Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On 09/02/2017 08:24 PM, Doug wrote: [snip] Do you have Kate on your system? You can open side-by-side versions of that, and that's a fine text editor that you don't have to know vi or anything esoteric to use it. --doug As I currently have the MATE desktop, it is not installed and the origin

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

Gene Heskett wrote: > I gave up on the kde breakage that never gets fixed by kde, and on this > boxen, and one of my more well-endowed cnc boxes its TDE r14.0.0.x all > the way down, so I am still running kmail 1.9, its had at least 99% of > all the kde bugs swatted.  Its a fork of kde 3.5. > Sa

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Wednesday 06 September 2017 13:39:01 deloptes wrote: > kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: > > FWIW, I also thought that you lost 6 months of work based on what > > you wrote initially. Happy to hear that the damage is much less. But > > even that can be very frustrating, right? > > > > Along with the b

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Wednesday 06 September 2017 12:27:37 kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: > > The ability to edit the copy buffer in a different tab, doing a > > buffer wide edit to change the axis references in the buffer, so > > that those edits are done and stan

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: > FWIW, I also thought that you lost 6 months of work based on what you > wrote initially. Happy to hear that the damage is much less. But even > that can be very frustrating, right? > > Along with the backups, may I suggest you to store all your work in > version contr

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: > > The ability to edit the copy buffer in a different tab, doing a buffer > wide edit to change the axis references in the buffer, so that those > edits are done and stand a chance of being correct when the main buffer > has been scrolled to the

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 10:02:45AM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote: [...] > Replace all that file and directory management with git. > > edit /cncmaster/cnc-machine-A/config > git commit /cncmaster/cnc-machine-A/config To harp on my previous post: git

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:31:08AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Wednesday 06 September 2017 00:09:31 kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Gene Heskett > wrote: > > > On Friday 17 March 2017 05:49:30 Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > >> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 09:54:42AM

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Wednesday 06 September 2017 03:12:36 Erik Christiansen wrote: > On 06.09.17 02:31, Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Wednesday 06 September 2017 00:09:31 kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: > > > > The total configuration generally is not a single file, usually > > broken up according to its order in the progr

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 05:12:36PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote: [...] > A VCS only allows you to retrieve versions which have been checked in, > but that might help if it encourages you to do that immediately at the > end of an editing session, ra

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On 06.09.17 02:31, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Wednesday 06 September 2017 00:09:31 kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: > > The total configuration generally is not a single file, usually broken up > according to its order in the programs bootup, first being the basic > config, then the first of what could

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Wednesday 06 September 2017 00:09:31 kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Friday 17 March 2017 05:49:30 Jonathan Dowland wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 09:54:42AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > >> > gedit has caused me to have to start ov

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Friday 17 March 2017 05:49:30 Jonathan Dowland wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 09:54:42AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: >> > gedit has caused me to have to start over again, 3 times, on a 600+ >> > line configuration file for machine contr

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On 04/02/2017 07:13 AM, Tom Browder wrote: On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 14:36 Fred > wrote: On 04/01/2017 09:24 AM, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 04/01/2017 10:55 AM, cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 16, 201

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On 2017-04-01, Richard Owlett wrote: > > On 03/16/2017 09:04 AM, I {the OP} had written: > > > > I don't need a diff tool exactly. I need to do a _visual_ comparison > > to make sure I'm editing the right portion. > > I might say I was looking for an "analog" not "digital" solution. > There's mel

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 14:36 Fred wrote: > On 04/01/2017 09:24 AM, Richard Owlett wrote: > > On 04/01/2017 10:55 AM, cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 06:38:52AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: > >>> The two files are nearly identical and need them displayed > >>> simult

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On 04/01/2017 09:24 AM, Richard Owlett wrote: On 04/01/2017 10:55 AM, cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote: On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 06:38:52AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: The two files are nearly identical and need them displayed simultaneously for instant visual comparison. Opening one of the fil

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On 2017-04-01, cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 06:38:52AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: >> The two files are nearly identical and need them displayed simultaneously >> for instant visual comparison. Opening one of the files read only would be >> acceptable but not prefer

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On 04/01/2017 10:55 AM, cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote: On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 06:38:52AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: The two files are nearly identical and need them displayed simultaneously for instant visual comparison. Opening one of the files read only would be acceptable but not prefer

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 06:38:52AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: > The two files are nearly identical and need them displayed simultaneously > for instant visual comparison. Opening one of the files read only would be > acceptable but not preferable. apt-cache show diffutils (perhaps there is no n

