Re: [tlug] Gentoo Binaries?

[tlug@example.com]

On Saturday 29 December 2007 03:41:52 Scott Robbins wrote:
> I would at least give the binaries another shot--I can't believe they
> wouldn't have language support.

Back when I tried it last, the binary version worked fine with kinput2/canna, 
but it did not work with SKIM.  Yes, I will give it another shot when I can 
find the time.

> If not, what about the lighter alternatives, e.g., Abiword (for .doc type
> stuff.) 

My reason for using OOo over lighter alternatives is the hierarchical styling 
system (with inheritance).  (I guess I should just say "cascading styles.")  
I used to have access to a site-wide licensed Adobe FrameMaker (on Solaris) 
and used that software for all of my writing (aside from LaTeX for technical 
documents).  I no longer have access to that software after moving to Japan, 
but I have found that OOo actually has most of the features that I need.  I 
wish OOo had a strict mode, though, to disable the ability to override the 
style of selected text.  I have not highlighted text and changed the font in 
many years, but a strict mode would allow me to prevent other people from 
doing so on a shared document.  OOo does have master document support, 
though, which allows you to override any such changes quite easily.

> That's assuming you liked Gentoo enough to go through the trouble of
> trying one of these.

I miss Gentoo on my desktop system, as it was significantly more stable than 
other distros that I have used since.  My problem is time, which Gentoo tends 
to require lots of...

> (However, I would definitely avoid trying to compile it--in FreeBSD, I go
> through the same thing--it's always a gamble whether it will compile or
> not. ) 

I am mostly satisfied with the functionality of the OOo word processor, but it 
is a shame that it is so difficult to compile.  Perhaps one day somebody will 
write an open source FrameMaker-like application and give it a solid design.

Cheers,

Travis