OpenOffice slow under OBSD 4.1
jch
Hello,
Built OpenBSD 4.1 system (on i586, 400 MHz AMD CPU, 512 Mb RAM, Matrox
Matrox-Mil-200 AGP video machine) to test performance of new OpenOffice
package. BIOS is configured with "Setup" options which is supposed to
give best speed and stability. Here are my observations:
1) Initial loading of OO - 60+ seconds
2) Subsequent loading of OO - 20 seconds
3) Loading of 1 Mb file in Word format from NFS mounted share - 2+ min
4) Saving of same file in .odt format to NFS share - 2 min
5) Loading of same file in .odt format from NFS share - 1+ min
On the same machine running the OO 2.0.2 linux binaries under linux
emulation performance is as follows:
1) Initial loading of OO - less than 20 seconds
2) Subsequent loading of OO - 10 seconds
3) Loading of 1 Mb file in Word format from NFS mounted share - 40 sec
4) Saving of same file in .odt format to NFS share - 15 sec
5) Loading of same file in .odt format from NFS share - 5 sec
OO's performance is quite acceptable on the 3.9 system with linux
emulation. Yet, OO under OBSD 4.1 does not perform with adequate speed
to be a useful package. Am i doing something wrong i wonder, or is this
a documented problem?
Earlier, i built an OpenBSD 4.0 system on the same machine and installed
OO 2.0.2 and the linux emulation package. I found that OO freezes
consistently when entering the file name in the "file save" entry panel
when sending the file to a NFS mounted directory. This problem does not
seem to occur when saving to a locally mounted directory. The only way
to terminate the application is to do "kill -9 PID_OO". Because of the
freezing issue, i tried the most recent OBSD 4.1 version in the hope
that the new OO package would do the job. Sadly, it does not!
So, i continue to use my OBSD 3.9 workstation since the performance of
OO 2.0.2 is satisfactory.
--
Regards / JCH
dave
In addition to the slowness, OO 2.1 also crashes when I attempt to load
a MS word document I received yesterday. The crash occurs regardless of
whether macros are enabled or not. I was able to convert the .doc file
to pdf using antiword, but not all the images were converted even using
-i2 or -i3. I could live with the slowness of OO 2.1 if it correctly
converted the file. But anitword is my new friend!
--
jch
So, you confirm that my problem with OO 2.1 is an issue. Plus it cannot
handle certain Word documents! I wonder what the OBSD Development Team
can do to fix these problems in the near future?
Thanks for the reference to antiword. I found the antiword-0.37.tgz
package for OBSD 3.9 and installed it. There is another package called
catdoc-0.91.4.tgz that converts Word files. You probably already know
about that one.
--
Regards / JCH
steven mestdagh
We have OpenOffice 2.2.1 in OpenBSD-current, which has been working fine
for me with various documents including MS Office..
jch
Thanks for this info. Can you please tell us what CPU you are running
(architecture, speed), and what OO 2.2.1 performance is like on that
machine? I need to run it on an older 450 MHz i586 computer.
--
Regards / JCH
dave
Did not know about catdoc. Thanks for the tip.
--
jch
>> So, you confirm that my problem with OO 2.1 is an issue. Plus it cannot
>> handle certain Word documents! I wonder what the OBSD Development Team
>> can do to fix these problems in the near future?
>>
>> Thanks for the reference to antiword. I found the antiword-0.37.tgz
>> package for OBSD 3.9 and installed it. There is another package called
>> catdoc-0.91.4.tgz that converts Word files. You probably already know
>> about that one.
>
> We have OpenOffice 2.2.1 in OpenBSD-current, which has been working fine
> for me with various documents including MS Office.
_____
Please remind me how i install OBSD-Current. I have never attempted
this. Am currently hunting through the OBSD web site for pointers.
--
Regards / JCH
Maurice Janssen
>Please remind me how i install OBSD-Current. I have never attempted
>this. Am currently hunting through the OBSD web site for pointers.
