From: "Rich"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0E8D_01C31668.0C408270
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
None, right. In other words, no benchmark that compares Microsoft =
products favorably to others is one you would consider as credible. = What
a surprise. Who would have guessed?
Rich
"Joe Barr" wrote in message =
news:pan.2003.05.10.03.04.15.532297{at}austin.rr.com...
You pathetic fool. Do you think I am the only one who distrusts =
claims by
Microsoft? What a hoot. Your firm is the most despised on the face =
of
the earth. It got that distinction the old fashioned way: you earned =
it.
On Fri, 09 May 2003 19:44:32 -0700, wrote:
> Do you consider any benchmark that demonstrates something you =
dislike
> as having the potential to be credible. If so, can you give =
several
> examples of credible benchmarks that compare Microsoft products
> favorably to competing products particularly anything related to =
linux?
>=20
> As for the rest of your drivel, what's the matter? Are you so =
ahamed
> of yourself that you need to try to change the topic and post =
more lies
> and childish insults?
>=20
> Rich
>=20
> "Joe Barr" wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.05.10.01.40.38.63195{at}austin.rr.com...
>=20
> Are you taking a break from your Passport security duties, Mister
> Shupak? Damn, a trillion dollar fine here and a trillion dollar =
fine
> there and it's bound to get even Bill Gates' attention, eh?
>=20
> Let me rephrase my request. Are there any benchmarks from =
credible
> sources? Microsoft most definitely does not fit into that =
category.
> Lying assholes like you, Richard Shupak, are a large part of the =
reason
> for that.
>=20
> By the way, MS scum were all over the Texas Senate chambers =
yesterday.
> They are terrified, they are pissing their pants, they are =
trembling in
> fear, over the fact that a bill having to do with state software
> purchases might contain the phrase "open source."
>=20
> The whole a list of MS shills showed up: CompTIA, ACT, ISC, and =
the BSA.
> You would fit right with them. Each lied through their teetch, =
claiming
> neutrality in the battle between MS and open source. In fact, =
they all
> thought open source was fine. Just didn't want to see it get =
mentioned
> by name is all as that might upset the workings of the "free =
market."=20
> They said it as if they were sure nobody in the Senate understood =
that a
> monopoly is the antithesis of a free market. They reminded me an =
awful
> lot of you, Shupak. Spineless little lying worms.
>=20
> All this over a bill with only five lines of text which none of =
them
> really objected to except for one thing: it contained the magic =
phrase
> "open source."
>=20
> Their message was clear: they are perfectly happy with the =
(monopoly)
> status quo. Open source is OK, as long as it knows its place and
> doesn't try to ride in the front of the bus.
>=20
> They are terrified of competition and are willing to spend any =
amount of
> money, expend any effort, to avoid it. But hey, cowardice has =
always
> been your hallmark trait, hasn't it Shupak?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> =20
> On Fri, 09 May 2003 18:11:35 -0700, wrote:
>=20
> > See
> > =
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance/etest.m=
spx.
> > For file server performance, Windows Server 2003 is as much =
as 84%
> > faster than Windows 2000 Server in the benchmark results.
> >=20
> > You're obviously not much into doing even the most trivial of
> > research for your "articles". The benchmark is
available =
from the
> > same VeriTest page as linux comparison
> > (http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/).
> >=20
> > As for your rigged comment, are you so desparate that this is =
the
> > best you can do? Do you have some demonstratably non-rigged
> > benchmarks which you believe refute these.
> >=20
> > Rich
> >=20
> >=20
> > "Joe Barr" wrote in message
> > news:pan.2003.05.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com... On Fri, 09 =
May
> > 2003 20:20:17 -0400, Geo. wrote:
> >=20
> > One other thing. How about comparative benchmarks between W2K =
and
> > W2K+3? If they don't show the same kind of performance =
increase,
> > that proves the tests were rigged.
> >=20
> > Do you know of any? > Transitional//EN">
> >
> >
> > =
> >
> >
> > See > =
href=3D"http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance=
/etest.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/perfor=
mance/etest.mspx.
> > For file server performance, Windows Server 2003 is as much as =
84%
> > faster than Windows 2000 Server in the benchmark =
results.
