More MS slopware - Linux

This is a discussion on More MS slopware - Linux ; Excel: Real good at computing Multiplying 29513736 by 92842033 = 2740115251665290 Right? Riiiiight? (Correct would be 2740115251665288) Not to mention that for Excel-Win the beginning of time is 1.1.1900 Whereas Excel-Mac has it different again: January 2 1904 Meaning they ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 58

Thread: More MS slopware

  1. More MS slopware

    Excel: Real good at computing

    Multiplying 29513736 by 92842033 = 2740115251665290

    Right? Riiiiight? (Correct would be 2740115251665288)


    Not to mention that for Excel-Win the beginning of time is 1.1.1900
    Whereas Excel-Mac has it different again: January 2 1904
    Meaning they have different day counts

    That Excel thinks about 1900 as a leap year is relativly meaningless after
    those blunders

    The rounding errors of 7 years old fame are naturally still present.
    Add 0,05, -0,07, 0,02 and 0

    You will not get 0
    Instead you will get -3,46945E-18 if you format the cells
    as "standard/normal"


    Yup. That is the professional Quality software only CSS can provide. After
    all, real professionals have done it. With Quality Control.

    Ask Hadron Quark. He knows all about that. DumbFull**** explained it to him
    --
    Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
    Form follows malfunction.


  2. Re: More MS slopware

    "Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
    486d4712$0$6543$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net on 7/3/08 2:39 PM:

    > Excel: Real good at computing
    >
    > Multiplying 29513736 by 92842033 = 2740115251665290
    >
    > Right? Riiiiight? (Correct would be 2740115251665288)



    -----
    have a look:
    http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0...563637,00.html
    seem's oo has the same problem with:
    29513736 * 92842033 = 2740115251665290
    -----

    Oops.

    > Not to mention that for Excel-Win the beginning of time is 1.1.1900
    > Whereas Excel-Mac has it different again: January 2 1904
    > Meaning they have different day counts
    >
    > That Excel thinks about 1900 as a leap year is relativly meaningless after
    > those blunders
    >
    > The rounding errors of 7 years old fame are naturally still present.
    > Add 0,05, -0,07, 0,02 and 0
    >
    > You will not get 0
    > Instead you will get -3,46945E-18 if you format the cells
    > as "standard/normal"
    >
    >
    > Yup. That is the professional Quality software only CSS can provide. After
    > all, real professionals have done it. With Quality Control.
    >
    > Ask Hadron Quark. He knows all about that. DumbFull**** explained it to him




    --
    BU__SH__




  3. Re: More MS slopware

    In article <486d4712$0$6543$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>,
    Peter Kohlmann wrote:

    > Excel: Real good at computing
    >
    > Multiplying 29513736 by 92842033 = 2740115251665290
    >
    > Right? Riiiiight? (Correct would be 2740115251665288)


    On Linux:

    $ cat a.c
    #include

    int main( void )
    {
    float x = 29513736;
    float y = 92842033;
    float z = x * y;
    printf("%f\n", z);
    return 0;
    }
    $ cc a.c
    $ ./a.out
    2740115315097600.000000
    $ cat a.pl
    $x = 29513736;
    $y = 92842033;
    $z = $x * $y;
    print "$z\n";
    $ perl a.pl
    2.74011525166529e+15
    $

    Note that Perl agrees with Excel, and C agrees with neither Excel nor
    the correct answer.

    Gnumeric on Linux gives 2740115251665280, which disagrees with Excel,
    Perl, C, and the correct answer.

    How about OpenOffice? 2.0.2, the version I happen to have on my home
    Linux box, gives the same result as Excel.

    Let's make a little table of the results (I'll add some more that I did
    not show above). Let's let C represent the correct result:

    C (double): C (Linux, Mac)
    MySQL: C (Linux)
    base: C (Linux)
    Ruby: C (Mac)

    Excel: C+2 (Windows, I presume. Verified on Mac)
    Perl: C+2 (Linux)
    OpenOffice 2.0.2: C+2 (Linux)
    NeoOffice: C+2 (Mac)
    OpenOffice 2.4.1: C+2 (Linux)
    Numbers: C+2 (Mac)

    Gnumeric: C-8 (Linux)

    PHP: C+12 (Mac)

    PHP: C+4712 (Linux)
    PHP: C+4712 (Linux virtual machine on Mac)

    C (float): C+63432312 (Linux, Mac)

    So, what was the point you were trying to make?

