<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_22_1854258</id>
	<title>Firefox 3.5RC2 Performance In Windows Vs. Linux</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1245698460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.michaeldavidlutz.com/" rel="nofollow">pizzutz</a> writes <i>"<a href="http://www.andrewmlawrence.com/">Andy Lawrence</a> has posted a <a href="http://www.andrewmlawrence.com/node/8">Javascript speed comparison</a> for the recently released <a href="http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-rc.html">Firefox 3.5RC2</a> between Linux (Ubuntu 9.04) and Windows(XP SP3) using the <a href="http://www2.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9/sunspider.html">SunSpider</a> benchmark test.  Firefox 3.5 will include the new <a href="https://wiki.mozilla.org/JavaScript:TraceMonkey">Tracemonkey</a> Javascript engine.  The Windows build edges out Linux by just under 15\%, though the Linux build is still twice as fast as the current 3.0.11 version which ships with Jaunty."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>pizzutz writes " Andy Lawrence has posted a Javascript speed comparison for the recently released Firefox 3.5RC2 between Linux ( Ubuntu 9.04 ) and Windows ( XP SP3 ) using the SunSpider benchmark test .
Firefox 3.5 will include the new Tracemonkey Javascript engine .
The Windows build edges out Linux by just under 15 \ % , though the Linux build is still twice as fast as the current 3.0.11 version which ships with Jaunty .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pizzutz writes "Andy Lawrence has posted a Javascript speed comparison for the recently released Firefox 3.5RC2 between Linux (Ubuntu 9.04) and Windows(XP SP3) using the SunSpider benchmark test.
Firefox 3.5 will include the new Tracemonkey Javascript engine.
The Windows build edges out Linux by just under 15\%, though the Linux build is still twice as fast as the current 3.0.11 version which ships with Jaunty.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28431105</id>
	<title>Re:My problem with Firefox is this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245673140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I \_AM\_ on a Pentium 60!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but ... I \ _AM \ _ on a Pentium 60 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but ... I \_AM\_ on a Pentium 60!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427607</id>
	<title>Re:My problem with Firefox is this</title>
	<author>asa</author>
	<datestamp>1245703980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"But on Linux, it is inherently ugly. The beast looks ancient and the fonts and dialogs make matters worse."

What do you mean "on Linux"?  On Ubuntu?  on Fedora? Some other distro? The OS is responsible for the fonts, not Firefox and the distros almost all make changes to the default look and feel of Firefox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" But on Linux , it is inherently ugly .
The beast looks ancient and the fonts and dialogs make matters worse .
" What do you mean " on Linux " ?
On Ubuntu ?
on Fedora ?
Some other distro ?
The OS is responsible for the fonts , not Firefox and the distros almost all make changes to the default look and feel of Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But on Linux, it is inherently ugly.
The beast looks ancient and the fonts and dialogs make matters worse.
"

What do you mean "on Linux"?
On Ubuntu?
on Fedora?
Some other distro?
The OS is responsible for the fonts, not Firefox and the distros almost all make changes to the default look and feel of Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28430755</id>
	<title>Re:Where's the proof that GCC is solely to blame?</title>
	<author>asa</author>
	<datestamp>1245672000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mozilla's expertise is in Web browsers and the Internet, not in code compilers.  Your suggestion makes about as much sense as telling Mozilla it should be funding development of faster hard drives or better LCDs.  They'd all improve the Firefox experience, but don't really make a lot of sense for a browser vendor to be doing.

As for GCC being inferior to other compilers, I'd recommend you ask that team directly. I'm sure they'll give you an honest answer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla 's expertise is in Web browsers and the Internet , not in code compilers .
Your suggestion makes about as much sense as telling Mozilla it should be funding development of faster hard drives or better LCDs .
They 'd all improve the Firefox experience , but do n't really make a lot of sense for a browser vendor to be doing .
As for GCC being inferior to other compilers , I 'd recommend you ask that team directly .
I 'm sure they 'll give you an honest answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla's expertise is in Web browsers and the Internet, not in code compilers.
Your suggestion makes about as much sense as telling Mozilla it should be funding development of faster hard drives or better LCDs.
They'd all improve the Firefox experience, but don't really make a lot of sense for a browser vendor to be doing.
As for GCC being inferior to other compilers, I'd recommend you ask that team directly.
I'm sure they'll give you an honest answer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427407</id>
	<title>Re:But why?</title>
	<author>moon3</author>
	<datestamp>1245703440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that GCC is pretty much the only compiler on Linux used these days and while the code is very nice C++ compilers on Windows produce a bit better code still.<br> <br>But when I mention Watcom C++ or other aspiring open source compiler here, a compiler that could possibly interest Linux community and spawn some competition for GCC then I get modded down often by people citing GCC is good enough for everybody and everything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that GCC is pretty much the only compiler on Linux used these days and while the code is very nice C + + compilers on Windows produce a bit better code still .
But when I mention Watcom C + + or other aspiring open source compiler here , a compiler that could possibly interest Linux community and spawn some competition for GCC then I get modded down often by people citing GCC is good enough for everybody and everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that GCC is pretty much the only compiler on Linux used these days and while the code is very nice C++ compilers on Windows produce a bit better code still.
But when I mention Watcom C++ or other aspiring open source compiler here, a compiler that could possibly interest Linux community and spawn some competition for GCC then I get modded down often by people citing GCC is good enough for everybody and everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427225</id>
	<title>Speaking of Bloat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245703020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How well does it perform on Vista?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How well does it perform on Vista ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How well does it perform on Vista?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428527</id>
	<title>real world vs testbench</title>
	<author>Werrismys</author>
	<datestamp>1245663960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everything in these kind of tests usually makes MS and Intel compilers stand out vs gcc.

On the desktop, the Wintel platform is shit slow all the time.

