  N    ] dev-cpp/eigen-2.0.13  USE="-debug -doc -examples" 
> [ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/libassuan-2.0.1  USE="-static-libs" 
> [ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/cyrus-sasl-2.1.23-r1  USE="-authdaemond -berkdb -crypt -gdbm -java -kerberos -ldap -mysql -ntlm_unsupported_patch -pam -postgres -sample -sqlite -srp -ssl -urandom" 
> [ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/libksba-1.2.0  USE="-static-libs" 
> [ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/libgcrypt-1.4.6  USE="-static-libs" 
> [ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/pth-2.0.7-r2  USE="-debug" 
> [ebuild  N    ] app-admin/eselect-boost-0.3 
> [ebuild  NS   ] app-text/docbook-xml-dtd-4.2-r2 [4.3-r1]
> [ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/libpcre-8.12  USE="bzip2 (unicode) zlib -cxx -recursion-limit -static-libs" 
> [ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/libXScrnSaver-1.2.1  USE="-static-libs" 
> [ebuild  N    ] kde-base/kde-env-4.6.2  USE="(-aqua) (-kdeenablefinal) (-kdeprefix)" 
> [ebuild  N    ] sys-apps/attr-2.4.44  USE="-nls" 
> [ebuild  N    ] dev-cpp/clucene-0.9.21b-r1  USE="threads -debug -doc -static-libs" 
> [ebuild  NS   ] virtual/libusb-0 [1]
> [ebuild  N    ] virtual/eject-0 
> [ebuild  N    ] app-crypt/pinentry-0.8.0  USE="-caps -gtk -ncurses -qt4 -static" 
> [ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/dbus-glib-0.92  USE="-bash-completion -debug -doc -static-libs -test" 
> [ebuild  N    ] app-crypt/gnupg-2.0.17  USE="bzip2 -adns -caps -doc -ldap -nls -openct -pcsc-lite (-selinux) -smartcard -static" 
> [ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/boost-1.42.0-r2  USE="-debug -doc -eselect -icu -mpi -python -static-libs -test -tools" 
> [ebuild  N    ] app-misc/strigi-0.7.1  USE="exif -clucene -dbus -debug -fam -hyperestraier -inotify (-log) -qt4 -test" 
> [ebuild  N    ] sys-apps/acl-2.2.49  USE="(-nfs) -nls" 
> [ebuild  N    ] sys-power/pm-utils-1.4.1  USE="-alsa -debug -networkmanager -ntp" VIDEO_CARDS="intel -radeon" 
> [ebuild   R   ] sys-fs/udev-151-r4  USE="extras*" 
> [ebuild  N    ] app-crypt/gpgme-1.3.0  USE="-common-lisp -pth" 
> [ebuild  N    ] sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.73-r1  USE="(-clvm) (-cman) -lvm1 -readline (-selinux) -static" 
> [ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/libatasmart-0.17  USE="-static-libs" 
> [ebuild  N    ] sys-block/parted-2.3  USE="device-mapper -debug -nls -readline (-selinux)" 
> [ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-core-4.7.2-r1  USE="exceptions qt3support ssl (-aqua) -debug -glib -iconv -jit -optimized-qmake -pch -private-headers" 
> [ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-sql-4.7.2  USE="qt3support (-aqua) -debug -exceptions (-firebird) -freetds -iconv -mysql -odbc -pch -postgres -sqlite" 
> [ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-script-4.7.2  USE="(-aqua) -debug -exceptions -iconv -jit -pch -private-headers" 
> [ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-test-4.7.2  USE="(-aqua) -debug -exceptions -iconv -pch" 
> [ebuild  N    ] dev-util/automoc-0.9.88 
> [ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-dbus-4.7.2  USE="(-aqua) -debug -exceptions -pch" 
> [ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-xmlpatterns-4.7.2  USE="(-aqua) -debug -pch" 
> [ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/soprano-2.6.0  USE="-clucene -dbus -debug -doc -raptor -redland -test -virtuoso" 
> [ebuild  N    ] app-crypt/qca-2.0.3  USE="(-aqua) -debug -doc -examples" 
> [ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/libattica-0.2.0  USE="-debug" 
> [ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-gui-4.7.2  USE="accessibility dbus mng qt3support tiff (-aqua) -cups -debug -egl -exceptions -glib -gtkstyle -nas -nis -pch -private-headers -raster -trace -xinerama" 
> [ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-qt3support-4.7.2  USE="accessibility kde (-aqua) -debug -exceptions -pch -phonon" 
> [ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-svg-4.7.2  USE="accessibility (-aqua) -debug -exceptions -iconv -pch" 
> [ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-opengl-4.7.2  USE="qt3support (-aqua) -debug -egl -exceptions -pch" 
> [ebuild  N    ] media-libs/phonon-4.5.0  USE="(-aqua) -debug -gstreamer -pulseaudio -vlc -xine" 
> [ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/libdbusmenu-qt-0.6.2  USE="-debug -test" 
> [ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-webkit-4.7.2  USE="kde (-aqua) -dbus -debug -exceptions -jit -pch" 
> [ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-declarative-4.7.2-r1  USE="qt3support (-aqua) -debug -exceptions -pch -private-headers -webkit" 
> [ebuild  N    ] sys-auth/polkit-0.101-r1  USE="-debug -doc -examples -gtk (-introspection) -kde -nls -pam" 
> [ebuild  N    ] sys-auth/consolekit-0.4.4  USE="policykit -debug -doc -pam -test" 
> [ebuild  N    ] sys-power/upower-0.9.8  USE="-debug -doc (-introspection) -ios" 
> [ebuild  N    ] sys-apps/sg3_utils-1.29 
> [ebuild  N    ] sys-apps/rescan-scsi-bus-1.29 
> [ebuild  N    ] sys-fs/udisks-1.0.2-r1  USE="-bash-completion -debug -doc -nls -remote-access" 
> [ebuild  N    ] kde-base/kdelibs-4.6.2-r3  USE="bzip2 mmx opengl sse sse2 -3dnow -acl -alsa (-altivec) (-aqua) -bindist -debug -doc -fam -handbook -jpeg2k (-kdeenablefinal) (-kdeprefix) -kerberos -lzma -nls -openexr -policykit -semantic-desktop -spell -ssl -test -udev -zeroconf" 
> [ebuild  N    ] app-office/koffice-data-2.3.3  USE="(-aqua) (-kdeenablefinal)" 
> [ebuild  N    ] kde-base/kdepimlibs-4.6.2-r1  USE="(-aqua) -debug -handbook (-kdeenablefinal) (-kdeprefix) -ldap -semantic-desktop -test" 
> [ebuild  N    ] app-office/koffice-libs-2.3.3  USE="opengl (-aqua) -crypt -debug (-kdeenablefinal) -openexr -reports -test" 
> [ebuild  N    ] app-office/kword-2.3.3  USE="(-aqua) -debug (-kdeenablefinal) -wpd" 
>

