incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie>
Subject Re: Fwd: Performance!
Date Thu, 10 May 2012 12:08:41 GMT
On Thu, 10 May 2012 07:45:24 -0400
Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:

> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Michael Meeks <michael.meeks@suse.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> 
> And so you posted questions on his blog, seeking clarifications on
> methodology, and he responded.   Ironically, this is something that is
> not possible for readers of your blog to do, since you do not permit
> comments.
> 
> >        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.
> >
> > --

Rob, please stop being _so confrontational_.  There is an old saying about "two wrongs not
making a right".  

If I were list supervisor I'd be taking a very strict view of reply ethics and I'd start throwing
out bannings left right and centre.


-- 
Rory O'Farrell <ofarrwrk@iol.ie>

Mime
View raw message