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Fri, 17 Mar 2017, david...@freevolt.org wrote: In case OP decides to install emacs, given his previously expressed appreciation of fine documentation, I recommend installing also (for the chosen version NN of emacs) the emacsNN-common-non-dfsg package from the non-free repository. This is th

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Thu, 16 Mar 2017, John Hasler wrote: Richard Owlett writes: I require two things: 1. a search and replace which can include a "newline" in new string. 2. display/edit 2 files simultaneously *side by side* Emacs. In case OP decides to install emacs, given his previously expressed apprecia

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Friday 17 March 2017 10:26:05 Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 07:37:11AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > > I do, I am a very longtime user of amanda, since 1998 TBE. > > OK - I misread your post as suggesting you had lost 6 months of work. > > > And yet for me, "life" is long, I'

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 07:37:11AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > I do, I am a very longtime user of amanda, since 1998 TBE. OK - I misread your post as suggesting you had lost 6 months of work. > And yet for me, "life" is long, I'm 82 and counting. No point wasting any of it, no matter how much y

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Friday 17 March 2017 05:49:30 Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 09:54:42AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > > gedit has caused me to have to start over again, 3 times, on a 600+ > > line configuration file for machine control on several occasions. As > > the file it trashed was 6 mo

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 09:54:42AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > gedit has caused me to have to start over again, 3 times, on a 600+ line > configuration file for machine control on several occasions. As the file > it trashed was 6 months worth of adding new features to that machines > control, t

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On 17/03/17 01:09, Celejar wrote: I just checked, and Geany can do both. I always use: geany --new-instance My ~/bin/geany is: #!/bin/bash exec /usr/bin/geany --new-instance "$@" Kind regards, -- Ben Caradoc-Davies Director Transient Software Limited New Zealand

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On 17/03/17 02:56, Fred wrote: I recommend Nedit. Ah, rectangular cut and paste, how do I miss thee. I abandoned nedit for the allure of scalable fonts (in gedit then geany), but still remember it fondly. Kind regards, -- Ben Caradoc-Davies Director Transient Software Limited

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 09:04:00 -0500 Richard Owlett wrote: > On 03/16/2017 07:20 AM, Joe wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:38:52 -0500 > > Richard Owlett wrote: > > > >> > >> The two files are nearly identical and need them displayed > >> simultaneously for instant visual comparison. Opening on

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Thursday, March 16, 2017 10:15:06 AM Christian Groessler wrote: > On 03/16/17 15:01, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > > Well, I did, and I didn't ;-) That was on the order of 15 years ago. > > Problems that I can remember centered around fonts, font sizes, > > readability, and compatibility with my

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

rhkramer writes (about Emacs): > That was on the order of 15 years ago. Problems that I can remember > centered around fonts, font sizes, readability... None of those would be problems now. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On 03/16/17 15:01, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I did, and I didn't ;-) That was on the order of 15 years ago. Problems that I can remember centered around fonts, font sizes, readability, and compatibility with my past experiences (which, by that time in my life, were mostly Dos / Window edit

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:38:52 -0500 Richard Owlett wrote: >My environment is Jessie (8.6.0) with MATE desktop. >I require two things: > 1. a search and replace which can include a "newline" in new string. > 2. display/edit 2 files simultaneously *

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 08:56:12 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: >On 03/16/2017 07:27 AM, Andreas Ronnquist wrote: >> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:16:19 +0100, >> Andreas Ronnquist wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:38:52 -0500, >>> Richard Owlett wrote: >>> My environment is Jessie (8.6.0) with MAT

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On 03/16/2017 04:38 AM, Richard Owlett wrote: My environment is Jessie (8.6.0) with MATE desktop. I require two things: 1. a search and replace which can include a "newline" in new string. 2. display/edit 2 files simultaneously *side by side* MATE's standard editor (Pluma) can handle the first

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Thursday, March 16, 2017 09:47:31 AM to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > Your hunch isn't completely wrong. From Emac's wikipedia page: > > The original EMACS was written in 1976 by David A. Moon and > Guy L. Steele, Jr. as a set of Editor MACroS for the TECO > editor. It was inspired by the

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On 03/16/2017 07:20 AM, Joe wrote: On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:38:52 -0500 Richard Owlett wrote: My environment is Jessie (8.6.0) with MATE desktop. I require two things: 1. a search and replace which can include a "newline" in new string. 2. display/edit 2 files simultaneously *side by side*

