Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #224717 > unrolled thread

what calculator do you use?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  what calculator do you use? kaye n <guikaye@gmail.com> - 2020-07-13 09:40 +0200
    Re: what calculator do you use? Alex Mestiashvili <amestia@rsh2.donotuse.de> - 2020-07-13 09:50 +0200
    Re: what calculator do you use? Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-07-13 09:50 +0200
      Re: what calculator do you use? Linux-Fan <Ma_Sys.ma@web.de> - 2020-07-13 12:40 +0200
        Re: what calculator do you use? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-07-13 13:30 +0200
          Re: what calculator do you use? Klaus Singvogel <deb-user-ml@singvogel.net> - 2020-07-13 13:50 +0200
            Re: what calculator do you use? Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-07-13 14:20 +0200
            Re: what calculator do you use? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-07-13 17:20 +0200
          Re: what calculator do you use? Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> - 2020-07-13 14:30 +0200
            Re: what calculator do you use? Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2020-07-14 11:10 +0200
              Re: what calculator do you use? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-07-14 14:30 +0200
    Re: what calculator do you use? Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-07-13 10:00 +0200
    Re: what calculator do you use? Marco Möller <talby@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> - 2020-07-13 10:00 +0200
    Re: what calculator do you use? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-07-13 10:20 +0200
    Re: what calculator do you use? Michael Lange <klappnase@freenet.de> - 2020-07-13 10:30 +0200
    Re: what calculator do you use? Ed Redd <edredd7@gmail.com> - 2020-07-13 10:40 +0200
    Re: what calculator do you use? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2020-07-13 11:00 +0200
    Re: what calculator do you use? Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> - 2020-07-13 11:40 +0200
      Re: what calculator do you use? Florent Rougon <f.rougon@free.fr> - 2020-07-13 14:50 +0200
        Re: what calculator do you use? Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> - 2020-07-13 18:10 +0200
          Re: what calculator do you use? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2020-07-13 19:30 +0200
            Re: what calculator do you use? Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> - 2020-07-14 08:20 +0200
          Re: what calculator do you use? ghe2001 <ghe2001@protonmail.com> - 2020-07-13 20:20 +0200
    Re: what calculator do you use? Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-07-13 12:10 +0200
      Re: what calculator do you use? The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-07-13 12:50 +0200
        Re: what calculator do you use? echo test <echotest09@gmail.com> - 2020-07-13 13:40 +0200
        Re: what calculator do you use? Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-07-13 13:40 +0200
        Re: what calculator do you use? Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-07-13 14:30 +0200
          Re: what calculator do you use? The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-07-14 01:10 +0200
            Re: what calculator do you use? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-07-14 03:00 +0200
              Re: what calculator do you use? The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-07-14 03:10 +0200
                Re: what calculator do you use? Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-07-14 13:30 +0200
    Re: what calculator do you use? Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2020-07-13 13:40 +0200
    Re: what calculator do you use? Weaver <weaver@riseup.net> - 2020-07-13 13:50 +0200
    Re: what calculator do you use? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-07-13 14:40 +0200
    Re: what calculator do you use? Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2020-07-13 15:40 +0200
    Re: what calculator do you use? Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2020-07-13 15:40 +0200
      Re: what calculator do you use? Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2020-07-13 19:20 +0200
    Re: what calculator do you use? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2020-07-13 15:50 +0200
    Re: what calculator do you use? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2020-07-13 17:30 +0200
    Re: what calculator do you use? Wolf Halton <wolf.halton@gmail.com> - 2020-07-13 17:50 +0200
      Re: what calculator do you use? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-07-13 21:20 +0200
      Re: what calculator do you use? Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2020-07-13 22:00 +0200
    Re: what calculator do you use? Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> - 2020-07-13 19:30 +0200
    Re: what calculator do you use? Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2020-07-13 21:50 +0200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#224754

Hi,

Ed Redd wrote:
>   1+

We seem not to have any Turing machine emulator in Debian.


