[Chugalug] Is LibreOffice *THAT* bad? :(

Jason Brown lists at masterforge.com
Sat Sep 28 19:20:32 UTC 2013


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (or proof depending 
on who you quote).

I use Libre Office on Ubuntu daily for manipulating and fixing all kinds 
of data. I have never had it, "do math wrong".  I have however had it 
completely fail to import Microsoft Excel files with complex formatting.

The fundamental way that spreadsheets handle math could easily be the 
issue, for example most spreadsheets interpret a string as a literal 
zero, if a column is incorrectly formatted this could produce an 
incorrect result. Range errors , auto range extension, filters, and 
formula processing order can also skew the results.

If the spreadsheet is so complicated, it probably shouldn't be a 
spreadsheet in the first place.  Some of the links posted by Justin have 
quite strong arguments in that regard.

I would be willing to bet lunch for one (loser buys) that the issue is 
not a math bug in Calc, but some other issue inherent to spreadsheets or 
import / user error.

--Jason

On 9/28/13 2:38 PM, Stephen Kraus wrote:
> OpenOffice works awesome for me in my Physics and Math classes, 
> because it comes with a formula writer and layout program, makes it so 
> much easier than having to try writing up a couple pages worth of 
> formulas.
>
> Its done well for me in every other category too.
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 2:07 PM, wes <wes at the-wes.com 
> <mailto:wes at the-wes.com>> wrote:
>
>     That's right, when trying to convince someone to use open source
>     software, we should proclaim it a failure and do nothing to help
>     the situation.
>
>     Troll.
>
>     -wes
>
>
>     On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Chad Smith <chad78 at gmail.com
>     <mailto:chad78 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Also, when you are trying to convince someone to switch to
>         open source software, the last thing you should have to do is
>         stop in the middle of it and file a bug report.
>
>         /-Chad W. Smith/
>
>
>         On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Chad Smith <chad78 at gmail.com
>         <mailto:chad78 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>             This isn't some Microsoft shill.  ET has been on this list
>             for a long time.  Why would he lie?
>
>             /-Chad W. Smith/
>
>
>             On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 12:43 PM, William Roush
>             <william.roush at roushtech.net
>             <mailto:william.roush at roushtech.net>> wrote:
>
>                 You want evidence to huge claims? That's absurd! I
>                 can't be bothered to back them up.
>
>                 Also how about a bug number instead... You know doing
>                 the right thing for open source software you get for
>                 free and reporting issues.
>
>
>                 Chad Smith <chad78 at gmail.com
>                 <mailto:chad78 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>                 Yeah, because everyone remembers every math problem
>                 they ever did.
>
>                 /-Chad W. Smith/
>
>
>                 On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 11:54 AM, wes <wes at the-wes.com
>                 <mailto:wes at the-wes.com>> wrote:
>
>                     On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 7:32 AM,
>                     <kitepilot at kitepilot.com
>                     <mailto:kitepilot at kitepilot.com>> wrote:
>
>                         Just to clarify:
>
>                             the program *DID MATH WRONG*.
>
>                         means just that.
>                         No excel import, no weird things here.
>                         This was freshly created (albeit complex)
>                         spreadsheet.
>                         Cells would display wrong numbers or not at all.
>                         I could position the cursor in a cell and see
>                         a simple formula yielding a bad result.
>                         This were problems that you'd figure basic
>                         testing would catch.
>                         It was, in short, completely unreliable...   :(
>                         ET
>
>
>                     if it was just a simple formula, you should be
>                     able to give us the formula.
>
>                     -wes
>
>
>
>                         Chad Smith writes:
>
>                             Everyone who going to bat for LibreOffice
>                             - did you miss the part where ET
>                             said that the program *DID MATH WRONG*.
>                             That's not some "obscure feature set"
>                             needed only by "power users" or
>                             people who are afraid of change.... That's
>                             the one thing that no
>                             **computer** program should ever get wrong.
>                             COMPUTER...  it computes.  That is its
>                             original intention.  It's native
>                             language is 1s and 0s.  A computer
>                             spreadsheet that can't do math correctly
>                             is not just useless - it's dangerous and
>                             should be avoided like the plague.
>                             I like the idea of Libre/Open Office.  It
>                             is what introduced me to open
>                             source as being a thing that exists.  But
>                             if Calc (the name of the
>                             Spreadsheet mode of the program) can't
>                             Calculate - it shouldn't be allowed
>                             to continue to exist... not until they fix
>                             that.  omg.
>                             *- Chad W. Smith*
>
>                         _______________________________________________
>                         Chugalug mailing list
>                         Chugalug at chugalug.org
>                         <mailto:Chugalug at chugalug.org>
>                         http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug
>
>
>
>                     _______________________________________________
>                     Chugalug mailing list
>                     Chugalug at chugalug.org <mailto:Chugalug at chugalug.org>
>                     http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug
>
>
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>                 Chugalug mailing list
>                 Chugalug at chugalug.org <mailto:Chugalug at chugalug.org>
>                 http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug
>
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Chugalug mailing list
>         Chugalug at chugalug.org <mailto:Chugalug at chugalug.org>
>         http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Chugalug mailing list
>     Chugalug at chugalug.org <mailto:Chugalug at chugalug.org>
>     http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chugalug mailing list
> Chugalug at chugalug.org
> http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://chugalug.org/pipermail/chugalug/attachments/20130928/811a15fe/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Chugalug mailing list