On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:48:39AM -0600, lee wrote: > > I do not use spreadsheets but > > > > apt-cache show sc > > Well, have you tried sc?
As I said, I never used any spreadsheet (or word processor, for that matter). I have seen once a person using excel, and I decided that the use of anything remotely resembling a spreadsheet is completely outside my abilities and interests. [Above all is completely outside my interest the way in which spreadsheets are used as calculators, databases, whawtever except editors, since MS-word is the only existing application outside MS-excel, in this stange MS-world of spreadsheets users] > > apt-cache show bmv > > apt-cache show fbi > > Those are not pdf viewers. Yes, they are and I use them. But I understand that I was no so clear. One needs a previous conversion, which in case of fbi in integrated in the script fbgs in the fbi package, and for bmv can be obtained with a trivial script which calls pdf2dsc before bmv (I use pdf2dsc and not pdf2ps or whatever for space and speed reasons) (as "pdf viewer" I am interested in some screen-equivalent of looking at a printed pdf. I have no need for more advanced features which might be included in .pdf files) > Have you ever used MS access? no. I have also never seen it. And I have also always heard very bad things about its native file format. (Even worser things than the .doc format, from the easy of corruption point of view) > There is no commandline substitute for > that --- no GUI substitute either, unfortunately. Once I heard about rekall. What happened to that application? > try qalculate no, thanks. It is a X application, I already a working non-X solution for my needs. As you can see, I am non so flexible as you, or mybe I am too old for this. But when I will personally meet a X user who needs a calculator, I will say "try qalculate", and so I will see how it works without the pain to have to use it myself. PS: I have now seen (on sarge) # apt-get -udfq install qalculate 0 upgraded, 22 newly installed, 0 to remove and 33 not upgraded. [snip] Need to get 2009kB/9997kB of archives. After unpacking 37.7MB of additional disk space will be used. so much space and so many (gnome) libraries for a calculator? That makes sense only when one is a gnome user. And I expect that qalculate-kde from etch makes sense only for kde users. PS/2: gnuplot has also svgalib output. > It's one of the applications that would be very hard to create and to > use without a GUI. I have now found with google that there are image manipulations programs for dos (http://www.opus.co.tt/dave/indexall.htm lists some of them). Even a gpl one [vp386], which unfortunately uses dos4gw and so it should not work under dosemu. > What is the console equivalent to gaim? I do not know gaim, I cannot answer. But from what I see with "apt-cache show gaim" I expect that the answer that somebody else has already given makes sense. > I tend to > leave things running which I'm going to use again sooner or later > anyway me too, but in a very different way > Did you look at the screenshots? yes > With lynx, the screen is mostly empty, > and it's hard to figure out what you're looking at because the display > is totally messed up. evidently we have different ways to look at things. But it might simply be that I have no idea of what to look for in a forum; I never had reasons to be intersted in them. > You can't even scroll, What is scroll? If it is the horizontal analogue of Ctrl-n and Ctrl-p the you can enable it in lynx (first, turn word wrap off). > the images are not > displayed, a very good thing for my needs > and if you want to follow a link, you have to fumble your > way through all the links from the top of the page until you finally > get to the one you want to follow. strange that an xterm user says that (search mouse in man lynx) > That isn't exactly useable, evidently is not usable for you, and I am not trying to change that. > and it is not user friendly. lynx is like many unixes and many humans: it selectively choses its friends. Like it happens with humans, lynx friends might not be the best persons in the world (I am surely _not_ a good person). But the important thing is that everyone has the friends who are adequate for him. > Icons are not annoying or useless most of the time. well, we are discovering the important principle that different humans have different opinions and different needs. > Well, yes, it's a GUI ... Have you tried to run X applications without > using a window manager? yes. Hovever running them under ratpoison or evilwm (and then inmediately Alt-Ctrl-x) is better since the apparence is the same but the dimension of the window become correct (full screen except for a 1 pixel border. With icewm and pressing F11 one has real full screen without borders, but I do not want the overhead of icewm). Without a window manager the dimension of the window can be a problem (in some rare cases I have even found programs which seem to ignore geometry in .Xresouces or the like) > Which features would that be? If I remember correctly some threads in mailing lists like debian-italian a few (1? 2? ...) years ago have something about the difference about mozilla on win32 and linux. But it might be that I have read about this elswere, sorry, I do not remember exactly. > > much better integration between "win32 console application *in full > > screen*" and "win32 GUI application" than the default integration in > > linux/*BSD between vt consoles and X. > > In which way? an easy example: cut and paste (note: I was speaking of _vt consoles_ not xterms). However the win method is so silly that my method (attach my console screeen in a xterm) is faster, but the point is that win has its (silly) method by default (i.e. it was consciously included in the plans for windows). > The dos boxes they had seem to have disappeared, and you > could always have only one. I was speaking of "win32 console", which is a different NT subsystem from "DOS" (and from "posix", and from "win32 gui", an from "NT native"). However the unicity of a dos box in NT system is new for me. It was surely not unique in win9x, even if the multitasking among the dos boxes was not preemptive. > Besides that, they never > had a decent > shell. Oh well, I remeber when they included a "Korn shell" in their posix suite for win 2000, and David Korn declared that it was a non standard one. I have heard that their more modern versions of the SFU is better (but I have never seen them), and in any case cygwin is decent. I am also told that decent shells in command.com style exist (4nt ? I know 4dos and it is amazing how it is so capable, given the dos limitations). > The server isn't doing it for me now, and I don't want to pipe every > mail manually through the filters ... fetchmail and a local server? In any case, if the mail must be on server and consulted via imap, no good alternative exists to server side spamfilters (which can reject mail _before_ being accepted). But I can understand that the included filters in thunderbird, claws, whaterver, are much better than nothing. > Using the cheapest card available doesn't mean that it is a good card > for the resolutions used for X11. Yes, but is is nonetheless absolutely adequate for the (gimp/kino) video editing that that amd64 PC must do. So it cannot be so bad. -- Chi usa software non libero avvelena anche te. Digli di smettere. Informatica=arsenico: minime dosi in rari casi patologici, altrimenti letale. Informatica=bomba: intelligente solo per gli stupidi che ci credono. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