For people already running kde it's ok, but for the rest of us 
it's a bit ridiculous, isn't it?
I used to use a few "k" apps in the 3 days, they were small and 
easily integrated into the system. Now kde is like it's own OS, 
so they've basically eliminated their apps from consideration of 
non-kde users.

Not that it matters much to me, one of the strengths of gentoo 
is how many ways there are to do a given task.
But there are quite a few kde zealots who seem to be completely 
unaware of what we mean by "fast, light, standalone".

I guess some people didn't experience the 80s or 90s.
:)

-- 
caveat utilitor
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Paul Hartman]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Indi <thebeelzebubtrigger@gmail.com> wrote:
> For people already running kde it's ok, but for the rest of us
> it's a bit ridiculous, isn't it?

If he was already using Qt4, it might not have seemed so bad. ;) I
think much of that list are from Qt4 and its dependencies. Other than
kdelibs, kde-env, kdepimlibs, oxygen-icons I don't see much generic
KDE stuff (not counting koffice since that's what he was installing).

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 14:46 on Wednesday 25 May 2011, Indi did opine 
thusly:

> For people already running kde it's ok, but for the rest of us 
> it's a bit ridiculous, isn't it?
> I used to use a few "k" apps in the 3 days, they were small and 
> easily integrated into the system. Now kde is like it's own OS, 
> so they've basically eliminated their apps from consideration of 
> non-kde users.
> 
> Not that it matters much to me, one of the strengths of gentoo 
> is how many ways there are to do a given task.
> But there are quite a few kde zealots who seem to be completely 
> unaware of what we mean by "fast, light, standalone".
> 
> I guess some people didn't experience the 80s or 90s.
> 
> :)

It doesn't make sense running koffice without also running KDE, it's a hard 
requirement.

And not only did I experience the 80s and 90s, but the 70s as well.

So now that you have defined what fast, light, standalone means by your 
current needs, it is obvious that no such package exists and hence there is a 
gap in the market.