> > > size=3D2> You're obviously not much
into doing even =
the most
> > trivial of research for your "articles".
The benchmark is
> > available from the same VeriTest page as linux comparison ( > =
href=3D"http://www.ve" target="new">http://www.ve=">http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/">http://www.ve=
ritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/).
> > > size=3D2> As for your rigged comment,
are you so =
desparate
> > that this is the best you can do? Do you have some
> > demonstratably non-rigged benchmarks which you believe refute
> > these.
> > Rich > size=3D2>
> size=3D2>
> PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px =
solid;
> > MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> > "Joe Barr" < > =
href=3D"warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>">mailto:warthawg{at}austin.rr.com">warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>
> > wrote in message > =
href=3D"news:pan.2003.05.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com">news:pan.2003.0=
5.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com...On
> > Fri, 09 May 2003 20:20:17 -0400, Geo.
wrote:One other
> > thing. How about comparative benchmarks between W2K and =
W2K+3?
> > If they don't show the same kind of performance increase, =
that
> > proves thetests were
rigged.Do you know of
> > any?
>=20
> --
>
>
> =
>
>
> Do
you consider any =
benchmark
> that demonstrates something you dislike as having the potential to =
be
> credible. If so, can you give several examples of credible
> benchmarks that compare Microsoft products favorably to =
competing
> products particularly anything related to linux?
> size=3D2> As for the rest of your drivel, what's the
> matter? Are you so ahamed of yourself that you need to try to =
change
> the topic and post more lies and childish insults? =
face=3DArial size=3D2>
size=3D2>Rich
> style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
> BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> "Joe Barr" < =
href=3D"warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>">mailto:warthawg{at}austin.rr.com">warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>
> wrote in message =
href=3D"news:pan.2003.05.10.01.40.38.63195{at}austin.rr.com">news:pan.2003.0=
5.10.01.40.38.63195{at}austin.rr.com...Are
> you taking a break from your Passport security duties, Mister
> Shupak?Damn, a trillion dollar fine here and a trillion dollar =
fine
> there andit's bound to get even Bill Gates' attention,
> eh?Let me rephrase my request. Are there any =
benchmarks
> from crediblesources? Microsoft most
definitely does not =
fit
> into that category. Lyingassholes like you, Richard Shupak, =
are a
> large part of the reason forthat.By
the way, MS scum =
were
> all over the Texas Senate chambers yesterday.They are =
terrified,
> they are pissing their pants, they are trembling infear, over =
the
> fact that a bill having to do with state software =
purchasesmight
> contain the phrase "open source."The
whole a list of MS =
shills
> showed up: CompTIA, ACT, ISC, and the BSA.You would fit right =
with
> them. Each lied through their teetch,
claimingneutrality =
in
> the battle between MS and open source. In fact, they
> allthought open source was fine. Just didn't
want to see =
it
> get mentioned byname is all as that might upset the workings =
of the
> "free market." Theysaid it as if
they were sure nobody =
in the
> Senate understood that amonopoly is the antithesis of a free
> market. They reminded me an awfullot of you, =
Shupak.
> Spineless little lying worms.All this over a bill with =
only five
> lines of text which none of themreally objected to except for =
one
> thing: it contained the magic phrase"open =
source."Their
> message was clear: they are perfectly happy with the
> (monopoly)status quo. Open source is OK, as long as it =
knows
> its place and doesn'ttry to ride in the front of the
> bus.They are terrified of competition and are
willing to =
spend
> any amount ofmoney, expend any effort, to avoid
it. But =
hey,
> cowardice has always beenyour hallmark trait, hasn't it
>
Shupak? On Fri,
09 May 2003 18:11:35
> -0700,
wrote:>
> See> =
href=3D"http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance=
/etest.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/perfor=
mance/etest.mspx.>
> For file server performance, Windows Server 2003 is as much as
> 84%> faster than
Windows 2000 Server in =
the
> benchmark results.>
> You're =
obviously
> not much into doing even the most trivial =
of>
> research for your "articles". The benchmark is
available =
from
> the> same VeriTest
page as linux
> comparison> ( =
href=3D"http://www.ve" target="new">http://www.ve=">http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/">http://www.ve=
ritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/).>
> > As for your
rigged comment, are you so
> desparate that this is
the> best you can
> do? Do you have some demonstratably
> non-rigged>
benchmarks which you believe =
refute
> these.> > Rich>
> > =
"Joe
> Barr" < =
href=3D"warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>">mailto:warthawg{at}austin.rr.com">warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>
> wrote in message> =
href=3D"news:pan.2003.05.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com">news:pan.2003.0=
5.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com...