    --
    --Tim Smith

  4. Re: More MS slopware

    In article ,
    Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    > C (double): C (Linux, Mac)
    > MySQL: C (Linux)
    > base: C (Linux)
    > Ruby: C (Mac)


    The correct result.

    >
    > Excel: C+2 (Windows, I presume. Verified on Mac)
    > Perl: C+2 (Linux)
    > OpenOffice 2.0.2: C+2 (Linux)
    > NeoOffice: C+2 (Mac)
    > OpenOffice 2.4.1: C+2 (Linux)
    > Numbers: C+2 (Mac)


    The correct result when rounding to 15 significant digits, as is pointed
    out in the link Snit provided.

    >
    > Gnumeric: C-8 (Linux)


    Rounding to 15 significant digits, but rounding down. I'd expect that
    the Gnumeric people would want to use the same rounding convention as
    the the other spreadsheets, so this may indicate a bug.

    >
    > PHP: C+12 (Mac)


    This is 2740115251665300. Rounding to 14 significant digits?

    >
    > PHP: C+4712 (Linux)
    > PHP: C+4712 (Linux virtual machine on Mac)


    The value here is 2740115251670000, so maybe rounding to 12 significant
    digits?

    >
    > C (float): C+63432312 (Linux, Mac)


    Nearest integer exactly representable in a float?

    --
    --Tim Smith

  5. Re: More MS slopware

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    > Excel: Real good at computing
    >
    > Multiplying 29513736 by 92842033 = 2740115251665290
    >
    > Right? Riiiiight? (Correct would be 2740115251665288)


    Excel 2000 gives me 2740115251665290
    OpenOffice 2.3 Calc (on Windows) gives me 2740115251665290
    OpenOffice 2.0 Calc (on Linux) gives me 2740115251665290
    Gnumeric 1.6.3 gives me 2740115251665280 (note - that ends in 80)

    You're a loser, Kohlmann.



    > Not to mention that for Excel-Win the beginning of time is 1.1.1900
    > Whereas Excel-Mac has it different again: January 2 1904
    > Meaning they have different day counts
    >
    > That Excel thinks about 1900 as a leap year is relativly meaningless
    > after those blunders
    >
    > The rounding errors of 7 years old fame are naturally still present.
    > Add 0,05, -0,07, 0,02 and 0
    >
    > You will not get 0


    Yes I do, under Excel 2000, no matter how I format it.

    You're a lying loser, Kohlmann.


    > Instead you will get -3,46945E-18 if you format the cells
    > as "standard/normal"
    >
    >
    > Yup. That is the professional Quality software only CSS can provide.
    > After all, real professionals have done it. With Quality Control.
    >
    > Ask Hadron Quark. He knows all about that. DumbFull**** explained it
    > to him


    Somebody obviously explained to you how to be a real stupid ****.



  6. Re: More MS slopware

    "DFS" stated in post
    hmfbk.16886$NQ5.601@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 7/3/08 6:52 PM:

    > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >> Excel: Real good at computing
    >>
    >> Multiplying 29513736 by 92842033 = 2740115251665290
    >>
    >> Right? Riiiiight? (Correct would be 2740115251665288)

    >
    > Excel 2000 gives me 2740115251665290
    > OpenOffice 2.3 Calc (on Windows) gives me 2740115251665290
    > OpenOffice 2.0 Calc (on Linux) gives me 2740115251665290
    > Gnumeric 1.6.3 gives me 2740115251665280 (note - that ends in 80)
    >
    > You're a loser, Kohlmann.


    I told him essentially the same thing... and he did not acknowledge the
    facts. He did, of course, run from the topic and then whine that I post too
    much and make up stories about my personal life as he worked to pull Google
    searches for me to *his* posts.

    Yeah, in other words he panicked and blew a gasket in that angry little
    brain of his.



