<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_20_1812254</id>
	<title>Oracle Kills Virtual Iron</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1245527820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://twitter.com/innomination" rel="nofollow">rhathar</a> writes in with news that <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/19/oracle\_kills\_virtual\_iron/">Oracle is killing off the products of Virtual Iron</a>, a month after purchasing the company. Reports say that all but 10 to 15 staff were let go. The Reg article speculates that Oracle bought VI for its technology and considers its customers and partners expendable. When the Sun purchase finalizes, Oracle will be in possession of <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/with-virtual-iron-oracle-bought-a-big-loss/?hp">three separate virtualization technologies</a> all based on Xen. <i>"In a letter to Virtual Iron's sales partners, Oracle says it 'will suspend development of existing Virtual Iron products and will suspend delivery of orders to new customers.' One partner said, 'So basically, anyone that built their hosting infrastructure on VI... is now totally in the s&ndash;.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>rhathar writes in with news that Oracle is killing off the products of Virtual Iron , a month after purchasing the company .
Reports say that all but 10 to 15 staff were let go .
The Reg article speculates that Oracle bought VI for its technology and considers its customers and partners expendable .
When the Sun purchase finalizes , Oracle will be in possession of three separate virtualization technologies all based on Xen .
" In a letter to Virtual Iron 's sales partners , Oracle says it 'will suspend development of existing Virtual Iron products and will suspend delivery of orders to new customers .
' One partner said , 'So basically , anyone that built their hosting infrastructure on VI... is now totally in the s    .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rhathar writes in with news that Oracle is killing off the products of Virtual Iron, a month after purchasing the company.
Reports say that all but 10 to 15 staff were let go.
The Reg article speculates that Oracle bought VI for its technology and considers its customers and partners expendable.
When the Sun purchase finalizes, Oracle will be in possession of three separate virtualization technologies all based on Xen.
"In a letter to Virtual Iron's sales partners, Oracle says it 'will suspend development of existing Virtual Iron products and will suspend delivery of orders to new customers.
' One partner said, 'So basically, anyone that built their hosting infrastructure on VI... is now totally in the s–.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28415065</id>
	<title>We use Virtual Iron at work...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245591840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FUCK</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FUCK</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FUCK</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404041</id>
	<title>Don't forget VirtualBox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245489660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Though probably not for data center use, VirtualBox would add a fourth virtualization technology to their list.  I'm more interested to see what they do with VirtualBox than what they do with all their overlapping Xen offerings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Though probably not for data center use , VirtualBox would add a fourth virtualization technology to their list .
I 'm more interested to see what they do with VirtualBox than what they do with all their overlapping Xen offerings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though probably not for data center use, VirtualBox would add a fourth virtualization technology to their list.
I'm more interested to see what they do with VirtualBox than what they do with all their overlapping Xen offerings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28407171</id>
	<title>Antitrust</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1245514320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why isn't this illegal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is n't this illegal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why isn't this illegal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28405971</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why VMWare is the...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245503880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows Server 2008 with Hyper-V will be supported until 2018 at least, do you think VMWare will be supporting ESX3.5 then?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows Server 2008 with Hyper-V will be supported until 2018 at least , do you think VMWare will be supporting ESX3.5 then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows Server 2008 with Hyper-V will be supported until 2018 at least, do you think VMWare will be supporting ESX3.5 then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28406343</id>
	<title>Re:Purpose of open software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245506460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Oh, yes, I'll just take virtualization software source code and send it to another developer for fixes. I'm sure just any old development shop can handle that "</p><p>Why not?  I'm not any kind of programing guru (I'm not even a programer by trade but more of a sysadmin) and I write little maintenance patches and backports to our Xen 3.0 sources till we can manage to upgrade to a more modern release -for a company under 100 people.  I can't see how a multimillion dolar company can't devote a hacker's or at least half a hacker's time to that if the need arises.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Oh , yes , I 'll just take virtualization software source code and send it to another developer for fixes .
I 'm sure just any old development shop can handle that " Why not ?
I 'm not any kind of programing guru ( I 'm not even a programer by trade but more of a sysadmin ) and I write little maintenance patches and backports to our Xen 3.0 sources till we can manage to upgrade to a more modern release -for a company under 100 people .
I ca n't see how a multimillion dolar company ca n't devote a hacker 's or at least half a hacker 's time to that if the need arises .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Oh, yes, I'll just take virtualization software source code and send it to another developer for fixes.
I'm sure just any old development shop can handle that "Why not?
I'm not any kind of programing guru (I'm not even a programer by trade but more of a sysadmin) and I write little maintenance patches and backports to our Xen 3.0 sources till we can manage to upgrade to a more modern release -for a company under 100 people.
I can't see how a multimillion dolar company can't devote a hacker's or at least half a hacker's time to that if the need arises.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28411239</id>
	<title>Re:NOT totally in the s---</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1245603840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>
VI customers could just switch to emacs.
</em> </p><p>
Emacs is great with its Ctrl+Alt+Meta+Escape+2 S  for starting a VM and such.
</p><p>
The problem is it needs to get vMotion, HA cluster config, and Host Profile support, to be seriously considered by most enterprises over vi.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>VI customers could just switch to emacs .
Emacs is great with its Ctrl + Alt + Meta + Escape + 2 S for starting a VM and such .
The problem is it needs to get vMotion , HA cluster config , and Host Profile support , to be seriously considered by most enterprises over vi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
VI customers could just switch to emacs.
Emacs is great with its Ctrl+Alt+Meta+Escape+2 S  for starting a VM and such.
The problem is it needs to get vMotion, HA cluster config, and Host Profile support, to be seriously considered by most enterprises over vi.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28405441</id>
	<title>Re:NOT totally in the s---</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245500580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>VI customers could just switch to emacs.</p></div></blockquote><p>Now they have two problems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>VI customers could just switch to emacs.Now they have two problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VI customers could just switch to emacs.Now they have two problems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28409139</id>
	<title>Death FIRST!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245579540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give me VI or give me death!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give me VI or give me death !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give me VI or give me death!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28407033</id>
	<title>VI</title>
	<author>Tokerat</author>
	<datestamp>1245512820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Real datacenters use Emacs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Real datacenters use Emacs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Real datacenters use Emacs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404943</id>
	<title>Re:Purpose of open software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245497640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is a good example of the purpose for requiring that you have access to and can compile the source code to the software you're using.</p></div><p>Customers do have access to the source, at least partially, since Virtual Iron is based on the open source Xen hypervisor:</p><p>http://www.xen.org/</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a good example of the purpose for requiring that you have access to and can compile the source code to the software you 're using.Customers do have access to the source , at least partially , since Virtual Iron is based on the open source Xen hypervisor : http : //www.xen.org/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a good example of the purpose for requiring that you have access to and can compile the source code to the software you're using.Customers do have access to the source, at least partially, since Virtual Iron is based on the open source Xen hypervisor:http://www.xen.org/
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28414485</id>
	<title>sun products are next</title>
	<author>theshowmecanuck</author>
	<datestamp>1245586500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone who uses Netbeans needs to start leaning how to use Eclipse or JDeveloper. Never mind all those who use Open Office.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who uses Netbeans needs to start leaning how to use Eclipse or JDeveloper .
Never mind all those who use Open Office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who uses Netbeans needs to start leaning how to use Eclipse or JDeveloper.
Never mind all those who use Open Office.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28408927</id>
	<title>Re:Purpose of open software</title>
	<author>omz13</author>
	<datestamp>1245577380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The funniest part is that the OP was probably dead serious when he wrote that.  If this is a "good example" of anything, it's an example of why having the source code doesn't buy ordinary people diddly squat.</p></div><p>So true! Years ago when I worked at a software house our CEO was paranoid about the source code... he wanted it locked away as he was afraid our "competitors" could get it. Now, there were a few problems with this. Our customers got the source code when they bought our system, since it needed to be compiled on their systems (as no two customers had the same configuration). Also, we didn't really have any competitors. Now, the joke is that even though our customers had the source, and the security blanket that should our company go down they could continue, the customers could do no more than compile the code. The real knowledge was locked in the heads of the programmers who knew HOW and WHY everything was put together in the source code... and, sadly, this is something that is still overlooked. The source isn't everything, but just part of it, and most people don't realize what the missing part is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The funniest part is that the OP was probably dead serious when he wrote that .
If this is a " good example " of anything , it 's an example of why having the source code does n't buy ordinary people diddly squat.So true !
Years ago when I worked at a software house our CEO was paranoid about the source code... he wanted it locked away as he was afraid our " competitors " could get it .
Now , there were a few problems with this .
Our customers got the source code when they bought our system , since it needed to be compiled on their systems ( as no two customers had the same configuration ) .
Also , we did n't really have any competitors .