Now we know what your next project will be.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Wednesday 25 May 2011 08:46:48 Indi wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:00:03AM +0200, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:31:40PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
> > 
> > > No, I think you need to get real. It's 2011, what did you expect?
> > > 
> >   Here's what I don't expect.  I run a tight ship on my machine.  I
> > 
> > currently have gnumeric and AbiWord and libreoffice-bin running uncer
> > icewm.  In order to get "emerge -p app-office/kword" to actually start,
> > I had to...
> > 
> > !) remove "sys-apps/dbus" from /etc/portage/package.mask
> > 
> > 2) add the following to /etc/portage/package.use
> > 
> > x11-libs/qt-sql qt3support
> > x11-libs/qt-core qt3support ssl exceptions
> > x11-libs/qt-gui  qt3support accessibility dbus
> > x11-libs/qt-qt3support accessibility kde
> > x11-libs/qt-svg accessibility
> > x11-libs/qt-opengl qt3support
> > x11-libs/qt-webkit kde
> > sys-block/parted device-mapper
> > sys-fs/udev extras
> > sys-auth/consolekit policykit
> > x11-libs/qt-declarative qt3support
> > 
> > 3) and here is the 390 megabytes of stuff to emerge...
> > gebuild  N    ] dev-libs/libgpg-error-1.10  USE="-common-lisp -nls
> > -static-libs" [ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/libical-0.43
> > [ebuild  N    ] dev-util/boost-build-1.42.0  USE="-examples -python"
> > [ebuild  N    ] sys-apps/sdparm-1.03
> > [ebuild  N    ] sys-power/pm-quirks-20100619
> > [ebuild  N    ] sys-block/eject-2.1.5-r2  USE="-nls"
> > [ebuild  N    ] kde-base/oxygen-icons-4.6.2  USE="(-aqua)
> > (-kdeenablefinal) (-kdeprefix)" [ebuild  N    ] sys-apps/dbus-1.4.6 
> > USE="X -debug -doc (-selinux) -static-libs -test" [ebuild  N    ]
> > dev-cpp/eigen-2.0.13  USE="-debug -doc -examples" [ebuild  N    ]
> > dev-libs/libassuan-2.0.1  USE="-static-libs"
> > [ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/cyrus-sasl-2.1.23-r1  USE="-authdaemond -berkdb
> > -crypt -gdbm -java -kerberos -ldap -mysql -ntlm_unsupported_patch -pam
> > -postgres -sample -sqlite -srp -ssl -urandom" [ebuild  N    ]
> > dev-libs/libksba-1.2.0  USE="-static-libs"
> > [ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/libgcrypt-1.4.6  USE="-static-libs"
> > [ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/pth-2.0.7-r2  USE="-debug"
> > [ebuild  N    ] app-admin/eselect-boost-0.3
> > [ebuild  NS   ] app-text/docbook-xml-dtd-4.2-r2 [4.3-r1]
> > [ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/libpcre-8.12  USE="bzip2 (unicode) zlib -cxx
> > -recursion-limit -static-libs" [ebuild  N    ]
> > x11-libs/libXScrnSaver-1.2.1  USE="-static-libs" [ebuild  N    ]
> > kde-base/kde-env-4.6.2  USE="(-aqua) (-kdeenablefinal) (-kdeprefix)"
> > [ebuild  N    ] sys-apps/attr-2.4.44  USE="-nls"
> > [ebuild  N    ] dev-cpp/clucene-0.9.21b-r1  USE="threads -debug -doc
> > -static-libs" [ebuild  NS   ] virtual/libusb-0 [1]
> > [ebuild  N    ] virtual/eject-0
> > [ebuild  N    ] app-crypt/pinentry-0.8.0  USE="-caps -gtk -ncurses -qt4
> > -static" [ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/dbus-glib-0.92  USE="-bash-completion
> > -debug -doc -static-libs -test" [ebuild  N    ] app-crypt/gnupg-2.0.17 
> > USE="bzip2 -adns -caps -doc -ldap -nls -openct -pcsc-lite (-selinux)
> > -smartcard -static" [ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/boost-1.42.0-r2 
> > USE="-debug -doc -eselect -icu -mpi -python -static-libs -test -tools"
> > [ebuild  N    ] app-misc/strigi-0.7.1  USE="exif -clucene -dbus -debug
> > -fam -hyperestraier -inotify (-log) -qt4 -test" [ebuild  N    ]
> > sys-apps/acl-2.2.49  USE="(-nfs) -nls"
> > [ebuild  N    ] sys-power/pm-utils-1.4.1  USE="-alsa -debug
> > -networkmanager -ntp" VIDEO_CARDS="intel -radeon" [ebuild   R   ]
> > sys-fs/udev-151-r4  USE="extras*"
> > [ebuild  N    ] app-crypt/gpgme-1.3.0  USE="-common-lisp -pth"
> > [ebuild  N    ] sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.73-r1  USE="(-clvm) (-cman) -lvm1
> > -readline (-selinux) -static" [ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/libatasmart-0.17
> >  USE="-static-libs"
> > [ebuild  N    ] sys-block/parted-2.3  USE="device-mapper -debug -nls
> > -readline (-selinux)" [ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-core-4.7.2-r1 
> > USE="exceptions qt3support ssl (-aqua) -debug -glib -iconv -jit
> > -optimized-qmake -pch -private-headers" [ebuild  N    ]
> > x11-libs/qt-sql-4.7.2  USE="qt3support (-aqua) -debug -exceptions
> > (-firebird) -freetds -iconv -mysql -odbc -pch -postgres -sqlite"
> > [ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-script-4.7.2  USE="(-aqua) -debug
> > -exceptions -iconv -jit -pch -private-headers" [ebuild  N    ]
> > x11-libs/qt-test-4.7.2  USE="(-aqua) -debug -exceptions -iconv -pch"
> > [ebuild  N    ] dev-util/automoc-0.9.88
> > [ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-dbus-4.7.2  USE="(-aqua) -debug -exceptions
> > -pch" [ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-xmlpatterns-4.7.2  USE="(-aqua)
> > -debug -pch" [ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/soprano-2.6.0  USE="-clucene
> > -dbus -debug -doc -raptor -redland -test -virtuoso" [ebuild  N    ]
> > app-crypt/qca-2.0.3  USE="(-aqua) -debug -doc -examples" [ebuild  N   
> > ] dev-libs/libattica-0.2.0  USE="-debug"
> > [ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-gui-4.7.2  USE="accessibility dbus mng
> > qt3support tiff (-aqua) -cups -debug -egl -exceptions -glib -gtkstyle
> > -nas -nis -pch -private-headers -raster -trace -xinerama" [ebuild  N   
> > ] x11-libs/qt-qt3support-4.7.2  USE="accessibility kde (-aqua) -debug
> > -exceptions -pch -phonon" [ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-svg-4.7.2 
> > USE="accessibility (-aqua) -debug -exceptions -iconv -pch" [ebuild  N  
> >  ] x11-libs/qt-opengl-4.7.2  USE="qt3support (-aqua) -debug -egl
> > -exceptions -pch" [ebuild  N    ] media-libs/phonon-4.5.0  USE="(-aqua)
> > -debug -gstreamer -pulseaudio -vlc -xine" [ebuild  N    ]
> > dev-libs/libdbusmenu-qt-0.6.2  USE="-debug -test" [ebuild  N    ]
> > x11-libs/qt-webkit-4.7.2  USE="kde (-aqua) -dbus -debug -exceptions
> > -jit -pch" [ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-declarative-4.7.2-r1 
> > USE="qt3support (-aqua) -debug -exceptions -pch -private-headers
> > -webkit" [ebuild  N    ] sys-auth/polkit-0.101-r1  USE="-debug -doc
> > -examples -gtk (-introspection) -kde -nls -pam" [ebuild  N    ]
> > sys-auth/consolekit-0.4.4  USE="policykit -debug -doc -pam -test"
> > [ebuild  N    ] sys-power/upower-0.9.8  USE="-debug -doc
> > (-introspection) -ios" [ebuild  N    ] sys-apps/sg3_utils-1.29
> > [ebuild  N    ] sys-apps/rescan-scsi-bus-1.29
> > [ebuild  N    ] sys-fs/udisks-1.0.2-r1  USE="-bash-completion -debug
> > -doc -nls -remote-access" [ebuild  N    ] kde-base/kdelibs-4.6.2-r3 
> > USE="bzip2 mmx opengl sse sse2 -3dnow -acl -alsa (-altivec) (-aqua)
> > -bindist -debug -doc -fam -handbook -jpeg2k (-kdeenablefinal)
> > (-kdeprefix) -kerberos -lzma -nls -openexr -policykit -semantic-desktop
> > -spell -ssl -test -udev -zeroconf" [ebuild  N    ]
> > app-office/koffice-data-2.3.3  USE="(-aqua) (-kdeenablefinal)" [ebuild 
> > N    ] kde-base/kdepimlibs-4.6.2-r1  USE="(-aqua) -debug -handbook
> > (-kdeenablefinal) (-kdeprefix) -ldap -semantic-desktop -test" [ebuild 
> > N    ] app-office/koffice-libs-2.3.3  USE="opengl (-aqua) -crypt -debug
> > (-kdeenablefinal) -openexr -reports -test" [ebuild  N    ]
> > app-office/kword-2.3.3  USE="(-aqua) -debug (-kdeenablefinal) -wpd"
> 
> For people already running kde it's ok, but for the rest of us
> it's a bit ridiculous, isn't it?
> I used to use a few "k" apps in the 3 days, they were small and
> easily integrated into the system. Now kde is like it's own OS,
> so they've basically eliminated their apps from consideration of
> non-kde users.
> 
> Not that it matters much to me, one of the strengths of gentoo
> is how many ways there are to do a given task.
> But there are quite a few kde zealots who seem to be completely
> unaware of what we mean by "fast, light, standalone".