Eric S Fraga wrote:
> I should say that, if I really want a proper calculator experience, I'll
> pull out my HP-41C which is, incredibly, more than 40 years old and still
> working!  It's the last calculator I bought.

My first calculator still works too. It looks much like this, but yellowed
with minor stains:
  http://www.stefanv.com/calculators/aristo970/index.html


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#224781

On Monday, 13 Jul 2020 at 19:29, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> My first calculator still works too. It looks much like this, but yellowed
> with minor stains:
>   http://www.stefanv.com/calculators/aristo970/index.html

:-) I remember using such a calculator for Physics in high school!  Then
TI brought out their SR-50 calculator and the rest is history...

And then I found HP (HP-25 first followed by a whole sequence until the
HP-41).

Now Emacs Calc.
-- 
Eric S Fraga via Emacs 28.0.50 & org 9.3.7 on Debian bullseye/sid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#224756

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

HP-16C

Small, RPN, does base 2/8/10/16, floats, mildly programmable, bit shifts, etc.

There are, I'm told, clones available for Android and iOS.

--
Glenn English
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: ProtonMail

wsBcBAEBCAAGBQJfDKGuAAoJEJ/XhjGCrIwyCUQIAKlSsd1VmUbFKTK3Hh9S
4gJOIM2Uj6m06QgRioN1PNeumdfzQMBnMQ8VUXJDO9vuIT4n1K1XGBgpRhYp
6U8/qOyHSovNU5UG1w4LaHqr5Ee0cYTgNFn31KxINKOk/1AIGuJ9VVzwO1XT
0qwyvHHuC/7IA19PTF/F7I2m1XaRM9Dai5Nlj/xOQ9prjuCs2kto0MeO1qU9
XlXZ3blcp4HpqSZjEhR8IV8ORs7iTlMX262u406C4Ahi1F79fUO0Gjj2mpHJ
ugatachLX0r9PYOZjPzK6E29kXmYUKvI5dqFvgf7UHhb+gGQci9iYq7ASeRv
qwLK2MkIsDg3UUrv6VxgSoA=
=xeCn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#224727

	Hi.

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 03:31:10PM +0800, kaye n wrote:
> Hello Friends,
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any calculator app in my Debian os.

There are plenty, for all tastes. Try "apt search calculator".

> What do you guys use? I'm having trouble with Galculator.

bc, simple as that. Everything else requires more keystokes or a mouse.

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#224729

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2020-07-13 at 06:01, Reco wrote:

> 	Hi.
> 
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 03:31:10PM +0800, kaye n wrote:
>> Hello Friends,
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any calculator app in my Debian os.
> 
> There are plenty, for all tastes. Try "apt search calculator".
> 
>> What do you guys use? I'm having trouble with Galculator.
> 
> bc, simple as that. Everything else requires more keystokes or a mouse.

What about calc (currently in the package of that name, formerly in the
package apcalc)? That being what I've used for over a decade now.

Reading through the bc man page, it looks to me as if using calc it
should take comparable numbers of keystrokes, aside from typing the name
of the program itself.

In some contexts it could even need fewer; for example, calc (as shipped
in Debian) provides the built-in function 'pi()', which takes a
precision - expressed as a value between zero and one - and returns pi
to that level of precision. The list of built-in functions in the bc man
page is very short, and doesn't include any such thing, so unless
something has added one without the man page getting updated anything
that needs to use pi is going to take more typing than with calc.

calc also has the option to present non-integer output in the form of a
ratio of two integers, which means you don't have to figure out manually
what fraction a given result is; at a skim, I don't see indication that
bc has comparable functionality.