From the FAQ:
Snapshots
Between formal releases of OpenBSD, snapshots are made available through
the FTP sites. As the name implies, these are builds of whatever code is
in the tree at the instant the builder grabbed a copy of the code for
that particular platform. Remember, on some platforms, it may be DAYS
before the snapshot build is completed and put out for distribution.
There is no promise that the snapshots are completely functional, or
even install. Often, a change that needs to be tested may trigger
snapshot creation. Some platforms have snapshots built on an almost
daily basis, others will be much less frequent. If you desire to run
-current, a recent snapshot is often all you need, and upgrading to a
snapshot is a required starting point before attempting to build
-current from source.
--
Maurice
Joachim Schipper
> _____
> Hello,
>
> Built OpenBSD 4.1 system (on i586, 400 MHz AMD CPU, 512 Mb RAM, Matrox
> Matrox-Mil-200 AGP video machine) to test performance of new OpenOffice
> package. BIOS is configured with "Setup" options which is supposed to
> give best speed and stability. Here are my observations:
> 1) Initial loading of OO - 60+ seconds
> 2) Subsequent loading of OO - 20 seconds
> 3) Loading of 1 Mb file in Word format from NFS mounted share - 2+ min
> 4) Saving of same file in .odt format to NFS share - 2 min
> 5) Loading of same file in .odt format from NFS share - 1+ min
>
> On the same machine running the OO 2.0.2 linux binaries under linux
> emulation performance is as follows:
> 1) Initial loading of OO - less than 20 seconds
> 2) Subsequent loading of OO - 10 seconds
The difference in initial loading time *may* be fixable by enabling
prebinding in OpenBSD. That does have its very own share of problems,
though (notably, file checksum change, which confuses pkg_*); see
ldconfig(8) for details.
> 3) Loading of 1 Mb file in Word format from NFS mounted share - 40 sec
> 4) Saving of same file in .odt format to NFS share - 15 sec
> 5) Loading of same file in .odt format from NFS share - 5 sec
Try rerunning those from a local disk; that at least eliminates the NFS
consideration.
> OO's performance is quite acceptable on the 3.9 system with linux
> emulation. Yet, OO under OBSD 4.1 does not perform with adequate speed
> to be a useful package. Am i doing something wrong i wonder, or is this
> a documented problem?
>
> Earlier, i built an OpenBSD 4.0 system on the same machine and installed
> OO 2.0.2 and the linux emulation package. I found that OO freezes
> consistently when entering the file name in the "file save" entry panel
> when sending the file to a NFS mounted directory. This problem does not
> seem to occur when saving to a locally mounted directory. The only way
> to terminate the application is to do "kill -9 PID_OO". Because of the
> freezing issue, i tried the most recent OBSD 4.1 version in the hope
> that the new OO package would do the job. Sadly, it does not!
If NFS doesn't work at all via Linux emulation, send in a bug report.
If OpenOffice doesn't work with NFS at all, but other applications are
fine, send in a bug report. (But do note which problem you are having.)
Also, you are not entirely clear about whether or not you are running OO
via Linux emulation on 4.0. If so, did you try the package? Does it run
significantly faster or slower?
> So, i continue to use my OBSD 3.9 workstation since the performance of
> OO 2.0.2 is satisfactory.
You may want to send a message to misc@. Aside from the prebinding
issue, I don't see why Linux' OO would be significantly faster than
OpenBSD's.
Joachim
jch
>> Built OpenBSD 4.1 system (on i586, 400 MHz AMD CPU, 512 Mb RAM, Matrox
>> Matrox-Mil-200 AGP video machine) to test performance of new OpenOffice
>> package. BIOS is configured with "Setup" options which is supposed to
>> give best speed and stability. Here are my observations:
>> 1) Initial loading of OO - 60+ seconds
>> 2) Subsequent loading of OO - 20 seconds
>> 3) Loading of 1 Mb file in Word format from NFS mounted share - 2+ min
>> 4) Saving of same file in .odt format to NFS share - 2 min
>> 5) Loading of same file in .odt format from NFS share - 1+ min
>>
>> On the same machine running the OO 2.0.2 linux binaries under linux
>> emulation performance is as follows:
>> 1) Initial loading of OO - less than 20 seconds
>> 2) Subsequent loading of OO - 10 seconds
>
> The difference in initial loading time *may* be fixable by enabling
> prebinding in OpenBSD. That does have its very own share of problems,
> though (notably, file checksum change, which confuses pkg_*); see
> ldconfig(8) for details.