> On Fri, 09 May> 2003 20:20:17
-0400, Geo.
> wrote:> >
One other thing. How =
about
> comparative benchmarks between W2K
and> W2K+3? =
If
> they don't show the same kind of performance increase,
> that> proves the tests were
rigged.>
> > Do you know of
any?<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC
> "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0> =
Transitional//EN">>
> <HTML><HEAD>> <META =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type
> content=3D"text/html;
charset=3Diso-8859-1">> <META
> content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.3790.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
> <STYLE></STYLE>>
</HEAD>> <BODY
> bgColor=3D#ffffff>>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial
> size=3D2> See
<A> href=3D" =
href=3D'http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance=
/etest.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/perfor=
mance/etest.mspx. '>http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver200=
3/evaluation/performance/etest.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowss=
erver2003/evaluation/performance/etest.mspx</A>. &=
gt;
> For file server performance, Windows Server 2003 is as much as
> 84%> faster than Windows 2000 Server in the benchmark
>
results.</FONT></DIV>>
<DIV><FONT =
face=3DArial
> size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> =
<DIV><FONT
> face=3DArial>
size=3D2> You're =
obviously not
> much into doing even the most> trivial of research for your
> "articles". The benchmark
is> available from the =
same
> VeriTest page as linux comparison (<A>
href=3D" =
href=3D'http://www.ve" target="new">http://www.ve=">http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/">http://www.ve=
ritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/).http://www.verit=
est.com/clients/reports/microsoft/">http://www.veritest.com/clients/re=
ports/microsoft/</A>).</FONT></DIV>>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial
> size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> =
<DIV><FONT
> face=3DArial>
size=3D2> As for your =
rigged
> comment, are you so desparate> that this is the best you =
can
> do? Do you have some
demonstratably> non-rigged
> benchmarks which you believe refute
> these.</FONT></DIV>>
<DIV><FONT =
face=3DArial
> size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> =
<DIV><FONT
> face=3DArial>
size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial>
> size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> =
<DIV><FONT
> face=3DArial> =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT:
0px;> PADDING-LEFT: =
5px;
> MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid;> =
MARGIN-RIGHT:
> 0px">>
<DIV>"Joe Barr"
> <<A>
href=3D" =
href=3D'warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>'=">mailto:warthawg{at}austin.rr.com">warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>'=
>
t;>
> wrote in message <A>
href=3D" =
href=3D'news:pan.2003.05.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com">news:pan.2003.0=
5.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com...On'>news:pan.2003.05.10.00.=
43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com">news:pan.2003.05.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.r=
r.com</A>...</DIV>On>
> Fri, 09 May 2003 20:20:17 -0400, Geo. =
wrote:<BR><BR>One
> other> thing.
How about comparative
> benchmarks between W2K and
W2K+3?> <BR>If =
they
> don't show the same kind of performance increase,
> that> proves
the<BR>tests were
> rigged.<BR><BR>Do you know
of>
> =
any?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>--
>
--=20
------=_NextPart_000_0E8D_01C31668.0C408270
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
None,
right. In =
other words, no=20
benchmark that compares Microsoft products favorably to others is one = you would=20
consider as credible. What a surprise. Who would
have=20 guessed?