I've heard recommendation of bc before, but to date I've yet to
encounter anything that makes it seem preferable over calc, and I'm
curious what I'm missing.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#224731

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello,
   This may seems strange but I always use python in interactive mode. Just
type python3 or python without any file path. :D

Le lun. 13 juil. 2020 à 12:48, The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> a écrit :

> On 2020-07-13 at 06:01, Reco wrote:
>
> >       Hi.
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 03:31:10PM +0800, kaye n wrote:
> >> Hello Friends,
> >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any calculator app in my
> Debian os.
> >
> > There are plenty, for all tastes. Try "apt search calculator".
> >
> >> What do you guys use? I'm having trouble with Galculator.
> >
> > bc, simple as that. Everything else requires more keystokes or a mouse.
>
> What about calc (currently in the package of that name, formerly in the
> package apcalc)? That being what I've used for over a decade now.
>
> Reading through the bc man page, it looks to me as if using calc it
> should take comparable numbers of keystrokes, aside from typing the name
> of the program itself.
>
> In some contexts it could even need fewer; for example, calc (as shipped
> in Debian) provides the built-in function 'pi()', which takes a
> precision - expressed as a value between zero and one - and returns pi
> to that level of precision. The list of built-in functions in the bc man
> page is very short, and doesn't include any such thing, so unless
> something has added one without the man page getting updated anything
> that needs to use pi is going to take more typing than with calc.
>
> calc also has the option to present non-integer output in the form of a
> ratio of two integers, which means you don't have to figure out manually
> what fraction a given result is; at a skim, I don't see indication that
> bc has comparable functionality.
>
> I've heard recommendation of bc before, but to date I've yet to
> encounter anything that makes it seem preferable over calc, and I'm
> curious what I'm missing.
>
> --
>    The Wanderer
>
> The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
> persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
> progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#224732

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 06:47:51AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> I've heard recommendation of bc before, but to date I've yet to
> encounter anything that makes it seem preferable over calc, and I'm
> curious what I'm missing.

Most probably you're missing nothing. I picked up bc years ago because
it's a build dependency for the kernel. It solves my needs, and I happen
to remember pi up to 8 digits so the lack of pi() function is not an
issue to me.

On a side note, "calc" is 4 letters, and "bc" is two :)

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#224742

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 06:47:51AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> In some contexts it could even need fewer; for example, calc (as shipped
> in Debian) provides the built-in function 'pi()', which takes a
> precision - expressed as a value between zero and one - and returns pi
> to that level of precision.

I do not understand this description.  How many decimal places do you
get for a precision of, say, 0.5?

> The list of built-in functions in the bc man
> page is very short, and doesn't include any such thing, so unless
> something has added one without the man page getting updated anything
> that needs to use pi is going to take more typing than with calc.

True.  But it's not a *huge* amount of typing.

unicorn:~$ bc -l
bc 1.07.1
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2012-2017 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'. 
4*a(1)
3.14159265358979323844
scale=50
4*a(1)
3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937508

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#224772

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2020-07-13 at 08:23, Greg Wooledge wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 06:47:51AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> 
>> In some contexts it could even need fewer; for example, calc (as
>> shipped in Debian) provides the built-in function 'pi()', which
>> takes a precision - expressed as a value between zero and one - and
>> returns pi to that level of precision.
> 
> I do not understand this description.  How many decimal places do
> you get for a precision of, say, 0.5?

(It turns out I got the specification of what the precision can be
expressed as wrong, and "precision" may not be the correct term for it
anyway; see below.)

I don't understand the full algorithm myself, but the output seems
coherent:

$ calc
C-style arbitrary precision calculator (version 2.12.7.2)
Calc is open software. For license details type:  help copyright
[Type "exit" to exit, or "help" for help.]

; pi(.5)
        3
; pi(.1)
        3.1
; pi(.9)
        2.7
; pi(.05)
        3.15
; pi(.0005)
        3.1415
; pi(.00005)
        3.1416
; pi(.00001)
        3.14159
; pi(.00009)
        3.1416

I generally just use something like 'pi(.0000000000000001)' (i.e., hold
down the 0 key for a while in between . and 1), and that produces all
the precision I could really care for. The limit that gets printed (at
least with default configuration) appears to be

; pi(.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001)
        ~3.14159265358979323846

and you can get that same visible result with a much shorter precision
value. I expect that there are configuration settings which will
increase the displayed precision, but I've never needed to find them.