Ok, will have a look at the prebinding function to see if it improves
loading time.
>
>> 3) Loading of 1 Mb file in Word format from NFS mounted share - 40 sec
>> 4) Saving of same file in .odt format to NFS share - 15 sec
>> 5) Loading of same file in .odt format from NFS share - 5 sec
>
> Try rerunning those from a local disk; that at least eliminates the NFS
> consideration.
I already tested that. Loading a file into OO-2.1 on OBSD 4.1 is too
slow from locally mounted or NFS mounted directories.
> If NFS doesn't work at all via Linux emulation, send in a bug report.
> If OpenOffice doesn't work with NFS at all, but other applications are
> fine, send in a bug report. (But do note which problem you are having.)
_____
Will think about that.
> Also, you are not entirely clear about whether or not you are running OO
> via Linux emulation on 4.0. If so, did you try the package? Does it run
> significantly faster or slower?
_____
I could not locate an OBSD OpenOffice package for release 4.0. This is
why i tried the emulation route that caused the stalling problem with
NFS mounted directories/files.
> You may want to send a message to misc@. Aside from the prebinding
> issue, I don't see why Linux' OO would be significantly faster than
> OpenBSD's.
--
Regards / JCH
jch
After reading the FAQ i was able to update the base system to an August
1 "snapshot". I do not see an easy way to update the packages i have
installed to "-current".
In the mean time, i quickly built a FreeBSD 6.2 test system (same CPU =
400 MHz, RAM = 512 Mb), and installed the FreeBSD OpenOffice 2.0.4
package. Timing results were as follows:
1) Initial loading of OO - 30 seconds
2) Subsequent loading of OO - 15 seconds
3) Loading of 1 Mb file in .doc format from local directory - 60 sec
4) Loading of 1 Mb file in .odt format from local directory - 33 sec
5) Loading of 3 Mb file in .ppt format from local directory - 40 sec
6) Loading of 3 Mb file in .odp format from local directory - 53 sec
6) Loading of 3 Mb file in .ppt format from NFS directory - 52 sec
CONCLUSION: The FreeBSD team got the OpenOffice package working
properly. These timing test results are essentially the same as for the
OpenOffice 2.0.2 Linux version running under OpenBSD 3.9 Linux emulation.
So, i will wait until OBSD 4.2 is released in the fall. By that time
the OBSD team will have worked out the wrinkles around the slow
performance of OpenOffice (2.1.X at that point).
--
Regards / JCH
Joachim Schipper
> Maurice Janssen wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:44:21 GMT, jch wrote:
>>> Please remind me how i install OBSD-Current. I have never attempted
>>> this. Am currently hunting through the OBSD web site for pointers.
>>
>> From the FAQ:
>>
>> Snapshots
>>
>> Between formal releases of OpenBSD, snapshots are made available through
>> the FTP sites. As the name implies, these are builds of whatever code is
>> in the tree at the instant the builder grabbed a copy of the code for
>> that particular platform. Remember, on some platforms, it may be DAYS
>> before the snapshot build is completed and put out for distribution.
>> There is no promise that the snapshots are completely functional, or
>> even install. Often, a change that needs to be tested may trigger
>> snapshot creation. Some platforms have snapshots built on an almost
>> daily basis, others will be much less frequent. If you desire to run
>> -current, a recent snapshot is often all you need, and upgrading to a
>> snapshot is a required starting point before attempting to build
>> -current from source.
> _____
> After reading the FAQ i was able to update the base system to an August
> 1 "snapshot". I do not see an easy way to update the packages i have
> installed to "-current".
pkg_add -ui does not qualify? Just set PKG_PATH appropriately, replacing
'3.9' or whatever with 'snapshots'.
