incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Meeks <michael.me...@suse.com>
Subject Re: Fwd: Performance!
Date Thu, 10 May 2012 10:28:20 GMT

On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 17:25 +0800, imacat wrote:
> Please do not attack any party, or create any FUD.
...

	Thanks imacat.

> Subject: Performance!
> Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 23:51:47 +0200
> From: Armin Le Grand <armin_le_grand@me.com>
> 
> Nice read: http://tinyurl.com/c24awgq

	I'm always somewhat amused to see statistics on my private blog,
quickly labelled FUD (with little-to-no justification or measured
attempt at reproducing them more accurately).

	However promoting studies on the official Apache OpenOffice Google+
account to a performance comparison with these minor weaknesses:

	+ non-available reference documents
		=> fundamentally un-repeatable
	+ no details on timing methodology "seconds to load"
		=> but with data accurate to 1/10th of a second
	+ no raw data & => no error bars

	Is not FUD :-) I mean, I personally like performance comparisons, I can
easily believe there is some performance gap in some areas - and I'm
eager to find and fix it - but it is deeply frustrating to not be able
to.

	I'm sure at least the original poster does this in good faith, but it
is reasonably trivial to find operations that perform worse by a whole
computational order in Apache OpenOffice (incubating).

	Worse - I am convinced there are double standards here. Were I to go
and produce a similar graph in the opposite direction, even if I cite
the documents carefully, with methodology, raw data etc. and produce a
nice clear private blog post - I am certain it would be instantly
dismissed as FUD from TDF - right ? ;-)

	Ho hum,

		Michael.

-- 
michael.meeks@suse.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot


Mime
View raw message