I care for the latter. no 27 different systray update services for different crapware, the crapware, antivirus, etc running - just the apps and system services I have actually opted for,</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything in these kind of tests usually makes MS and Intel compilers stand out vs gcc .
On the desktop , the Wintel platform is shit slow all the time .
I care for the latter .
no 27 different systray update services for different crapware , the crapware , antivirus , etc running - just the apps and system services I have actually opted for,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything in these kind of tests usually makes MS and Intel compilers stand out vs gcc.
On the desktop, the Wintel platform is shit slow all the time.
I care for the latter.
no 27 different systray update services for different crapware, the crapware, antivirus, etc running - just the apps and system services I have actually opted for,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429625</id>
	<title>Re:maybe linux carries some of this blame</title>
	<author>0xABADC0DA</author>
	<datestamp>1245667620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My guess is Mozilla uses<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/GL option for visual c++ to do whole program optimization (if not, they should).  Afaik this is currently not possible in gcc for C++ code except by cat'ing or #including all your files together into one.</p><p>In something huge like firefox there are probably a bunch of accessors and small functions that can be inlined to make a smaller *and* faster binary, if only the compiler can see the method implementation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess is Mozilla uses /GL option for visual c + + to do whole program optimization ( if not , they should ) .
Afaik this is currently not possible in gcc for C + + code except by cat'ing or # including all your files together into one.In something huge like firefox there are probably a bunch of accessors and small functions that can be inlined to make a smaller * and * faster binary , if only the compiler can see the method implementation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess is Mozilla uses /GL option for visual c++ to do whole program optimization (if not, they should).
Afaik this is currently not possible in gcc for C++ code except by cat'ing or #including all your files together into one.In something huge like firefox there are probably a bunch of accessors and small functions that can be inlined to make a smaller *and* faster binary, if only the compiler can see the method implementation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427859</id>
	<title>Re:But why?</title>
	<author>Jamie's Nightmare</author>
	<datestamp>1245661620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everything on Linux is weighed down by the X server.  Desktop composition does little to help.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything on Linux is weighed down by the X server .
Desktop composition does little to help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything on Linux is weighed down by the X server.
Desktop composition does little to help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28436029</id>
	<title>Re:Don't benchmark it on Ubuntu</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1245748140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about on a gentoo system, where firefox has been compiled to target the particular cpu?<br>How about a 64bit system?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about on a gentoo system , where firefox has been compiled to target the particular cpu ? How about a 64bit system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about on a gentoo system, where firefox has been compiled to target the particular cpu?How about a 64bit system?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427781</id>
	<title>Re:My problem with Firefox is this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245661380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Firefox on Windows looks great/awesome/beautiful....name it. But on Linux, it is inherently ugly. The beast looks ancient and the fonts and dialogs make matters worse.</p></div><p>In Ubuntu 9.04 here, and I personally think the stock DejaVu fonts on Linux look quite nice.  Actually prefer the traditional toolbar on Linux with Tango icons (tango.freedesktop.org) rather than the "enlarged back button" version found on Windows and OSX.  </p><p>The only problem I see is the topic of this thread, i.e., performance.  It's slow enough to feel slow, and the fact that most Linux distros run so well on old hardware makes the problem worse.</p><p>The bigger problem for the "Linux browsing experience" still seems to be Flash.  Visiting a Flash-heavy site (like the horrible items produced by any given automaker) is a painful experience...it's bad enough that I'll typically crack open the MacBook.  I find Flash sites consume an order of magnitude more  CPU running natively in a Linux browser than they do running in a Windows XP VirtualBox instance hosted by the same Linux OS.</p><p>AdBlockPlus and FlashBlock are the only things that enable me to continue to use this computer for web browsing.  It's somewhat of a sad state of affairs, given that it's more than quick enough to run multiple VirtualBox instances, Eclipse instances, and a GIMP instance with dozens of files open at the same time.  But give it one web page with a few Flash advertisements, and you'll think you're on a Pentium 60.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox on Windows looks great/awesome/beautiful....name it .
But on Linux , it is inherently ugly .
The beast looks ancient and the fonts and dialogs make matters worse.In Ubuntu 9.04 here , and I personally think the stock DejaVu fonts on Linux look quite nice .
Actually prefer the traditional toolbar on Linux with Tango icons ( tango.freedesktop.org ) rather than the " enlarged back button " version found on Windows and OSX .
The only problem I see is the topic of this thread , i.e. , performance .
It 's slow enough to feel slow , and the fact that most Linux distros run so well on old hardware makes the problem worse.The bigger problem for the " Linux browsing experience " still seems to be Flash .
Visiting a Flash-heavy site ( like the horrible items produced by any given automaker ) is a painful experience...it 's bad enough that I 'll typically crack open the MacBook .
I find Flash sites consume an order of magnitude more CPU running natively in a Linux browser than they do running in a Windows XP VirtualBox instance hosted by the same Linux OS.AdBlockPlus and FlashBlock are the only things that enable me to continue to use this computer for web browsing .
It 's somewhat of a sad state of affairs , given that it 's more than quick enough to run multiple VirtualBox instances , Eclipse instances , and a GIMP instance with dozens of files open at the same time .
But give it one web page with a few Flash advertisements , and you 'll think you 're on a Pentium 60 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox on Windows looks great/awesome/beautiful....name it.
But on Linux, it is inherently ugly.
The beast looks ancient and the fonts and dialogs make matters worse.In Ubuntu 9.04 here, and I personally think the stock DejaVu fonts on Linux look quite nice.
Actually prefer the traditional toolbar on Linux with Tango icons (tango.freedesktop.org) rather than the "enlarged back button" version found on Windows and OSX.
The only problem I see is the topic of this thread, i.e., performance.
It's slow enough to feel slow, and the fact that most Linux distros run so well on old hardware makes the problem worse.The bigger problem for the "Linux browsing experience" still seems to be Flash.
Visiting a Flash-heavy site (like the horrible items produced by any given automaker) is a painful experience...it's bad enough that I'll typically crack open the MacBook.
I find Flash sites consume an order of magnitude more  CPU running natively in a Linux browser than they do running in a Windows XP VirtualBox instance hosted by the same Linux OS.AdBlockPlus and FlashBlock are the only things that enable me to continue to use this computer for web browsing.
It's somewhat of a sad state of affairs, given that it's more than quick enough to run multiple VirtualBox instances, Eclipse instances, and a GIMP instance with dozens of files open at the same time.
But give it one web page with a few Flash advertisements, and you'll think you're on a Pentium 60.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28436455</id>
	<title>Re:Don't benchmark it on Ubuntu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245753420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other words, Ubuntu has had an advantage of 90 months of improvements and it <b>still</b> can't beat XP's performance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , Ubuntu has had an advantage of 90 months of improvements and it still ca n't beat XP 's performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, Ubuntu has had an advantage of 90 months of improvements and it still can't beat XP's performance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28431593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28430405</id>
	<title>Re:But why?</title>
	<author>rbanffy</author>
	<datestamp>1245670560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GCC \_is\_ good enough for a lot of stuff.</p><p>I would consider other compiler if it can compile all of my current distro to all architectures it supports. I find the x86 world remarkably boring,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GCC \ _is \ _ good enough for a lot of stuff.I would consider other compiler if it can compile all of my current distro to all architectures it supports .
I find the x86 world remarkably boring,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GCC \_is\_ good enough for a lot of stuff.I would consider other compiler if it can compile all of my current distro to all architectures it supports.
I find the x86 world remarkably boring,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428037</id>
	<title>Re:But why?</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1245662280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't gcc 4.0 strip out all the processor-specific optimizations? I don't think it has ever been put back in. Sure, optimizing for x86 and not other processors shows a certain bias, but I'll take x86 bias over poorly optimized code any day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't gcc 4.0 strip out all the processor-specific optimizations ?
I do n't think it has ever been put back in .
Sure , optimizing for x86 and not other processors shows a certain bias , but I 'll take x86 bias over poorly optimized code any day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't gcc 4.0 strip out all the processor-specific optimizations?
I don't think it has ever been put back in.
Sure, optimizing for x86 and not other processors shows a certain bias, but I'll take x86 bias over poorly optimized code any day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426993</id>
	<title>There! You have it!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245702300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This proves that, um, Windows,er, Linux is....um...what the fuck does this prove again? </p><p>And why the fuck should I care if there's a 15\% difference in performance  of Firefox between those two OSes? I use my particular OS for reason that have nothing to do with how well Firefox runs on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This proves that , um , Windows,er , Linux is....um...what the fuck does this prove again ?
And why the fuck should I care if there 's a 15 \ % difference in performance of Firefox between those two OSes ?
I use my particular OS for reason that have nothing to do with how well Firefox runs on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This proves that, um, Windows,er, Linux is....um...what the fuck does this prove again?
And why the fuck should I care if there's a 15\% difference in performance  of Firefox between those two OSes?
I use my particular OS for reason that have nothing to do with how well Firefox runs on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28430153</id>
	<title>Re:But why?</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1245669780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Microsoft C compiler generates very well optimized code.  It has beat out GCC by 10\% or more since time immemorial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Microsoft C compiler generates very well optimized code .
It has beat out GCC by 10 \ % or more since time immemorial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Microsoft C compiler generates very well optimized code.
It has beat out GCC by 10\% or more since time immemorial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428089</id>
	<title>Re:Where's the proof that GCC is solely to blame?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245662460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Compilers aren't a simple problem that you can 'throw devs at'.</p><p>Maybe the Intel compiler could be used, but it breaks on anything non-trivial.</p><p>Or we can suck up the 15\% performance degradation, especially if it is due to profiled optimisations on Windows, and just be happy that it is twice as fast in terms of Javascript, that might make Slashdot usable on a netbook again. It's certainly going to be faster than IE8 on Windows, and that is what most Windows users will be using in the end.</p><p>I only hope that Canonical make it available for 8.10, because we can't all upgrade to 9.04 because some companies (looks at VIA) take 6 months to get their drivers updated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Compilers are n't a simple problem that you can 'throw devs at'.Maybe the Intel compiler could be used , but it breaks on anything non-trivial.Or we can suck up the 15 \ % performance degradation , especially if it is due to profiled optimisations on Windows , and just be happy that it is twice as fast in terms of Javascript , that might make Slashdot usable on a netbook again .
It 's certainly going to be faster than IE8 on Windows , and that is what most Windows users will be using in the end.I only hope that Canonical make it available for 8.10 , because we ca n't all upgrade to 9.04 because some companies ( looks at VIA ) take 6 months to get their drivers updated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compilers aren't a simple problem that you can 'throw devs at'.Maybe the Intel compiler could be used, but it breaks on anything non-trivial.Or we can suck up the 15\% performance degradation, especially if it is due to profiled optimisations on Windows, and just be happy that it is twice as fast in terms of Javascript, that might make Slashdot usable on a netbook again.
It's certainly going to be faster than IE8 on Windows, and that is what most Windows users will be using in the end.I only hope that Canonical make it available for 8.10, because we can't all upgrade to 9.04 because some companies (looks at VIA) take 6 months to get their drivers updated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427597</id>
	<title>Re:My problem with Firefox is this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245703920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Firefox on Windows looks great/awesome/beautiful....name it. But on Linux, it is inherently ugly. The beast looks ancient and the fonts and dialogs make matters worse.</p><p>Folks, I am not trolling so have a look for yourselves and compare....</p></div><p>I'm running Windows XP and Ubuntu 9/04 side by side on similar laptops. Just to test, I looked at the main pages for Slashdot, Wikipedia (English), and Amazon, side-by-side.</p><p>My eyeball result of looking for differences between pages rendered with Firefox on Ubuntu 9.04 vs Windows XP:</p><ul><li>Slashdot (slashdot.org): indistinguishable</li><li>Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main\_Page): indistinguishable</li><li>Amazon (www.amazon.com): Bold fonts in the "Shop All Departments" navigation menu appear too big on Ubuntu; they don't quite seem to fit properly.</li></ul><p>Other than the issue for Amazon, the pages rendered look identical to me. The fonts for the menus look identical. I still disagree with the choice the mozilla team made to have the preferences/options menus with different titles in different locations for Linux versus Windows, but other than that, the UI seems consistent to me. The default GNOME theme for Firefox isn't as pretty as the new Firefox theme on Windows, but that's a minor aesthetic thing, and it's not ugly, it just isn't pretty.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox on Windows looks great/awesome/beautiful....name it .
But on Linux , it is inherently ugly .
The beast looks ancient and the fonts and dialogs make matters worse.Folks , I am not trolling so have a look for yourselves and compare....I 'm running Windows XP and Ubuntu 9/04 side by side on similar laptops .
Just to test , I looked at the main pages for Slashdot , Wikipedia ( English ) , and Amazon , side-by-side.My eyeball result of looking for differences between pages rendered with Firefox on Ubuntu 9.04 vs Windows XP : Slashdot ( slashdot.org ) : indistinguishableWikipedia ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main \ _Page ) : indistinguishableAmazon ( www.amazon.com ) : Bold fonts in the " Shop All Departments " navigation menu appear too big on Ubuntu ; they do n't quite seem to fit properly.Other than the issue for Amazon , the pages rendered look identical to me .
The fonts for the menus look identical .