    --
    When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
    to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
    beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller


  7. Re: More MS slopware

    Snit wrote:

    > "DFS" stated in post
    > hmfbk.16886$NQ5.601@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 7/3/08 6:52 PM:
    >
    >> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>> Excel: Real good at computing
    >>>
    >>> Multiplying 29513736 by 92842033 = 2740115251665290
    >>>
    >>> Right? Riiiiight? (Correct would be 2740115251665288)

    >>
    >> Excel 2000 gives me 2740115251665290
    >> OpenOffice 2.3 Calc (on Windows) gives me 2740115251665290
    >> OpenOffice 2.0 Calc (on Linux) gives me 2740115251665290
    >> Gnumeric 1.6.3 gives me 2740115251665280 (note - that ends in 80)
    >>
    >> You're a loser, Kohlmann.

    >
    > I told him essentially the same thing... and he did not acknowledge the
    > facts. He did, of course, run from the topic and then whine that I post
    > too much and make up stories about my personal life as he worked to pull
    > Google searches for me to *his* posts.
    >
    > Yeah, in other words he panicked and blew a gasket in that angry little
    > brain of his.
    >
    >
    >


    Idiot.
    Just because I decide to ignore most of your worthless, dishonest drivel
    does not mean that I "panick"

    You are aware that people are not as dumb as you need them to be to buy
    your "interpretation", are you?
    --
    You're not my type. For that matter, you're not even my species


  8. Re: More MS slopware

    "Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
    486db371$0$27436$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net on 7/3/08 10:21 PM:

    >>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>> Excel: Real good at computing
    >>>>
    >>>> Multiplying 29513736 by 92842033 = 2740115251665290
    >>>>
    >>>> Right? Riiiiight? (Correct would be 2740115251665288)
    >>>
    >>> Excel 2000 gives me 2740115251665290
    >>> OpenOffice 2.3 Calc (on Windows) gives me 2740115251665290
    >>> OpenOffice 2.0 Calc (on Linux) gives me 2740115251665290
    >>> Gnumeric 1.6.3 gives me 2740115251665280 (note - that ends in 80)
    >>>
    >>> You're a loser, Kohlmann.

    >>
    >> I told him essentially the same thing... and he did not acknowledge the
    >> facts. He did, of course, run from the topic and then whine that I post
    >> too much and make up stories about my personal life as he worked to pull
    >> Google searches for me to *his* posts.
    >>
    >> Yeah, in other words he panicked and blew a gasket in that angry little
    >> brain of his.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Idiot.
    > Just because I decide to ignore most of your worthless, dishonest drivel
    > does not mean that I "panick"


    Ah, you think it is "worthless, dishonest drivel" when I correctly point out
    that the very complaint you made about MS Excel applied to OO.o... and that
    with MS Office you clearly mocked it.

    I bet you will not hold OO.o to the same standards. You do not expect as
    much from it.

    > You are aware that people are not as dumb as you need them to be to buy
    > your "interpretation", are you?


    After I noted that OO.o had the same bug as the one you mocked with MS Excel
    you posted made idiotic claims about me such as how I could not hold down a
    job because I post so much (though you do not hold Roy to the same standard
    - again you are a hypocrite) and you, again, tied your BS lies to my
    personal and business name in an effort to pull searches for *me* and *my*
    business to *your* posts. What a miserable reaction, eh?

    You made a fool of yourself. I pointed it out. You reacted by lashing out
    against my personal and professional life... you cannot even just keep
    things in COLA.

    And you do not even have enough decency in you to be ashamed. Or maybe you
    do - and are just too much of a coward to admit to it. Either way, Peter,
    you have said a lot about yourself in a very short time - and none of it is
    good.






    --
    It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
    speech. -- Mark Twain


  9. Re: More MS slopware

    "Homer" stated in post jjo0k5-5h9.ln1@sky.matrix on
    7/3/08 10:21 PM:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Peter Köhlmann spake thusly:
    >
    >> Excel: Real good at computing
    >>
    >> Multiplying 29513736 by 92842033 = 2740115251665290
    >>
    >> Right? Riiiiight? (Correct would be 2740115251665288)

    >
    > It's bad enough that banks use Microsoft software in ATMs, but pray
    > that no airlines ever use it in their traffic control systems.


    Just so you know, OO.o has the same bug... though when I told Peter that he
    claimed that was "worthless, dishonest drivel".

    I hope his crow is prepared well.


    --
    God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?