Also, it turns out that it accepts values >=1 and <=0 as well:

; pi(5)
        5
; pi(10)
        0
; pi(50)
        0
; pi(3)
        3
; pi(4)
        4
; pi(2)
        4
; pi(-1)
        3
; pi(0)
zero epsilon value for pi

; pi(1)
        3

The results just aren't very useful.

>> The list of built-in functions in the bc man page is very short,
>> and doesn't include any such thing, so unless something has added
>> one without the man page getting updated anything that needs to use
>> pi is going to take more typing than with calc.
> 
> True.  But it's not a *huge* amount of typing.
> 
> unicorn:~$ bc -l

Yep - as soon as I saw someone point out what this flag did, I figured
this would be in there somewhere. (I didn't figure it out from looking
the flag up in the man page, but that's me.)

> bc 1.07.1
> Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2012-2017 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
> For details type `warranty'. 
> 4*a(1)
> 3.14159265358979323844

Definitely convenient, but also requires knowing more about math than
I've managed to internalize over the decades to figure out. I would not
have thought of multiplying by the arctangent of 1 (or of anything) to
arrive at pi.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#224776

On Mon 13 Jul 2020 at 19:02:38 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2020-07-13 at 08:23, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 06:47:51AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> > 
> >> In some contexts it could even need fewer; for example, calc (as
> >> shipped in Debian) provides the built-in function 'pi()', which
> >> takes a precision - expressed as a value between zero and one - and
> >> returns pi to that level of precision.
> > 
> > I do not understand this description.  How many decimal places do
> > you get for a precision of, say, 0.5?
> 
> (It turns out I got the specification of what the precision can be
> expressed as wrong, and "precision" may not be the correct term for it
> anyway; see below.)
> 
> I don't understand the full algorithm myself, but the output seems
> coherent:
> 
> $ calc
> C-style arbitrary precision calculator (version 2.12.7.2)
> Calc is open software. For license details type:  help copyright
> [Type "exit" to exit, or "help" for help.]
> 
> ; pi(.5)
>         3
> ; pi(.1)
>         3.1
> ; pi(.9)
>         2.7
> ; pi(.05)
>         3.15
> ; pi(.0005)
>         3.1415
> ; pi(.00005)
>         3.1416
> ; pi(.00001)
>         3.14159
> ; pi(.00009)
>         3.1416
> 

It appears to use the argument as an integral factor of the answer
quoted. However, the last example seems wrong. The answer ought to be
3.14163, which is 34907 * 0.00009. Was that a copy/paste failure?

[…]

> Also, it turns out that it accepts values >=1 and <=0 as well:
> 
> ; pi(5)
>         5
> ; pi(10)
>         0
> ; pi(50)
>         0
> ; pi(3)
>         3
> ; pi(4)
>         4
> ; pi(2)
>         4
> ; pi(-1)
>         3
> ; pi(0)
> zero epsilon value for pi
> 
> ; pi(1)
>         3

So it looks like the argument's sign is ignored.

> The results just aren't very useful.

Perhaps it's connected with the facility you mentioned earlier,
the option to present non-integer output in the form of a ratio
of two integers.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#224777

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2020-07-13 at 20:56, David Wright wrote:

> On Mon 13 Jul 2020 at 19:02:38 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote:

>> ; pi(.00009)
>>         3.1416
> 
> It appears to use the argument as an integral factor of the answer
> quoted. However, the last example seems wrong. The answer ought to be
> 3.14163, which is 34907 * 0.00009. Was that a copy/paste failure?

Yes, apparently so. Sorry about that!