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On 03/16/2017 07:27 AM, Andreas Ronnquist wrote: On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:16:19 +0100, Andreas Ronnquist wrote: On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:38:52 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: My environment is Jessie (8.6.0) with MATE desktop. I require two things: 1. a search and replace which can include a "newli

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Thursday 16 March 2017 08:09:13 Celejar wrote: > On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:38:52 -0500 > > Richard Owlett wrote: > > My environment is Jessie (8.6.0) with MATE desktop. > > I require two things: > > 1. a search and replace which can include a "newline" in new > > string. 2. display/edit 2 files

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 08:33:46AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 03/16/2017 07:13 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > >>Suggestions? > > > >That said, it takes some investment. Some would say it's a > >religion, but there are especially perverse poly

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

> 1. a search and replace which can include a "newline" in new string. > 2. display/edit 2 files simultaneously *side by side* Really? I find it hard to believe that there could be editors out there which don't satisfy both of those. Of course, I'd recommend Emacs, but really: *any* editor shou

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On 03/16/2017 07:13 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: Suggestions? That said, it takes some investment. Some would say it's a religion, but there are especially perverse polyreligious folks out there: I "am" Vim *and* Emacs (take that ;-) I'll see your "Vim *and* Emacs" and raise you TECO. Not s

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On 03/16/2017 07:09 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: On Thursday 16 March 2017 11:38:52 Richard Owlett wrote: My environment is Jessie (8.6.0) with MATE desktop. I require two things: 1. a search and replace which can include a "newline" in new string. 2. display/edit 2 files simultaneously *side by si

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On 03/16/2017 07:09 AM, Celejar wrote: On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:38:52 -0500 Richard Owlett wrote: My environment is Jessie (8.6.0) with MATE desktop. I require two things: 1. a search and replace which can include a "newline" in new string. 2. display/edit 2 files simultaneously *side by sid

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

tomas writes: > That said, it takes some investment. Some would say it's a religion, > but there are especially perverse polyreligious folks out there: I > "am" Vim *and* Emacs (take that ;-) You are not the only one. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

Richard Owlett writes: > I require two things: > 1. a search and replace which can include a "newline" in new string. > 2. display/edit 2 files simultaneously *side by side* Emacs. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:16:19 +0100, Andreas Ronnquist wrote: >On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:38:52 -0500, >Richard Owlett wrote: > >>My environment is Jessie (8.6.0) with MATE desktop. >>I require two things: >> 1. a search and replace which can include a "newline" in new string. >> 2. display/edit 2 fi

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:38:52 -0500 Richard Owlett wrote: > My environment is Jessie (8.6.0) with MATE desktop. > I require two things: > 1. a search and replace which can include a "newline" in new string. > 2. display/edit 2 files simultaneously *side by side* > > MATE's standard editor (Pl

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:38:52 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: >My environment is Jessie (8.6.0) with MATE desktop. >I require two things: > 1. a search and replace which can include a "newline" in new string. > 2. display/edit 2 files simultaneously *side by side* > >MATE's standard editor (Pluma) c

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 06:38:52AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: > My environment is Jessie (8.6.0) with MATE desktop. > I require two things: > 1. a search and replace which can include a "newline" in new string. > 2. display/edit 2 files simultaneou

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Thursday 16 March 2017 11:38:52 Richard Owlett wrote: > My environment is Jessie (8.6.0) with MATE desktop. > I require two things: > 1. a search and replace which can include a "newline" in new string. > 2. display/edit 2 files simultaneously *side by side* > > MATE's standard editor (Pluma

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 06:38:52 -0500 Richard Owlett wrote: > My environment is Jessie (8.6.0) with MATE desktop. > I require two things: > 1. a search and replace which can include a "newline" in new string. > 2. display/edit 2 files simultaneously *side by side* > > MATE's standard editor (Pl

Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

My environment is Jessie (8.6.0) with MATE desktop. I require two things: 1. a search and replace which can include a "newline" in new string. 2. display/edit 2 files simultaneously *side by side* MATE's standard editor (Pluma) can handle the first easily. I see no way to open 2 instances of P

Re: Please brainstorm: Word-processor compatible with version control

On Tuesday 10 February 2009 12:59:05 Hendrik Boom wrote: > I'd like a word processor compatible with version control systems > (hereafter abbreviated VCS) Having been duly impressed for decades now > how useful VCSs are for programming, I'd like to use them for writing a

Re: Please brainstorm: Word-processor compatible with version control

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:25:55 +0200, Micha Feigin wrote: > If you work with latex in an editor, most do line wrapping without > inserting line breaks, although you would probably need to work with the > editor at a sane width so lines won't wrap across the whole screen. > > I just looked at the lyx

Re: Please brainstorm: Word-processor compatible with version control

On 02/25/2009 07:16 AM, Hendrik Boom wrote: [snip] There's .fodt, too, which is similar, but everything's in one file,and is *not* compressed. Unfortunately, the entire document now appears to be one line of text. In the test I performed, it put one line of text per paragraph.