Now , the joke is that even though our customers had the source , and the security blanket that should our company go down they could continue , the customers could do no more than compile the code .
The real knowledge was locked in the heads of the programmers who knew HOW and WHY everything was put together in the source code... and , sadly , this is something that is still overlooked .
The source is n't everything , but just part of it , and most people do n't realize what the missing part is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The funniest part is that the OP was probably dead serious when he wrote that.
If this is a "good example" of anything, it's an example of why having the source code doesn't buy ordinary people diddly squat.So true!
Years ago when I worked at a software house our CEO was paranoid about the source code... he wanted it locked away as he was afraid our "competitors" could get it.
Now, there were a few problems with this.
Our customers got the source code when they bought our system, since it needed to be compiled on their systems (as no two customers had the same configuration).
Also, we didn't really have any competitors.
Now, the joke is that even though our customers had the source, and the security blanket that should our company go down they could continue, the customers could do no more than compile the code.
The real knowledge was locked in the heads of the programmers who knew HOW and WHY everything was put together in the source code... and, sadly, this is something that is still overlooked.
The source isn't everything, but just part of it, and most people don't realize what the missing part is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28412419</id>
	<title>Re:Don't forget VirtualBox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245612720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you mean <strong> <em>Sun</em> </strong> VirtualBox? The same Sun that Oracle has already said they were buying?</p><p>Let's see:<br>1. Migrate from VirtualIron to VirtualBox.<br>2. Oracle buys Sun / VirtualBox.<br>3. ??<br>4. Profit</p><p>Wouldn't that just be a kick in the ball sack?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you mean Sun VirtualBox ?
The same Sun that Oracle has already said they were buying ? Let 's see : 1 .
Migrate from VirtualIron to VirtualBox.2 .
Oracle buys Sun / VirtualBox.3 .
? ? 4. ProfitWould n't that just be a kick in the ball sack ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you mean  Sun  VirtualBox?
The same Sun that Oracle has already said they were buying?Let's see:1.
Migrate from VirtualIron to VirtualBox.2.
Oracle buys Sun / VirtualBox.3.
??4. ProfitWouldn't that just be a kick in the ball sack?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403899</id>
	<title>Yet another IT company gets to live my dream!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245531540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would so love to be Virtual Iron, or anyone who got bought out like that.  Geez, they buy me out, then tell me, that, I really am not allowed to work on it any more and can just take off for a few years, here's your millions of dollars.</p><p>Yeah... SWEET!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would so love to be Virtual Iron , or anyone who got bought out like that .
Geez , they buy me out , then tell me , that , I really am not allowed to work on it any more and can just take off for a few years , here 's your millions of dollars.Yeah... SWEET !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would so love to be Virtual Iron, or anyone who got bought out like that.
Geez, they buy me out, then tell me, that, I really am not allowed to work on it any more and can just take off for a few years, here's your millions of dollars.Yeah... SWEET!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403905</id>
	<title>But Open Source if flakey and you cannot rely...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245488460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But commercial software is oh so much better as it has guaranteed support and you can rely on in and they have roadmaps and shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But commercial software is oh so much better as it has guaranteed support and you can rely on in and they have roadmaps and shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But commercial software is oh so much better as it has guaranteed support and you can rely on in and they have roadmaps and shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403919</id>
	<title>3 words from Oracle to existing VI customers....</title>
	<author>Khan</author>
	<datestamp>1245488580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>uNf! uNf! uNf!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>uNf !
uNf ! uNf !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>uNf!
uNf! uNf!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404129</id>
	<title>If by kill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245490500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If by "kill" you mean take a product based on Xen and merge it with your product based on Xen.</p><p>How is that killing anything? Did Fiat kill Chrysler?</p><p>English motherfucker, do you speak it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If by " kill " you mean take a product based on Xen and merge it with your product based on Xen.How is that killing anything ?
Did Fiat kill Chrysler ? English motherfucker , do you speak it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If by "kill" you mean take a product based on Xen and merge it with your product based on Xen.How is that killing anything?
Did Fiat kill Chrysler?English motherfucker, do you speak it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404097</id>
	<title>OT slaughter in Iran</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245490080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While the western news magnates (USA, Britain, etc.) spoon feed us stories about Iran's measured response using official police and water cannon, tear gas and batons, the "Redneck Militia" of Iran, the Basij, are wearing plainclothes and are murdering peaceful protesters almost at random to disperse crowds. See youtube or Ireport for more info.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While the western news magnates ( USA , Britain , etc .
) spoon feed us stories about Iran 's measured response using official police and water cannon , tear gas and batons , the " Redneck Militia " of Iran , the Basij , are wearing plainclothes and are murdering peaceful protesters almost at random to disperse crowds .
See youtube or Ireport for more info .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the western news magnates (USA, Britain, etc.
) spoon feed us stories about Iran's measured response using official police and water cannon, tear gas and batons, the "Redneck Militia" of Iran, the Basij, are wearing plainclothes and are murdering peaceful protesters almost at random to disperse crowds.
See youtube or Ireport for more info.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28411269</id>
	<title>Re:Oracle is not IBM.</title>
	<author>davecb</author>
	<datestamp>1245604140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually they have three product lines which overlap, and this is the one that's closest to being a startup.. I assume they wanted the technology to put into one of the others, and they'll happily sell the resulting composite to the Virtual Iron customers.

</p><p>This neither proves nor disproves that Oracle would like to sell all the components that you need in your server room. I suspect they do, in part because it's now to be a merger, not a buy-and-close like Virtual Iron.

</p><p> I also suspect that IBM is cursing themselves for missing the chance to do a buy-and-close of Sun.

</p><p>--dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually they have three product lines which overlap , and this is the one that 's closest to being a startup.. I assume they wanted the technology to put into one of the others , and they 'll happily sell the resulting composite to the Virtual Iron customers .
This neither proves nor disproves that Oracle would like to sell all the components that you need in your server room .
I suspect they do , in part because it 's now to be a merger , not a buy-and-close like Virtual Iron .
I also suspect that IBM is cursing themselves for missing the chance to do a buy-and-close of Sun .
--dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually they have three product lines which overlap, and this is the one that's closest to being a startup.. I assume they wanted the technology to put into one of the others, and they'll happily sell the resulting composite to the Virtual Iron customers.
This neither proves nor disproves that Oracle would like to sell all the components that you need in your server room.
I suspect they do, in part because it's now to be a merger, not a buy-and-close like Virtual Iron.
I also suspect that IBM is cursing themselves for missing the chance to do a buy-and-close of Sun.
--dave</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28410377</id>
	<title>Re:NOT totally in the s---</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245596700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah. Emacs is the oldest software-only complete virtualization system, and much more proven than VMware. Although it only runs lisp machine code.</p><p>Ok, I'll have to go, see my <a href="http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/EmacsDoctor" title="emacswiki.org">"M-x doctor"</a> [emacswiki.org].</p><p>P.S.: Don't make the error, thinking that this went over my head, when it went over yours.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
Emacs is the oldest software-only complete virtualization system , and much more proven than VMware .
Although it only runs lisp machine code.Ok , I 'll have to go , see my " M-x doctor " [ emacswiki.org ] .P.S .
: Do n't make the error , thinking that this went over my head , when it went over yours .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
Emacs is the oldest software-only complete virtualization system, and much more proven than VMware.
Although it only runs lisp machine code.Ok, I'll have to go, see my "M-x doctor" [emacswiki.org].P.S.
: Don't make the error, thinking that this went over my head, when it went over yours.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28407585</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another IT company gets to live my dream!</title>
	<author>Ex-MislTech</author>
	<datestamp>1245518280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess you were not around for the DOT COM daze, it was all the craze.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess you were not around for the DOT COM daze , it was all the craze .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess you were not around for the DOT COM daze, it was all the craze.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403897</id>
	<title>So..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245531540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oracle is the new Google/M$</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle is the new Google/M $</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle is the new Google/M$</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404209</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why VMWare is the...</title>
	<author>The Bungi</author>
	<datestamp>1245491340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Virtual PC was and always will be a desktop solution. It's what MS uses for XP mode in Vista. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft\_Virtual\_Server" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Virtual Server</a> [wikipedia.org] is the big box equivalent (although I suppose it's based off VPC).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Virtual PC was and always will be a desktop solution .
It 's what MS uses for XP mode in Vista .
Virtual Server [ wikipedia.org ] is the big box equivalent ( although I suppose it 's based off VPC ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virtual PC was and always will be a desktop solution.
It's what MS uses for XP mode in Vista.
Virtual Server [wikipedia.org] is the big box equivalent (although I suppose it's based off VPC).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28406115</id>
	<title>Bastards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245504900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a bunch of scumbags. The people who wrote the technology their were unabe to get the shaft in the middle of a recession and they get the benefits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a bunch of scumbags .
