incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andre Fischer ...@a-w-f.de>
Subject Re: Fwd: Performance!
Date Thu, 10 May 2012 11:34:42 GMT
On 10.05.2012 12:28, Michael Meeks 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

I agree.  But at least this was posted on a blog that allows comments, 
where one can point out these weaknesses (as you apparently already have 
discovered).  Something that is not possible for all such comparisons.

>
> 	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).

Ah, it is good that we agree on this one, too.  Your point is proven by 
other, similar postings.

>
> 	Worse - I am convinced there are double standards here.

Again, I agree, double standards, and not just 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 ? ;-)

Yes, that may be so.  But then again, statistics are only as good as the 
intentions of their creators.  I personally don't care much for such 
comparisons, regardless of whether I like or dislike the result.

Best regards,

Andre

Mime
View raw message