Rich
"Joe Barr" <warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>">mailto:warthawg{at}austin.rr.com">warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>
=
wrote in=20
message news:pan.2003.=
05.10.03.04.15.532297{at}austin.rr.com...You=20
pathetic fool. Do you think I am the only one who distrusts =
claims=20
byMicrosoft? What a hoot. Your firm is the most =
despised on=20
the face ofthe earth. It got that distinction the old =
fashioned way:=20
you earned it.On Fri, 09 May 2003
19:44:32 =
-0700, =20
wrote:> Do you
consider any benchmark =
that=20
demonstrates something you
dislike> as having =
the=20
potential to be credible. If so, can you give=20
several> examples of
credible benchmarks that =
compare=20
Microsoft products>
favorably to competing =
products=20
particularly anything related to linux?> =
> As=20
for the rest of your drivel, what's the matter? Are you so=20
ahamed> of yourself that
you need to try to =
change=20
the topic and post more
lies> and childish=20
insults?> > Rich>
> "Joe Barr" =
<warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>">mailto:warthawg{at}austin.rr.com">warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>
=
wrote in=20
message> news:pan.2003.0=
5.10.01.40.38.63195{at}austin.rr.com...>=20
> Are you taking a break from your Passport =
security=20
duties, Mister> Shupak? Damn, a
trillion dollar =
fine here=20
and a trillion dollar fine> there
and it's bound to =
get=20
even Bill Gates' attention, eh?>
> Let me =
rephrase=20
my request. Are there any benchmarks from =
credible> =20
sources? Microsoft most definitely does not fit into that=20
category.> Lying assholes like you,
Richard Shupak, =
are a=20
large part of the reason> for
that.>=20
> By the way, MS scum were all over
the Texas =
Senate=20
chambers yesterday.> They are
terrified, they are =
pissing=20
their pants, they are trembling in>
fear, over the =
fact=20
that a bill having to do with state
software> =
purchases=20
might contain the phrase "open source.">
> =
The whole=20
a list of MS shills showed up: CompTIA, ACT, ISC, and the=20
BSA.> You would fit right with
them. Each =
lied=20
through their teetch, claiming>
neutrality in the =
battle=20
between MS and open source. In fact, they =
all> =20
thought open source was fine. Just didn't want to see it get=20
mentioned> by name is all as that
might upset the =
workings=20
of the "free market." >
They said it as if they =
were sure=20
nobody in the Senate understood that
a> monopoly is =
the=20
antithesis of a free market. They reminded me an=20
awful> lot of you, Shupak.
Spineless little =
lying=20
worms.> > All this
over a bill with only =
five lines=20
of text which none of them> really
objected to =
except for=20
one thing: it contained the magic
phrase> "open=20
source."> >
Their message was clear: they =
are=20
perfectly happy with the (monopoly)> status =
quo. Open=20
source is OK, as long as it knows its place
and> =
doesn't=20
try to ride in the front of the bus.>
> They =
are=20
terrified of competition and are willing to spend any amount=20
of> money, expend any effort, to
avoid it. =
But hey,=20
cowardice has always> been your
hallmark trait, =
hasn't it=20
Shupak?> > >
> =20
> On Fri, 09 May 2003 18:11:35
-0700, =
wrote:>=20
>
>
See> =20
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance=
/etest.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/perfor=
mance/etest.mspx.> =20
> For file server
performance, Windows =
Server 2003=20
is as much as 84%>
> faster =
than=20
Windows 2000 Server in the benchmark
results.> > =
>
> You're obviously not much =
into=20
doing even the most trivial of> =
> =20
research for your "articles". The benchmark is
available from=20
the>
> same VeriTest page as =
linux=20
comparison>
> (http://www.ve" target="new">http://www.ve=">http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/">http://www.ve=
ritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/).> =20
> >
> As for your rigged =
comment,=20
are you so desparate that this is the> =20
> best you can do? Do you
have some =
demonstratably=20
non-rigged>
> benchmarks which =
you=20
believe refute these.> >
> =
>=20
Rich> >
> > =
> =20
> "Joe Barr" <warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>">mailto:warthawg{at}austin.rr.com">warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>
=
wrote in=20
message> > news:pan.2003.0=
5.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com...=20
On Fri, 09 May>
> 2003 20:20:17 =