The people who wrote the technology their were unabe to get the shaft in the middle of a recession and they get the benefits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a bunch of scumbags.
The people who wrote the technology their were unabe to get the shaft in the middle of a recession and they get the benefits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28405603</id>
	<title>Re:Poor Sun employees...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245501540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There aren't all that many Sun employees left.  A couple of major layoffs and I've seen my rep get RIFd 3 times in the past year....</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are n't all that many Sun employees left .
A couple of major layoffs and I 've seen my rep get RIFd 3 times in the past year... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There aren't all that many Sun employees left.
A couple of major layoffs and I've seen my rep get RIFd 3 times in the past year....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28405483</id>
	<title>Re:Purpose of open software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245500820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lets say, for the sake of argument, that this product was completely open-source.  But the core development team just got scooped up by Oracle to work on a competing project.  So exactly the same situation, except the source code is freely available.  What changes?

Well first, the sales partners could keep selling the existing technology.  They could probably afford a few bug fixes, but none of the sales partners would have anywhere near the revenue stream to hire a new team to support the project.  If that had that kind of revenue, they wouldn't be sales partners.  Not to mention, the sales partners are integration shops, not code shops.  It's a different skill set, and there are going to be significant growing pains.  Not too mention the months it would take to get a new programming team up to speed.  That's the kind of risk that breaks companies, even if it goes fairly well.

The community won't be any help - despite all the claims to the contrary, the vast majority of open-source code work is done by paid programmers in an environment similar to any other programming shop.  You'll get the occasional bug fix from the community, but you're not going to get many new features.  You want to keep up with your competitors, you need a full time team.

So the sellers could keep selling the same product.  But without a source of updates, that's a slow trip to bankruptcy.  Any sales partner worth a damn would look to immediately migrate to a supported platform.  In other words, exactly what's happening here.  Having the code wouldn't really change anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets say , for the sake of argument , that this product was completely open-source .
But the core development team just got scooped up by Oracle to work on a competing project .
So exactly the same situation , except the source code is freely available .
What changes ?
Well first , the sales partners could keep selling the existing technology .
They could probably afford a few bug fixes , but none of the sales partners would have anywhere near the revenue stream to hire a new team to support the project .
If that had that kind of revenue , they would n't be sales partners .
Not to mention , the sales partners are integration shops , not code shops .
It 's a different skill set , and there are going to be significant growing pains .
Not too mention the months it would take to get a new programming team up to speed .
That 's the kind of risk that breaks companies , even if it goes fairly well .
The community wo n't be any help - despite all the claims to the contrary , the vast majority of open-source code work is done by paid programmers in an environment similar to any other programming shop .
You 'll get the occasional bug fix from the community , but you 're not going to get many new features .
You want to keep up with your competitors , you need a full time team .
So the sellers could keep selling the same product .
But without a source of updates , that 's a slow trip to bankruptcy .
Any sales partner worth a damn would look to immediately migrate to a supported platform .
In other words , exactly what 's happening here .
Having the code would n't really change anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets say, for the sake of argument, that this product was completely open-source.
But the core development team just got scooped up by Oracle to work on a competing project.
So exactly the same situation, except the source code is freely available.
What changes?
Well first, the sales partners could keep selling the existing technology.
They could probably afford a few bug fixes, but none of the sales partners would have anywhere near the revenue stream to hire a new team to support the project.
If that had that kind of revenue, they wouldn't be sales partners.
Not to mention, the sales partners are integration shops, not code shops.
It's a different skill set, and there are going to be significant growing pains.
Not too mention the months it would take to get a new programming team up to speed.
That's the kind of risk that breaks companies, even if it goes fairly well.
The community won't be any help - despite all the claims to the contrary, the vast majority of open-source code work is done by paid programmers in an environment similar to any other programming shop.
You'll get the occasional bug fix from the community, but you're not going to get many new features.
You want to keep up with your competitors, you need a full time team.
So the sellers could keep selling the same product.
But without a source of updates, that's a slow trip to bankruptcy.
Any sales partner worth a damn would look to immediately migrate to a supported platform.
In other words, exactly what's happening here.
Having the code wouldn't really change anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28413711</id>
	<title>Re:Purpose of open software</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1245579780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Oh, yes, I'll just take virtualization software source code and send it to another developer for fixes. I'm sure just any old development shop can handle that   The funniest part is that the OP was probably dead serious when he wrote that. If this is a "good example" of anything, it's an example of why having the source code doesn't buy ordinary people diddly squat.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>And having access to my car's engine doesn't buy me, an ordinary person, diddly squat, except that I can take it to an expert and have him do useful work on it.

</p><p>If I were using a product, and I were offered the choice of either having the product just disappear overnight, or having the source code after its maintainer disappeared overnight, I'd takt the latter, because there is some chance I could find a developer who could at the very least make bug fixes. Also, chances are that I'm not the only company using said product, so there would be others who could pool their resources in order to set up a new maintainer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , yes , I 'll just take virtualization software source code and send it to another developer for fixes .
I 'm sure just any old development shop can handle that The funniest part is that the OP was probably dead serious when he wrote that .
If this is a " good example " of anything , it 's an example of why having the source code does n't buy ordinary people diddly squat .
And having access to my car 's engine does n't buy me , an ordinary person , diddly squat , except that I can take it to an expert and have him do useful work on it .
If I were using a product , and I were offered the choice of either having the product just disappear overnight , or having the source code after its maintainer disappeared overnight , I 'd takt the latter , because there is some chance I could find a developer who could at the very least make bug fixes .
Also , chances are that I 'm not the only company using said product , so there would be others who could pool their resources in order to set up a new maintainer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, yes, I'll just take virtualization software source code and send it to another developer for fixes.
I'm sure just any old development shop can handle that   The funniest part is that the OP was probably dead serious when he wrote that.
If this is a "good example" of anything, it's an example of why having the source code doesn't buy ordinary people diddly squat.
And having access to my car's engine doesn't buy me, an ordinary person, diddly squat, except that I can take it to an expert and have him do useful work on it.
If I were using a product, and I were offered the choice of either having the product just disappear overnight, or having the source code after its maintainer disappeared overnight, I'd takt the latter, because there is some chance I could find a developer who could at the very least make bug fixes.
Also, chances are that I'm not the only company using said product, so there would be others who could pool their resources in order to set up a new maintainer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404235</id>
	<title>Re:Oracle is not IBM.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245491640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Hmmm. Maybe the time has come to short my Oracle stock.</p></div></blockquote><p>Short stock that you own?  That's a new one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm .
Maybe the time has come to short my Oracle stock.Short stock that you own ?
That 's a new one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm.
Maybe the time has come to short my Oracle stock.Short stock that you own?
That's a new one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28411287</id>
	<title>Re:This is what People Worry About</title>
	<author>davecb</author>
	<datestamp>1245604440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They bought the relational engine that MySQL uses over a year ago, and then instead of shutting it down, invested money in improving its performance.

</p><p>Larry reputedly says he wants more people to learn SQL, because in the long run it will bring Oracle customers.

</p><p>It looks like the cases may be different.

</p><p>--dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They bought the relational engine that MySQL uses over a year ago , and then instead of shutting it down , invested money in improving its performance .
Larry reputedly says he wants more people to learn SQL , because in the long run it will bring Oracle customers .
It looks like the cases may be different .
--dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They bought the relational engine that MySQL uses over a year ago, and then instead of shutting it down, invested money in improving its performance.
Larry reputedly says he wants more people to learn SQL, because in the long run it will bring Oracle customers.
It looks like the cases may be different.
--dave</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28406265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28416847</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why VMWare is the...</title>
	<author>mabhatter654</author>
	<datestamp>1245606120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>virtual PC has nothing to do with "windows" it had everything to do with getting x-box (x86) ported to 360 (PowerPC)   Windows-on-Windows (used by Vista) has nothing to do with hardware emulation, just apis.. like WINE (only with the actual windows code!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>virtual PC has nothing to do with " windows " it had everything to do with getting x-box ( x86 ) ported to 360 ( PowerPC ) Windows-on-Windows ( used by Vista ) has nothing to do with hardware emulation , just apis.. like WINE ( only with the actual windows code !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>virtual PC has nothing to do with "windows" it had everything to do with getting x-box (x86) ported to 360 (PowerPC)   Windows-on-Windows (used by Vista) has nothing to do with hardware emulation, just apis.. like WINE (only with the actual windows code!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404347</id>
	<title>Purpose of open software</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1245492720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In a letter to Virtual Iron's sales partners, Oracle says it 'will suspend development of existing Virtual Iron products and will suspend delivery of orders to new customers.' One partner said, 'So basically, anyone that built their hosting infrastructure on VI... is now totally in the s--.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>This is a good example of the purpose for requiring that you have access to and can compile the source code to the software you're using. If the current developer decides to close shop or has it closed for them as in this case, you can just take ths code to another developer or set up a new shop, rather than be totally screwed like this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a letter to Virtual Iron 's sales partners , Oracle says it 'will suspend development of existing Virtual Iron products and will suspend delivery of orders to new customers .