Re: Please brainstorm: Word-processor compatible with version control

Flashbake: Free version-control for writers using git Posted by Cory Doctorow, February 13, 2009 6:39 AM | permalink For the past couple weeks, I've been working with Thomas "cmdln" Gideon (host of the fabulously nerdy Command Line podcast) on a free software project for writers called "Flashbak

Re: Please brainstorm: Word-processor compatible with version control

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:25:57 + (UTC) Hendrik Boom wrote: > On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:41:10 +0100, Jochen Schulz wrote: > > > Hendrik Boom: > >> > >> I'd like a word processor compatible with version control systems > >> (hereafter abbreviated VCS)

Re: Please brainstorm: Word-processor compatible with version control

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:41:10 +0100, Jochen Schulz wrote: > Hendrik Boom: >> >> I'd like a word processor compatible with version control systems >> (hereafter abbreviated VCS) Having been duly impressed for decades now >> how useful VCSs are for programming, I&#

Re: Please brainstorm: Word-processor compatible with version control

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:20:26 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 02/10/2009 12:59 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote: >> I'd like a word processor compatible with version control systems >> (hereafter abbreviated VCS) Having been duly impressed for decades now >> how useful VCSs are

Re: Please brainstorm: Word-processor compatible with version control

Emanoil Kotsev wrote: > and porting latex to dos would be ... well too > much. > There have been DOS versions of TeX and friends since the late 1980's, possibly even earlier, such as emTeX. -- I don't deserve this award, but I have arthritis and I don't deserve that either. --

Re: Please brainstorm: Word-processor compatible with version control

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:33:41 +0100 Emanoil Kotsev wrote: > Jochen Schulz wrote: > > > Hendrik Boom: > >> > >> I'd like a word processor compatible with version control systems > >> (hereafter abbreviated VCS) Having been duly impressed for decades

Re: Please brainstorm: Word-processor compatible with version control

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:41:36 -0600 "Stackpole, Chris" wrote: > > From: news [mailto:n...@ger.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Hendrik Boom > > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 12:59 PM > > Subject: Please brainstorm: Word-processor compatible with version > control >

Re: Please brainstorm: Word-processor compatible with version control

> > > > Original Message >From: ron.l.john...@cox.net >To: debian-user@lists.debian.org >Subject: Re: Please brainstorm: Word-processor compatible with >version control >Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:20:26 -0600 > >>On 02/10/2009 12:59 PM, Hendrik Boom

RE: Please brainstorm: Word-processor compatible with version control

Stackpole, Chris wrote: >> From: news [mailto:n...@ger.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Hendrik Boom >> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 12:59 PM >> Subject: Please brainstorm: Word-processor compatible with version > control >> >> I'd like a word processor c

Re: Please brainstorm: Word-processor compatible with version control

Jochen Schulz wrote: > Hendrik Boom: >> >> I'd like a word processor compatible with version control systems >> (hereafter abbreviated VCS) Having been duly impressed for decades now >> how useful VCSs are for programming, I'd like to use them for writing as

RE: Please brainstorm: Word-processor compatible with version control

> From: news [mailto:n...@ger.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Hendrik Boom > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 12:59 PM > Subject: Please brainstorm: Word-processor compatible with version control > > I'd like a word processor compatible with version control systems > (hereafter a

Re: Please brainstorm: Word-processor compatible with version control

Hendrik Boom: > > I'd like a word processor compatible with version control systems > (hereafter abbreviated VCS) Having been duly impressed for decades now > how useful VCSs are for programming, I'd like to use them for writing as > well. I wonder why you didn

Re: Please brainstorm: Word-processor compatible with version control

On 02/10/2009 12:59 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote: I'd like a word processor compatible with version control systems (hereafter abbreviated VCS) Having been duly impressed for decades now how useful VCSs are for programming, I'd like to use them for writing as well. I use monotone as my