-0400, Geo.=20
wrote:> >
> > =
One=20
other thing. How about comparative benchmarks between W2K=20
and> >
W2K+3? If they don't show the =
same=20
kind of performance increase,>
> =
that proves=20
the tests were rigged.> >
> =20
> Do you know of any?<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC =
"-//W3C//DTD HTML=20
4.0> > =20
Transitional//EN">> >=20
<HTML><HEAD>>
> <META=20
http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html;=20
charset=3Diso-8859-1">>
> <META =
content=3D"MSHTML=20
6.00.3790.0" name=3DGENERATOR>=20
<STYLE></STYLE>>
>=20
</HEAD>> >
<BODY=20
bgColor=3D#ffffff>> >
<DIV><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2> See
<A> > =
href=3D"http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance=
/etest.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/perfor=
mance/etest.mspx. '>http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver200=
3/evaluation/performance/etest.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowss=
erver2003/evaluation/performance/etest.mspx</A>. &=
gt; =20
> For file server performance, Windows Server 2003 is as much as=20
84%> > faster than Windows
2000 Server in the =
benchmark=20
results.</FONT></DIV>>
> =
<DIV><FONT=20
face=3DArial
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> =
<DIV><FONT=20
face=3DArial> >
size=3D2> =
You're=20
obviously not much into doing even the
most> > =
trivial=20
of research for your "articles". The benchmark=20
is> > available from the same
VeriTest page as =
linux=20
comparison (<A> >
href=3D"http://www.ve" target="new">http://www.ve=">http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/">http://www.ve=
ritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/).http://www.verit=
est.com/clients/reports/microsoft/">http://www.veritest.com/clients/re=
ports/microsoft/</A>).</FONT></DIV>> &n=
bsp;=20
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT=20
face=3DArial> >
size=3D2> =
As for your=20
rigged comment, are you so
desparate> > that =
this is the=20
best you can do? Do you have
some> >=20
demonstratably non-rigged benchmarks which you believe=20
refute> >
these.</FONT></DIV>=20
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>>
=
>=20
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>=20
<DIV><FONT
face=3DArial> >=20
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT=20
face=3DArial> >=20
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px;>
> PADDING-LEFT: =
5px;=20
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px
solid;> =
>=20
MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">>
> =
<DIV>"Joe=20
Barr" <<A>
> href=3D"warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>'=">mailto:warthawg{at}austin.rr.com">warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>'=
>
t;> =20
> wrote in message
<A> =
> =20
href=3D"news:pan.2003.0=
5.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com...On'>news:pan.2003.05.10.00.=
43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com">news:pan.2003.05.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.r=
r.com</A>...</DIV>On> =20
> Fri, 09 May 2003 20:20:17 -0400, Geo.=20
wrote:<BR><BR>One
other> =
> =20
thing. How about comparative benchmarks between W2K and=20
W2K+3?> >
<BR>If they don't =
show the=20
same kind of performance increase, that> =
> =20
proves the<BR>tests were
rigged.<BR><BR>Do you know=20
of> > =20
any?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>>=20
> --<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC
"-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0=20
Transitional//EN">>
<HTML><HEAD>> =
<META=20
http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">>=20
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.3790.0" name=3DGENERATOR>=20
<STYLE></STYLE>>
</HEAD>> <BODY=20
bgColor=3D#ffffff>>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2> Do you consider any
benchmark> =
that=20
demonstrates something you dislike as having the potential to =
be>=20
credible. If so, can you give several examples of =
credible>=20
benchmarks that compare Microsoft products favorably to=20
competing> products particularly anything related to=20
linux?</FONT></DIV>>
<DIV><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT=20
face=3DArial>
size=3D2> As for the rest =
of your=20
drivel, what's the> matter? Are you so ahamed of =
yourself=20
that you need to try to change> the topic and post more lies =
and=20
childish insults?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT> =