I still disagree with the choice the mozilla team made to have the preferences/options menus with different titles in different locations for Linux versus Windows , but other than that , the UI seems consistent to me .
The default GNOME theme for Firefox is n't as pretty as the new Firefox theme on Windows , but that 's a minor aesthetic thing , and it 's not ugly , it just is n't pretty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox on Windows looks great/awesome/beautiful....name it.
But on Linux, it is inherently ugly.
The beast looks ancient and the fonts and dialogs make matters worse.Folks, I am not trolling so have a look for yourselves and compare....I'm running Windows XP and Ubuntu 9/04 side by side on similar laptops.
Just to test, I looked at the main pages for Slashdot, Wikipedia (English), and Amazon, side-by-side.My eyeball result of looking for differences between pages rendered with Firefox on Ubuntu 9.04 vs Windows XP:Slashdot (slashdot.org): indistinguishableWikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main\_Page): indistinguishableAmazon (www.amazon.com): Bold fonts in the "Shop All Departments" navigation menu appear too big on Ubuntu; they don't quite seem to fit properly.Other than the issue for Amazon, the pages rendered look identical to me.
The fonts for the menus look identical.
I still disagree with the choice the mozilla team made to have the preferences/options menus with different titles in different locations for Linux versus Windows, but other than that, the UI seems consistent to me.
The default GNOME theme for Firefox isn't as pretty as the new Firefox theme on Windows, but that's a minor aesthetic thing, and it's not ugly, it just isn't pretty.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428695</id>
	<title>Re:Proving yet again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245664380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, only things proven so far is that you have no clue at all about the meaning of the word "prove", and that there apparently are mods that are just as clueless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , only things proven so far is that you have no clue at all about the meaning of the word " prove " , and that there apparently are mods that are just as clueless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, only things proven so far is that you have no clue at all about the meaning of the word "prove", and that there apparently are mods that are just as clueless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428477</id>
	<title>Intel compiler</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245663780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then release binaries made with the Intel compiler.  It's a better optimizer than MSVC (and gcc) whether on Windows or Linux.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then release binaries made with the Intel compiler .
It 's a better optimizer than MSVC ( and gcc ) whether on Windows or Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then release binaries made with the Intel compiler.
It's a better optimizer than MSVC (and gcc) whether on Windows or Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428425</id>
	<title>3.0.7 not great,  3.0.11 not good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245663600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope Mozilla 3.5 does better than the article indicates.<br>Using F10, and upgrading from 3.0.7 to 3.0.11 is worse.<br>Now my box only refreshes the browser screen when I move the frickin mouse!!<br>Talk about wrist action !!</p><p>And the top menu's and tabs still take their good ol' time<br>being re-displayed.  On a 2.8ghz box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope Mozilla 3.5 does better than the article indicates.Using F10 , and upgrading from 3.0.7 to 3.0.11 is worse.Now my box only refreshes the browser screen when I move the frickin mouse !
! Talk about wrist action !
! And the top menu 's and tabs still take their good ol ' timebeing re-displayed .
On a 2.8ghz box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope Mozilla 3.5 does better than the article indicates.Using F10, and upgrading from 3.0.7 to 3.0.11 is worse.Now my box only refreshes the browser screen when I move the frickin mouse!
!Talk about wrist action !
!And the top menu's and tabs still take their good ol' timebeing re-displayed.
On a 2.8ghz box.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28437531</id>
	<title>Re:maybe linux carries some of this blame</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1245765180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Why? No clue.</p><p>Because gcc falls down and dies if you try to actually use its profile-guided optimization feature with Firefox.  See <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=418866" title="mozilla.org">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=418866</a> [mozilla.org]</p><p>I'd love to be able to enable this and get some profiles of things like sunspider and DOM-heavy pages with it, but I'm blocked on the gcc suckage. If you happen to know some gcc developers who could help here, that would be very nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Why ?
No clue.Because gcc falls down and dies if you try to actually use its profile-guided optimization feature with Firefox .
See https : //bugzilla.mozilla.org/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 418866 [ mozilla.org ] I 'd love to be able to enable this and get some profiles of things like sunspider and DOM-heavy pages with it , but I 'm blocked on the gcc suckage .
If you happen to know some gcc developers who could help here , that would be very nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Why?
No clue.Because gcc falls down and dies if you try to actually use its profile-guided optimization feature with Firefox.
See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=418866 [mozilla.org]I'd love to be able to enable this and get some profiles of things like sunspider and DOM-heavy pages with it, but I'm blocked on the gcc suckage.
If you happen to know some gcc developers who could help here, that would be very nice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28448597</id>
	<title>Re:My problem with Firefox is this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245773220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     I bet here's the difference (for people that used Ubuntu 8.xx or other distros and got nasty fonts.).  I put ubuntu-restricted-extras on mine first thing, which along with java, flash, and etc. installs msttcorefonts.  I expect many systems may have those fonts on them.   I can also say the font appearance changes drastically depending on how freetype is setup.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; As for flash, agreed!   I'm hoping gnash gets up to par.  When it DOES work it's massively faster than flash.  I think something in flash must busy loop -- I'll see some flash page use like 90\% CPU time, run on a box 1/2 the speed and have flash still using 90\% on there too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet here 's the difference ( for people that used Ubuntu 8.xx or other distros and got nasty fonts. ) .
I put ubuntu-restricted-extras on mine first thing , which along with java , flash , and etc .
installs msttcorefonts .
I expect many systems may have those fonts on them .
I can also say the font appearance changes drastically depending on how freetype is setup .
          As for flash , agreed !
I 'm hoping gnash gets up to par .
When it DOES work it 's massively faster than flash .
I think something in flash must busy loop -- I 'll see some flash page use like 90 \ % CPU time , run on a box 1/2 the speed and have flash still using 90 \ % on there too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     I bet here's the difference (for people that used Ubuntu 8.xx or other distros and got nasty fonts.).
I put ubuntu-restricted-extras on mine first thing, which along with java, flash, and etc.
installs msttcorefonts.
I expect many systems may have those fonts on them.
I can also say the font appearance changes drastically depending on how freetype is setup.
          As for flash, agreed!
I'm hoping gnash gets up to par.
When it DOES work it's massively faster than flash.
I think something in flash must busy loop -- I'll see some flash page use like 90\% CPU time, run on a box 1/2 the speed and have flash still using 90\% on there too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28430787</id>
	<title>Smell the bull</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245672060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think it is the compiler that makes the difference, then why not prove it? Compile firefox in windows with gcc and do the comparisons again. If it comes closer to Ubuntu performance then it is a strong indication it is the compiler to blame. If not, put a sock in it.</p><p>BTW, the difference is 294.8 ms. That is less than a third of a second!</p><p>Are you people high? What does it matter? I mean really!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think it is the compiler that makes the difference , then why not prove it ?
Compile firefox in windows with gcc and do the comparisons again .
If it comes closer to Ubuntu performance then it is a strong indication it is the compiler to blame .
If not , put a sock in it.BTW , the difference is 294.8 ms. That is less than a third of a second ! Are you people high ?
What does it matter ?
I mean really !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think it is the compiler that makes the difference, then why not prove it?
Compile firefox in windows with gcc and do the comparisons again.
If it comes closer to Ubuntu performance then it is a strong indication it is the compiler to blame.
If not, put a sock in it.BTW, the difference is 294.8 ms. That is less than a third of a second!Are you people high?
What does it matter?
I mean really!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429545</id>
	<title>Re:But why?</title>
	<author>Lennie</author>
	<datestamp>1245667380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess it's still available, here:</p><p><a href="http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Main\_Page" title="openwatcom.org">http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Main\_Page</a> [openwatcom.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess it 's still available , here : http : //www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Main \ _Page [ openwatcom.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess it's still available, here:http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Main\_Page [openwatcom.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28434055</id>
	<title>Apples vs Oranges</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245687480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of all the things that we should be concerned about with GNU/Linux on the desktop the speed of Firefox seems to be insignificant in the scheme of things. What I see as the show stoppers for most people are the lack of programs and/or features. Compatibility is an issue- but by no means is it a deal killer in most cases. Firefox will almost always run faster on GNU/Linux than MS Windows- and here is why. Most MS Windows computers are dog awful slow. People just don't have the ram necessary for running MS Windows. GNU/Linux users have the upper hand here in that GNU/Linux is generally better designed and thus needs less ram- by better designed I mean software tends to be lighter even with equivalent features and better integrated. When you buy a new compatible GNU/Linux printer- and I'm going to use HP in this example "it just works". You plug it in and you go to print. In MS Windows you'd spend at least an hour trying to get it working and it would slow your computer way down. Anyway- the point is that all this bloat is killing speed on MS Windows machines so even though a system with enough ram to meet the demands might run Firefox faster that simply isn't generally the case. We are a head in this area and I feel this should be relegated to a "we'll work on it someday".</p><p>The only reason I could see working on improving the speed today is if the resources that would be put into it aren't going to go into the GNU/Linux ecosystem otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of all the things that we should be concerned about with GNU/Linux on the desktop the speed of Firefox seems to be insignificant in the scheme of things .
What I see as the show stoppers for most people are the lack of programs and/or features .
Compatibility is an issue- but by no means is it a deal killer in most cases .
Firefox will almost always run faster on GNU/Linux than MS Windows- and here is why .
Most MS Windows computers are dog awful slow .
People just do n't have the ram necessary for running MS Windows .
GNU/Linux users have the upper hand here in that GNU/Linux is generally better designed and thus needs less ram- by better designed I mean software tends to be lighter even with equivalent features and better integrated .
When you buy a new compatible GNU/Linux printer- and I 'm going to use HP in this example " it just works " .
You plug it in and you go to print .
In MS Windows you 'd spend at least an hour trying to get it working and it would slow your computer way down .
Anyway- the point is that all this bloat is killing speed on MS Windows machines so even though a system with enough ram to meet the demands might run Firefox faster that simply is n't generally the case .
We are a head in this area and I feel this should be relegated to a " we 'll work on it someday " .The only reason I could see working on improving the speed today is if the resources that would be put into it are n't going to go into the GNU/Linux ecosystem otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of all the things that we should be concerned about with GNU/Linux on the desktop the speed of Firefox seems to be insignificant in the scheme of things.
What I see as the show stoppers for most people are the lack of programs and/or features.
Compatibility is an issue- but by no means is it a deal killer in most cases.
Firefox will almost always run faster on GNU/Linux than MS Windows- and here is why.
Most MS Windows computers are dog awful slow.
People just don't have the ram necessary for running MS Windows.
GNU/Linux users have the upper hand here in that GNU/Linux is generally better designed and thus needs less ram- by better designed I mean software tends to be lighter even with equivalent features and better integrated.
When you buy a new compatible GNU/Linux printer- and I'm going to use HP in this example "it just works".
You plug it in and you go to print.
In MS Windows you'd spend at least an hour trying to get it working and it would slow your computer way down.
Anyway- the point is that all this bloat is killing speed on MS Windows machines so even though a system with enough ram to meet the demands might run Firefox faster that simply isn't generally the case.
We are a head in this area and I feel this should be relegated to a "we'll work on it someday".The only reason I could see working on improving the speed today is if the resources that would be put into it aren't going to go into the GNU/Linux ecosystem otherwise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427121</id>
	<title>Re:So what shall one use now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245702720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Twice the performance of 3.0 isn't good enough for you? Yeah, the developers obviously don't care...</p><p>Mod parent Troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Twice the performance of 3.0 is n't good enough for you ?
Yeah , the developers obviously do n't care...Mod parent Troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Twice the performance of 3.0 isn't good enough for you?
Yeah, the developers obviously don't care...Mod parent Troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28432607</id>
	<title>Re:So what shall one use now?</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1245679500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A very large chunk of Firefox's developers have Linux as their primary platform. You're obviously not familiar with the comparative qualities of the compilers on different platforms or you would asking "why do the Linux compilers get beat so badly by the Windows compilers."</i> </p><p>So why isn't the Moz Foundation investing in a better compiler?</p><p>---and what does this say about the performance of <b>any</b> app running under Linux compared to the Windows version?<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A very large chunk of Firefox 's developers have Linux as their primary platform .
You 're obviously not familiar with the comparative qualities of the compilers on different platforms or you would asking " why do the Linux compilers get beat so badly by the Windows compilers .
" So why is n't the Moz Foundation investing in a better compiler ? ---and what does this say about the performance of any app running under Linux compared to the Windows version ?
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>A very large chunk of Firefox's developers have Linux as their primary platform.
You're obviously not familiar with the comparative qualities of the compilers on different platforms or you would asking "why do the Linux compilers get beat so badly by the Windows compilers.
" So why isn't the Moz Foundation investing in a better compiler?---and what does this say about the performance of any app running under Linux compared to the Windows version?
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428849</id>
	<title>On Linux 57\% slower</title>
	<author>r45d15</author>
	<datestamp>1245664860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just did my benchmarks, dual booting, Ubuntu 9.04 x64 and Windows XP x32:
XP: 1586.6ms
Ubuntu: 2739.2ms