and have you ever heard of 'code reuse' or 'modularity'?

It seems - no.

Because KDE itself might be huge. But once loaded the apps are pretty small - 
because they reuse code. kmail does not have its own html engine. It does not 
matter where you type your text etc pp.

Overall KDE uses LESS ram then most 'lightweight' solutions. Because 
xterm&abiword&some odd pager&thunderbird don't look so good anymore.

This gem is a couple of years old, but still a worthy read:

http://ktown.kde.org/~seli/memory/desktop_benchmark.html


Read it. Seriously.

Oh - and you should spend some time on Alan's postings. He is not only a 
certified OLD FART, he has some serious first hand, real world experience that 
makes most of the other OLD FARTs on this list look like noobs.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 19:13 on Wednesday 25 May 2011, Volker Armin 
Hemmann did opine thusly:

> Oh - and you should spend some time on Alan's postings. He is not only a 
> certified OLD FART, he has some serious first hand, real world experience
> that  makes most of the other OLD FARTs on this list look like noobs.

Oh, I don't know about that so much. OK, I agree on the old fart bit.

But many days Neil and Paul can make me look like a blithering idiot :-)

Incidentally, this gentoo-user list has the highest concentration of seriously 
knowledgeable folk across a wide spectrum of any list/forum/whatever I've ever 
come across. Sometimes, it's frightening. 

I just wanted to put that out there - positive reinforcement.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 285 bytes --]

On Wed, 25 May 2011 22:11:24 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> But many days Neil and Paul can make me look like a blithering idiot :-)

Only with your help :P


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Why do programmers get Halloween and Christmas confused?
Because oct 31 is the same as dec 25.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Alex Schuster]

Volker Armin Hemmann writes:

> This gem is a couple of years old, but still a worthy read:
> 
> http://ktown.kde.org/~seli/memory/desktop_benchmark.html
> 
> 
> Read it. Seriously.

Interesting. I'd like to also see KDE4 values :)

BTW, according to the author, the only real memory usage information
utility is Exmap. It's in portage, but when I run it (both exmtool and
gexmap, and the exmap kernel module is loaded), it outputs lots of
stuff, then aborts with 'start pgnum out of range'. Is anyone actually
using it?

	Wonko

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Walter Dnes]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 07:13:41PM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote
> On Wednesday 25 May 2011 08:46:48 Indi wrote:

> and have you ever heard of 'code reuse' or 'modularity'?
> 
> It seems - no.
> 
> Because KDE itself might be huge. But once loaded the apps are pretty small - 
> because they reuse code. kmail does not have its own html engine. It does not 
> matter where you type your text etc pp.

  Sorta like Internet Explorer in Windows.  It "loads" a lot faster and
lighter than Firefox or Opera.  That's because ie.exe is merely a "front
end" to a bunch of libraries that are loaded at boot time, which
contributes to the boot process taking do long.  Starting ie.exe takes
hardly any time, because 90% of the app is already loaded.

> Overall KDE uses LESS ram then most 'lightweight' solutions. Because 
> xterm&abiword&some odd pager&thunderbird don't look so good anymore.
> 
> This gem is a couple of years old, but still a worthy read:
> 
> http://ktown.kde.org/~seli/memory/desktop_benchmark.html
> 
> 
> Read it. Seriously.

  I don't know how good "exmap" is, but my personal experience is quite
different.  Between Fall 1999 and Summer 2007 I had a Dell Dimension
with a 450 mhz PIII and 128 megs of *SYSTEM RAM* (no not the video card).
It was actually quite usable to the very end, with Blackbox WM, and
running a few apps.  Meanwhile, KDE (and GNOME for that matter) would
take forever to load and make the system crawl after that, even with 1
or 2 apps loaded.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 3028 bytes --]

On Thursday 26 May 2011 05:50:14 Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 07:13:41PM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote
> 
> > On Wednesday 25 May 2011 08:46:48 Indi wrote:
> > 
> > and have you ever heard of 'code reuse' or 'modularity'?
> > 
> > It seems - no.
> > 
> > Because KDE itself might be huge. But once loaded the apps are pretty
> > small - because they reuse code. kmail does not have its own html
> > engine. It does not matter where you type your text etc pp.
> 
>   Sorta like Internet Explorer in Windows.  It "loads" a lot faster and
> lighter than Firefox or Opera.  That's because ie.exe is merely a "front
> end" to a bunch of libraries that are loaded at boot time, which
> contributes to the boot process taking do long.  Starting ie.exe takes
> hardly any time, because 90% of the app is already loaded.
> 
> > Overall KDE uses LESS ram then most 'lightweight' solutions. Because
> > xterm&abiword&some odd pager&thunderbird don't look so good anymore.
> > 
> > This gem is a couple of years old, but still a worthy read:
> > 
> > http://ktown.kde.org/~seli/memory/desktop_benchmark.html
> > 
> > 
> > Read it. Seriously.
> 
>   I don't know how good "exmap" is, but my personal experience is quite
> different.  Between Fall 1999 and Summer 2007 I had a Dell Dimension
> with a 450 mhz PIII and 128 megs of *SYSTEM RAM* (no not the video card).
> It was actually quite usable to the very end, with Blackbox WM, and
> running a few apps.  Meanwhile, KDE (and GNOME for that matter) would
> take forever to load and make the system crawl after that, even with 1
> or 2 apps loaded.

I remember running Slackware on a Pentium 1 100MHz laptop with 128M RAM.  The 
speed was of course glacial unless I was running only a console with no X.  
KDE would load and run, as long as I didn't push it too much.  Fluxbox was 
more respectable.

In contrast, MSWindows NT4 would load and run better as it was a more light-
footed OS.  MSWindows 3.1 was blisteringly fast and MSDOS, well ...

However, life moves on and with the cost of hardware coming down software has 
moved towards larger, all bells and whistles, DEs.  The change in design 
philosophy from KDE3 to KDE4 made things worse for those of us who do not want 
everything and the kitchen sink thrown in, but still want to use some KDE 
apps.

Thankfully, the move to the KDE meta ebuilds has provided some compensation 
against a full blown monolithic KDE.

Personally, I'm grateful that Linux devs continue to develop exceptional 
software and so I don't have to use MSWindows.  On the other hand I have 
always preferred more lightweight WMs to the full enchilada of KDE and Gnome 
and wish that KDE devs retained the KDE3 design philosophy, or afforded us a 
light(er) option.

PS.  I'm not sure that Linus is using Gnome.  I recall him bitching that the 
Gnome design approach (which unfortunately KDE imitated) was not the right 
direction to evolve linux in.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Jesús J. Guerrero Botella]

2011/5/26 Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com>:
> PS.  I'm not sure that Linus is using Gnome.  I recall him bitching that the
> Gnome design approach (which unfortunately KDE imitated) was not the right
> direction to evolve linux in.

Offtopic, but... He ditched gnome, then, a couple of years ago, he
ditched kde4. He will for sure ditch gnome3 in about a couple of
months.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/012209-open-source-identity-linux-founder.html?page=1

He also said some time ago that, for years to come, there wouldn't be
a 2.8 or 3.x for the linux kernel, but yesterday he said the opposite.

That's not good or bad, it's just Linus speaking ;)
-- 
Jesús Guerrero Botella

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Indi]

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.

> 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.

-- 
caveat utilitor 
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Alan McKinnon]

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Walter Dnes]

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:31:40PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote

> No, I think you need to get real. It's 2011, what did you expect? 

  Here's what I don't expect.  I run a tight ship on my machine.  I
currently have gnumeric and AbiWord and libreoffice-bin running uncer
icewm.  In order to get "emerge -p app-office/kword" to actually start,
I had to...

!) remove "sys-apps/dbus" from /etc/portage/package.mask

2) add the following to /etc/portage/package.use

x11-libs/qt-sql qt3support
x11-libs/qt-core qt3support ssl exceptions
x11-libs/qt-gui  qt3support accessibility dbus
x11-libs/qt-qt3support accessibility kde
x11-libs/qt-svg accessibility
x11-libs/qt-opengl qt3support
x11-libs/qt-webkit kde
sys-block/parted device-mapper
sys-fs/udev extras
sys-auth/consolekit policykit
x11-libs/qt-declarative qt3support