> In the mean time, i quickly built a FreeBSD 6.2 test system (same CPU =
> 400 MHz, RAM = 512 Mb), and installed the FreeBSD OpenOffice 2.0.4
> package. Timing results were as follows:
> 1) Initial loading of OO - 30 seconds
> 2) Subsequent loading of OO - 15 seconds
> 3) Loading of 1 Mb file in .doc format from local directory - 60 sec
> 4) Loading of 1 Mb file in .odt format from local directory - 33 sec
> 5) Loading of 3 Mb file in .ppt format from local directory - 40 sec
> 6) Loading of 3 Mb file in .odp format from local directory - 53 sec
> 6) Loading of 3 Mb file in .ppt format from NFS directory - 52 sec
>
> CONCLUSION: The FreeBSD team got the OpenOffice package working
> properly. These timing test results are essentially the same as for the
> OpenOffice 2.0.2 Linux version running under OpenBSD 3.9 Linux emulation.
>
> So, i will wait until OBSD 4.2 is released in the fall. By that time
> the OBSD team will have worked out the wrinkles around the slow
> performance of OpenOffice (2.1.X at that point).
Not really, no. 4.2 has already been tagged; that means the developers
are trying to reduce bugs, rather than introduce features, from this
point on. Right now would be a good time to bring this to some qualified
person's attention - but if you don't, it's not likely that 4.2's
OpenOffice will be significantly different from -current OpenOffice.
Oh, and you could always ask the maintainer (Robert Nagy, robert@).
Joachim
steven mestdagh
> Maurice Janssen wrote:
> > On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:44:21 GMT, jch wrote:
> >> Please remind me how i install OBSD-Current. I have never attempted
> >> this. Am currently hunting through the OBSD web site for pointers.
> >
> > From the FAQ:
> >
> > Snapshots
> >
> > Between formal releases of OpenBSD, snapshots are made available through
> > the FTP sites. As the name implies, these are builds of whatever code is
> > in the tree at the instant the builder grabbed a copy of the code for
> > that particular platform. Remember, on some platforms, it may be DAYS
> > before the snapshot build is completed and put out for distribution.
> > There is no promise that the snapshots are completely functional, or
> > even install. Often, a change that needs to be tested may trigger
> > snapshot creation. Some platforms have snapshots built on an almost
> > daily basis, others will be much less frequent. If you desire to run
> > -current, a recent snapshot is often all you need, and upgrading to a
> > snapshot is a required starting point before attempting to build
> > -current from source.
> _____
> After reading the FAQ i was able to update the base system to an August
> 1 "snapshot". I do not see an easy way to update the packages i have
> installed to "-current".
It is not that hard, package upgrading is explained in FAQ 15, in your
case you would use the "snapshots" directory of some mirror, instead of
4.1 or whatever release you have been using. Maybe we should insert a
small paragraph about this or a link in FAQ 5 if the current documentation
is not clear enough?
> In the mean time, i quickly built a FreeBSD 6.2 test system (same CPU =
> 400 MHz, RAM = 512 Mb), and installed the FreeBSD OpenOffice 2.0.4
> package. Timing results were as follows:
> 1) Initial loading of OO - 30 seconds
> 2) Subsequent loading of OO - 15 seconds
> 3) Loading of 1 Mb file in .doc format from local directory - 60 sec
> 4) Loading of 1 Mb file in .odt format from local directory - 33 sec
> 5) Loading of 3 Mb file in .ppt format from local directory - 40 sec
> 6) Loading of 3 Mb file in .odp format from local directory - 53 sec
> 6) Loading of 3 Mb file in .ppt format from NFS directory - 52 sec
>
> CONCLUSION: The FreeBSD team got the OpenOffice package working
> properly. These timing test results are essentially the same as for the
> OpenOffice 2.0.2 Linux version running under OpenBSD 3.9 Linux emulation.
>
> So, i will wait until OBSD 4.2 is released in the fall. By that time
> the OBSD team will have worked out the wrinkles around the slow
> performance of OpenOffice (2.1.X at that point).
You are wrong. The 4.2 ports are almost ready *now*. Instead of waiting,
it's a better idea to help by testing snapshots and reporting real issues.
So just install the openoffice package from snapshots, and try it out!
jch
If you desire to run
>>> -current, a recent snapshot is often all you need, and upgrading to a
>>> snapshot is a required starting point before attempting to build
>>> -current from source.
>> _____
>> After reading the FAQ i was able to update the base system to an August
>> 1 "snapshot". I do not see an easy way to update the packages i have
>> installed to "-current".
>
> It is not that hard, package upgrading is explained in FAQ 15, in your
> case you would use the "snapshots" directory of some mirror, instead of
> 4.1 or whatever release you have been using. Maybe we should insert a
> small paragraph about this or a link in FAQ 5 if the current documentation
> is not clear enough?
That clears it up along with Joachim's previous post suggesting the use
of "pkg_add -ui" syntax. I have not yet used that approach. Something
new to learn.
>> CONCLUSION: The FreeBSD team got the OpenOffice package working
>> properly. These timing test results are essentially the same as for the
>> OpenOffice 2.0.2 Linux version running under OpenBSD 3.9 Linux emulation.
>>
>> So, i will wait until OBSD 4.2 is released in the fall. By that time
>> the OBSD team will have worked out the wrinkles around the slow
>> performance of OpenOffice (2.1.X at that point).
>
> You are wrong. The 4.2 ports are almost ready *now*. Instead of waiting,
> it's a better idea to help by testing snapshots and reporting real issues.
> So just install the openoffice package from snapshots, and try it out!
_____
Thanks for the encouragement. Will try to do the pkg upgrades and test
OO's performance again under -current. If it all works properly, i
might consider updating my 3.9 systems (currently running 3 copies in
production mode) to OBSD 4.2.
By the way, i am so used to the OBSD installation process that i had
some difficulties getting FreeBSD onto my test computer. In effect,
although the FreeBSD installation process has some nice features, the
OBSD installation approach is just fine. I found the package
installation in FreeBSD quite clumsy. I prefer to pull down a package
index list from an OBSD FTP server, grep for the package name, and
install it the usual way.
--
Regards / JCH
jch
>> In the mean time, i quickly built a FreeBSD 6.2 test system (same CPU =
>> 400 MHz, RAM = 512 Mb), and installed the FreeBSD OpenOffice 2.0.4
>> package. Timing results were as follows:
>> 1) Initial loading of OO - 30 seconds
>> 2) Subsequent loading of OO - 15 seconds
>> 3) Loading of 1 Mb file in .doc format from local directory - 60 sec
>> 4) Loading of 1 Mb file in .odt format from local directory - 33 sec
>> 5) Loading of 3 Mb file in .ppt format from local directory - 40 sec
>> 6) Loading of 3 Mb file in .odp format from local directory - 53 sec
>> 6) Loading of 3 Mb file in .ppt format from NFS directory - 52 sec
>>
>> CONCLUSION: The FreeBSD team got the OpenOffice package working
>> properly. These timing test results are essentially the same as for the
>> OpenOffice 2.0.2 Linux version running under OpenBSD 3.9 Linux emulation.
>>
>> So, i will wait until OBSD 4.2 is released in the fall. By that time
>> the OBSD team will have worked out the wrinkles around the slow
>> performance of OpenOffice (2.1.X at that point).
>
> You are wrong. The 4.2 ports are almost ready *now*. Instead of waiting,
> it's a better idea to help by testing snapshots and reporting real issues.
> So just install the openoffice package from snapshots, and try it out!