Specs:
Intel Pentium D 3.4Ghz, 4GB RAM.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just did my benchmarks , dual booting , Ubuntu 9.04 x64 and Windows XP x32 : XP : 1586.6ms Ubuntu : 2739.2ms Specs : Intel Pentium D 3.4Ghz , 4GB RAM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just did my benchmarks, dual booting, Ubuntu 9.04 x64 and Windows XP x32:
XP: 1586.6ms
Ubuntu: 2739.2ms

Specs:
Intel Pentium D 3.4Ghz, 4GB RAM.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28431593</id>
	<title>Re:Don't benchmark it on Ubuntu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245674700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's your point? Both are presented as general-purpose desktop operating systems (Slackware has some proponents who will try and claim that status for it too, but most of them wouldn't get very far). At the very least, try it on another "user-friendly" desktop-oriented distro.</p><p>Of course, they're also benchmarking on a 2-month-old build of Ubuntu (designed for the capabilities of modern hardware, and the features of a modern OS) vs. on a 92-month-old build of Windows. When XP came out, it said that its minimum requirements were 128MB of RAM (on which it runs little better than Vista on 512MB) and people thought that was a lot! This is a ridiculous comparison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's your point ?
Both are presented as general-purpose desktop operating systems ( Slackware has some proponents who will try and claim that status for it too , but most of them would n't get very far ) .
At the very least , try it on another " user-friendly " desktop-oriented distro.Of course , they 're also benchmarking on a 2-month-old build of Ubuntu ( designed for the capabilities of modern hardware , and the features of a modern OS ) vs. on a 92-month-old build of Windows .
When XP came out , it said that its minimum requirements were 128MB of RAM ( on which it runs little better than Vista on 512MB ) and people thought that was a lot !
This is a ridiculous comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's your point?
Both are presented as general-purpose desktop operating systems (Slackware has some proponents who will try and claim that status for it too, but most of them wouldn't get very far).
At the very least, try it on another "user-friendly" desktop-oriented distro.Of course, they're also benchmarking on a 2-month-old build of Ubuntu (designed for the capabilities of modern hardware, and the features of a modern OS) vs. on a 92-month-old build of Windows.
When XP came out, it said that its minimum requirements were 128MB of RAM (on which it runs little better than Vista on 512MB) and people thought that was a lot!
This is a ridiculous comparison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427793</id>
	<title>Re:My problem with Firefox is this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245661440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Firefox on Windows looks great/awesome/beautiful....name it. But on Linux, it is inherently ugly. The beast looks ancient and the fonts and dialogs make matters worse.</p></div><p>Not really. It fits in with the rest of Gnome fairly well, and if you throw on the Linux equivalent of "Cleartype" the fonts are actually quite nice. Installing the "mscorefonts" that most distros have these days makes Firefox rendering between the two practically indistinguishable, aside from, again, that Clear/Freetype rendering beauty.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox on Windows looks great/awesome/beautiful....name it .
But on Linux , it is inherently ugly .
The beast looks ancient and the fonts and dialogs make matters worse.Not really .
It fits in with the rest of Gnome fairly well , and if you throw on the Linux equivalent of " Cleartype " the fonts are actually quite nice .
Installing the " mscorefonts " that most distros have these days makes Firefox rendering between the two practically indistinguishable , aside from , again , that Clear/Freetype rendering beauty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox on Windows looks great/awesome/beautiful....name it.
But on Linux, it is inherently ugly.
The beast looks ancient and the fonts and dialogs make matters worse.Not really.
It fits in with the rest of Gnome fairly well, and if you throw on the Linux equivalent of "Cleartype" the fonts are actually quite nice.
Installing the "mscorefonts" that most distros have these days makes Firefox rendering between the two practically indistinguishable, aside from, again, that Clear/Freetype rendering beauty.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428059</id>
	<title>Re:My problem with Firefox is this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245662340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fix your eyes!</p><p>
&nbsp; I'm a peer reviewed, 5 year at university 4 years at work designer and I say firefox on winows is *not* better looking that Firefox on Linux (gnome).</p></div><p>7 years of college, down the drain!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fix your eyes !
  I 'm a peer reviewed , 5 year at university 4 years at work designer and I say firefox on winows is * not * better looking that Firefox on Linux ( gnome ) .7 years of college , down the drain !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fix your eyes!
  I'm a peer reviewed, 5 year at university 4 years at work designer and I say firefox on winows is *not* better looking that Firefox on Linux (gnome).7 years of college, down the drain!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428261</id>
	<title>Re:Where's the proof that GCC is solely to blame?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245663180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Proof.. This is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. we don't need any stinking proof.

It couldn't be the fact that prelinking doesn't work for dlopened libraries. Something that should have been fixed in ohh 2005 when the guy from novel brought it up and supplied the code. It also could not be a issue with video drivers being less optimized and full of hacks dreamed up by Troglodites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Proof.. This is / .
we do n't need any stinking proof .
It could n't be the fact that prelinking does n't work for dlopened libraries .
Something that should have been fixed in ohh 2005 when the guy from novel brought it up and supplied the code .
It also could not be a issue with video drivers being less optimized and full of hacks dreamed up by Troglodites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proof.. This is /.
we don't need any stinking proof.
It couldn't be the fact that prelinking doesn't work for dlopened libraries.
Something that should have been fixed in ohh 2005 when the guy from novel brought it up and supplied the code.
It also could not be a issue with video drivers being less optimized and full of hacks dreamed up by Troglodites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428485</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking of Bloat</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1245663840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a strange question.  "Ok, so it's slow on mainstream Linux distros.  I bet its slow on Vista, too!"  I don't think it IS as slow on Vista, but I fail to see how that question does anything but try to say "Vista is just as bad as Linux."</p><p>Which, considering the fact that most geeks are more of the opinion that "Vista is a garbage can in comparison to the Taj Mahal/Buckingham Palace/[Insert Expensive Cool Place] that we call Linux," seems to be rather fruitless.  Unless, of course, you're willing to admit that Linux isn't necessarily better in everything than Windows.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  Which is fine with me, who uses both quite extensively.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a strange question .
" Ok , so it 's slow on mainstream Linux distros .
I bet its slow on Vista , too !
" I do n't think it IS as slow on Vista , but I fail to see how that question does anything but try to say " Vista is just as bad as Linux .
" Which , considering the fact that most geeks are more of the opinion that " Vista is a garbage can in comparison to the Taj Mahal/Buckingham Palace/ [ Insert Expensive Cool Place ] that we call Linux , " seems to be rather fruitless .
Unless , of course , you 're willing to admit that Linux is n't necessarily better in everything than Windows .
: ) Which is fine with me , who uses both quite extensively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a strange question.
"Ok, so it's slow on mainstream Linux distros.
I bet its slow on Vista, too!
"  I don't think it IS as slow on Vista, but I fail to see how that question does anything but try to say "Vista is just as bad as Linux.
"Which, considering the fact that most geeks are more of the opinion that "Vista is a garbage can in comparison to the Taj Mahal/Buckingham Palace/[Insert Expensive Cool Place] that we call Linux," seems to be rather fruitless.
Unless, of course, you're willing to admit that Linux isn't necessarily better in everything than Windows.
:)  Which is fine with me, who uses both quite extensively.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427319</id>
	<title>Re:My problem with Firefox is this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245703200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Firefox on Windows looks great/awesome/beautiful....name it. But on Linux, it is inherently ugly.</p></div><p>Thats because Linux itself is inherently ugly!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox on Windows looks great/awesome/beautiful....name it .
But on Linux , it is inherently ugly.Thats because Linux itself is inherently ugly !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox on Windows looks great/awesome/beautiful....name it.
But on Linux, it is inherently ugly.Thats because Linux itself is inherently ugly!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427671</id>
	<title>Harm of looking good: opportunity cost</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1245704220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or even then...How would a good looking Firefox harm Firefox?</p></div><p>If the time spent making firefox look good could be spent on other things, the harm of a good-looking firefox is that said other things are missing; they could be performance, stability, bug fixes, new features.</p><p>Now, I said "if".  I'm not certain the condition is satisfied: if I'm working on performance-optimizing some application I run a lot, I'm not going to work on making it look pretty if I think it looks just fine.  I figure people who like the performance just fine isn't going to move away from working on the pretty either.  (As long as they're volunteer developers).</p><p>The size of the opportunity cost also depends on how big the return on investment is, in looks and performance, comparatively.  If one mythical man-month can make firefox look 200\% better or be 50\% more performant, well... 200 &gt; 50.  Though I'm not sure how you quantify pretty<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)  user approval rating, maybe?</p><p>So in short: how would a good looking firefox harm firefox?  I have no clue!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)  But I know that the answer "none" is something you arrive at only after some consideration.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or even then...How would a good looking Firefox harm Firefox ? If the time spent making firefox look good could be spent on other things , the harm of a good-looking firefox is that said other things are missing ; they could be performance , stability , bug fixes , new features.Now , I said " if " .
I 'm not certain the condition is satisfied : if I 'm working on performance-optimizing some application I run a lot , I 'm not going to work on making it look pretty if I think it looks just fine .
I figure people who like the performance just fine is n't going to move away from working on the pretty either .
( As long as they 're volunteer developers ) .The size of the opportunity cost also depends on how big the return on investment is , in looks and performance , comparatively .
If one mythical man-month can make firefox look 200 \ % better or be 50 \ % more performant , well... 200 &gt; 50 .
Though I 'm not sure how you quantify pretty ; - ) user approval rating , maybe ? So in short : how would a good looking firefox harm firefox ?
I have no clue !
; ) But I know that the answer " none " is something you arrive at only after some consideration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or even then...How would a good looking Firefox harm Firefox?If the time spent making firefox look good could be spent on other things, the harm of a good-looking firefox is that said other things are missing; they could be performance, stability, bug fixes, new features.Now, I said "if".
I'm not certain the condition is satisfied: if I'm working on performance-optimizing some application I run a lot, I'm not going to work on making it look pretty if I think it looks just fine.
I figure people who like the performance just fine isn't going to move away from working on the pretty either.
(As long as they're volunteer developers).The size of the opportunity cost also depends on how big the return on investment is, in looks and performance, comparatively.
If one mythical man-month can make firefox look 200\% better or be 50\% more performant, well... 200 &gt; 50.
Though I'm not sure how you quantify pretty ;-)  user approval rating, maybe?So in short: how would a good looking firefox harm firefox?
I have no clue!
;)  But I know that the answer "none" is something you arrive at only after some consideration.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428087</id>
	<title>Re:But why?</title>
	<author>Locutus</author>
	<datestamp>1245662460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in the 90s, the Watcom compiler produced some of the fastest code out there. I know it was open source and is still used but it would be interesting to see what it could do in cases like this. If it's as good as it used to be, showing a 15\% improvement and eliminating any speed advantage MS compilers might have would be eye opening for many who might consider gcc the only compiler for GNU/Linux software.<br>
&nbsp; </p><p>LoB<br>
&nbsp; </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in the 90s , the Watcom compiler produced some of the fastest code out there .
I know it was open source and is still used but it would be interesting to see what it could do in cases like this .
If it 's as good as it used to be , showing a 15 \ % improvement and eliminating any speed advantage MS compilers might have would be eye opening for many who might consider gcc the only compiler for GNU/Linux software .
  LoB  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>in the 90s, the Watcom compiler produced some of the fastest code out there.
I know it was open source and is still used but it would be interesting to see what it could do in cases like this.
If it's as good as it used to be, showing a 15\% improvement and eliminating any speed advantage MS compilers might have would be eye opening for many who might consider gcc the only compiler for GNU/Linux software.
  LoB
  </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428119</id>
	<title>Re:Where's the proof that GCC is solely to blame?</title>
	<author>Peepsalot</author>
	<datestamp>1245662520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there a reason that Mozilla should spend considerable resources making the Linux version of their product faster than the Windows version of their product?  I don't really see how it's their problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a reason that Mozilla should spend considerable resources making the Linux version of their product faster than the Windows version of their product ?
I do n't really see how it 's their problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a reason that Mozilla should spend considerable resources making the Linux version of their product faster than the Windows version of their product?
I don't really see how it's their problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427571</id>
	<title>Re:My problem with Firefox is this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245703860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Ask Apple or even Windows folks.</p><p>You have seen Safari, haven't you?</p><p>It puts the 'f' in fugly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Ask Apple or even Windows folks.You have seen Safari , have n't you ? It puts the 'f ' in fugly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Ask Apple or even Windows folks.You have seen Safari, haven't you?It puts the 'f' in fugly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429323</id>
	<title>Why not normal x86\_64?</title>
	<author>short</author>
	<datestamp>1245666540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i686 is now for about 6 years a dead horse.  GNU/Linux world keeps i686 ABI compatible, that means:
<ul>
<li>cdecl calling convention - the stack passed arguments - terribly slow, MS-Windows world is using their stdcall/fastcall mess which is faster but not compatible with former cdecl. x86\_64 uses registers passed arguments by default.</li><li>PIC - position independent code. GNU/Linux requires all the shared libraries (=that is all the Firefox code) to be position independent which is very expensive on i686 and as it also costs even one register. Vs. MS-Windows relocate libraries at kernel so they do not use PIC. On x86\_64 the new PC-relative addressing makes PIC the same cheap as normal code.</li><li>64bit data for free - 32bit code had to handle all 64bit values expensively in two registers</li><li>Probably other x86\_64 arch improvements I forgot about. (guaranteed SSE/SSE2/SSE3/others? I do not remember.)</li></ul><p>
Other points making x86\_64 the only choice at the same time making more favors to F/OSS / GNU/Linux:
</p><ul>
<li>address space - Applications today already face the 1GB/2GB limit of i686 32-bit addressing. x86\_64 has no such limits in any way. There are no reasons to run F/OSS (GNU/Linux) code in 32-bit mode.  Contrary to MS-Windows with everything distributed proprietary where no 64-bit alternatives commonly exist.</li><li>Compiler tools development concentrates on x86\_64, as proprietary code has more financial investments in the past this advantage whould vanish with x86\_64 as F/OSS code has enough financial backing nowadays.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>i686 is now for about 6 years a dead horse .
GNU/Linux world keeps i686 ABI compatible , that means : cdecl calling convention - the stack passed arguments - terribly slow , MS-Windows world is using their stdcall/fastcall mess which is faster but not compatible with former cdecl .
x86 \ _64 uses registers passed arguments by default.PIC - position independent code .
GNU/Linux requires all the shared libraries ( = that is all the Firefox code ) to be position independent which is very expensive on i686 and as it also costs even one register .
Vs. MS-Windows relocate libraries at kernel so they do not use PIC .
On x86 \ _64 the new PC-relative addressing makes PIC the same cheap as normal code.64bit data for free - 32bit code had to handle all 64bit values expensively in two registersProbably other x86 \ _64 arch improvements I forgot about .
( guaranteed SSE/SSE2/SSE3/others ?
I do not remember .
) Other points making x86 \ _64 the only choice at the same time making more favors to F/OSS / GNU/Linux : address space - Applications today already face the 1GB/2GB limit of i686 32-bit addressing .
x86 \ _64 has no such limits in any way .
There are no reasons to run F/OSS ( GNU/Linux ) code in 32-bit mode .
Contrary to MS-Windows with everything distributed proprietary where no 64-bit alternatives commonly exist.Compiler tools development concentrates on x86 \ _64 , as proprietary code has more financial investments in the past this advantage whould vanish with x86 \ _64 as F/OSS code has enough financial backing nowadays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i686 is now for about 6 years a dead horse.
GNU/Linux world keeps i686 ABI compatible, that means:

cdecl calling convention - the stack passed arguments - terribly slow, MS-Windows world is using their stdcall/fastcall mess which is faster but not compatible with former cdecl.
x86\_64 uses registers passed arguments by default.PIC - position independent code.
GNU/Linux requires all the shared libraries (=that is all the Firefox code) to be position independent which is very expensive on i686 and as it also costs even one register.
Vs. MS-Windows relocate libraries at kernel so they do not use PIC.
On x86\_64 the new PC-relative addressing makes PIC the same cheap as normal code.64bit data for free - 32bit code had to handle all 64bit values expensively in two registersProbably other x86\_64 arch improvements I forgot about.
(guaranteed SSE/SSE2/SSE3/others?
I do not remember.
)
Other points making x86\_64 the only choice at the same time making more favors to F/OSS / GNU/Linux:

address space - Applications today already face the 1GB/2GB limit of i686 32-bit addressing.
x86\_64 has no such limits in any way.
There are no reasons to run F/OSS (GNU/Linux) code in 32-bit mode.
Contrary to MS-Windows with everything distributed proprietary where no 64-bit alternatives commonly exist.Compiler tools development concentrates on x86\_64, as proprietary code has more financial investments in the past this advantage whould vanish with x86\_64 as F/OSS code has enough financial backing nowadays.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28436721</id>
	<title>Re:Don't benchmark it on Ubuntu</title>
	<author>donaldm</author>
	<datestamp>1245756780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It has nothing to do with Ubuntu.  Here are benchmarks from Firefox on Fedora: The issue is just as bad on Fedora: <a href="http://www.tuxradar.com/content/browser-benchmarks-2-even-wine-beats-linux-firefox" title="tuxradar.com">http://www.tuxradar.com/content/browser-benchmarks-2-even-wine-beats-linux-firefox</a> [tuxradar.com].  That's only from a few months</p></div><p>I tried the V8 benchmark on my laptop (1.8GHz Centrino dual core, 2 GB memory) with Firefox 3.5 Beta 4 64 bit on Fedoral 11 64 bit and got 150 first and 142 second. Not that good, but then again is this really a problem since getting Firefox 3.5 subjectively my web browsing appears much faster and for the majority of users quicker browsing is more important.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has nothing to do with Ubuntu .
Here are benchmarks from Firefox on Fedora : The issue is just as bad on Fedora : http : //www.tuxradar.com/content/browser-benchmarks-2-even-wine-beats-linux-firefox [ tuxradar.com ] .
That 's only from a few monthsI tried the V8 benchmark on my laptop ( 1.8GHz Centrino dual core , 2 GB memory ) with Firefox 3.5 Beta 4 64 bit on Fedoral 11 64 bit and got 150 first and 142 second .
Not that good , but then again is this really a problem since getting Firefox 3.5 subjectively my web browsing appears much faster and for the majority of users quicker browsing is more important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has nothing to do with Ubuntu.
Here are benchmarks from Firefox on Fedora: The issue is just as bad on Fedora: http://www.tuxradar.com/content/browser-benchmarks-2-even-wine-beats-linux-firefox [tuxradar.com].
That's only from a few monthsI tried the V8 benchmark on my laptop (1.8GHz Centrino dual core, 2 GB memory) with Firefox 3.5 Beta 4 64 bit on Fedoral 11 64 bit and got 150 first and 142 second.
Not that good, but then again is this really a problem since getting Firefox 3.5 subjectively my web browsing appears much faster and for the majority of users quicker browsing is more important.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429159</id>
	<title>Re:But why?</title>
	<author>masmullin</author>
	<datestamp>1245666060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod parent down... GCC is good enough for everybody and everything!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent down... GCC is good enough for everybody and everything ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent down... GCC is good enough for everybody and everything!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427157</id>
	<title>Nawlinwiki has a small cock</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245702840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine you willy being smacked until it bleeds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine you willy being smacked until it bleeds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine you willy being smacked until it bleeds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28437701</id>
	<title>Re:Fix the urgent stuff first</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1245766140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assuming the problem is also there with mozilla.org builds, and not just the customized distro build, the next-most-likely issue is some interaction of Firefox, X, graphics driver, graphics card.  Firefox 3 offloads a lot of rendering to the X server (instead of doing it itself in software like Firefox 2).  Unfortunately, as often as not the X server does the rendering in software itself instead of actually using the graphics hardware.  And the software it uses is older than what a client would typically use and somewhat more generic, so slower...</p><p>So some cases of using the X server lead to a significant speedup over doing the rendering yourself; others to a significant slowdown.  And which it is depends not on your code but on the user's hardware/X/driver configuration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming the problem is also there with mozilla.org builds , and not just the customized distro build , the next-most-likely issue is some interaction of Firefox , X , graphics driver , graphics card .
Firefox 3 offloads a lot of rendering to the X server ( instead of doing it itself in software like Firefox 2 ) .
Unfortunately , as often as not the X server does the rendering in software itself instead of actually using the graphics hardware .
And the software it uses is older than what a client would typically use and somewhat more generic , so slower...So some cases of using the X server lead to a significant speedup over doing the rendering yourself ; others to a significant slowdown .
And which it is depends not on your code but on the user 's hardware/X/driver configuration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming the problem is also there with mozilla.org builds, and not just the customized distro build, the next-most-likely issue is some interaction of Firefox, X, graphics driver, graphics card.
Firefox 3 offloads a lot of rendering to the X server (instead of doing it itself in software like Firefox 2).
Unfortunately, as often as not the X server does the rendering in software itself instead of actually using the graphics hardware.
And the software it uses is older than what a client would typically use and somewhat more generic, so slower...So some cases of using the X server lead to a significant speedup over doing the rendering yourself; others to a significant slowdown.
And which it is depends not on your code but on the user's hardware/X/driver configuration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28434451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427521</id>
	<title>Re:But why?</title>
	<author>asa</author>
	<datestamp>1245703740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In addition to a compiling process called profile guided optimization, or PGO, it's also a safe bet that the Windows compiler just spits out better (faster and smaller) results than the Linux compiler.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition to a compiling process called profile guided optimization , or PGO , it 's also a safe bet that the Windows compiler just spits out better ( faster and smaller ) results than the Linux compiler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition to a compiling process called profile guided optimization, or PGO, it's also a safe bet that the Windows compiler just spits out better (faster and smaller) results than the Linux compiler.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28430723</id>
	<title>Re:maybe linux carries some of this blame</title>
	<author>asa</author>
	<datestamp>1245671820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mozilla doesn't compile the Linux builds in widespread use.