3) and here is the 390 megabytes of stuff to emerge...
gebuild  N    ] dev-libs/libgpg-error-1.10  USE="-common-lisp -nls -static-libs" 
[ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/libical-0.43 
[ebuild  N    ] dev-util/boost-build-1.42.0  USE="-examples -python" 
[ebuild  N    ] sys-apps/sdparm-1.03 
[ebuild  N    ] sys-power/pm-quirks-20100619 
[ebuild  N    ] sys-block/eject-2.1.5-r2  USE="-nls" 
[ebuild  N    ] kde-base/oxygen-icons-4.6.2  USE="(-aqua) (-kdeenablefinal) (-kdeprefix)" 
[ebuild  N    ] sys-apps/dbus-1.4.6  USE="X -debug -doc (-selinux) -static-libs -test" 
[ebuild  N    ] dev-cpp/eigen-2.0.13  USE="-debug -doc -examples" 
[ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/libassuan-2.0.1  USE="-static-libs" 
[ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/cyrus-sasl-2.1.23-r1  USE="-authdaemond -berkdb -crypt -gdbm -java -kerberos -ldap -mysql -ntlm_unsupported_patch -pam -postgres -sample -sqlite -srp -ssl -urandom" 
[ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/libksba-1.2.0  USE="-static-libs" 
[ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/libgcrypt-1.4.6  USE="-static-libs" 
[ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/pth-2.0.7-r2  USE="-debug" 
[ebuild  N    ] app-admin/eselect-boost-0.3 
[ebuild  NS   ] app-text/docbook-xml-dtd-4.2-r2 [4.3-r1]
[ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/libpcre-8.12  USE="bzip2 (unicode) zlib -cxx -recursion-limit -static-libs" 
[ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/libXScrnSaver-1.2.1  USE="-static-libs" 
[ebuild  N    ] kde-base/kde-env-4.6.2  USE="(-aqua) (-kdeenablefinal) (-kdeprefix)" 
[ebuild  N    ] sys-apps/attr-2.4.44  USE="-nls" 
[ebuild  N    ] dev-cpp/clucene-0.9.21b-r1  USE="threads -debug -doc -static-libs" 
[ebuild  NS   ] virtual/libusb-0 [1]
[ebuild  N    ] virtual/eject-0 
[ebuild  N    ] app-crypt/pinentry-0.8.0  USE="-caps -gtk -ncurses -qt4 -static" 
[ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/dbus-glib-0.92  USE="-bash-completion -debug -doc -static-libs -test" 
[ebuild  N    ] app-crypt/gnupg-2.0.17  USE="bzip2 -adns -caps -doc -ldap -nls -openct -pcsc-lite (-selinux) -smartcard -static" 
[ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/boost-1.42.0-r2  USE="-debug -doc -eselect -icu -mpi -python -static-libs -test -tools" 
[ebuild  N    ] app-misc/strigi-0.7.1  USE="exif -clucene -dbus -debug -fam -hyperestraier -inotify (-log) -qt4 -test" 
[ebuild  N    ] sys-apps/acl-2.2.49  USE="(-nfs) -nls" 
[ebuild  N    ] sys-power/pm-utils-1.4.1  USE="-alsa -debug -networkmanager -ntp" VIDEO_CARDS="intel -radeon" 
[ebuild   R   ] sys-fs/udev-151-r4  USE="extras*" 
[ebuild  N    ] app-crypt/gpgme-1.3.0  USE="-common-lisp -pth" 
[ebuild  N    ] sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.73-r1  USE="(-clvm) (-cman) -lvm1 -readline (-selinux) -static" 
[ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/libatasmart-0.17  USE="-static-libs" 
[ebuild  N    ] sys-block/parted-2.3  USE="device-mapper -debug -nls -readline (-selinux)" 
[ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-core-4.7.2-r1  USE="exceptions qt3support ssl (-aqua) -debug -glib -iconv -jit -optimized-qmake -pch -private-headers" 
[ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-sql-4.7.2  USE="qt3support (-aqua) -debug -exceptions (-firebird) -freetds -iconv -mysql -odbc -pch -postgres -sqlite" 
[ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-script-4.7.2  USE="(-aqua) -debug -exceptions -iconv -jit -pch -private-headers" 
[ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-test-4.7.2  USE="(-aqua) -debug -exceptions -iconv -pch" 
[ebuild  N    ] dev-util/automoc-0.9.88 
[ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-dbus-4.7.2  USE="(-aqua) -debug -exceptions -pch" 
[ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-xmlpatterns-4.7.2  USE="(-aqua) -debug -pch" 
[ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/soprano-2.6.0  USE="-clucene -dbus -debug -doc -raptor -redland -test -virtuoso" 
[ebuild  N    ] app-crypt/qca-2.0.3  USE="(-aqua) -debug -doc -examples" 
[ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/libattica-0.2.0  USE="-debug" 
[ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-gui-4.7.2  USE="accessibility dbus mng qt3support tiff (-aqua) -cups -debug -egl -exceptions -glib -gtkstyle -nas -nis -pch -private-headers -raster -trace -xinerama" 
[ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-qt3support-4.7.2  USE="accessibility kde (-aqua) -debug -exceptions -pch -phonon" 
[ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-svg-4.7.2  USE="accessibility (-aqua) -debug -exceptions -iconv -pch" 
[ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-opengl-4.7.2  USE="qt3support (-aqua) -debug -egl -exceptions -pch" 
[ebuild  N    ] media-libs/phonon-4.5.0  USE="(-aqua) -debug -gstreamer -pulseaudio -vlc -xine" 
[ebuild  N    ] dev-libs/libdbusmenu-qt-0.6.2  USE="-debug -test" 
[ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-webkit-4.7.2  USE="kde (-aqua) -dbus -debug -exceptions -jit -pch" 
[ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/qt-declarative-4.7.2-r1  USE="qt3support (-aqua) -debug -exceptions -pch -private-headers -webkit" 
[ebuild  N    ] sys-auth/polkit-0.101-r1  USE="-debug -doc -examples -gtk (-introspection) -kde -nls -pam" 
[ebuild  N    ] sys-auth/consolekit-0.4.4  USE="policykit -debug -doc -pam -test" 
[ebuild  N    ] sys-power/upower-0.9.8  USE="-debug -doc (-introspection) -ios" 
[ebuild  N    ] sys-apps/sg3_utils-1.29 
[ebuild  N    ] sys-apps/rescan-scsi-bus-1.29 
[ebuild  N    ] sys-fs/udisks-1.0.2-r1  USE="-bash-completion -debug -doc -nls -remote-access" 
[ebuild  N    ] kde-base/kdelibs-4.6.2-r3  USE="bzip2 mmx opengl sse sse2 -3dnow -acl -alsa (-altivec) (-aqua) -bindist -debug -doc -fam -handbook -jpeg2k (-kdeenablefinal) (-kdeprefix) -kerberos -lzma -nls -openexr -policykit -semantic-desktop -spell -ssl -test -udev -zeroconf" 
[ebuild  N    ] app-office/koffice-data-2.3.3  USE="(-aqua) (-kdeenablefinal)" 
[ebuild  N    ] kde-base/kdepimlibs-4.6.2-r1  USE="(-aqua) -debug -handbook (-kdeenablefinal) (-kdeprefix) -ldap -semantic-desktop -test" 
[ebuild  N    ] app-office/koffice-libs-2.3.3  USE="opengl (-aqua) -crypt -debug (-kdeenablefinal) -openexr -reports -test" 
[ebuild  N    ] app-office/kword-2.3.3  USE="(-aqua) -debug (-kdeenablefinal) -wpd" 

