Can we setup a filter for dev@suckless.org that sends any html email to /dev/null, and autoreplies with "Fuck off moron." to the author of any such email?
Thanks uriel On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Anselm R Garbe <ans...@garbe.us> wrote: > Hi Илья, > > 2009/9/22 Илья Илембитов <ilembi...@yandex.ru>: >> I am looking for a lightweight solution to create rich formatted content in >> any MS Word-editable format - I think RTF is more likely to happen, since it >> is an open format. > > I'm looking for such thing as well. On IRC in the #suckless channel > someone posted a link to Word 5.5 just now, I think that might be an > option for the interim. I think Word 5.5 is the most usable MS Word > release ever created, it definately sucks less than any FOSS > alternative. But I'm uneasy on relying it in the long term. > >> Basically, what I am looking for is a lightweight, distractionless >> (preferably no menus or toolbars) word processor with support for all common >> formatting option. Basically, I don't need the word processor to be capable >> of doing things I wouldn't be able to do with a real piece of paper - which >> means that I just need common beautifiers, font styling, paragraph styling >> and footnotes/TOC support, tables and images, since I often need to write >> academic papers following a certain style. However, I don't need any math >> support. > > Your requirements sound acceptable. > >> I was looking for something that would suit my needs for quite some time. >> AbiWord is bloated, slow and buggy and has numerous GNOME and other >> dependencies. Ted got updated recently, which means that it finally got >> UTF-8, gtk interface and proper font rendering, but at the moment is still >> buggy and it is uncertain, in which way will it improve. Other than that, it >> is a really nice word processor. WordGrinder has a nice interface concept, >> but CLI interface can show many style features of the text, which is why WG >> supports only a limited number of formatting capabilities. Besides, it can >> only export to troff and html. Finally, it wasn't updated since late 2008. > > Well all these alternatives aren't any. > >> Then I looked in the area of humane markup languages. txt2tags is nice (the >> syntax is really clean and easy), but doesn't support RTF and footnotes (not >> to mention the proper paragraph formatting). I tried MarkDown extensions, >> such as pandoc (which involves having a Haskell infrastructure installed) >> and multimarkdown. Both support RTF export, but still look more like an >> easier way to get HTML output than a word processing solution. The same is >> true with the other lightweight markup languages: they are either tools to >> get HTML source, or an easier way to produce man pages. > > RTF sucks. > >> Finally, i started looking at the full-blown typesetting systems. I admire >> LaTeX, but it's just too big for my needs. Besides, latex2rtf utility wasn't >> updated for quite some time and still doesn't work properly. Then I tried >> lout. Lout is nice, because it's small and has a pretty straightforward >> manual, but it only supports PS and PDF(?) output. Besides, I had some >> issues with producing texts in Russian (since it is my native language). >> Then I tried Groff. Groff look uber-geeky and traditional to me, it is >> smaller than LaTeX (bigger than lout, though), but there are still a lot of >> problems here. First, there is a huge lack of documentation - basically, >> there is only a Unix Text Processing textbook back from the late 80s (and >> it's not clear as to whether one could use it as a guide to contemporary >> troff). Second, groff devteam seems to be more focused on the needs of man >> writers (which is understandable). Which is why many issues specific for >> common word processing and desktop publishing are ignored or are being >> solved really slowly. Specifically, I couldn't solve the localization >> problem. Furthermore, troffcvt utility (a troff converter, supports RTF) is >> also deprecated and is of inferior quality - basically, it just ignores many >> formatting options. I also checked other implementations: Heirloom project >> might be nice (at least, it is said to support UTF-8 and modern fonts), but >> again it is unclear as to which documentation should I use. Besides, the >> project wasn't updated since April 2008. There is also a new C >> implementation called mdocml (designed by BSD people to replace groff), but >> it only supports man macros (although it is pretty active and should run on >> Linux too). Furthermore, there should be another flavour in MirOS BSD source >> tree (which is said to be an original AT&T version), but it is actually >> broken. Finally, I couldn't find any mention of Plan 9 version of troff >> being used outside of Plan 9 itself (but I suppose it should definitely >> support UTF-8). > > It might be an option to write a troff front-end, though for real > stuff it requires lot's of PS so that I think this isn't a real option > either (having PS as output is fine though). But there has to be some > decent intermediate format. > >> Currently, I am really desperate. IMHO, there were always two main problems >> for those, who wanted to build a lightweight Linux/BSD environment: there >> were no lightweight graphical web browsers and no lightweight word >> processors. The situation with web browsers gets improved by surf and uzbl >> developers. But what about word processing? Do you have any suggestions on >> the original problem? > > Well usbl or surf aren't really lightweight, they only appear to be. > (The binaries for themselves are lightweight, but that doesn't tell > you on which mountain of complexity they rely on). I think writing a > decent less sucking word processor is much more achievable than > writing a lightweight browser. So this sounds like a good idea. > >> P.S.: Sorry for this post being so enormous, but I wanted to sum up my >> efforts for somebody who would like to solve the same problem. > > Thanks, next time in plain text please... > > Kind regards, > Anselm > >