' One partner said , 'So basically , anyone that built their hosting infrastructure on VI... is now totally in the s-- .
This is a good example of the purpose for requiring that you have access to and can compile the source code to the software you 're using .
If the current developer decides to close shop or has it closed for them as in this case , you can just take ths code to another developer or set up a new shop , rather than be totally screwed like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a letter to Virtual Iron's sales partners, Oracle says it 'will suspend development of existing Virtual Iron products and will suspend delivery of orders to new customers.
' One partner said, 'So basically, anyone that built their hosting infrastructure on VI... is now totally in the s--.
This is a good example of the purpose for requiring that you have access to and can compile the source code to the software you're using.
If the current developer decides to close shop or has it closed for them as in this case, you can just take ths code to another developer or set up a new shop, rather than be totally screwed like this.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28408399</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another IT company gets to live my dream!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245526620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>Do I have to give my consent for this to go ahead?<br></i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Your  10\% potentially gets you 10\% percent of the vote.  Usually in these start ups  40-51\% (or more ) of the stock (and another block of the options)  is in the hands of a very small group of people.  If they all vote 'yes' and you vote 'no',  the deal goes through (because usually it is "simple majority rules" by-laws) .  That's the best case.   In many cases it, as the poster outlined, you'll have Class B shares and the other folks will have  Class A (with super voting powers) where you don't even have a 1:1 ratio of stock and votes.    Plantation time and you're 3/5th of a person and your vote weighting might be 3-6\%.   Or even more<br>likely these are just options and you don't have shares (so you can't vote). There are lots of good reasons not to sink the money into actual shares. This devaluation process is only one of them.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; In short,  if you are in a start up company you are given "stock options that are going to be worth megabucks".  Not.  It is<br>monopoly money as long as an option.   Or a lotto ticket.   It may pay off big but it isn't real money and it can be devalued faster than a Zimbabwe dollar.<br>If were just paper options it is just the case of the monopoly money just turning from green to blue in color; wasn't real money anyway. If buy shares have sunk money with only limited ways of getting back out.   It can only sell them to a limited set of folks (most of whom maybe the folks rejiggerig the price. )  These aren't publicly traded so whoever has the authority to reset the prices can usually do so within reason with these events. (so if exercise to get the "voting" power but you are  not very liquid. )</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; In most places in the US your company should give you access to a prospectus kind of document that outlines all of the Class A, B,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....etc.<br>shares and other details.   It is usually pretty dense (and gets longer with each round) and most folks skip over it . Most folks just sign the options cover document  and don't take (or ask for) the doc that outlines what the real deal is.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; It is legal in that in the process of getting another round of funding part of the company is being sold off. Each round dilutes the company more.<br>The VCs don't really loan money as much as buy up large stakes of companies.  That way they get to put their own folks on the board and for the most part control the process of selling off and taking profits from the sell off.    They have no interest in the rank and file of the company rising up and blocking what they want to do.   The rank and file are usually there to rank in the "trickle down" of the profits of a large liquidity event.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do I have to give my consent for this to go ahead ?
        Your 10 \ % potentially gets you 10 \ % percent of the vote .
Usually in these start ups 40-51 \ % ( or more ) of the stock ( and another block of the options ) is in the hands of a very small group of people .
If they all vote 'yes ' and you vote 'no ' , the deal goes through ( because usually it is " simple majority rules " by-laws ) .
That 's the best case .
In many cases it , as the poster outlined , you 'll have Class B shares and the other folks will have Class A ( with super voting powers ) where you do n't even have a 1 : 1 ratio of stock and votes .
Plantation time and you 're 3/5th of a person and your vote weighting might be 3-6 \ % .
Or even morelikely these are just options and you do n't have shares ( so you ca n't vote ) .
There are lots of good reasons not to sink the money into actual shares .
This devaluation process is only one of them .
        In short , if you are in a start up company you are given " stock options that are going to be worth megabucks " .
Not. It ismonopoly money as long as an option .
Or a lotto ticket .
It may pay off big but it is n't real money and it can be devalued faster than a Zimbabwe dollar.If were just paper options it is just the case of the monopoly money just turning from green to blue in color ; was n't real money anyway .
If buy shares have sunk money with only limited ways of getting back out .
It can only sell them to a limited set of folks ( most of whom maybe the folks rejiggerig the price .
) These are n't publicly traded so whoever has the authority to reset the prices can usually do so within reason with these events .
( so if exercise to get the " voting " power but you are not very liquid .
)         In most places in the US your company should give you access to a prospectus kind of document that outlines all of the Class A , B , ....etc.shares and other details .
It is usually pretty dense ( and gets longer with each round ) and most folks skip over it .
Most folks just sign the options cover document and do n't take ( or ask for ) the doc that outlines what the real deal is .
        It is legal in that in the process of getting another round of funding part of the company is being sold off .
Each round dilutes the company more.The VCs do n't really loan money as much as buy up large stakes of companies .
That way they get to put their own folks on the board and for the most part control the process of selling off and taking profits from the sell off .
They have no interest in the rank and file of the company rising up and blocking what they want to do .
The rank and file are usually there to rank in the " trickle down " of the profits of a large liquidity event .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do I have to give my consent for this to go ahead?
        Your  10\% potentially gets you 10\% percent of the vote.
Usually in these start ups  40-51\% (or more ) of the stock (and another block of the options)  is in the hands of a very small group of people.
If they all vote 'yes' and you vote 'no',  the deal goes through (because usually it is "simple majority rules" by-laws) .
That's the best case.
In many cases it, as the poster outlined, you'll have Class B shares and the other folks will have  Class A (with super voting powers) where you don't even have a 1:1 ratio of stock and votes.
Plantation time and you're 3/5th of a person and your vote weighting might be 3-6\%.
Or even morelikely these are just options and you don't have shares (so you can't vote).
There are lots of good reasons not to sink the money into actual shares.
This devaluation process is only one of them.
        In short,  if you are in a start up company you are given "stock options that are going to be worth megabucks".
Not.  It ismonopoly money as long as an option.
Or a lotto ticket.
It may pay off big but it isn't real money and it can be devalued faster than a Zimbabwe dollar.If were just paper options it is just the case of the monopoly money just turning from green to blue in color; wasn't real money anyway.
If buy shares have sunk money with only limited ways of getting back out.
It can only sell them to a limited set of folks (most of whom maybe the folks rejiggerig the price.
)  These aren't publicly traded so whoever has the authority to reset the prices can usually do so within reason with these events.
(so if exercise to get the "voting" power but you are  not very liquid.
)
        In most places in the US your company should give you access to a prospectus kind of document that outlines all of the Class A, B, ....etc.shares and other details.
It is usually pretty dense (and gets longer with each round) and most folks skip over it .
Most folks just sign the options cover document  and don't take (or ask for) the doc that outlines what the real deal is.
        It is legal in that in the process of getting another round of funding part of the company is being sold off.
Each round dilutes the company more.The VCs don't really loan money as much as buy up large stakes of companies.
That way they get to put their own folks on the board and for the most part control the process of selling off and taking profits from the sell off.
They have no interest in the rank and file of the company rising up and blocking what they want to do.
The rank and file are usually there to rank in the "trickle down" of the profits of a large liquidity event.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28406859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28415331</id>
	<title>Re:NOT totally in the s---</title>
	<author>crazyvas</author>
	<datestamp>1245594540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And how that's not totally in the s--- ?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>And how that 's not totally in the s--- ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how that's not totally in the s--- ?
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28412639</id>
	<title>Re:If by kill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245614640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kill as in not able to buy the product any more. Yeah, maybe Oracle will get around to merging VI with OracleVM, but it will probably take months at least. I'm a VirtualIron customer (one of a few) but I can tell you there's no way in hell I'm moving to Oracle or Microsoft. Citrix is having a hard time and might end up getting bought. Redhat too... I guess I'll be moving to VMware....</p><p>This sucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kill as in not able to buy the product any more .
Yeah , maybe Oracle will get around to merging VI with OracleVM , but it will probably take months at least .
I 'm a VirtualIron customer ( one of a few ) but I can tell you there 's no way in hell I 'm moving to Oracle or Microsoft .
Citrix is having a hard time and might end up getting bought .
Redhat too... I guess I 'll be moving to VMware....This sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kill as in not able to buy the product any more.
