Lightweight word processor

ilembitov · 2009-05-07 18:51:09

Hi, all! AFAIK there are lots of Openbox/XFCE/Awesome/XMonad/PekWM/etc lovers among Archlinux, which means that this board is the best place to ask for an advice if one looks for a lightweight app. I am looking for a lightweight word processor. Something with support for basic formatting and some (or at least one) major format. I am aware of AbiWord (didn't like it though), Ted (good thing, too bad it is inactive these days) and... nothing else! Can anybody advice me something here?

mike_93 · 2009-05-07 19:00:09

gedit is pretty much a mini word-processor, too bad about all the gnome dependencies...

ilembitov · 2009-05-07 19:50:52

@mike_93 but it doesn't support RTF or DOC, does it?

Last edited by ilembitov (2009-05-07 19:51:42)

Neb · 2009-05-07 20:14:23

If you need .doc Abiword is probably your best bet, or Google Docs....

elmer_42 · 2009-05-07 23:12:11

I agree with Neb. AbiWord is probably the most lightweight word processor that supports .doc files.

jumzi · 2009-05-07 23:58:25

yeah abiword for opening of .doc files.

But if you want a lightweight solution for writing articles, or really just anything, in a lightweight and wellformated way i would recommend the (g)vim/latex solution, works really well for me.

ilembitov · 2009-05-08 04:07:41

jumzi wrote:

yeah abiword for opening of .doc files.
But if you want a lightweight solution for writing articles, or really just anything, in a lightweight and wellformated way i would recommend the (g)vim/latex solution, works really well for me.

Yeah, right! I also look into this direction after all. But I would rather not use LaTeX/Lout, since that is way too advanced for my needs (I don't write tech articles, etc) and would rather write using some so called lightweight markup language. Currently, I'm thinking about txt2tags. Can anyone recommend me anything here? There are the requirements:
-easy to learn, keeps the source readeble
-feature-rich at the same time. For example, I could not find the way for making annotations in txt2tags
-actively developed
-highlight support can be added to the majority of text editors via plugins, etc.
-can have RTF as an output format

rscholer · 2009-05-08 04:33:01

Does anyone know a word processor like Word for MS-DOS?

Ronin-Sage · 2009-05-08 22:39:44

I hate to repeat what others said(and you put down), but Abiword is really the best lightweight RTF-editor out there. Period.

Lexion · 2009-05-10 00:25:02

Is there a text-only one?

rine · 2009-05-10 02:59:10

Lexion wrote:

Is there a text-only one?

That doesn't really make sense. Aren't word processors there to add some layout and stuff to your text? What you want then is vim

elmer_42 · 2009-05-10 03:57:48

rine wrote:

Lexion wrote:
Is there a text-only one?
That doesn't really make sense. Aren't word processors there to add some layout and stuff to your text? What you want then is vim

And if vim seems too daunting, there's no shame in using nano.

Lexion · 2009-05-10 11:54:08

I use vim all the time for coding, but I see your point. It would be awesome if there was one.

ilembitov · 2009-05-10 11:55:31

Well, there is one, actually.
http://wordgrinder.sourceforge.net/
But it's not really mature and doesn't support rtf

doorknob60 · 2009-05-12 03:54:16

rscholer wrote:

Does anyone know a word processor like Word for MS-DOS?

Word? http://www.downloadsquad.com/2005/11/25/free-file/

rgwzlfw · 2009-05-12 08:40:16

Because I am comfortable with it, I use TeX for practically everything. But when I'm just writing a short, non-technical, note or something, I sometimes feel like I would prefer something easier to use, which could then export to LaTeX later for formatting.

PyRoom looks interesting, but the full screen only aspect seems like it would be annoying. txt2tags seems kind of pointless, just exchanging one type of cumbersome markup for another. I will have a look at WordGrinder, as ilembitov suggested, and see if it's serviceable.

