incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Fwd: Performance!
Date Thu, 10 May 2012 11:45:24 GMT
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.
>
> --
> michael.meeks@suse.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
>

Mime
View raw message