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Indi]

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 12:10:01AM +0200, walt wrote:
> On 05/20/2011 08:24 PM, Indi wrote:
> > On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 12:50:01AM +0200, walt wrote:
> 
> >> For you users of unstable gentoo: the recent update of 'icu' broke
> >> dozens of packages (as it always does) including libreoffice.
> >>
> >> The problem is that libreoffice fails to build if you have bison-2.5
> 
> > I have bison-2.5, but am using libreoffice-bin which seems fine. 
> 
> Yes, that would be expected because bison is needed only at compile time,
> not at run time.
> 
> I would be using libreoffice-bin too, except for a ridiculous change made
> about a year ago in the way openoffice charts are scaled on the y-axis.
> 
> I complained bitterly on the openoffice 'chart' mail list, only to discover
> that openoffice changed its perfectly good scaling algorithm to ape a change
> made in M$ Office!
> 
> Nobody at openoffice.org would consider reverting that ridiculous mee-too
> change, so I've been editing the open(libre)office source code to remove it
> myself before compiling it.  I was very disappointed to find a major open-
> source project following M$ around like a hungry puppy :(

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... 

-- 
caveat utilitor 
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 16:38 on Sunday 22 May 2011, Indi did opine 
thusly:

> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 12:10:01AM +0200, walt wrote:
> > On 05/20/2011 08:24 PM, Indi wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 12:50:01AM +0200, walt wrote:
> > >> For you users of unstable gentoo: the recent update of 'icu' broke
> > >> dozens of packages (as it always does) including libreoffice.
> > >> 
> > >> The problem is that libreoffice fails to build if you have bison-2.5
> > > 
> > > I have bison-2.5, but am using libreoffice-bin which seems fine.
> > 
> > Yes, that would be expected because bison is needed only at compile time,
> > not at run time.
> > 
> > I would be using libreoffice-bin too, except for a ridiculous change made
> > about a year ago in the way openoffice charts are scaled on the y-axis.
> > 
> > I complained bitterly on the openoffice 'chart' mail list, only to
> > discover that openoffice changed its perfectly good scaling algorithm to
> > ape a change made in M$ Office!
> > 
> > Nobody at openoffice.org would consider reverting that ridiculous mee-too
> > change, so I've been editing the open(libre)office source code to remove
> > it myself before compiling it.  I was very disappointed to find a major
> > open- source project following M$ around like a hungry puppy :(
> 
> 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?

 * app-office/libreoffice-bin-3.3.2
         Total files : 8138
         Total size  : 498.24 MiB

 * app-office/koffice-libs-2.3.3
         Total files : 697
         Total size  : 19.45 MiB
 * app-office/koffice-data-2.3.3
         Total files : 214
         Total size  : 608.63 KiB
 * app-office/karbon-2.3.3
         Total files : 160
         Total size  : 3 MiB
 * app-office/kexi-2.3.3
         Total files : 337
         Total size  : 8.17 MiB
 * app-office/kpresenter-2.3.3
         Total files : 188
         Total size  : 9.28 MiB
 * app-office/krita-2.3.3
         Total files : 783
         Total size  : 26.10 MiB
 * app-office/kspread-2.3.3
         Total files : 337
         Total size  : 11.62 MiB
 * app-office/kword-2.3.3-r1
         Total files : 215
         Total size  : 7.82 MiB

Small, fast, light, standalone: yeah, they are all there.

Editing them in something vim-alike is highly unlikely to be useful - compare 
antiword. Office suites are gui programs and the gui layout is as important 
(if not more so) than the content. And I haven't even touched on graphics 
elements yet.

So you may be able to modify the content but probably not the layout. Have a 
look inside OOo source code sometimes for a look at what it takes to calculate 
something as "simple" as where on the page some text goes.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Bill Kenworthy]

On Sun, 2011-05-22 at 19:41 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 16:38 on Sunday 22 May 2011, Indi did opine 
> thusly:
> 
> > On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 12:10:01AM +0200, walt wrote:
> > > On 05/20/2011 08:24 PM, Indi wrote:
> > > > On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 12:50:01AM +0200, walt wrote:
> > > >> For you users of unstable gentoo: the recent update of 'icu' broke
> > > >> dozens of packages (as it always does) including libreoffice.
> > > >> 
> > > >> The problem is that libreoffice fails to build if you have bison-2.5
> > > > 
> > > > I have bison-2.5, but am using libreoffice-bin which seems fine.
> > > 
> > > Yes, that would be expected because bison is needed only at compile time,
> > > not at run time.
> > > 
> > > I would be using libreoffice-bin too, except for a ridiculous change made
> > > about a year ago in the way openoffice charts are scaled on the y-axis.
> > > 
> > > I complained bitterly on the openoffice 'chart' mail list, only to
> > > discover that openoffice changed its perfectly good scaling algorithm to
> > > ape a change made in M$ Office!
> > > 
> > > Nobody at openoffice.org would consider reverting that ridiculous mee-too
> > > change, so I've been editing the open(libre)office source code to remove
> > > it myself before compiling it.  I was very disappointed to find a major
> > > open- source project following M$ around like a hungry puppy :(
> > 
> > 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?
> 
>  * app-office/libreoffice-bin-3.3.2
>          Total files : 8138
>          Total size  : 498.24 MiB
> 
>  * app-office/koffice-libs-2.3.3
>          Total files : 697
>          Total size  : 19.45 MiB
>  * app-office/koffice-data-2.3.3
>          Total files : 214
>          Total size  : 608.63 KiB
>  * app-office/karbon-2.3.3
>          Total files : 160
>          Total size  : 3 MiB
>  * app-office/kexi-2.3.3
>          Total files : 337
>          Total size  : 8.17 MiB
>  * app-office/kpresenter-2.3.3
>          Total files : 188
>          Total size  : 9.28 MiB
>  * app-office/krita-2.3.3
>          Total files : 783
>          Total size  : 26.10 MiB
>  * app-office/kspread-2.3.3
>          Total files : 337
>          Total size  : 11.62 MiB
>  * app-office/kword-2.3.3-r1
>          Total files : 215
>          Total size  : 7.82 MiB
> 
> Small, fast, light, standalone: yeah, they are all there.
> 
> Editing them in something vim-alike is highly unlikely to be useful - compare 
> antiword. Office suites are gui programs and the gui layout is as important 
> (if not more so) than the content. And I haven't even touched on graphics 
> elements yet.
> 
> So you may be able to modify the content but probably not the layout. Have a 
> look inside OOo source code sometimes for a look at what it takes to calculate 
> something as "simple" as where on the page some text goes.
> 
> 
Do any of them actually work acceptably in terms of compatibility with
MSword though? - having a good, lite suit available for the "quick" jobs
would be nice.  

The OO/LibreOffice suits are almost compatible, the others barely if at
all.  Even simple documents fox abiword for instance, and anything
complex is hopeless.

And unfortunately, working in an MS centric organisation means close to
100% compatibility is demanded by the other end, especially on documents
being passed back and forward.

BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 02:17 on Monday 23 May 2011, Bill Kenworthy 
did opine thusly:

> Do any of them actually work acceptably in terms of compatibility with
> MSword though? - having a good, lite suit available for the "quick" jobs
> would be nice.

Well, my usual initial retort to MS suers on that is "MS Office isn't even 
compatible with itself across versions!" It doesn't help much but makes me 
feel better :-)

koffice does a reasonable job overall as long as you restrict it to simple 
docs. In general, the more complex the source doc, the greater the chances of 
failure. This isn't anything to do with Office vs LibreOffice vs KOffice per 
se, it's just that office suites are complex beasts and 100% compatibility 
between them is unlikely to happen. It was like that in the days in 
WordPerfect and not much has changed.

Some problems are just unsolveable. Consider how MS Word lays out pages and 
paragraphs on the page - it is fundamentally incompatible with the model OOo 
uses internally. Same with anchored images.

> The OO/LibreOffice suits are almost compatible, the others barely if at
> all.  Even simple documents fox abiword for instance, and anything
> complex is hopeless.

Your average user creates simple docs (regardless of length) without any style 
sheeting. Headings are big text bold, emphasis is bold or italics and by far 
the most common font change is to Comic Sans. Most folk avoid bullet/numbered 
lists like the plaque (mostly because they can't get it to work and have given 
up on having lists randomly re-number themselves). 

Spreadsheets for your average user are one big table with columns and rows.

For these documents, KOffice manages fine.

Corporate users are another story. Any corporate has a go-to team of 
PowerPoint experts, usually backed up with endless lists of stylesheets and 
templates. Good luck with compatibility with those, as you have observed.

> And unfortunately, working in an MS centric organisation means close to
> 100% compatibility is demanded by the other end, especially on documents
> being passed back and forward.

Yup, the only thing that works in an MS shop is Office. It would be the same 
in reverse - an Office user would be just as stymied in an OOo/Libre-centric 
setting.

Some battles can be fought and won. 
Sometimes it's easier to install VirtualBox.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Indi]

On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 12:50:01AM +0200, walt wrote:
> I'm surprised that this problem hasn't already been posted here.
> 
> For you users of unstable gentoo: the recent update of 'icu' broke
> dozens of packages (as it always does) including libreoffice.
> 
> The problem is that libreoffice fails to build if you have bison-2.5
> installed on your machine.  A gentoo bug report was filed by our own
> Nikos Chantziaras -- who did not post a headsup to this list :p
> 
> The fix is to downgrade bison to the 'stable' version 2.4.3, as stated
> in Nikos's bug report.
> 
> Happy week-end to all :)

Thanks for that. I upgraded my ~x86 laptop today and a bunch of things
did break but revdep-rebuild appears to have handled it.

I have bison-2.5, but am using libreoffice-bin which seems fine. 

-- 
caveat utilitor 
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ 

[gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[walt]

On 05/20/2011 08:24 PM, Indi wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 12:50:01AM +0200, walt wrote:

>> For you users of unstable gentoo: the recent update of 'icu' broke
>> dozens of packages (as it always does) including libreoffice.
>>
>> The problem is that libreoffice fails to build if you have bison-2.5

> I have bison-2.5, but am using libreoffice-bin which seems fine. 

Yes, that would be expected because bison is needed only at compile time,
not at run time.

I would be using libreoffice-bin too, except for a ridiculous change made
about a year ago in the way openoffice charts are scaled on the y-axis.

I complained bitterly on the openoffice 'chart' mail list, only to discover
that openoffice changed its perfectly good scaling algorithm to ape a change
made in M$ Office!

Nobody at openoffice.org would consider reverting that ridiculous mee-too
change, so I've been editing the open(libre)office source code to remove it
myself before compiling it.  I was very disappointed to find a major open-
source project following M$ around like a hungry puppy :(

[gentoo-user] Re: [HEADSUP] libreoffice versus bison-2.5

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 05/22/2011 01:03 AM, walt wrote:
> I was very disappointed to find a major open-
> source project following M$ around like a hungry puppy :(

It needs to.  If it's not compatible with M$, people won't use it as much.