Please brainstorm: Word-processor compatible with version control

I'd like a word processor compatible with version control systems (hereafter abbreviated VCS) Having been duly impressed for decades now how useful VCSs are for programming, I'd like to use them for writing as well. I use monotone as my VCS. but I don't suppose my trial

Re: Lightweight Word Processor

* and then Stephen Patterson declared > > On Tue, 2003-06-10 at 17:34, Nick Wilson wrote: > >> I'm looking for a lightweight but full featured word processor for a > >> very low spec machine. > > How low spec? The unofficial open office packages for

Re: Lightweight Word Processor

> On Tue, 2003-06-10 at 17:34, Nick Wilson wrote: >> I'm looking for a lightweight but full featured word processor for a >> very low spec machine. How low spec? The unofficial open office packages for woody/sarge run fairly well on my antique P1 166MHz laptop. Or, if you&#

Re: Lightweight Word Processor

On Tue, 2003-06-10 at 17:34, Nick Wilson wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I'm looking for a lightweight but full featured word processor for a > very low spec machine. Give Abiword a go (apt-get install abiword), but do not use the version from sid. Mark -- To steal ideas f

Lightweight Word Processor

Hi everyone, I'm looking for a lightweight but full featured word processor for a very low spec machine. It absolutely must have a footnotes and word count feature. Currently I have Ted running on another machine and it looks pretty much what I need but as it's for someone else I t

Re: stable word processor and spreadsheet with graphs

x. > (cheers in background) > > I need a stable word processor and spreadsheet w/ graphs. To my knowledge > staroffice, which is bloated and inefficient, is the only way to get these. > > I really don't want to go the M$ huge package deal approach, but I can't > hav

Re: stable word processor and spreadsheet with graphs

will be > others in my situation. > > I administer a small network of 10 machines for our small school. > > I convinced the board to let me switch the OS from windows NT to Linux. > (cheers in background) > > I need a stable word processor and spreadsheet w/ graphs

stable word processor and spreadsheet with graphs

Hope I'm not pestering the list too much, but I think there are and will be others in my situation. I administer a small network of 10 machines for our small school. I convinced the board to let me switch the OS from windows NT to Linux. (cheers in background) I need a stable

Re: Console based Word Processor

On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 01:03:33AM -0700, Bob Nielsen wrote: > I recall that when WP 8 came out, Corel said the full version came with > a text-based version, but when I took a look at what is on the Corel > Linux CD-ROM (deluxe version with the full version of WP 8) I couldn't > find any text-base

Re: Console based Word Processor

I recall that when WP 8 came out, Corel said the full version came with a text-based version, but when I took a look at what is on the Corel Linux CD-ROM (deluxe version with the full version of WP 8) I couldn't find any text-base executable. Of course, I didn't know what to look for, but I couldn

Re: Console based Word Processor

I would doubt there's a text-based version of WordPerfect 8 on any platform... If there is, I'd love to know how to make it work. Until then, I'll stick to WP 5.1/DOS for my work. In a decade of use its never crashed or otherwise let me down. :) On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Bob Nielsen wrote: > On Fri,

Re: Console based Word Processor

On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 03:45:51PM -0600, David Karlin wrote: > On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 05:06:02PM +0100, Ted Harding wrote: > > If I could get WP5 for UNIX up on Linux I'd run for it! > > I did my share of editing in Wordperfect, too. > > I suppose you could try running the old DOS version in do

Re: Console based Word Processor

Don't know about WP8 running under GNU/L, but if it converts and saves WP5.1 documents with the same grace and style as WP8 for Windoze, no great deal. (Personal note: I was a fan of DOS WP5.1 and continued the useless trend of upgrading until I got tired as I wanted some decent co

Re: Console based Word Processor

On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 05:06:02PM +0100, Ted Harding wrote: > If I could get WP5 for UNIX up on Linux I'd run for it! I did my share of editing in Wordperfect, too. I suppose you could try running the old DOS version in dosemu. (Don't know about licensing issues, though.) -- David Karlin [EMAI

Re: Console based Word Processor

On 01-Sep-00 Paul Seelig wrote: > On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 11:38:19AM -0400, Joseph C. Tuttle wrote: >> >> I've heard this before, but I haven't been able to find WP 5.x on >> either of the two WP 8 CDs I have. >> > It is only included in the retail server edition. Check for yourself > at "http:/