Yeah, maybe Oracle will get around to merging VI with OracleVM, but it will probably take months at least.
I'm a VirtualIron customer (one of a few) but I can tell you there's no way in hell I'm moving to Oracle or Microsoft.
Citrix is having a hard time and might end up getting bought.
Redhat too... I guess I'll be moving to VMware....This sucks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28415345</id>
	<title>Re:NOT totally in the s---</title>
	<author>crazyvas</author>
	<datestamp>1245594720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You just don't get it, do you? There aren't that many virtual machines like VI out there that can work with everything that a demanding OS like emacs throws at it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You just do n't get it , do you ?
There are n't that many virtual machines like VI out there that can work with everything that a demanding OS like emacs throws at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just don't get it, do you?
There aren't that many virtual machines like VI out there that can work with everything that a demanding OS like emacs throws at it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404007</id>
	<title>NOT totally in the s---</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245489420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>VI customers could just switch to emacs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>VI customers could just switch to emacs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VI customers could just switch to emacs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404089</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another IT company gets to live my dream!</title>
	<author>mzito</author>
	<datestamp>1245490020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh.  Well, so, that's not exactly how it works.  They had raised something around $60-70m in three or four rounds, including one round that involved firing/departures of most of the original founders, a new management team, and a totally new business focus.</p><p>So first of all, every time you do a round of fundraising, you create new shares of stock.  Let's say my company has 100 shares of stock, and you're a 10\% owner of stock - that means you own 10 shares of stock.  When we want to raise money, we go convince an investor that our company is worth $100,000, or $1000 per share, making your shares worth $10k.  We then have the investor give us $100,000, we create 100 new shares of stock, making the company worth $200k "post-money" - but now you only own 5\%, and your investors own 50\%.  On top of that, the investors might say, "hey, we want liquidation preference, or participating preferred" - complex subjects that can't be delved into here, but suffice it to say that gives them more power.</p><p>Ok, time goes by - you spend that $100k you've raised, and while business is not terrible, it's not as good as your investors had hoped.  You go back to get more money, and they say, "Sure, we'll give you another $100k, but we really don't think the company has progressed like we'd hoped, so the total company is worth $150k pre-money" - whoops, now your shares are worth $7,500.  And after another 133 shares are created, you now own around 3\% of the company.</p><p>See how fast individual ownership can drop?  Now, let's extend this factor to someone like VirtualIron who was raising $10-25m *every time* they raised money, and changed business models once.  You can bet that by the time they went through four rounds of funding, the VCs owned almost all of that company.  (By the way, I realize that this is only the most simplistic model of how companies fund operations through VCs, so don't yell at me - I don't have the space to talk about every option).</p><p>According to some papers that had been leaked to the nytimes, in 2008 they did $3.4m in revenue and lost something like $17m on that $3.4m.   How much can that company be worth?  Typical rule of thumb in tech stock transactions is 5x-12x revenue, depending on a variety of factors.  Given that it cost them $17m to make $3.4m - one could see how the multiplier is not gonna be so favorable.  Let's make it 6x - that's $20m.</p><p>So, you have a company where investors have sunk and lost $60m, fired management at least once, changed business models once, changed products at least once, and in the end, they're getting bought for between $16-32m.  Do you think that anyone got more than a "thanks for selling this dog of a company" bonus?</p><p>It's a shame, and I feel bad for the employees, but this is not a tech success story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh .
Well , so , that 's not exactly how it works .
They had raised something around $ 60-70m in three or four rounds , including one round that involved firing/departures of most of the original founders , a new management team , and a totally new business focus.So first of all , every time you do a round of fundraising , you create new shares of stock .
Let 's say my company has 100 shares of stock , and you 're a 10 \ % owner of stock - that means you own 10 shares of stock .
When we want to raise money , we go convince an investor that our company is worth $ 100,000 , or $ 1000 per share , making your shares worth $ 10k .
We then have the investor give us $ 100,000 , we create 100 new shares of stock , making the company worth $ 200k " post-money " - but now you only own 5 \ % , and your investors own 50 \ % .
On top of that , the investors might say , " hey , we want liquidation preference , or participating preferred " - complex subjects that ca n't be delved into here , but suffice it to say that gives them more power.Ok , time goes by - you spend that $ 100k you 've raised , and while business is not terrible , it 's not as good as your investors had hoped .
You go back to get more money , and they say , " Sure , we 'll give you another $ 100k , but we really do n't think the company has progressed like we 'd hoped , so the total company is worth $ 150k pre-money " - whoops , now your shares are worth $ 7,500 .
And after another 133 shares are created , you now own around 3 \ % of the company.See how fast individual ownership can drop ?
Now , let 's extend this factor to someone like VirtualIron who was raising $ 10-25m * every time * they raised money , and changed business models once .
You can bet that by the time they went through four rounds of funding , the VCs owned almost all of that company .
( By the way , I realize that this is only the most simplistic model of how companies fund operations through VCs , so do n't yell at me - I do n't have the space to talk about every option ) .According to some papers that had been leaked to the nytimes , in 2008 they did $ 3.4m in revenue and lost something like $ 17m on that $ 3.4m .
How much can that company be worth ?
Typical rule of thumb in tech stock transactions is 5x-12x revenue , depending on a variety of factors .
Given that it cost them $ 17m to make $ 3.4m - one could see how the multiplier is not gon na be so favorable .
Let 's make it 6x - that 's $ 20m.So , you have a company where investors have sunk and lost $ 60m , fired management at least once , changed business models once , changed products at least once , and in the end , they 're getting bought for between $ 16-32m .
Do you think that anyone got more than a " thanks for selling this dog of a company " bonus ? It 's a shame , and I feel bad for the employees , but this is not a tech success story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh.
Well, so, that's not exactly how it works.
They had raised something around $60-70m in three or four rounds, including one round that involved firing/departures of most of the original founders, a new management team, and a totally new business focus.So first of all, every time you do a round of fundraising, you create new shares of stock.
Let's say my company has 100 shares of stock, and you're a 10\% owner of stock - that means you own 10 shares of stock.
When we want to raise money, we go convince an investor that our company is worth $100,000, or $1000 per share, making your shares worth $10k.
We then have the investor give us $100,000, we create 100 new shares of stock, making the company worth $200k "post-money" - but now you only own 5\%, and your investors own 50\%.
On top of that, the investors might say, "hey, we want liquidation preference, or participating preferred" - complex subjects that can't be delved into here, but suffice it to say that gives them more power.Ok, time goes by - you spend that $100k you've raised, and while business is not terrible, it's not as good as your investors had hoped.
You go back to get more money, and they say, "Sure, we'll give you another $100k, but we really don't think the company has progressed like we'd hoped, so the total company is worth $150k pre-money" - whoops, now your shares are worth $7,500.
And after another 133 shares are created, you now own around 3\% of the company.See how fast individual ownership can drop?
Now, let's extend this factor to someone like VirtualIron who was raising $10-25m *every time* they raised money, and changed business models once.
You can bet that by the time they went through four rounds of funding, the VCs owned almost all of that company.
(By the way, I realize that this is only the most simplistic model of how companies fund operations through VCs, so don't yell at me - I don't have the space to talk about every option).According to some papers that had been leaked to the nytimes, in 2008 they did $3.4m in revenue and lost something like $17m on that $3.4m.
How much can that company be worth?
Typical rule of thumb in tech stock transactions is 5x-12x revenue, depending on a variety of factors.
Given that it cost them $17m to make $3.4m - one could see how the multiplier is not gonna be so favorable.
Let's make it 6x - that's $20m.So, you have a company where investors have sunk and lost $60m, fired management at least once, changed business models once, changed products at least once, and in the end, they're getting bought for between $16-32m.
Do you think that anyone got more than a "thanks for selling this dog of a company" bonus?It's a shame, and I feel bad for the employees, but this is not a tech success story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404043</id>
	<title>Poor Sun employees...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245489660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really wouldn't want to be a Sun employee right now.

For us none-Sun employee, it will be interesting to see, what Oracle will be using a Virtual machine technology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really would n't want to be a Sun employee right now .
For us none-Sun employee , it will be interesting to see , what Oracle will be using a Virtual machine technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really wouldn't want to be a Sun employee right now.
For us none-Sun employee, it will be interesting to see, what Oracle will be using a Virtual machine technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28412451</id>
	<title>Re:Totally in the s--?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1245612900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if they need a few new licenses this month, they're SOL. Sure, in a year or so (according to TFA) they might have an offer to completely rebuild everything on Oracle's new offering, but that doesn't help now and won't likely be pretty then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if they need a few new licenses this month , they 're SOL .
Sure , in a year or so ( according to TFA ) they might have an offer to completely rebuild everything on Oracle 's new offering , but that does n't help now and wo n't likely be pretty then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if they need a few new licenses this month, they're SOL.
Sure, in a year or so (according to TFA) they might have an offer to completely rebuild everything on Oracle's new offering, but that doesn't help now and won't likely be pretty then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28405779</id>
	<title>Re:Oracle is not IBM.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245502560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you can still get OS/2 even now.<br><a href="http://www.ecomstation.com/" title="ecomstation.com">http://www.ecomstation.com/</a> [ecomstation.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you can still get OS/2 even now.http : //www.ecomstation.com/ [ ecomstation.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you can still get OS/2 even now.http://www.ecomstation.com/ [ecomstation.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28408169</id>
	<title>Re:Another reason why VMWare is the...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245524160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, I feel a bit sorry for they VI guys. We bought up a hardware stack and everything to test its implementation, and their support worked pretty well (though obviously not in the long term as it turns out). We went VMWare in the end -- simply because it seemed a lot more stable (I think we were testing VI 2.5) -- but I still remember the VI rep phoning me up at 3am and giving me advice and everything, completely oblivious to the fact he'd pulled me out of bed and it was -10 outside, but he was just far too nice to yell 'get stuffed'.</p><p>They might have had a really good product at the 3.5 mark, but it was just a bit late for us. A shame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , I feel a bit sorry for they VI guys .
We bought up a hardware stack and everything to test its implementation , and their support worked pretty well ( though obviously not in the long term as it turns out ) .
We went VMWare in the end -- simply because it seemed a lot more stable ( I think we were testing VI 2.5 ) -- but I still remember the VI rep phoning me up at 3am and giving me advice and everything , completely oblivious to the fact he 'd pulled me out of bed and it was -10 outside , but he was just far too nice to yell 'get stuffed'.They might have had a really good product at the 3.5 mark , but it was just a bit late for us .
A shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, I feel a bit sorry for they VI guys.
We bought up a hardware stack and everything to test its implementation, and their support worked pretty well (though obviously not in the long term as it turns out).
We went VMWare in the end -- simply because it seemed a lot more stable (I think we were testing VI 2.5) -- but I still remember the VI rep phoning me up at 3am and giving me advice and everything, completely oblivious to the fact he'd pulled me out of bed and it was -10 outside, but he was just far too nice to yell 'get stuffed'.They might have had a really good product at the 3.5 mark, but it was just a bit late for us.
A shame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404773</id>
	<title>Re:NOT totally in the s---</title>
	<author>Savage-Rabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1245496260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>VI customers could just switch to emacs.</p></div><p>HERETIC!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>VI customers could just switch to emacs.HERETIC !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VI customers could just switch to emacs.HERETIC!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28419117</id>
	<title>I worked in a company that did exactly that.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1245669600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because you have worked in small companies it does not mean it can't be done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because you have worked in small companies it does not mean it ca n't be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because you have worked in small companies it does not mean it can't be done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28405041</id>
	<title>The s-.?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245498240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sorry, I don't speak EditorStupid.  What does "s-."  mean?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , I do n't speak EditorStupid .
What does " s- .
" mean ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, I don't speak EditorStupid.
What does "s-.
"  mean?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404903</id>
	<title>Re:Purpose of open software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245497340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, yes, I'll just take <b>virtualization software</b> source code and send it to another developer for fixes.  I'm sure just any old development shop can handle that  &lt;rolls eyes&gt;  </p><p>The funniest part is that the OP was probably dead serious when he wrote that.  If this is a "good example" of anything, it's an example of why having the source code doesn't buy ordinary people diddly squat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , yes , I 'll just take virtualization software source code and send it to another developer for fixes .
I 'm sure just any old development shop can handle that The funniest part is that the OP was probably dead serious when he wrote that .
If this is a " good example " of anything , it 's an example of why having the source code does n't buy ordinary people diddly squat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, yes, I'll just take virtualization software source code and send it to another developer for fixes.
I'm sure just any old development shop can handle that    The funniest part is that the OP was probably dead serious when he wrote that.
If this is a "good example" of anything, it's an example of why having the source code doesn't buy ordinary people diddly squat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28408641</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another IT company gets to live my dream!</title>
	<author>CBravo</author>
	<datestamp>1245616500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have a contract, called a share. In this contract, you have certain agreements. One of the agreements is that you agree to not have any influence over the amount of shares (basically: you have little or no say in operational decisions). People with other shares decide that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have a contract , called a share .
In this contract , you have certain agreements .
One of the agreements is that you agree to not have any influence over the amount of shares ( basically : you have little or no say in operational decisions ) .
People with other shares decide that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have a contract, called a share.
In this contract, you have certain agreements.
One of the agreements is that you agree to not have any influence over the amount of shares (basically: you have little or no say in operational decisions).
People with other shares decide that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28406859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28408731</id>
	<title>Re:NOT totally in the s---</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245574800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because they hate VI!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they hate VI !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they hate VI!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404029</id>
	<title>Oracle is not IBM.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245489540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>After Oracle agreed to buy Sun Microsystems, many analysts claimed that Oracle intended to become another IBM by selling all components in the typical server room and by supporting those components with the same kind of high-value customer service.
<p>
Well, the analysts were wrong.  Without warning, Oracle just abruptly terminated a product line on which its customers may have built their entire information-technology infrastructure.  This kind of approach to customer service is not how IBM treats its customers.
</p><p>
Look at <a href="http://www-01.ibm.com/software/os/warp-withdrawal/" title="ibm.com" rel="nofollow">how IBM handled the sunsetting of OS/2</a> [ibm.com].  IBM issued a warning long in advance of ceasing sales and distribution of the product.  Then, after the termination date, IBM continues to sell service contracts to support the product if a customer continues to need support.
</p><p>
Hmmm.  Maybe the time has come to short my Oracle stock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After Oracle agreed to buy Sun Microsystems , many analysts claimed that Oracle intended to become another IBM by selling all components in the typical server room and by supporting those components with the same kind of high-value customer service .
Well , the analysts were wrong .
Without warning , Oracle just abruptly terminated a product line on which its customers may have built their entire information-technology infrastructure .
This kind of approach to customer service is not how IBM treats its customers .
Look at how IBM handled the sunsetting of OS/2 [ ibm.com ] .
IBM issued a warning long in advance of ceasing sales and distribution of the product .
Then , after the termination date , IBM continues to sell service contracts to support the product if a customer continues to need support .
Hmmm. Maybe the time has come to short my Oracle stock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After Oracle agreed to buy Sun Microsystems, many analysts claimed that Oracle intended to become another IBM by selling all components in the typical server room and by supporting those components with the same kind of high-value customer service.
Well, the analysts were wrong.
Without warning, Oracle just abruptly terminated a product line on which its customers may have built their entire information-technology infrastructure.
This kind of approach to customer service is not how IBM treats its customers.
Look at how IBM handled the sunsetting of OS/2 [ibm.com].
IBM issued a warning long in advance of ceasing sales and distribution of the product.
Then, after the termination date, IBM continues to sell service contracts to support the product if a customer continues to need support.
Hmmm.  Maybe the time has come to short my Oracle stock.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28410373</id>
	<title>Re:Purpose of open software</title>
	<author>[HeMaN]</author>
	<datestamp>1245596700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is excactly why people buy Microsoft software, pure and simple.</p><p>-H</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is excactly why people buy Microsoft software , pure and simple.-H</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is excactly why people buy Microsoft software, pure and simple.-H</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28411405</id>
	<title>Existing customers NOT "in the sh--"</title>
	<author>wealthychef</author>
	<datestamp>1245605460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The current customers are not really screwed like the article claims.  I think their life will get better, as they are now dealing with a steady established company.  <br>
FTFA:  ""When the integrated product becomes generally available, Virtual Iron customers will be able to move to the new, integrated product and benefit from a more feature rich-solution than is available today." But Oracle has not said when the combined product will arrive, and Virtual Iron's partners and customers may feel that Oracle has left them out to the cold in terminating the company's product so swiftly. Presumably, it will take several months - if not a full year - to combine the two products."</htmltext>
<tokenext>The current customers are not really screwed like the article claims .
I think their life will get better , as they are now dealing with a steady established company .
FTFA : " " When the integrated product becomes generally available , Virtual Iron customers will be able to move to the new , integrated product and benefit from a more feature rich-solution than is available today .
" But Oracle has not said when the combined product will arrive , and Virtual Iron 's partners and customers may feel that Oracle has left them out to the cold in terminating the company 's product so swiftly .
Presumably , it will take several months - if not a full year - to combine the two products .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current customers are not really screwed like the article claims.
I think their life will get better, as they are now dealing with a steady established company.
FTFA:  ""When the integrated product becomes generally available, Virtual Iron customers will be able to move to the new, integrated product and benefit from a more feature rich-solution than is available today.
" But Oracle has not said when the combined product will arrive, and Virtual Iron's partners and customers may feel that Oracle has left them out to the cold in terminating the company's product so swiftly.
Presumably, it will take several months - if not a full year - to combine the two products.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404275</id>
	<title>Re:Oracle is not IBM.</title>
	<author>(H)elix1</author>
	<datestamp>1245492000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not a fair product comparison: OS2 vs VI's end of life.  Both companies buy product, in some cases to integrate, others to remove competition, and others yet again to just own the customer base.  Expect the same careful moves when the database gets put down someday.</p><p>I'm willing to bet it will play out more along these lines... For existing customer who already own the product, Oracle will support them for as long as they are willing to pay for support.  For those who did not buy yet - sorry, no product can be bought anymore.  For previous partners, a tough break.  Continue to sell services to existing customers, but don't plan for any new customers.  Now would be a very good time to rethink product - any of the other VM products - and see if there might be a reasonable match to what they were doing.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a fair product comparison : OS2 vs VI 's end of life .
Both companies buy product , in some cases to integrate , others to remove competition , and others yet again to just own the customer base .
Expect the same careful moves when the database gets put down someday.I 'm willing to bet it will play out more along these lines... For existing customer who already own the product , Oracle will support them for as long as they are willing to pay for support .
For those who did not buy yet - sorry , no product can be bought anymore .
For previous partners , a tough break .
Continue to sell services to existing customers , but do n't plan for any new customers .
Now would be a very good time to rethink product - any of the other VM products - and see if there might be a reasonable match to what they were doing .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a fair product comparison: OS2 vs VI's end of life.
Both companies buy product, in some cases to integrate, others to remove competition, and others yet again to just own the customer base.
Expect the same careful moves when the database gets put down someday.I'm willing to bet it will play out more along these lines... For existing customer who already own the product, Oracle will support them for as long as they are willing to pay for support.
For those who did not buy yet - sorry, no product can be bought anymore.
For previous partners, a tough break.
Continue to sell services to existing customers, but don't plan for any new customers.
Now would be a very good time to rethink product - any of the other VM products - and see if there might be a reasonable match to what they were doing.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28407513</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another IT company gets to live my dream!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245517680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You vote along with the other shareholders, just like in any other corporation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You vote along with the other shareholders , just like in any other corporation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You vote along with the other shareholders, just like in any other corporation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28406859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403991</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another IT company gets to live my dream!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245489240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The deal was probably a windfall for the founders, the VCs and angel investors, and the CEO installed by the board.</p><p>For the average employee there, probably not so much.  They can sell their Oracle stock to hopefully pay their living expenses until they find a new job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The deal was probably a windfall for the founders , the VCs and angel investors , and the CEO installed by the board.For the average employee there , probably not so much .
They can sell their Oracle stock to hopefully pay their living expenses until they find a new job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The deal was probably a windfall for the founders, the VCs and angel investors, and the CEO installed by the board.For the average employee there, probably not so much.
They can sell their Oracle stock to hopefully pay their living expenses until they find a new job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28406265</id>
	<title>This is what People Worry About</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1245505860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if they phase out MySQL in order to promote the Oracle database?</p><p>I guess Oracle considered it didn't make sense to have three different virtual machine technologies and wanted to combine them all into one product and got rid of Virtual Iron but kept their IP and source code and technology. But then the VI customers and employees get shafted. Nice public relations there Oracle, you are channeling Microsoft through you on that one.</p><p>I guess they didn't learn their lesson from the Dotcom bubble bursting, and I figure it will come back and haunt them later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if they phase out MySQL in order to promote the Oracle database ? I guess Oracle considered it did n't make sense to have three different virtual machine technologies and wanted to combine them all into one product and got rid of Virtual Iron but kept their IP and source code and technology .
But then the VI customers and employees get shafted .
Nice public relations there Oracle , you are channeling Microsoft through you on that one.I guess they did n't learn their lesson from the Dotcom bubble bursting , and I figure it will come back and haunt them later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if they phase out MySQL in order to promote the Oracle database?I guess Oracle considered it didn't make sense to have three different virtual machine technologies and wanted to combine them all into one product and got rid of Virtual Iron but kept their IP and source code and technology.
But then the VI customers and employees get shafted.
Nice public relations there Oracle, you are channeling Microsoft through you on that one.I guess they didn't learn their lesson from the Dotcom bubble bursting, and I figure it will come back and haunt them later.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403995</id>
	<title>Another reason why VMWare is the...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245489240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>only commercial solution if you want long term support.   Can't depend on MS (Virtual PC anyone?  Now MS VS?), can't depend on Oracle.   These and RedHat/Novell have other product lines to distract.   At least VMWare continues to support their products (patches, migration paths) and is single-minded in their focus.</htmltext>
<tokenext>only commercial solution if you want long term support .
Ca n't depend on MS ( Virtual PC anyone ?
Now MS VS ?
) , ca n't depend on Oracle .
These and RedHat/Novell have other product lines to distract .
At least VMWare continues to support their products ( patches , migration paths ) and is single-minded in their focus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>only commercial solution if you want long term support.
Can't depend on MS (Virtual PC anyone?
Now MS VS?
), can't depend on Oracle.
These and RedHat/Novell have other product lines to distract.
At least VMWare continues to support their products (patches, migration paths) and is single-minded in their focus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28409121</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another IT company gets to live my dream!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245579480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know how this works in the US of A, but over here in old Europe, as a share-holder, you have the right to buy those new shares before others do. Plus, you get them at a lower price, so that value of you shares is not diluted. You can even trade that right.<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-emption\_right</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how this works in the US of A , but over here in old Europe , as a share-holder , you have the right to buy those new shares before others do .
Plus , you get them at a lower price , so that value of you shares is not diluted .
You can even trade that right.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-emption \ _right</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how this works in the US of A, but over here in old Europe, as a share-holder, you have the right to buy those new shares before others do.
Plus, you get them at a lower price, so that value of you shares is not diluted.
You can even trade that right.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-emption\_right</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28406859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28406859</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another IT company gets to live my dream!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245511200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bit I don't get is how it's legal for me, the 10\% owner, to suddenly find myself only a 5\% owner. Do I have to give my consent for this to go ahead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bit I do n't get is how it 's legal for me , the 10 \ % owner , to suddenly find myself only a 5 \ % owner .
Do I have to give my consent for this to go ahead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bit I don't get is how it's legal for me, the 10\% owner, to suddenly find myself only a 5\% owner.
Do I have to give my consent for this to go ahead?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28414683</id>
	<title>Is the war finally over?</title>
	<author>SL Baur</author>
	<datestamp>1245588360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'So basically, anyone that built their hosting infrastructure on VI... is now totally in the s&#226;".'"</p></div><p>Emacs wins!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'So basically , anyone that built their hosting infrastructure on VI... is now totally in the s   " .
' " Emacs wins !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'So basically, anyone that built their hosting infrastructure on VI... is now totally in the sâ".
'"Emacs wins!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28410321</id>
	<title>Re:They made the product even more virtual</title>
	<author>dna\_(c)(tm)(r)</author>
	<datestamp>1245596280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Kinda like the next wave of virtualization - Virtual Virtual ("V-Squared") Iron, only from Oracle.</p></div><p>Duh, that's nothing, banks have been virtualizing their profits AND their capital for over two years now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kinda like the next wave of virtualization - Virtual Virtual ( " V-Squared " ) Iron , only from Oracle.Duh , that 's nothing , banks have been virtualizing their profits AND their capital for over two years now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kinda like the next wave of virtualization - Virtual Virtual ("V-Squared") Iron, only from Oracle.Duh, that's nothing, banks have been virtualizing their profits AND their capital for over two years now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404483</id>
	<title>Oracles treatment of Virtual Iron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245493800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In a letter to Virtual Iron's sales partners, Oracle says it 'will suspend development of existing Virtual Iron products and will suspend delivery of orders to new customers.' One partner said, 'So basically, anyone that built their hosting infrastructure on VI... is now totally in the s&#226;".'"<br>There are reasons why people like Free/Open Source software.  One of the reasons is its very reliable.  Another is the low cost.  Another is that you can do code audits independently and have security in your own hands (maintenance and development too).  Nobody is forcing you to, and if you don't others will.  Another big reason is that *if* you do a big setup and finally get things just so...., someone won't come along and say "no, you can't do that", or "sorry, we're pulling the plug, you have 5 days to stop using our product delete it from your computers and send us all original disks plus all backup copies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In a letter to Virtual Iron 's sales partners , Oracle says it 'will suspend development of existing Virtual Iron products and will suspend delivery of orders to new customers .
' One partner said , 'So basically , anyone that built their hosting infrastructure on VI... is now totally in the s   " .
' " There are reasons why people like Free/Open Source software .
One of the reasons is its very reliable .
Another is the low cost .
Another is that you can do code audits independently and have security in your own hands ( maintenance and development too ) .
Nobody is forcing you to , and if you do n't others will .
Another big reason is that * if * you do a big setup and finally get things just so.... , someone wo n't come along and say " no , you ca n't do that " , or " sorry , we 're pulling the plug , you have 5 days to stop using our product delete it from your computers and send us all original disks plus all backup copies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In a letter to Virtual Iron's sales partners, Oracle says it 'will suspend development of existing Virtual Iron products and will suspend delivery of orders to new customers.
' One partner said, 'So basically, anyone that built their hosting infrastructure on VI... is now totally in the sâ".
'"There are reasons why people like Free/Open Source software.
One of the reasons is its very reliable.
Another is the low cost.
Another is that you can do code audits independently and have security in your own hands (maintenance and development too).
Nobody is forcing you to, and if you don't others will.
Another big reason is that *if* you do a big setup and finally get things just so...., someone won't come along and say "no, you can't do that", or "sorry, we're pulling the plug, you have 5 days to stop using our product delete it from your computers and send us all original disks plus all backup copies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28406939</id>
	<title>Oracle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245511980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oracle is more evil than microsoft</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle is more evil than microsoft</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle is more evil than microsoft</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28408789</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another IT company gets to live my dream!</title>
	<author>edittard</author>
	<datestamp>1245575700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Typical rule of thumb in tech stock transactions is 5x-12x revenue, depending on a variety of factors.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Revenue or profit?</p><blockquote><div><p>Given that it cost them $17m to make $3.4m - one could see how the multiplier is not gonna be so favorable. Let's make it 6x - that's $20m.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's a loss of 13.6 million.  Surely they'd have to <i>pay</i> someone around 80 million to take it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Typical rule of thumb in tech stock transactions is 5x-12x revenue , depending on a variety of factors .
Revenue or profit ? Given that it cost them $ 17m to make $ 3.4m - one could see how the multiplier is not gon na be so favorable .
Let 's make it 6x - that 's $ 20m.That 's a loss of 13.6 million .
Surely they 'd have to pay someone around 80 million to take it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typical rule of thumb in tech stock transactions is 5x-12x revenue, depending on a variety of factors.
Revenue or profit?Given that it cost them $17m to make $3.4m - one could see how the multiplier is not gonna be so favorable.
Let's make it 6x - that's $20m.That's a loss of 13.6 million.
Surely they'd have to pay someone around 80 million to take it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28414255</id>
	<title>You can depend on Oracle for commericial support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245584520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... for their own Oracle-branded rendition of RHEL and the Oracle-branded rendition of Xen-based virtual machines. It works quite well, is fully "certified" by Oracle and you can indeed by formal support for this platform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... for their own Oracle-branded rendition of RHEL and the Oracle-branded rendition of Xen-based virtual machines .
It works quite well , is fully " certified " by Oracle and you can indeed by formal support for this platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... for their own Oracle-branded rendition of RHEL and the Oracle-branded rendition of Xen-based virtual machines.
It works quite well, is fully "certified" by Oracle and you can indeed by formal support for this platform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28406425</id>
	<title>Re:Oracle is not IBM.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245507060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It allows you to change the risk/profit balance, like insurance against the stock price falling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It allows you to change the risk/profit balance , like insurance against the stock price falling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It allows you to change the risk/profit balance, like insurance against the stock price falling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404695</id>
	<title>Re:But Open Source if flakey and you cannot rely..</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1245495600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, if the shit's got shit, it's got shit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , if the shit 's got shit , it 's got shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, if the shit's got shit, it's got shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403945</id>
	<title>Totally in the s--?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245488820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand how this is an issue for existing VI customers.  In the immediate future, I can see the concern, but I'd be shocked if Oracle didn't have a transition plan for existing customers in the long term to their combined virtualization platform.  Granted, that plan may be "install this new version", but there's a plan I'm sure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand how this is an issue for existing VI customers .
In the immediate future , I can see the concern , but I 'd be shocked if Oracle did n't have a transition plan for existing customers in the long term to their combined virtualization platform .
Granted , that plan may be " install this new version " , but there 's a plan I 'm sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand how this is an issue for existing VI customers.
In the immediate future, I can see the concern, but I'd be shocked if Oracle didn't have a transition plan for existing customers in the long term to their combined virtualization platform.
Granted, that plan may be "install this new version", but there's a plan I'm sure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404163</id>
	<title>They made the product even more virtual</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245490920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The product allowed people to eliminate physical boxes and still run dozens or hundreds of logical servers.  Now, Oracle has discovered how to do away with customer support and engineering, too.  Kinda like the next wave of virtualization - Virtual Virtual ("V-Squared") Iron, only from Oracle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The product allowed people to eliminate physical boxes and still run dozens or hundreds of logical servers .
Now , Oracle has discovered how to do away with customer support and engineering , too .
Kinda like the next wave of virtualization - Virtual Virtual ( " V-Squared " ) Iron , only from Oracle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The product allowed people to eliminate physical boxes and still run dozens or hundreds of logical servers.
Now, Oracle has discovered how to do away with customer support and engineering, too.
Kinda like the next wave of virtualization - Virtual Virtual ("V-Squared") Iron, only from Oracle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404199</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another IT company gets to live my dream!</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1245491220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would so love to be Virtual Iron, or anyone who got bought out like that. Geez, they buy me out, then tell me, that, I really am not allowed to work on it any more and can just take off for a few years, here's your millions of dollars.</p></div><p>Here's your millions of dollars, we'll keep the hundreds of millions you could've made in the next years if you weren't so damn short-sighted. Now go home.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would so love to be Virtual Iron , or anyone who got bought out like that .
Geez , they buy me out , then tell me , that , I really am not allowed to work on it any more and can just take off for a few years , here 's your millions of dollars.Here 's your millions of dollars , we 'll keep the hundreds of millions you could 've made in the next years if you were n't so damn short-sighted .
Now go home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would so love to be Virtual Iron, or anyone who got bought out like that.
Geez, they buy me out, then tell me, that, I really am not allowed to work on it any more and can just take off for a few years, here's your millions of dollars.Here's your millions of dollars, we'll keep the hundreds of millions you could've made in the next years if you weren't so damn short-sighted.
Now go home.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404843</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another IT company gets to live my dream!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245496860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, Oracle paid VI's investors less than they originally put into the company, so nobody made any money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Oracle paid VI 's investors less than they originally put into the company , so nobody made any money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Oracle paid VI's investors less than they originally put into the company, so nobody made any money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403921</id>
	<title>But closed source is more safe and reliable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245488640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gartner said so! How can we rely on a bunch of Open Source enthusiasts (ok admittedly many of whom work for companies like Red Hat, Novell, etc.) to make a real virtualization product? Now I'm going to have to cross-discipline my internal processes to maximize the ROI alpha factor in order to deal with this situation!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gartner said so !
How can we rely on a bunch of Open Source enthusiasts ( ok admittedly many of whom work for companies like Red Hat , Novell , etc .
) to make a real virtualization product ?
Now I 'm going to have to cross-discipline my internal processes to maximize the ROI alpha factor in order to deal with this situation !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gartner said so!
How can we rely on a bunch of Open Source enthusiasts (ok admittedly many of whom work for companies like Red Hat, Novell, etc.
) to make a real virtualization product?
Now I'm going to have to cross-discipline my internal processes to maximize the ROI alpha factor in order to deal with this situation!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28419117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28405603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28411269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28412639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28405483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28405441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28405971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28415331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28407585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28408789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28408927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28407513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28406859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28411239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28408169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28408731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28408641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28406859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28411287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28406265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28416847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28410373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28412419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28413711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28410321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28415345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28414255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28406425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28406343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28408399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28406859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28409139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28409121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28406859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28410377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28412451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_1812254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28405779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1812254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403919
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1812254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28405603
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1812254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28411269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28405779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404235
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28406425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404275
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1812254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28410321
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1812254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28412419
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1812254.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28410373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28405483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404903
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28413711
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28408927
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28419117
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28406343
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1812254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28412639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1812254.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403897
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1812254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404209
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28416847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28405971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28408169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28414255
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1812254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28407585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404089
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28408789
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28406859
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28408641
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28408399
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28407513
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28409121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404843
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1812254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28407033
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1812254.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28412451
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1812254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28406265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28411287
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1812254.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28409139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28408731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28415345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28410377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28415331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28411239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28405441
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1812254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28407171
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_1812254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28403905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_1812254.28404695
</commentlist>
</conversation>