_____
Yesterday i completed a fresh install of snapshots from a server at
ftp.stacken.kth.se/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/.... A small problem presented
itself when the install script asked for the .../OpenBSD/4.2/....
directory which, of course, does not yet exist. The script give the
option to provide the ftp IP address. After looking it up on another
machine with nslookup, the snapshot .tgz files were located, and
installation proceeded normally. I installed package
openoffice-2.2.1p0.tgz and all the dependencies. Below are the timing
results:
1) Initial loading of OO - 45 seconds
2) Subsequent loading of OO - 27 seconds
3) Loading of 1 Mb file in .doc format from NFS directory - 192 sec
4) Loading of 1 Mb file in .doc format from local directory - 60 sec
5) Loading of 3 Mb file in .ppt format from NFS directory - 140 sec
CONCLUSION: The performance of OpenOffice 2.2.1 on OpenBSD 4.2 (to be
released in the fall) is still unacceptably slow. Since i am not an
OBSD developer, i cannot comment on the underlying reasons for the poor
performance when compared with OO running under Linux emulation under
OBSD 3.9, or the native OO package under FreeBSD 6.2.
My recommendation to the OBSD Development Team would be:
a) to pull the OO package from the pending release, or
b) to print a message about the slow performance on the screen after
installation completes.
Using prebinding via ldconfig as suggested by Joachim S. may help, but
should not really be needed. I have not tested it.
Incidentally, the NFS file server is an OBSD 3.6 box with a 400 MHz CPU,
and 256 Mb RAM. The 1 Mb file copies from the server to a local drive
in less than a second.
--
Regards / JCH
Marc Espie
>CONCLUSION: The performance of OpenOffice 2.2.1 on OpenBSD 4.2 (to be
>released in the fall) is still unacceptably slow. Since i am not an
>OBSD developer, i cannot comment on the underlying reasons for the poor
>performance when compared with OO running under Linux emulation under
>OBSD 3.9, or the native OO package under FreeBSD 6.2.
You realize that you're a jerk, don't you ?
Are you a developer at all, or just not part of the 31337 team of OpenBSD
developers (shesh).
And btw, I'm afraid that what you're seeing is mostly a local problem.
I've been playing a bit with Ooo, and your timings seem to be waaaay
off to me.
It *might* get fixed at some point in the future if you do provide *relevant*
information... which you so far have utterly failed to do.
dave
Hi Mark!
Your recent posts have been so polite that I was beginning to worry about you,
but I guess you're back to normal now. Thank God!
--
Joachim Schipper
> CONCLUSION: The performance of OpenOffice 2.2.1 on OpenBSD 4.2 (to be
> released in the fall) is still unacceptably slow. Since i am not an
> OBSD developer, i cannot comment on the underlying reasons for the poor
> performance when compared with OO running under Linux emulation under
> OBSD 3.9, or the native OO package under FreeBSD 6.2.
>
> My recommendation to the OBSD Development Team would be:
> a) to pull the OO package from the pending release, or
> b) to print a message about the slow performance on the screen after
> installation completes.
>
> Using prebinding via ldconfig as suggested by Joachim S. may help, but
> should not really be needed. I have not tested it.
I agree on that count. You may want to read the rest of the message,
though (in particular, test the same version of OO.o under Linux
emulation on 3.9 and 4.1 or -current).
Marc is almost certainly correct if he says this is not a widespread
problem, and I personally don't really care if OO.o takes 15 minutes to
start. It takes ~ 2 hours to install, too, and I only install it when
someone sends me a Word document that antiword cannot handle.
In other words, if you want to get this resolved, you'll have to do some
of the work yourself, at the very least providing a proper bug report
(no, this newsgroup is not 'official', and everything you have posted up
'til now pieced together is not a proper bug report). And be at least
not actively offensive to the people who you ask to work for you.
Joachim
jch
> jch <j...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> CONCLUSION: The performance of OpenOffice 2.2.1 on OpenBSD 4.2 (to be
>> released in the fall) is still unacceptably slow. Since i am not an
>> OBSD developer, i cannot comment on the underlying reasons for the poor
>> performance when compared with OO running under Linux emulation under
>> OBSD 3.9, or the native OO package under FreeBSD 6.2.