Re: Console based Word Processor

On 01-Sep-00 Joseph C. Tuttle wrote: >> On 27, aug, 2000 at 10:00:48 +0518, USM Bish wrote: >> I've just this last weekend heard about WordPerfect for UNIX in >> version 5.something being on the CD you could buy of WordPerfect 8! > > I've heard this before, but I haven't been able to find WP 5.x o

Re: Console based Word Processor

On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 11:38:19AM -0400, Joseph C. Tuttle wrote: > > I've heard this before, but I haven't been able to find WP 5.x on either of > the > two WP 8 CDs I have. I'd be happy to find it, though, because I believe the > DOS version of WP 5.1 was one of the best software products e

Re: Console based Word Processor

> On 27, aug, 2000 at 10:00:48 +0518, USM Bish wrote: > > > I've just this last weekend heard about WordPerfect for UNIX in version > 5.something being on the CD you could buy of WordPerfect 8! > > It's _not_ included in the gratis download version, only the CD-edition. > > I don't know if i

Re: Console based Word Processor

On Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 07:10:57PM +0518, USM Bish wrote: > A difficult thing to ask for in today's GUI world. > I am looking for a simple light weight console app > (non GUI) word processor, something like the good > old WordStar (and such relics of yesteryears). > &g

Re: Console based Word Processor

> Wow ! That's news. Seems rather interesting. A console > based frontend to LaTeX ! > If you cannot recall the URL, is there any clue to the > project/ program name so that one can search for it on > one of the search engines on the net? It's www.lyx.org. I don't remember who is working on it

Re: Console based Word Processor

Wow ! That's news. Seems rather interesting. A console based frontend to LaTeX ! If you cannot recall the URL, is there any clue to the project/ program name so that one can search for it on one of the search engines on the net? USM Bish On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 11:27:43AM -0400, hawk wrote: >

Re: Console based Word Processor

bish believed, > Surely, LaTeX (and LyX) is definitely a class apart for do- > ing real fancy documents, but that's not the use that I am > envisaging. I used LyX in the past as well (a good frontend > for LaTex for lazy bones)! FYI, a console version of lyx is on its way--the current move is t

Re: Console based Word Processor

On 28 Aug 2000, Paul Huygen wrote: > USM Bish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > No, I'm actually looking for a word processor for small time > > jobs like letters and other odd things that I push out on my > > DMP. This type of odd jobs actually occupies 60% of

Re: Console based Word Processor

No need to cc. On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 11:10:11AM +0530, Nagarjuna G. wrote: > On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote: > Learning curve is steep, but you will never repent. My prefered version of this: foo has a steep learning curve, but a great payoff function. substitute for foo: em

Re: Console based Word Processor

USM Bish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, I'm actually looking for a word processor for small time > jobs like letters and other odd things that I push out on my > DMP. This type of odd jobs actually occupies 60% of my time. > I am getting tired of switching to "X&qu

Re: Console based Word Processor

On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote: ->> ->> Should be able to do formatting of text with left and right ->> justification, setting of left and right margins, text alignment ->> (left, right and centre). You can do all this in emacs, text-mode in emacs will be just right for y

Re: Console based Word Processor

On Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 07:10:57PM +0518, USM Bish wrote: > A difficult thing to ask for in today's GUI world. I am looking for a > simple light weight console app (non GUI) word processor, something > like the good old WordStar (and such relics of yesteryears). > >

Re: Console based Word Processor

On 27, aug, 2000 at 10:00:48 +0518, USM Bish wrote: > I did a search for console word processors in Linux through > various search engines. Not much joy. However, I do vaguely > remember seeing a demo ncurses based wp in a Yggdrasil CD > (Slackware distro) at a local vendor about three years a

Re: Console based Word Processor

ight weight console app > (non GUI) word processor, something like the good > old WordStar (and such relics of yesteryears). > > Should be able to do formatting of text with left > and right justification, setting of left and right > margins, text alignment (left, right and c

Re: Console based Word Processor

On Sun, 27 Aug 2000, USM Bish wrote: > A difficult thing to ask for in today's GUI world. > I am looking for a simple light weight console app > (non GUI) word processor, something like the good > old WordStar (and such relics of yesteryears). > > Should be able to do

Re: Console based Word Processor

> On 8/27/00 at 7:10 PM USM Bish wrote: > > > A difficult thing to ask for in today's GUI world. > > I am looking for a simple light weight console app > > (non GUI) word processor, something like the good > > old WordStar (and such relics of yesteryears). >

  1   2   >