Based on a bit more digging, apparently calc does also have an atan()
function, which produces the arctangent of its argument; atan(1)*4 gives
3.14159265358979323848. Oddly, that last digit is not the same as what
'bc -l' gave from '4*a(1)' in Greg's demonstration; it looks like
atan(1) gives a value which is off in the very last displayed decimal
place from what Greg gave. I suspect that there is display rounding
involved on one side or the other.

atan() is of course more typing than a(), but it's also both arguably
more guessable (without already knowing function names) and definitely
more identifiable (in terms of recognizing what the function does from
the name), so there's a tradeoff.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#224790

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 09:06:17PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> Based on a bit more digging, apparently calc does also have an atan()
> function, which produces the arctangent of its argument; atan(1)*4 gives
> 3.14159265358979323848. Oddly, that last digit is not the same as what
> 'bc -l' gave from '4*a(1)' in Greg's demonstration; it looks like
> atan(1) gives a value which is off in the very last displayed decimal
> place from what Greg gave. I suspect that there is display rounding
> involved on one side or the other.

One doesn't expect the last few digits of precision to be... precise. ;-)

When using bc with its default scale of 20, for most calculations
you'll end up with however much precision you *actually* want (say,
5 or 6 digits) after you round the final value.  It's not intended
to be absolutely correct to 20 digits.  It simply *uses* 20 digits in
all of its intermediate calculations.  As I pointed out earlier, the
rounding errors accumulate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#224733

kaye n <guikaye@gmail.com> writes:

> Hello Friends, 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any calculator app in my Debian os.
> What do you guys use? I'm having trouble with Galculator.
> Thank you!

I used to have a simple alias for tcsh which just evaluated the command
line via awk, awk "BEGIN{ print $* }". But then, I haven't used tsch
since 2002 or so.

But still, with zsh I'm really doing the same thing, except in zsh it's
a combination of an alias and a function.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#224736

On 13-07-2020 17:31, kaye n wrote:
> Hello Friends, 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any calculator app in my
> Debian os.
> 
> What do you guys use? I'm having trouble with Galculator.

Just plain `calculator'.
There are a few modes, depending on what you want to do, but part of the
Gnome set-up as far as I can remember, although you don't need to
install Gnome to get it.

-- 
`Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false,
and by the rulers as useful'.

— Lucius Annæus Seneca.

Terrorism, the new religion.

Registered Linux User: 554515

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#224743

I usually have Octave open in a window.  I also often use bc.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#224745

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 09:51:53 +0200
"Gian Uberto Lauri" <saint@eng.it>  wrote:

> Either my trusty old HP48 or Emacs Calc. Both RPN machines.

Or perhaps any one of several HP calculator emulators available on
Debian.

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#224746

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 15:31:10 +0800
kaye n <guikaye@gmail.com> wrote:

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any calculator app in my
> Debian os. What do you guys use?

apt-cache search calculator | sort | less -X

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#224753

On 7/13/20, Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 15:31:10 +0800
> kaye n <guikaye@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any calculator app in my
>> Debian os. What do you guys use?
>
> apt-cache search calculator | sort | less -X


*BAM!* That's how I found galculator. Well, via the simplest part to
the left of the first pipe, anyway. I create my own themes out of
preexisting ones. ALL the keys become "invisible" on some of the other
calculators. I genuinely hate when that happens.

YES, it's fixable. There are some other "priorities" lined up in the
queue ahead of it... unfortunately. Just waiting on a delivery truck
this very second, actually.


> Does anybody read signatures any more?

I do! They're often the #LIFE of the party!

Cindy :)
-- 
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA

* runs with birdseed (because she's too klutzy to run with sharp objects) *

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#224747

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 15:31:10 +0800
kaye n <guikaye@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Friends,
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any calculator app in my Debian os.
> What do you guys use? I'm having trouble with Galculator.

What kind of trouble? If bugginess, you should file a bug report. I use
Galculator all the time (albeit for simple things), and it works fine.

Celejar

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#224749

kaye n <guikaye@gmail.com> writes:

> Hello Friends, 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any calculator app in my Debian os.
> What do you guys use? I'm having trouble with Galculator.
> Thank you!

M-x calc, from inside emacs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web