If you're wondering why Firefox wasn't compiled with profile guided optimizations, ask your Linux distros. They're ultimately responsible for it since they cut Mozilla out of the process years ago.  Your vendor relationship for Firefox is with Ubuntu or Red Hat, not with Mozilla. That's what the Linux distros demand and so that's the way it's probably going to stay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla does n't compile the Linux builds in widespread use .
If you 're wondering why Firefox was n't compiled with profile guided optimizations , ask your Linux distros .
They 're ultimately responsible for it since they cut Mozilla out of the process years ago .
Your vendor relationship for Firefox is with Ubuntu or Red Hat , not with Mozilla .
That 's what the Linux distros demand and so that 's the way it 's probably going to stay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla doesn't compile the Linux builds in widespread use.
If you're wondering why Firefox wasn't compiled with profile guided optimizations, ask your Linux distros.
They're ultimately responsible for it since they cut Mozilla out of the process years ago.
Your vendor relationship for Firefox is with Ubuntu or Red Hat, not with Mozilla.
That's what the Linux distros demand and so that's the way it's probably going to stay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28437795</id>
	<title>Re:Intel compiler</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1245766560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Intel compiler can't actually (correctly) compile the code in question, last I checked.  See <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=386840" title="mozilla.org">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=386840</a> [mozilla.org] for an example.  Also <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=412829" title="mozilla.org">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=412829</a> [mozilla.org] and <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=483283" title="mozilla.org">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=483283</a> [mozilla.org] and <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=403224" title="mozilla.org">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=403224</a> [mozilla.org]</p><p>So people really are working on it; it's just not there yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Intel compiler ca n't actually ( correctly ) compile the code in question , last I checked .
See https : //bugzilla.mozilla.org/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 386840 [ mozilla.org ] for an example .
Also https : //bugzilla.mozilla.org/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 412829 [ mozilla.org ] and https : //bugzilla.mozilla.org/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 483283 [ mozilla.org ] and https : //bugzilla.mozilla.org/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 403224 [ mozilla.org ] So people really are working on it ; it 's just not there yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Intel compiler can't actually (correctly) compile the code in question, last I checked.
See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=386840 [mozilla.org] for an example.
Also https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=412829 [mozilla.org] and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=483283 [mozilla.org] and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=403224 [mozilla.org]So people really are working on it; it's just not there yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427317</id>
	<title>Re:My problem with Firefox is this</title>
	<author>wiredlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1245703200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But on Linux, it is inherently ugly. The beast looks ancient and the fonts and dialogs make matters worse</p></div><p>Part of that is Gnome but a lot of the ugliness is the native XUL theme used on Linux which goes out of its way to emulate Gnome's worst characteristics. You used to be able to download the <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7119" title="mozilla.org">XP on Vista</a> [mozilla.org] theme for Linux but they've stupidly blocked Linux users from doing that anymore.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But on Linux , it is inherently ugly .
The beast looks ancient and the fonts and dialogs make matters worsePart of that is Gnome but a lot of the ugliness is the native XUL theme used on Linux which goes out of its way to emulate Gnome 's worst characteristics .
You used to be able to download the XP on Vista [ mozilla.org ] theme for Linux but they 've stupidly blocked Linux users from doing that anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But on Linux, it is inherently ugly.
The beast looks ancient and the fonts and dialogs make matters worsePart of that is Gnome but a lot of the ugliness is the native XUL theme used on Linux which goes out of its way to emulate Gnome's worst characteristics.
You used to be able to download the XP on Vista [mozilla.org] theme for Linux but they've stupidly blocked Linux users from doing that anymore.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28432801</id>
	<title>Re:But why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245680400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds great! Where can I download the Linux version?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds great !
Where can I download the Linux version ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds great!
Where can I download the Linux version?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428295</id>
	<title>Re:Don't benchmark it on Ubuntu</title>
	<author>mR.bRiGhTsId3</author>
	<datestamp>1245663240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know all that stuff that's running in the background. Well, it's running in the background, which means that most of it should be swapped out and it shouldn't wake up very often to do stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know all that stuff that 's running in the background .
Well , it 's running in the background , which means that most of it should be swapped out and it should n't wake up very often to do stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know all that stuff that's running in the background.
Well, it's running in the background, which means that most of it should be swapped out and it shouldn't wake up very often to do stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427385</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking of Bloat</title>
	<author>otaker</author>
	<datestamp>1245703380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How well does it perform on Vista?</p></div><p>Firefox does even better on Vista then on Linux machines...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How well does it perform on Vista ? Firefox does even better on Vista then on Linux machines.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How well does it perform on Vista?Firefox does even better on Vista then on Linux machines...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427569</id>
	<title>Re:So what shall one use now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245703860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>A very large chunk of Firefox's developers have Linux as their primary platform. Linux  Firefox absolutely doesn't get crap treatment from Firefox developers. You're obviously not familiar with the comparative qualities of the compilers on different platforms or you would asking "why do the Linux compilers get beat so badly by the Windows compilers."</htmltext>
<tokenext>A very large chunk of Firefox 's developers have Linux as their primary platform .
Linux Firefox absolutely does n't get crap treatment from Firefox developers .
You 're obviously not familiar with the comparative qualities of the compilers on different platforms or you would asking " why do the Linux compilers get beat so badly by the Windows compilers .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A very large chunk of Firefox's developers have Linux as their primary platform.
Linux  Firefox absolutely doesn't get crap treatment from Firefox developers.
You're obviously not familiar with the comparative qualities of the compilers on different platforms or you would asking "why do the Linux compilers get beat so badly by the Windows compilers.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427537</id>
	<title>Re:My problem with Firefox is this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245703800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fix your eyes!</p><p>
&nbsp; I'm a peer reviewed, 5 year at university 4 years at work designer and I say firefox on winows is *not* better looking that Firefox on Linux (gnome).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fix your eyes !
  I 'm a peer reviewed , 5 year at university 4 years at work designer and I say firefox on winows is * not * better looking that Firefox on Linux ( gnome ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fix your eyes!
  I'm a peer reviewed, 5 year at university 4 years at work designer and I say firefox on winows is *not* better looking that Firefox on Linux (gnome).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28430311</id>
	<title>...but does Adobe Flash still hang up?</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1245670320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Javascript speed is not much of a factor.  The one truly annoying thing with Firefox is the gawdawful Adobe Flash plug-in that hangs up at random, causing the whole browser to come to a screeching halt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Javascript speed is not much of a factor .
The one truly annoying thing with Firefox is the gawdawful Adobe Flash plug-in that hangs up at random , causing the whole browser to come to a screeching halt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Javascript speed is not much of a factor.
The one truly annoying thing with Firefox is the gawdawful Adobe Flash plug-in that hangs up at random, causing the whole browser to come to a screeching halt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428075</id>
	<title>Re:maybe linux carries some of this blame</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1245662400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Usually they profile the windows versions, and don't profile the linux ones.</p><p>Why? No clue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Usually they profile the windows versions , and do n't profile the linux ones.Why ?
No clue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usually they profile the windows versions, and don't profile the linux ones.Why?
No clue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429947</id>
	<title>Re:My problem with Firefox is this</title>
	<author>fairyliquidizer</author>
	<datestamp>1245668940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Flash performance on Linux and Mac are equally awful (in terms of FPS) although the Mac versions seams less buggy.

Further reading for those interested in this topic...
<a href="http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2008/10/benchmarking-flash-player-10.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2008/10/benchmarking-flash-player-10.ars</a> [arstechnica.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash performance on Linux and Mac are equally awful ( in terms of FPS ) although the Mac versions seams less buggy .
Further reading for those interested in this topic.. . http : //arstechnica.com/software/news/2008/10/benchmarking-flash-player-10.ars [ arstechnica.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash performance on Linux and Mac are equally awful (in terms of FPS) although the Mac versions seams less buggy.
Further reading for those interested in this topic...
http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2008/10/benchmarking-flash-player-10.ars [arstechnica.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429079</id>
	<title>Re:maybe linux carries some of this blame</title>
	<author>YokoZar</author>
	<datestamp>1245665760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Usually they profile the windows versions, and don't profile the linux ones.</p><p>Why? No clue.</p></div><p>Because GCC is throwing weird errors when we try to enable PGO building on Linux <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=418866" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=418866</a> [mozilla.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Usually they profile the windows versions , and do n't profile the linux ones.Why ?
No clue.Because GCC is throwing weird errors when we try to enable PGO building on Linux https : //bugzilla.mozilla.org/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 418866 [ mozilla.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usually they profile the windows versions, and don't profile the linux ones.Why?
No clue.Because GCC is throwing weird errors when we try to enable PGO building on Linux https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=418866 [mozilla.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427471</id>
	<title>maybe linux carries some of this blame</title>
	<author>asa</author>
	<datestamp>1245703620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Putting the blame all on Firefox when there's no doubt a certain amount of performance penalty that comes with a Linux's less good compiler is just lame.

How about telling the linux tool makers to build tools that output faster and smaller code instead of demanding that app developers solve those problems?

