From: "Joe Barr" 



I've already made you famous as the most famous lying sack of shit in the
world, Shupak.  Don't be greedy.  Wait for the book like everyone else.






On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 13:05:52 +0000,  wrote:

>    So who did fund it?  Demonstrate your supposed journalistic skills and
>    tell us all.
>
> Rich
>
>   "Joe Barr"  wrote in message
>   news:3e172b88$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>   Thanks, Adam.  Interesting.  I think we can safely assume that:
>
>   a.  Richard Shupak did not write the scenario b.  MS did not fund the
>   study
>
>
>
>
>   On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:02:47 +0000, Adam Flinton wrote:
>
>   > http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2907876-92,00.html
>   >
>   > " The RFG study also looked at system support costs. Among the
>   > companies surveyed, the study found few that were paying for Linux
>   > support; instead, they used free support online. Obviously, commercial
>   > support options would add to the Linux TCO equation.
>   > According to the study, the three-year cost of a 100,000-hit
>   > processing unit was significantly different among the systems:
>   >
>   >   a.. Solaris: $561,520
>   >   b.. Windows: $190,662
>   >   c.. Linux: $74,475
>   > "The Microsoft case has always been 'Linux isn't free,' and they're
>   > losing sight of something these days," Robinson said.
"Nobody's saying
>   > Linux is free anymore. Our number here is $74,000 for a three-year
>   > deployment. The news is that, despite it not being free, it's still
>   > considerably cheaper and is more flexible with licensing." "
>   >
>   > Adam
>
>   --
> 
> 
> 

> 
> 
>    So who
did fund it? 
> Demonstrate your supposed journalistic skills and tell us
> all.
> 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:3e172b88$1{at}w3.nls.net">news:3e172b88$1{at}w3.nls.net...Thanks,
>   Adam.  Interesting.  I think we can safely assume
>   that:a.  Richard Shupak did not write the
>   scenariob.  MS did not fund the
studyOn
>   Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:02:47 +0000, Adam Flinton
wrote:>   
href="http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2907876-92,00.htm
l">http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2907876-92,00.html
R>>
>   > " The RFG study also looked at system
support costs. Among the
>   companies> surveyed, the study found few that were paying for
>   Linux support; instead,> they used free support online.
>   Obviously, commercial support options would> add to
the Linux TCO
>   equation.> According to the study, the three-year cost of a
>   100,000-hit processing> unit was significantly
different among
>   the systems:>
>   a.. Solaris:
>   $561,520>   b.. Windows:
$190,662>  
>   c.. Linux: $74,475> "The Microsoft case has
always been 'Linux
>   isn't free,' and they're losing> sight of something
these days,"
>   Robinson said. "Nobody's saying Linux is> free
anymore. Our
>   number here is $74,000 for a three-year deployment.
The> news is
>   that, despite it not being free, it's still considerably
cheaper>
>   and is more flexible with licensing." ">
> Adam--
>   

--

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