>>
>> My recommendation to the OBSD Development Team would be:
>> a) to pull the OO package from the pending release, or
>> b) to print a message about the slow performance on the screen after
>> installation completes.
>>
>> Using prebinding via ldconfig as suggested by Joachim S. may help, but
>> should not really be needed. I have not tested it.
>
> I agree on that count. You may want to read the rest of the message,
> though (in particular, test the same version of OO.o under Linux
> emulation on 3.9 and 4.1 or -current).
Joachim,
Thanks for your feedback. Test already completed. Performance of OO
2.0.2 Linux emulation version is the same under 3.9 and -current. It
does indeed take a while to install, but it is not onerous. Depends
obviously on inet service provider access speed, ftp server speed, and
local machine plus NIC speed.
> Marc is almost certainly correct if he says this is not a widespread
> problem.
_____
M.E. made no such statement.
> In other words, if you want to get this resolved, you'll have to do
> some of the work yourself, at the very least providing a proper bug
> report. (no, this newsgroup is not 'official', and everything you
> have posted up 'til now pieced together is not a proper bug report)
_____
I have not posted a bug report, because i have no idea if my
measurements of OO's performance is a bug or not. That was the whole
point of my post; (a) has this "problem" been noticed by others, (b) is
it a bug, or (c) are there gcc compiler settings involved that might
optimise the executables for speed, or (d) what? I don't read C-code,
and cannot comment in that respect.
> And be at least not actively offensive to the people who you ask to
> work for you.
_____
Sorry, Joachim, but i do not follow you. I do not believe that i have
asked anyone to work for me. I also don't see that i have been
"actively" offensive to anyone. If i have, it was certainly not
intentional.
I simply reported some measurements of how long it takes for the new
OBSD OO 2.X.X package under OBSD 4.1 and -current to load, import/load
.doc and .ppt files. Then i asked if anyone else had observed
excessively long timing measurements. A Mr. Dave apparently has had the
same experience as reported in this thread. He resorts to antiword as a
solution. I tested FreeBSD's 6.2 new native OO package. The timing
measurements were the same as those for the Linux emulation version
under OBSD 3.9. Then i drew the conclusion that there must be an issue
with the OO package under OBSD 4.1 & -current, and suggested what might
be a reasonable course of action for the OBSD Development Team to
pursue. Mr. deRaadt is the only one who can call the shots on who does
what. All i can do as a user and OBSD financial supporter is seek
information from the users at large, and to arrive at a suitable
solution for what is a real problem with OO on my wife's older computer
(450 MHz CPU, 512 Mb RAM). The answer was simple. I cloned my own OBSD
3.9 workstation, including OO 2.0.2 (Linux emulation version). It runs
just fine, and OBSD 3.9 will stay on that machine as well as my own for
a while yet.
To close, i want to mention that Mr. J. Schipper has always responded in
a fair and rational manner to questions from users at large. I don't
know if Mr. J. Schipper is a "certified member" of the OBSD Development
Team, but if he is, he is a an example of a good ambassador for the
OpenBSD "brand" of software.
--
Regards / JCH
dave
> Joachim Schipper wrote:
>> jch <j...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> I simply reported some measurements of how long it takes for the new
> OBSD OO 2.X.X package under OBSD 4.1 and -current to load, import/load
> .doc and .ppt files. Then i asked if anyone else had observed
> excessively long timing measurements. A Mr. Dave apparently has had the
> same experience as reported in this thread. He resorts to antiword as a
> solution.
I would like to point out that OO 2.1 crashes repeatably when I attempt to load
a particular MS .doc file. That happens whether or not macros are enabled. The
inability of OO to work with the .doc file I was trying to load make OO pretty
much useless to me. Antiword worked pretty well, but did not convert all the
embedded graphics. It would be real handy if there were an open source program
that extracted embedded graphics in .doc files to individual files which could
then be used in pdf file generation.
BTW, I started working with texmaker yesterday and that is a FINE program. Kudos
to the OpenBSD developers who ported that program!
Dave Feustel
--
Joachim Schipper
> Joachim Schipper wrote:
>> jch <j...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>> CONCLUSION: The performance of OpenOffice 2.2.1 on OpenBSD 4.2 (to be
>>> released in the fall) is still unacceptably slow. Since i am not an
>>> OBSD developer, i cannot comment on the underlying reasons for the poor
>>> performance when compared with OO running under Linux emulation under
>>> OBSD 3.9, or the native OO package under FreeBSD 6.2.
>>
>> though (in particular, test the same version of OO.o under Linux
>> emulation on 3.9 and 4.1 or -current).
> _____
> Joachim,
>
> Thanks for your feedback. Test already completed. Performance of OO
> 2.0.2 Linux emulation version is the same under 3.9 and -current.
So the emulated version is actually faster than the native version? That
is odd. Or worse than odd. Do both versions have java support? (Or both
not?) I don't see why that should matter that much, but it's the only
variable that makes sense.
>> Marc is almost certainly correct if he says this is not a widespread
>> problem.
> _____
> M.E. made no such statement.
"And btw, I'm afraid that what you're seeing is mostly a local problem."
indicated this, to me. Perhaps I was wrong.
>> In other words, if you want to get this resolved, you'll have to do
>> some of the work yourself, at the very least providing a proper bug
>> report. (no, this newsgroup is not 'official', and everything you
>> have posted up 'til now pieced together is not a proper bug report)
> _____
> I have not posted a bug report, because i have no idea if my
> measurements of OO's performance is a bug or not. That was the whole
> point of my post; (a) has this "problem" been noticed by others, (b) is
> it a bug, or (c) are there gcc compiler settings involved that might
> optimise the executables for speed, or (d) what? I don't read C-code,
> and cannot comment in that respect.
I don't think this is widely known, although - as I pointed out - I
don't really use OpenOffice.org a couple of times per year.
So, a) no, b) probably yes, and c) likely not.
>> And be at least not actively offensive to the people who you ask to
>> work for you.
> _____
> Sorry, Joachim, but i do not follow you. I do not believe that i have
> asked anyone to work for me. I also don't see that i have been
> "actively" offensive to anyone. If i have, it was certainly not
> intentional.
Maybe not, but I think the 'pull OO.o' comment was somewhat over the
top.
> I simply reported some measurements of how long it takes for the new
> OBSD OO 2.X.X package under OBSD 4.1 and -current to load, import/load
> .doc and .ppt files. Then i asked if anyone else had observed
> excessively long timing measurements. A Mr. Dave apparently has had the
> same experience as reported in this thread. He resorts to antiword as a
> solution. I tested FreeBSD's 6.2 new native OO package. The timing
> measurements were the same as those for the Linux emulation version
> under OBSD 3.9. Then i drew the conclusion that there must be an issue
> with the OO package under OBSD 4.1 & -current, and suggested what might
> be a reasonable course of action for the OBSD Development Team to
> pursue. Mr. deRaadt is the only one who can call the shots on who does
> what. All i can do as a user and OBSD financial supporter is seek
> information from the users at large, and to arrive at a suitable
> solution for what is a real problem with OO on my wife's older computer
> (450 MHz CPU, 512 Mb RAM). The answer was simple. I cloned my own OBSD
> 3.9 workstation, including OO 2.0.2 (Linux emulation version). It runs
> just fine, and OBSD 3.9 will stay on that machine as well as my own for
> a while yet.
Why? 4.1's emaulated OO.o is as fast as 3.9's, so you might as well
upgrade to get the other goodies (security updates, at least).
> To close, i want to mention that Mr. J. Schipper has always responded in
> a fair and rational manner to questions from users at large. I don't
> know if Mr. J. Schipper is a "certified member" of the OBSD Development
> Team, but if he is, he is a an example of a good ambassador for the
> OpenBSD "brand" of software.
No, the OpenBSD team consists of people who can actually write code, and
I don't belong in that category. Although I try to learn.
Unless my Java guess above happens to be correct, you may want to take
this to mi...@openbsd.org - it attracts a much larger audience.
Joachim