Finally, what "linux" build was this? Did it use profile guided optimization and other performance features of Mozilla's official Windows build system? If not, you're comparing apples to oranges.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting the blame all on Firefox when there 's no doubt a certain amount of performance penalty that comes with a Linux 's less good compiler is just lame .
How about telling the linux tool makers to build tools that output faster and smaller code instead of demanding that app developers solve those problems ?
Finally , what " linux " build was this ?
Did it use profile guided optimization and other performance features of Mozilla 's official Windows build system ?
If not , you 're comparing apples to oranges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Putting the blame all on Firefox when there's no doubt a certain amount of performance penalty that comes with a Linux's less good compiler is just lame.
How about telling the linux tool makers to build tools that output faster and smaller code instead of demanding that app developers solve those problems?
Finally, what "linux" build was this?
Did it use profile guided optimization and other performance features of Mozilla's official Windows build system?
If not, you're comparing apples to oranges.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428019</id>
	<title>Re:But why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245662220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My own take on this is that there is a philosophical difference at the heart of the difference between GCC and VC++ with regards to optimization.</p><p>I think that MS' compiler has an attitude of "Ha, You turned on optimizations! Now I can do what ever I want to with your code!". Well, not the compiler as such, but you get the point.</p><p>GCC has more of an academic heritage, which might be influencing it even today, which is to say, it may have a greater respect for the structural equivalence between source and binary.</p><p>Or something along those lines.</p><p>Obviously I have no idea what the exact differences are, but I use both compilers frequently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My own take on this is that there is a philosophical difference at the heart of the difference between GCC and VC + + with regards to optimization.I think that MS ' compiler has an attitude of " Ha , You turned on optimizations !
Now I can do what ever I want to with your code ! " .
Well , not the compiler as such , but you get the point.GCC has more of an academic heritage , which might be influencing it even today , which is to say , it may have a greater respect for the structural equivalence between source and binary.Or something along those lines.Obviously I have no idea what the exact differences are , but I use both compilers frequently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My own take on this is that there is a philosophical difference at the heart of the difference between GCC and VC++ with regards to optimization.I think that MS' compiler has an attitude of "Ha, You turned on optimizations!
Now I can do what ever I want to with your code!".
Well, not the compiler as such, but you get the point.GCC has more of an academic heritage, which might be influencing it even today, which is to say, it may have a greater respect for the structural equivalence between source and binary.Or something along those lines.Obviously I have no idea what the exact differences are, but I use both compilers frequently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427313</id>
	<title>I'm not sure about this</title>
	<author>mail2345</author>
	<datestamp>1245703200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But I think the speed difference was due to the Windows binary having profiling based optimizations, vs the Linux bin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I think the speed difference was due to the Windows binary having profiling based optimizations , vs the Linux bin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I think the speed difference was due to the Windows binary having profiling based optimizations, vs the Linux bin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429259</id>
	<title>ILLB</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245666360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet another case of, "I Love Linux But..."</p><p>"Folks, I am not trolling..." he said. Very funny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another case of , " I Love Linux But... " " Folks , I am not trolling... " he said .
Very funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another case of, "I Love Linux But...""Folks, I am not trolling..." he said.
Very funny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28440015</id>
	<title>Re:But why?</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1245776460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know.  I much prefer all those much faster CPUs out there to boring old x86.</p><p>Wait, there aren't any that are faster.  Doh!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know .
I much prefer all those much faster CPUs out there to boring old x86.Wait , there are n't any that are faster .
Doh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know.
I much prefer all those much faster CPUs out there to boring old x86.Wait, there aren't any that are faster.
Doh!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28430405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426979</id>
	<title>So what shall one use now?</title>
	<author>lordmetroid</author>
	<datestamp>1245702300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When Firefox on Linux is getting the crap treatment from its developers, what shall one use now?</htmltext>
<tokenext>When Firefox on Linux is getting the crap treatment from its developers , what shall one use now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Firefox on Linux is getting the crap treatment from its developers, what shall one use now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28437839</id>
	<title>Re:Does gcc "do" Windows?</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1245766740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, and Windows builds compiled with GCC are much slower than the MSVC++ ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and Windows builds compiled with GCC are much slower than the MSVC + + ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and Windows builds compiled with GCC are much slower than the MSVC++ ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28436547</id>
	<title>Re:Where's the proof that GCC is solely to blame?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245754800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, you know, they can build with ICC instead.<br>Of course, then the zeal^H^H^H^Hpurists would throw a hissy fit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , you know , they can build with ICC instead.Of course , then the zeal ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ Hpurists would throw a hissy fit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, you know, they can build with ICC instead.Of course, then the zeal^H^H^H^Hpurists would throw a hissy fit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28430627</id>
	<title>Re:My problem with Firefox is this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245671340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The horrible fonts were what drove me away from Ubuntu after I installed it recently, hoping to use it as my primary desktop.  I'm sure you've managed to fix up your fonts somehow, but let me tell you, a default ubuntu install (from the 8.x series, haven't tried more recent)  produced such an eyeball searing ugliness in FireFox that it almost single handedly convinced me that Ubuntu wasn't ready yet (for me).  The fact that a few searches with Google reveal hundreds of various ways to improve the fonts actually makes it even worse.</p><p>Since you'll undoubtably deny this having not witnessed it yourself, just search on google and see the thousands of perplexed newbies being driven away from linux by the fonts you think are so beautiful:</p><p><a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=ubuntu+firefox+ugly+font" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/search?q=ubuntu+firefox+ugly+font</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The horrible fonts were what drove me away from Ubuntu after I installed it recently , hoping to use it as my primary desktop .
I 'm sure you 've managed to fix up your fonts somehow , but let me tell you , a default ubuntu install ( from the 8.x series , have n't tried more recent ) produced such an eyeball searing ugliness in FireFox that it almost single handedly convinced me that Ubuntu was n't ready yet ( for me ) .
The fact that a few searches with Google reveal hundreds of various ways to improve the fonts actually makes it even worse.Since you 'll undoubtably deny this having not witnessed it yourself , just search on google and see the thousands of perplexed newbies being driven away from linux by the fonts you think are so beautiful : http : //www.google.com/search ? q = ubuntu + firefox + ugly + font [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The horrible fonts were what drove me away from Ubuntu after I installed it recently, hoping to use it as my primary desktop.
I'm sure you've managed to fix up your fonts somehow, but let me tell you, a default ubuntu install (from the 8.x series, haven't tried more recent)  produced such an eyeball searing ugliness in FireFox that it almost single handedly convinced me that Ubuntu wasn't ready yet (for me).
The fact that a few searches with Google reveal hundreds of various ways to improve the fonts actually makes it even worse.Since you'll undoubtably deny this having not witnessed it yourself, just search on google and see the thousands of perplexed newbies being driven away from linux by the fonts you think are so beautiful:http://www.google.com/search?q=ubuntu+firefox+ugly+font [google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427335</id>
	<title>Re:Don't benchmark it on Ubuntu</title>
	<author>Freetardo Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1245703260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has nothing to do with Ubuntu.  Here are benchmarks from Firefox on Fedora: The issue is just as bad on Fedora: <a href="http://www.tuxradar.com/content/browser-benchmarks-2-even-wine-beats-linux-firefox" title="tuxradar.com">http://www.tuxradar.com/content/browser-benchmarks-2-even-wine-beats-linux-firefox</a> [tuxradar.com].  That's only from a few months</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has nothing to do with Ubuntu .
Here are benchmarks from Firefox on Fedora : The issue is just as bad on Fedora : http : //www.tuxradar.com/content/browser-benchmarks-2-even-wine-beats-linux-firefox [ tuxradar.com ] .
That 's only from a few months</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has nothing to do with Ubuntu.
Here are benchmarks from Firefox on Fedora: The issue is just as bad on Fedora: http://www.tuxradar.com/content/browser-benchmarks-2-even-wine-beats-linux-firefox [tuxradar.com].
That's only from a few months</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427961</id>
	<title>Re:maybe linux carries some of this blame</title>
	<author>user317</author>
	<datestamp>1245661980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Putting the blame all on Firefox when there's no doubt a certain amount of performance penalty that comes with a Linux's less good compiler is just lame.

How about telling the linux tool makers to build tools that output faster and smaller code instead of demanding that app developers solve those problems?

Finally, what "linux" build was this? Did it use profile guided optimization and other performance features of Mozilla's official Windows build system? If not, you're comparing apples to oranges.</p></div><p>its an exponentially harder problem to do performance analysis at the compiler level then at the application level.  Plus firefox + wine runs over 10\% faster then firefox on linux, so very likely its not the tools.  My guess its just because there are more windows hackers working on firefox since its a more important platform (to mozilla) then linux, so more optimizations are done.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting the blame all on Firefox when there 's no doubt a certain amount of performance penalty that comes with a Linux 's less good compiler is just lame .
How about telling the linux tool makers to build tools that output faster and smaller code instead of demanding that app developers solve those problems ?
Finally , what " linux " build was this ?
Did it use profile guided optimization and other performance features of Mozilla 's official Windows build system ?
If not , you 're comparing apples to oranges.its an exponentially harder problem to do performance analysis at the compiler level then at the application level .
Plus firefox + wine runs over 10 \ % faster then firefox on linux , so very likely its not the tools .
My guess its just because there are more windows hackers working on firefox since its a more important platform ( to mozilla ) then linux , so more optimizations are done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Putting the blame all on Firefox when there's no doubt a certain amount of performance penalty that comes with a Linux's less good compiler is just lame.
How about telling the linux tool makers to build tools that output faster and smaller code instead of demanding that app developers solve those problems?
Finally, what "linux" build was this?
Did it use profile guided optimization and other performance features of Mozilla's official Windows build system?
If not, you're comparing apples to oranges.its an exponentially harder problem to do performance analysis at the compiler level then at the application level.
Plus firefox + wine runs over 10\% faster then firefox on linux, so very likely its not the tools.
My guess its just because there are more windows hackers working on firefox since its a more important platform (to mozilla) then linux, so more optimizations are done.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426951</id>
	<title>Don't benchmark it on Ubuntu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245702180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ubuntu typically has everything but the kitchen sink running in the background; it's even worse than XP for frivolous defaults.</p><p>Get Slackware, or something else minimalistic, where you're likely to have a marginal amount of memory left after the operating system and residents are loaded in.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu typically has everything but the kitchen sink running in the background ; it 's even worse than XP for frivolous defaults.Get Slackware , or something else minimalistic , where you 're likely to have a marginal amount of memory left after the operating system and residents are loaded in .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu typically has everything but the kitchen sink running in the background; it's even worse than XP for frivolous defaults.Get Slackware, or something else minimalistic, where you're likely to have a marginal amount of memory left after the operating system and residents are loaded in.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427419</id>
	<title>Re:My problem with Firefox is this</title>
	<author>pablomme</author>
	<datestamp>1245703440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But on Linux, it is inherently ugly. The beast looks ancient and the fonts and dialogs make matters worse.</p></div><p>Widgets and dialogs, ok, that's your aesthetic preference. But fonts? After a couple of years using Ubuntu I <i>hate</i> how Windows fonts look pixelated even with Cleartype on. Freetype is much better at its job than Cleartype. If only because of that, I prefer the looks of Firefox on linux than on Windows.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But on Linux , it is inherently ugly .
The beast looks ancient and the fonts and dialogs make matters worse.Widgets and dialogs , ok , that 's your aesthetic preference .
But fonts ?
After a couple of years using Ubuntu I hate how Windows fonts look pixelated even with Cleartype on .
Freetype is much better at its job than Cleartype .
If only because of that , I prefer the looks of Firefox on linux than on Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But on Linux, it is inherently ugly.
The beast looks ancient and the fonts and dialogs make matters worse.Widgets and dialogs, ok, that's your aesthetic preference.
But fonts?
After a couple of years using Ubuntu I hate how Windows fonts look pixelated even with Cleartype on.
Freetype is much better at its job than Cleartype.
If only because of that, I prefer the looks of Firefox on linux than on Windows.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427819</id>
	<title>Where's the proof that GCC is solely to blame?</title>
	<author>pembo13</author>
	<datestamp>1245661500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I keep hearing people saying that it's all GCC's fault, but I have seen no real proof of that. Nor why a profit making company such as Mozilla can't throw devs at GCC to fix the underlying problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I keep hearing people saying that it 's all GCC 's fault , but I have seen no real proof of that .
Nor why a profit making company such as Mozilla ca n't throw devs at GCC to fix the underlying problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I keep hearing people saying that it's all GCC's fault, but I have seen no real proof of that.
Nor why a profit making company such as Mozilla can't throw devs at GCC to fix the underlying problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429257</id>
	<title>Re:But why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245666360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is that GCC is pretty much the only compiler on Linux used these days and while the code is very nice C++ compilers on Windows produce a bit better code still.</p></div><p>In my experience, MS's VC++ produces not just a bit better code than gcc, but whole hocking meeses better code.  VC++ is a damned good compiler, no matter what one might think about the company that generated it, while gcc is a merely decent one, no matter how much one might want to promote FOSS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that GCC is pretty much the only compiler on Linux used these days and while the code is very nice C + + compilers on Windows produce a bit better code still.In my experience , MS 's VC + + produces not just a bit better code than gcc , but whole hocking meeses better code .
VC + + is a damned good compiler , no matter what one might think about the company that generated it , while gcc is a merely decent one , no matter how much one might want to promote FOSS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that GCC is pretty much the only compiler on Linux used these days and while the code is very nice C++ compilers on Windows produce a bit better code still.In my experience, MS's VC++ produces not just a bit better code than gcc, but whole hocking meeses better code.
VC++ is a damned good compiler, no matter what one might think about the company that generated it, while gcc is a merely decent one, no matter how much one might want to promote FOSS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426977</id>
	<title>But why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245702300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there any explanation as to why there is the difference?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any explanation as to why there is the difference ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any explanation as to why there is the difference?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426967</id>
	<title>Get the facts!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245702240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/get-the-facts/browser-comparison.aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">Firefox sucks!</a> [microsoft.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox sucks !
[ microsoft.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox sucks!
[microsoft.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428237</id>
	<title>Does gcc "do" Windows?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245663060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can gcc compile Firefox for Windows, so that we can more confidently apportion blame?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can gcc compile Firefox for Windows , so that we can more confidently apportion blame ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can gcc compile Firefox for Windows, so that we can more confidently apportion blame?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428597</id>
	<title>What about other common cross platform software ?</title>
	<author>godrik</author>
	<datestamp>1245664140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are there around some tests about other open source software that could help us understand the problem ?