  10. Re: More MS slopware

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ Homer on Friday 04 July 2008 06:21 : \____

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Peter Köhlmann spake thusly:
    >
    >> Excel: Real good at computing
    >>
    >> Multiplying 29513736 by 92842033 = 2740115251665290
    >>
    >> Right? Riiiiight? (Correct would be 2740115251665288)

    >
    > It's bad enough that banks use Microsoft software in ATMs, but pray
    > that no airlines ever use it in their traffic control systems.


    Well, that would prevent Gates from travelling ('Bribery Trips') around the
    world, would it not? Last week I spotted him paying a 'visit' to the UN, which
    has become strongly in favour of Free software and even promoted it for
    others.

    For context:

    PINs stolen from Citibank ATMs

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The alleged thieves made off with about $2 million between October 2007 until
    | March of this year. Officials believe they remotely broke into the back-end
    | computers that approve cash withdrawals and grabbed the PINs as they were
    | being transmitted from the ATMs to the transaction processing computers,
    | which increasingly use Windows, the report says.
    `----

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-99...=2547-1_3-0-20


    - --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    "We have increased our prices over the last 10 years (while) other component
    prices have come down and continue to come down."
    --Joachim Kempin, Microsoft
    http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    roy pts/1 cg093a.halls.man Thu Jul 3 23:24 still logged in
    http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFIbfPHU4xAY3RXLo4RAnUYAJ90xn4f+rIlm9LTPsRtCz hDqUoDKACgnpSc
    qPNW9T/ciHbt8OW1G/rp5lo=
    =aEVj
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  11. Re: More MS slopware

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On Linux:
    >
    > $ cat a.c
    > #include
    >
    > int main( void )
    > {
    > float x = 29513736;
    > float y = 92842033;
    > float z = x * y;
    > printf("%f\n", z);
    > return 0;
    > }
    > $ cc a.c
    > $ ./a.out
    > 2740115315097600.000000
    > $ cat a.pl
    > $x = 29513736;
    > $y = 92842033;
    > $z = $x * $y;
    > print "$z\n";
    > $ perl a.pl
    > 2.74011525166529e+15
    >
    > Note that Perl agrees with Excel, and C agrees with neither Excel nor
    > the correct answer.


    Hey, Tim. I don't get wny you used "float" instead of "double".

    #include
    int main( void )
    {
    float x1 = 29513736;
    float y1 = 92842033;
    float z1 = x1 * y1;
    double x2 = 29513736;
    double y2 = 92842033;
    double z2 = x2 * y2;
    printf("%f\n%f\n", z1, z2);
    return 0;
    }

    2740115315097600.000000
    2740115251665288.000000

    (The second answer agrees with gcalctool and bc.)

    So, what was the point you were trying to make?

    --
    We're Knights of the Round Table
    We dance whene'er we're able
    We do routines and chorus scenes
    We're knights of the Round Table
    With footwork impeccable
    Our shows are formidable
    We dine well here in Camelot
    But many times
    We eat ham and jam and Spam a lot.
    We're given rhymes
    That are quite unsingable
    In war we're tough and able,
    We're opera mad in Camelot
    Quite indefatigable
    We sing from the diaphragm a lot.
    Between our quests
    We sequin vests
    And impersonate Clark Gable
    It's a busy life in Camelot.
    I have to push the pram a lot.
    -- Monty Python

  12. Re: More MS slopware

    * Peter Köhlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Snit wrote:
    >>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Multiplying 29513736 by 92842033 = 2740115251665290
    >>>> Right? Riiiiight? (Correct would be 2740115251665288)
    >>>
    >>> Excel 2000 gives me 2740115251665290
    >>> OpenOffice 2.3 Calc (on Windows) gives me 2740115251665290
    >>> OpenOffice 2.0 Calc (on Linux) gives me 2740115251665290
    >>> Gnumeric 1.6.3 gives me 2740115251665280 (note - that ends in 80)
    >>>
    >>> You're a loser, Kohlmann.

    >>
    >> Yeah, in other words he panicked and blew a gasket in that angry little
    >> brain of his.

    >
    > Just because I decide to ignore most of your worthless, dishonest drivel
    > does not mean that I "panick"


    We are /all/ losers. That is, if we try to use spreadsheets for very
    large calculations. They can't even get double-floating-point right.

    How about this test? Enter 12345678901234567890 into a cell and set the
    format to "general". Just tried that in oocalc (64-bit).

