From: "Joe Barr" 


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?

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.

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."

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."  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.

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."

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.

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?




On Fri, 09 May 2003 18:11:35 -0700,  wrote:

>    See
>    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance/etest.ms
px.
>     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
>    (http://www.veritest.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"  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:
>
>   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?   Transitional//EN">
> 
> 
> 

> 
> 
>    See 
href="http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance/etest
.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance/etest.
mspx. 
> For file server performance, Windows Server 2003 is as much as 84%
> faster than Windows 2000 Server in the benchmark
results.
>    size=2>   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="http://www.veritest" target="new">http://www.veritest">http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/">http://www.veritest
.com/clients/reports/microsoft/).
>    size=2>   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.
>    size=2>Rich  size=2>   size=2>  

>   "Joe Barr" <  
href="warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>">mailto:warthawg{at}austin.rr.com">warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>
>   wrote in message   
href="news: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...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?

--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4