face=3DArial
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> =
<DIV><FONT=20
face=3DArial>
size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV> =
<DIV><FONT=20
face=3DArial
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>>=20
<BLOCKQUOTE> style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px;
PADDING-LEFT: 5px; =
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;> BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; =
MARGIN-RIGHT:=20
0px">>
<DIV>"Joe Barr"=20
<<A> href=3D"warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>'=">mailto:warthawg{at}austin.rr.com">warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>'=
>
t;> =20
wrote in message <A>
href=3D"news:pan.2003.0=
5.10.01.40.38.63195{at}austin.rr.com...Are'>news:pan.2003.05.1=
0.01.40.38.63195{at}austin.rr.com">news:pan.2003.05.10.01.40.38.63195{at}aus=
tin.rr.com</A>...</DIV><BR>Are>
=
you taking a break from your Passport security duties,=20
Mister>
Shupak?<BR>Damn, a trillion dollar =
fine here=20
and a trillion dollar fine> there
and<BR>it's =
bound=20
to get even Bill Gates' attention,> =20
eh?<BR><BR>Let me rephrase my
request. Are there =
any=20
benchmarks> from =
credible<BR>sources? =20
Microsoft most definitely does not
fit> into that =
category.=20
Lying<BR>assholes like you, Richard Shupak, are =
a> =20
large part of the reason
for<BR>that.<BR><BR>By the =
way, MS=20
scum were> all over the Texas Senate
chambers=20
yesterday.<BR>They are
terrified,> they are =
pissing=20
their pants, they are trembling in<BR>fear, over =
the> =20
fact that a bill having to do with state software=20
purchases<BR>might>
contain the phrase "open=20
source."<BR><BR>The whole a list of MS =
shills> =20
showed up: CompTIA, ACT, ISC, and the BSA.<BR>You would fit =
right=20
with> them. Each lied
through their =
teetch,=20
claiming<BR>neutrality
in> the battle between =
MS and=20
open source. In fact, they> =
all<BR>thought=20
open source was fine. Just didn't want to see =
it> =20
get mentioned by<BR>name is all as that might upset the workings =
of=20
the> "free
market." They<BR>said it =
as if=20
they were sure nobody in the> Senate
understood =
that=20
a<BR>monopoly is the antithesis of a
free> =20
market. They reminded me an awful<BR>lot of you,=20
Shupak. > Spineless
little lying=20
worms.<BR><BR>All this over a bill with only=20
five> lines of text which none of =
them<BR>really=20
objected to except for one> thing:
it contained the =
magic=20
phrase<BR>"open =
source."<BR><BR>Their> =20
message was clear: they are perfectly happy with =
the> =20
(monopoly)<BR>status quo. Open source is OK, as long =
as it=20
knows> its place and
doesn't<BR>try to ride =
in the=20
front of the>
bus.<BR><BR>They are =
terrified of=20
competition and are willing to
spend> any amount=20
of<BR>money, expend any effort, to avoid it. But=20
hey,> cowardice has always
been<BR>your =
hallmark=20
trait, hasn't it> =20
Shupak?<BR><BR><BR> <BR><BR>On
=
Fri, 09=20
May 2003 18:11:35> -0700, =20
=
wrote:<BR><BR>> >&=
nbsp; =20
See<BR>> =
<A> =20
href=3D"http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance=
/etest.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/perfor=
mance/etest.mspx.>  '=
>http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance/etest.=
mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performanc=
e/etest.mspx</A>.<BR>> &a=
mp;nbsp;> =20
For file server performance, Windows Server 2003 is as much=20
as> =
84%<BR>> =20
faster than Windows 2000 Server in
the> benchmark=20
results.<BR>> =
<BR>> =20
You're obviously> not much into
doing even the most =
trivial=20
of<BR>> >
=
research for your "articles". The benchmark is available=20
from> =
the<BR>> =20
same VeriTest page as linux> =20
comparison<BR>> =20
(<A> href=3D"http://www.ve" target="new">http://www.ve=">http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/">http://www.ve=
ritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/).>'>http://www.verite=
st.com/clients/reports/microsoft/">http://www.veritest.com/clients/rep=
orts/microsoft/</A>).<BR>>> =20
<BR>>
As for your rigged =
comment,=20
are you so> desparate that this is=20
the<BR>>
best you=20
can> do? Do you have some=20
demonstratably> =20
non-rigged<BR>>
benchmarks =
which=20
you believe refute>
these.<BR>>=20
<BR>> Rich<BR>>
<BR>>=20
<BR>>
"Joe> Barr"=20
<<A> href=3D"warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>'=">mailto:warthawg{at}austin.rr.com">warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>'=
>
t;> =20
wrote in message<BR>> =20
<A> href=3D"news:pan.2003.0=
5.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.comnews:pan.2003.05.10.00.43.54.97025{at}=
austin.rr.com">news:pan.2003.05.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com</A<=
/A>>...> =20
On Fri, 09 May<BR>>
2003 20:20:17 =
-0400,=20
Geo.> wrote:<BR>>=20
<BR>> One other
thing. How=20
about> comparative benchmarks between W2K=20
and<BR>> W2K+3? =
If> they=20
don't show the same kind of performance
increase,> =20
that<BR>> proves the
tests were=20
rigged.<BR>>> =20
<BR>> Do you know of =
any?<!DOCTYPE=20
HTML PUBLIC> "-//W3C//DTD HTML=20
4.0<BR>> =20
Transitional//EN"><BR>>> =20
<HTML><HEAD><BR>>
=
<META=20
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
content=3D"text/html;=20
charset=3Diso-8859-1"><BR>> =
<META> =20
content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.3790.0" =
name=3DGENERATOR>> =20
<STYLE></STYLE><BR>>=20
</HEAD><BR>> =
<BODY> =20
bgColor=3D#ffffff><BR>> =
<DIV><FONT=20
face=3DArial> =
size=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp; See=20
<A<BR>>
href=3D"<A> =20
=
href=3D'http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance=
/etest.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/per=
formance/etest.mspx</A>.&nbsp'>http://www.microsoft.com/=
windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance/etest.mspx">http://www.mi=
crosoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance/etest.mspx</A=
>.&nbsp</A>;<BR>>> =20
For file server performance, Windows Server 2003 is as much=20
as>
84%<BR>> faster than Windows 2000 =
Server=20
in the benchmark> =20
results.</FONT></DIV><BR>>=20
<DIV><FONT
face=3DArial> =20
=
size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>=20
<DIV><FONT> =20
face=3DArial<BR>> =
size=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp; You're=20
obviously not> much into doing even the=20
most<BR>> trivial of research for =
your> =20
"articles".&nbsp; The benchmark
is<BR>> available =
from=20
the same> VeriTest page as linux comparison=20
(<A<BR>>
href=3D"<A> =20
=
href=3D'
.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/</A>).</FONT></DIV=
'>
w.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/</A>).</FON=
T></DIV</A>><BR>>> &n=
bsp;=20
<DIV><FONT
face=3DArial> =20
=
size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>=20
<DIV><FONT> =20
face=3DArial<BR>> =
size=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp; As for=20
your rigged> comment, are you so=20
desparate<BR>> that this is the best you =
can> =20
do?&nbsp; Do you have some
demonstratably<BR>>=20
non-rigged> benchmarks which you believe=20
refute> =20
these.</FONT></DIV><BR>>=20
<DIV><FONT
face=3DArial> =20
=
size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>=20
<DIV><FONT> =20
face=3DArial<BR>>=20
=
size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>>&nbs=
p; =20
<DIV><FONT=20
face=3DArial<BR>>> =20
=
size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>=20
<DIV><FONT> =20
face=3DArial<BR>>=20
=
size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>> =20
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT:
0px;<BR>> =
PADDING-LEFT:=20
5px;> MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT:
#000000 2px=20
solid;<BR>>
MARGIN-RIGHT:> =20
0px"><BR>> =
<DIV>"Joe=20
Barr"> =20
&lt;<A<BR>> =20
href=3D"<A> =20
=
href=3D'
;&gt'>
.com</A>&gt</A>;<BR>> &=
amp;nbsp;> =20
wrote in message
<A<BR>> =20
href=3D"<A> =20
=
href=3D'news:pan.2003.05.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com">news:pan.200=
3.05.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com</A>...</DIV>On'>news:=
pan.2003.05.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com">news:pan.2003.05.10.0=
0.43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com</A>...</DIV>On<=
;/A><BR>> > =20
Fri, 09 May 2003 20:20:17 -0400, Geo.=20
wrote:<BR><BR>One> =20
other<BR>>
thing.&nbsp; How =
about=20
comparative> benchmarks between W2K and=20
W2K+3?<BR>>
<BR>If=20
they> don't show the same kind of
performance=20
increase,> =
that<BR>> =20
proves the<BR>tests
were> =20
rigged.<BR><BR>Do you know=20
of<BR>> > =20
=
any?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY>&am=
p;lt;/HTML><BR><BR>-->=20
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>--=20
------=_NextPart_000_0E8D_01C31668.0C408270--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/1.45)
SEEN-BY: 633/267 270
@PATH: 379/1 106/1 2000 633/267
|