    Here's what I entered: 12345678901234567890
    And here's what I see: 12345678901234600000
    *-------------------------------------^

    Rounding to 15 digits.

    Anyway, I wonder how much crap was spewed into the world by using large
    numbers calculated from the more accurately-named "spread****s"?

    --
    Kramer's Law:
    You can never tell which way the train went by looking at the tracks.

  13. Re: More MS slopware

    On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:21:22 +0100, Homer wrote:
    >Verily I say unto thee, that Peter Köhlmann spake thusly:


    >> Excel: Real good at computing
    >>
    >> Multiplying 29513736 by 92842033 = 2740115251665290
    >>
    >> Right? Riiiiight? (Correct would be 2740115251665288)


    >It's bad enough that banks use Microsoft software in ATMs, but pray
    >that no airlines ever use it in their traffic control systems.


    That'll never happen. Nobody with a degree from a school better than
    a comunity college would ever trust a MS OS to anything where it isn't
    OK to crash'n'restart any time. That rules out *all* real time
    control.


  14. Re: More MS slopware

    In article ,
    Linonut wrote:
    >
    > Hey, Tim. I don't get wny you used "float" instead of "double".


    I did do double. The results were included in the table farther down in
    my post. I just didn't give source code for that (or most of the
    others).

    --
    --Tim Smith

  15. Packet sniffing unencrypted data works against Linux, too, Roy

    In article <1964008.53pMW3nBDU@schestowitz.com>,
    Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    > PINs stolen from Citibank ATMs


    They sniffed the network. The ATMs were sending the information
    unencrypted.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  16. Re: More MS slopware

    On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:21:53 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "DFS" stated in post
    >> hmfbk.16886$NQ5.601@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 7/3/08 6:52 PM:
    >>
    >>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>> Excel: Real good at computing
    >>>>
    >>>> Multiplying 29513736 by 92842033 = 2740115251665290
    >>>>
    >>>> Right? Riiiiight? (Correct would be 2740115251665288)
    >>>
    >>> Excel 2000 gives me 2740115251665290
    >>> OpenOffice 2.3 Calc (on Windows) gives me 2740115251665290
    >>> OpenOffice 2.0 Calc (on Linux) gives me 2740115251665290
    >>> Gnumeric 1.6.3 gives me 2740115251665280 (note - that ends in 80)
    >>>
    >>> You're a loser, Kohlmann.

    >>
    >> I told him essentially the same thing... and he did not acknowledge the
    >> facts. He did, of course, run from the topic and then whine that I post
    >> too much and make up stories about my personal life as he worked to pull
    >> Google searches for me to *his* posts.
    >>
    >> Yeah, in other words he panicked and blew a gasket in that angry little
    >> brain of his.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Idiot.
    > Just because I decide to ignore most of your worthless, dishonest drivel
    > does not mean that I "panick"
    >
    > You are aware that people are not as dumb as you need them to be to buy
    > your "interpretation", are you?


    Peter Kohlmann once again makes an ass of himself.

    Stick to one line idiot posts, Kohlmann.
    You seem to manage that well.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  17. Re: More MS slopware

    On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 21:52:22 -0400, DFS wrote:

    > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >> Excel: Real good at computing
    >>
    >> Multiplying 29513736 by 92842033 = 2740115251665290
    >>
    >> Right? Riiiiight? (Correct would be 2740115251665288)

    >
    > Excel 2000 gives me 2740115251665290
    > OpenOffice 2.3 Calc (on Windows) gives me 2740115251665290
    > OpenOffice 2.0 Calc (on Linux) gives me 2740115251665290
    > Gnumeric 1.6.3 gives me 2740115251665280 (note - that ends in 80)
    >
    > You're a loser, Kohlmann.
    >
    >
    >
    >> Not to mention that for Excel-Win the beginning of time is 1.1.1900
    >> Whereas Excel-Mac has it different again: January 2 1904
    >> Meaning they have different day counts
    >>
    >> That Excel thinks about 1900 as a leap year is relativly meaningless
    >> after those blunders
    >>
    >> The rounding errors of 7 years old fame are naturally still present.
    >> Add 0,05, -0,07, 0,02 and 0
    >>
    >> You will not get 0

    >
    > Yes I do, under Excel 2000, no matter how I format it.
    >
    > You're a lying loser, Kohlmann.
    >
    >
    >> Instead you will get -3,46945E-18 if you format the cells
    >> as "standard/normal"
    >>
    >>
    >> Yup. That is the professional Quality software only CSS can provide.
    >> After all, real professionals have done it. With Quality Control.
    >>
    >> Ask Hadron Quark. He knows all about that. DumbFull**** explained it
    >> to him

    >
    > Somebody obviously explained to you how to be a real stupid ****.