I personally don't care about RTF output, but perhaps some might be interested to know that there is a LaTeX-to-RTF converter called latex2rtf in extra.

molom · 2009-05-12 14:16:45

elmer_42 wrote:

rine wrote:
Lexion wrote:
Is there a text-only one?
That doesn't really make sense. Aren't word processors there to add some layout and stuff to your text? What you want then is vim
And if vim seems too daunting, there's no shame in using nano.

moljac024 · 2009-05-12 14:30:35

molom wrote:

elmer_42 wrote:
rine wrote:
That doesn't really make sense. Aren't word processors there to add some layout and stuff to your text? What you want then is vim
And if vim seems too daunting, there's no shame in using nano.

But there is shame in using emacs.

Runiq · 2009-05-12 14:50:40

How about this one? It has support for HTML, which is pretty major (imho) and LaTeX files (pretty major too). No rtf support as of now, though.

Last edited by Runiq (2009-05-12 14:51:06)

pauldonnelly · 2009-05-13 07:25:24

moljac024 wrote:

molom wrote:
elmer_42 wrote:
And if vim seems too daunting, there's no shame in using nano.
But there is shame in using emacs.

Hey, now. You may be a filthy Vimmer, but I thought we could at least agree that Emacs and Vi are the only respectable editors.

moljac024 · 2009-05-13 08:50:40

pauldonnelly wrote:

moljac024 wrote:
molom wrote:
But there is shame in using emacs.
Hey, now. You may be a filthy Vimmer, but I thought we could at least agree that Emacs and Vi are the only respectable editors.

Aye, aye....they be respectable editors mate....but you're swimming in a sea of vim sharks here

Xyne · 2009-05-13 09:00:41

psssssssssssssssssssh, real Archers just use echo and sed, editors are for teh l4mzorz

*ducks*

bernarcher · 2009-05-13 10:40:24

Xyne wrote:

psssssssssssssssssssh, real Archers just use echo and sed, editors are for teh l4mzorz
*ducks*

Echo? Why echo? There is cat for everything.

Xyne · 2009-05-13 11:27:42

good point... I was thinking about using it for input but you can use heredocs with cat just as welll, probably with other obscure methods

Peasantoid · 2009-05-13 11:30:55

Try writing RTF by hand... doesn't get more lightweight than that.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-05-07 18:51:09

Lightweight word processor

#2 2009-05-07 19:00:09

Re: Lightweight word processor

#3 2009-05-07 19:50:52

Re: Lightweight word processor

#4 2009-05-07 20:14:23

Re: Lightweight word processor

#5 2009-05-07 23:12:11

Re: Lightweight word processor

#6 2009-05-07 23:58:25

Re: Lightweight word processor

#7 2009-05-08 04:07:41

Re: Lightweight word processor

#8 2009-05-08 04:33:01

Re: Lightweight word processor

#9 2009-05-08 22:39:44

Re: Lightweight word processor

#10 2009-05-10 00:25:02

Re: Lightweight word processor

#11 2009-05-10 02:59:10

Re: Lightweight word processor

#12 2009-05-10 03:57:48

Re: Lightweight word processor

#13 2009-05-10 11:54:08

Re: Lightweight word processor

#14 2009-05-10 11:55:31

Re: Lightweight word processor

#15 2009-05-12 03:54:16

Re: Lightweight word processor

#16 2009-05-12 08:40:16

Re: Lightweight word processor

#17 2009-05-12 14:16:45

Re: Lightweight word processor

#18 2009-05-12 14:30:35

Re: Lightweight word processor

#19 2009-05-12 14:50:40

Re: Lightweight word processor

#20 2009-05-13 07:25:24

Re: Lightweight word processor

#21 2009-05-13 08:50:40

Re: Lightweight word processor

#22 2009-05-13 09:00:41

Re: Lightweight word processor

#23 2009-05-13 10:40:24

Re: Lightweight word processor

#24 2009-05-13 11:27:42

Re: Lightweight word processor

#25 2009-05-13 11:30:55

Re: Lightweight word processor

Board footer