incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Fwd: Performance!
Date Thu, 10 May 2012 16:22:00 GMT
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:28 AM, 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 <>
>> Nice read:
>        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.

Well, it looks like LO overcame the poor quality of the performance
data, the lack of a methodology document and the failure of the
blogger to provide error bars and p-values, and despite this great
adversity managed to confirm that in fact this was a performance
regression in LibreOffice:

See last comment here:

and see the post here:

Note that this might not have been found (or fixed), without choice
and competition in the market, provided by Apache OpenOffice.   So
already, AOO 3.4 barely a day old, and we've already helped improve
LibreOffice.  This is good news, I think.


View raw message