    Once again Peter Kohlmann goes down the drain.

    This one is almost as good as his video flub.

    Peter Kohlmann should stick to posting one line/word replies, like 'idiot'
    because each and every time he tries to think he screws up.



    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  18. Re: More MS slopware

    "Linonut" stated in post
    RFqbk.17177$NQ5.8958@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 7/4/08 7:43 AM:

    > * Peter Köhlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> Snit wrote:
    >>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Multiplying 29513736 by 92842033 = 2740115251665290
    >>>>> Right? Riiiiight? (Correct would be 2740115251665288)
    >>>>
    >>>> Excel 2000 gives me 2740115251665290
    >>>> OpenOffice 2.3 Calc (on Windows) gives me 2740115251665290
    >>>> OpenOffice 2.0 Calc (on Linux) gives me 2740115251665290
    >>>> Gnumeric 1.6.3 gives me 2740115251665280 (note - that ends in 80)
    >>>>
    >>>> You're a loser, Kohlmann.
    >>>
    >>> Yeah, in other words he panicked and blew a gasket in that angry little
    >>> brain of his.

    >>
    >> Just because I decide to ignore most of your worthless, dishonest drivel
    >> does not mean that I "panick"

    >
    > We are /all/ losers. That is, if we try to use spreadsheets for very
    > large calculations. They can't even get double-floating-point right.
    >
    > How about this test? Enter 12345678901234567890 into a cell and set the
    > format to "general". Just tried that in oocalc (64-bit).
    >
    > Here's what I entered: 12345678901234567890
    > And here's what I see: 12345678901234600000
    > *-------------------------------------^
    >
    > Rounding to 15 digits.
    >
    > Anyway, I wonder how much crap was spewed into the world by using large
    > numbers calculated from the more accurately-named "spread****s"?


    Peter mocked MS Excel for a weakness it has.

    I noted that the same weakness exists in OO.o.

    Peter claimed my comments were "worthless, dishonest drivel" and - much
    worse - freaked out and started tying his BS to my personal and business
    name in order to try to pull searches for my info to *his* dishonest and
    desperate post.

    Such a fine and honorable man that Peter is!


    --
    It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
    speech. -- Mark Twain


  19. Re: More MS slopware

    In article , Homer
    wrote:
    > > So, what was the point you were trying to make?

    >
    > I think his point was Error: Straw-man on fire.


    How is the fact that OpenOffice gives the exact same result as Excel a
    straw man, Homer?


    --
    --Tim Smith

  20. Re: More MS slopware

    Homer wrote:
    > DooFuS wrote:
    >
    >> Gnumeric 1.6.3 gives me 2740115251665280 (note - that ends in 80)

    >
    > Fixed:
    >
    > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=541500


    You reported it today at 07:09 UTC, and at 13:22 UTC (6 hours later) you got
    an answer from a Gnumeric developer that it was fixed in the 1.8x series.
    Kudos for their quick turnaround - that's what happens with a tiny, tiny
    user base and a small handful of devs.

    1.6.3 was the last 1.6.x series, and it was available March 2006
    http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/gnumeric/1.6/ but the bug could have
    been around since 2001.

    1.8 series available Jan 2008
    http://www.gnome.org/projects/gnumer...eric-1.8.shtml

    I couldn't find a fix in the 1.8 changelogs
    http://www.gnome.org/projects/gnumer....8/index.shtml

    That means it wasn't fixed for nearly 2 years (maybe 6), and it was never
    publicized that it was wrong all that time.

    Go Linux! Go OSS! Hide no bugs! No corruption! No Evil!




    > So where's /Microsoft/ bugzilla?


    http://support.microsoft.com/
    http://forums.microsoft.com/
    support@microsoft.com




    > And how long do /you/ wait to get bugs fixed?


    Until/if they decide to fix it - just like with Linux.





+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast