Skip to main content

How to do an already doomed test

Read this blog MS Office 2007 versus Open Office 2.2 shootout. The test was already flawed from the beginning for the following reasons:


  • The author did not upload the original file which is probably a Excel 97 xsl file as a reference


  • Instead, two different formats were used: one from OpenOffice 2.0 beta sxw which is a compressed file and other a xml file from Microsoft Office 2003.


  • Since two different formats were used, the test is automatically void of meaning because of the lack of the original file.


  • Renaming the xml file to xsl like the author, I verified if it can be read with OpenOffice 2.2. It does not because the data is interpreted as xml which will exceed the limit of row in Calc application. Office Excel 2003 will render like a spreadsheet due to proprietary XML parser. However, Excel 2003 cannot read sxc nor OpendDocument Spreadsheet unless SUN's Open Document Format plugin is used.


  • The test is unrealistic in real world business because of the size (273 Mib of spreadsheet data). According to the author, the spreadsheet is actually a log file. One has to wonder why using a spreadsheet application to archive log.

Comments

Stephen Smoogen said…
As horrible as it sounds.. I have regularly seen 100+ MB excel spreadsheets with log data and other stuff in it.

Remember to look at the problem from a Windows users perspective. You have large amounts of data you want tabulated, and you have a very limited amount of tools to do it with. You can import the file into word, but it wont be able to correlate all the events together. So you import it into excel and have a column for time, for type of events, and data. Tada, now you can use a tool you are familiar with to manipulate the log data. (and you can use things like normalization etc if you need statistics). Is it optimal.. no.. but it is a matter of what tools you know. [I mean how many perl/awk/python programs do exactly the same thing because each specific author knew what one tool to write it with.]

Popular posts from this blog

Sun's promise to open source Java vs GCJ

According to this Press Release via OS News , it appears Sun Microsystems allow the redistribution of their Java development for Linux distributions under a new license called Operation System Distributor's License for Java or in short "Distro License for Java". Currently, only binaries are licensed as the source code is not available for the public although SUN promise to open source Java . I wonder if that announcement will affect the whole GCJ on which Fedora Project is focusing. Pour les francophones: Selon cette note de presse via OS News, Sun Microsystems permet la redistribution des binaires Java pour les distribution de Linux sous la nouvelle license nomm&ecaute;e License des distros pour Java . Je me demande si cette annonce affectera le développement de GCJ.

Using AMD RX Vega driver OpenCL on Fedora 29

The Raven Ridge APU is very capable processor to handle OpenCL inside some applications like Blender, Darktable and Gimp. Unfortunately, the current implementation from Mesa, clover, stuck to 1.3, is not supported. AMD released their driver 18.40 with OpenCL2.0+ targeting only Red Hat Enterprise Linux/Cent OS 6.10 and 7.5 in addition of Ubuntu LTS. The good new is the former rpm format can be used on Fedora. The graphical part of Raven Ridge is Vega 8, basically a cut-down of Vega56 or Vega64 meaning choosing either driver for RX Vega . The instruction is provided for extracting the rpm files but here is  some requirements for OpenCL: kernel-devel (provided by Fedora repository) amdgpu-dkms dkms libopencl-amdgpu-pro opencl-amdgpu-pro-icd Once done, applications needing OpenCL will automatically detect the driver located on /opt/amdgpu/lib64 . Blender will list as unknown AMD GPU and Darktable will enable it. OpenCL from official AMD driver enabled on Darktable Ra

Linux Magazine: Having Yum for Breakfast

Found that article from Linux Magazine titled Having Yum for Breakfast via Distrowatch . According to the test apt-deb easily beats yum. Any comments about result and factors that affect it? From what I understand, apt-deb is static by nature unlike yum (dynamic) which could probably explain faster transaction. Update : Added author's blog related to the article.