From: "Joe Barr" 


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?
>
>    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?
>
> Rich
>
>   "Joe Barr"  wrote in message
>   news:pan.2003.05.10.01.40.38.63195{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 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/etes
t.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
>   >    (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/e
test.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance/et
est.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.veri" target="new">http://www.veri">http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/">http://www.veri
test.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.  
>   > 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.2003.0
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?
>
>   --
> 
> 
> 

> 
> 
>    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=2>   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=Arial size=2> 
 size=2>Rich  
> 
 style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
> BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
>   "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.2003.05.10.01.40.38.63195{at}austin.rr.com">news:pan.2003.05.10
.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="http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance/ete
st.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance/etes
t.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="http://www.verite" target="new">http://www.verite">http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/">http://www.verite
st.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="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 the tests were
rigged.>
>   >   Do you know of
any?<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC
>   "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0>  
Transitional//EN">>
>   <HTML><HEAD>>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type
>   content="text/html;
charset=iso-8859-1">> <META
>   content="MSHTML 6.00.3790.0" name=GENERATOR>
>   <STYLE></STYLE>>
</HEAD>> <BODY
>   bgColor=#ffffff>>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
>   size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp; See
<A> href="   href='http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance/ete
st.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance/etes
t.mspx.&nbsp'>http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/per
formance/etest.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/p
erformance/etest.mspx</A>.&nbsp;>
>   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=Arial
>  
size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT
>   face=Arial>
size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp; You're obviously not
>   much into doing even the most> trivial of research for your
>   "articles".&nbsp; The benchmark
is> available from the same
>   VeriTest page as linux comparison (<A>
href="  
href='http://www.verite" target="new">http://www.verite">http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/">http://www.verite
st.com/clients/reports/microsoft/).http://www.veritest.com/cl
ients/reports/microsoft/">http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/
</A>).</FONT></DIV>>
>   <DIV><FONT face=Arial
>  
size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT
>   face=Arial>
size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp; As for your rigged
>   comment, are you so desparate> that this is the best you can
>   do?&nbsp; Do you have some demonstratably> non-rigged
>   benchmarks which you believe refute
>   these.</FONT></DIV>>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
>  
size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT
>   face=Arial>
size=2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
>   <DIV><FONT face=Arial>
>  
size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT
>   face=Arial>
size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
>   <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px;>
PADDING-LEFT: 5px;
>   MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid;>
MARGIN-RIGHT:
>   0px">>  
<DIV>"Joe Barr"
>   &lt;<A>   href="  
href='warthawg{at}austin.rr.com&gt'>mai">mailto:warthawg{at}austin.rr.com">warthawg{at}austin.rr.com&gt'>mai
lto:warthawg{at}austin.rr.com">warthawg{at}austin.rr.com</A>&gt;
>  
>   wrote in message <A>  
href="  
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'>news:pan.2003.05.10.00.43.54.9702
5{at}austin.rr.com">news:pan.2003.05.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com</A>.
..</DIV>On>  
>   Fri, 09 May 2003 20:20:17 -0400, Geo.
wrote:<BR><BR>One
>   other>   thing.&nbsp; 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>--
> 

--

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