We can find some on open office :

<a href="http://www.oooninja.com/2009/03/multiplatform-benchmark-30.html" title="oooninja.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.oooninja.com/2009/03/multiplatform-benchmark-30.html</a> [oooninja.com]

Or Tomcat :

<a href="http://mediakey.dk/~cc/tomcat-performance-linux-faster-than-windows/" title="mediakey.dk" rel="nofollow">http://mediakey.dk/~cc/tomcat-performance-linux-faster-than-windows/</a> [mediakey.dk]

But that does not seem to gie a clear understanding of what's happening.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there around some tests about other open source software that could help us understand the problem ?
We can find some on open office : http : //www.oooninja.com/2009/03/multiplatform-benchmark-30.html [ oooninja.com ] Or Tomcat : http : //mediakey.dk/ ~ cc/tomcat-performance-linux-faster-than-windows/ [ mediakey.dk ] But that does not seem to gie a clear understanding of what 's happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there around some tests about other open source software that could help us understand the problem ?
We can find some on open office :

http://www.oooninja.com/2009/03/multiplatform-benchmark-30.html [oooninja.com]

Or Tomcat :

http://mediakey.dk/~cc/tomcat-performance-linux-faster-than-windows/ [mediakey.dk]

But that does not seem to gie a clear understanding of what's happening.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28435215</id>
	<title>Re:Fix the urgent stuff first</title>
	<author>amorsen</author>
	<datestamp>1245696780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Running under a different user account with a clean profile and no extensions makes no difference.</p></div><p>I bet there is a setting for what cursor-down is supposed to do, which Fedora sets differently from Debian. Try a diff on about:config.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Running under a different user account with a clean profile and no extensions makes no difference.I bet there is a setting for what cursor-down is supposed to do , which Fedora sets differently from Debian .
Try a diff on about : config .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Running under a different user account with a clean profile and no extensions makes no difference.I bet there is a setting for what cursor-down is supposed to do, which Fedora sets differently from Debian.
Try a diff on about:config.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28434451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426943</id>
	<title>Proving yet again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245702180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that Windows is superior to Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that Windows is superior to Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that Windows is superior to Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28434451</id>
	<title>Fix the urgent stuff first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245689760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a Firefox 3.0.11 installation at home (Iceweasel 3.0.11 on Debian), and one at work (Firefox 3.0.11 on FC 9). The machines are comparable (2 GB RAM, Intel Core 2 proc in both). In the installation at work, scrolling down in a Slashdot article forum is about 100 times slower than in the home installation: if I press cursor-down once, it scrolls about 10 pixels down at a speed of 5 pixels per second -- I'm not exaggerating. Running under a different user account with a clean profile and no extensions makes no difference.

<p>

Something is obviously completely out of control there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Firefox 3.0.11 installation at home ( Iceweasel 3.0.11 on Debian ) , and one at work ( Firefox 3.0.11 on FC 9 ) .
The machines are comparable ( 2 GB RAM , Intel Core 2 proc in both ) .
In the installation at work , scrolling down in a Slashdot article forum is about 100 times slower than in the home installation : if I press cursor-down once , it scrolls about 10 pixels down at a speed of 5 pixels per second -- I 'm not exaggerating .
Running under a different user account with a clean profile and no extensions makes no difference .
Something is obviously completely out of control there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Firefox 3.0.11 installation at home (Iceweasel 3.0.11 on Debian), and one at work (Firefox 3.0.11 on FC 9).
The machines are comparable (2 GB RAM, Intel Core 2 proc in both).
In the installation at work, scrolling down in a Slashdot article forum is about 100 times slower than in the home installation: if I press cursor-down once, it scrolls about 10 pixels down at a speed of 5 pixels per second -- I'm not exaggerating.
Running under a different user account with a clean profile and no extensions makes no difference.
Something is obviously completely out of control there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426933</id>
	<title>makes sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245702180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>linux users are generally slow (as in midly retarded).</htmltext>
<tokenext>linux users are generally slow ( as in midly retarded ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>linux users are generally slow (as in midly retarded).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429525</id>
	<title>meet or exceed the expectations of our clients</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245667320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It says on his website, "We also believe the most effective way to do business is to fully meet or exceed the expectations of our clients to help establish long-term relationships to benefit both our business and yours."</p><p>I'll give you three guesses which business he has established a long-term relationship with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It says on his website , " We also believe the most effective way to do business is to fully meet or exceed the expectations of our clients to help establish long-term relationships to benefit both our business and yours .
" I 'll give you three guesses which business he has established a long-term relationship with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It says on his website, "We also believe the most effective way to do business is to fully meet or exceed the expectations of our clients to help establish long-term relationships to benefit both our business and yours.
"I'll give you three guesses which business he has established a long-term relationship with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139</id>
	<title>My problem with Firefox is this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245702780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox on Windows looks great/awesome/beautiful....name it. But on Linux, it is inherently ugly. The beast looks ancient and the fonts and dialogs make matters worse.</p><p>Folks, I am not trolling so have a look for yourselves and compare. There were efforts to <i>"QT-size"</i> it on Linux distros running KDE but that effort has no results I can see though there was <a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2008/08/nokia-helps-port-firefox-to-qt.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow"> something </a> [arstechnica.com]done by Nokia.</p><p>In its current status, Firefox needs serious love on Linux. Even my 14 year old sis can see the ugliness that Firefox shows.</p><p>In addition to all the features, a nice looking application is always pleasing to work with. Ask Apple or even Windows folks. They will agree.</p><p>Or even then...How would a good looking Firefox harm Firefox?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox on Windows looks great/awesome/beautiful....name it .
But on Linux , it is inherently ugly .
The beast looks ancient and the fonts and dialogs make matters worse.Folks , I am not trolling so have a look for yourselves and compare .
There were efforts to " QT-size " it on Linux distros running KDE but that effort has no results I can see though there was something [ arstechnica.com ] done by Nokia.In its current status , Firefox needs serious love on Linux .
Even my 14 year old sis can see the ugliness that Firefox shows.In addition to all the features , a nice looking application is always pleasing to work with .
Ask Apple or even Windows folks .
They will agree.Or even then...How would a good looking Firefox harm Firefox ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox on Windows looks great/awesome/beautiful....name it.
But on Linux, it is inherently ugly.
The beast looks ancient and the fonts and dialogs make matters worse.Folks, I am not trolling so have a look for yourselves and compare.
There were efforts to "QT-size" it on Linux distros running KDE but that effort has no results I can see though there was  something  [arstechnica.com]done by Nokia.In its current status, Firefox needs serious love on Linux.
Even my 14 year old sis can see the ugliness that Firefox shows.In addition to all the features, a nice looking application is always pleasing to work with.
Ask Apple or even Windows folks.
They will agree.Or even then...How would a good looking Firefox harm Firefox?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428175</id>
	<title>Re:My problem with Firefox is this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245662760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>skin your ff and you wont tell the difference between the windows and linux version. And calling it ugly just shows that you don't bother taking a minute or two to find a theme that doesn't give you an eye sore. *very windows like*</p><p>Here, I'll even help you out. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type:2/cat:all?sort=popular<br>Some of the themes can blow your "beautiful" windows theme out of the H2O.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>skin your ff and you wont tell the difference between the windows and linux version .
And calling it ugly just shows that you do n't bother taking a minute or two to find a theme that does n't give you an eye sore .
* very windows like * Here , I 'll even help you out .
https : //addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type : 2/cat : all ? sort = popularSome of the themes can blow your " beautiful " windows theme out of the H2O .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>skin your ff and you wont tell the difference between the windows and linux version.
And calling it ugly just shows that you don't bother taking a minute or two to find a theme that doesn't give you an eye sore.
*very windows like*Here, I'll even help you out.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type:2/cat:all?sort=popularSome of the themes can blow your "beautiful" windows theme out of the H2O.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28435981</id>
	<title>Re:Don't benchmark it on Ubuntu</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1245790740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not the background apps, the windows version running under wine actually outperforms the native linux version too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the background apps , the windows version running under wine actually outperforms the native linux version too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the background apps, the windows version running under wine actually outperforms the native linux version too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28440279</id>
	<title>Re:My problem with Firefox is this</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1245777420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny, they modded you troll but you're of course right.  Firefox on linux looks like shit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , they modded you troll but you 're of course right .
Firefox on linux looks like shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, they modded you troll but you're of course right.
Firefox on linux looks like shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428207</id>
	<title>Safari 4 faster... with GCC.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245662940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got 1968 ms using Safari 4.0.1 on an old Mac Mini (Mac OS X 10.5.7, Core1Duo 1.66 GHz)... faster than Firefox with a Core2Duo 2.0 GHz Linux/Windows machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got 1968 ms using Safari 4.0.1 on an old Mac Mini ( Mac OS X 10.5.7 , Core1Duo 1.66 GHz ) ... faster than Firefox with a Core2Duo 2.0 GHz Linux/Windows machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got 1968 ms using Safari 4.0.1 on an old Mac Mini (Mac OS X 10.5.7, Core1Duo 1.66 GHz)... faster than Firefox with a Core2Duo 2.0 GHz Linux/Windows machine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429429</id>
	<title>Re:But why?</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1245666960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The <a href="http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Open\_Watcom\_Public\_License" title="openwatcom.org">OpenWatcom license</a> [openwatcom.org] is OSI-approved, but I don't see why. It failed DFSG, and I asked the FSF about it and they can't make head nor tail of it either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The OpenWatcom license [ openwatcom.org ] is OSI-approved , but I do n't see why .
It failed DFSG , and I asked the FSF about it and they ca n't make head nor tail of it either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The OpenWatcom license [openwatcom.org] is OSI-approved, but I don't see why.
It failed DFSG, and I asked the FSF about it and they can't make head nor tail of it either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427309</id>
	<title>Re:So what shall one use now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245703200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>opera. it is teh superior browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>opera .
it is teh superior browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>opera.
it is teh superior browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428439</id>
	<title>Re:But why?</title>
	<author>Prune</author>
	<datestamp>1245663660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One can always use the Intel compiler on Linux.  The performance of compiled code is comparable to that the Intel compiler produces with its Windows version.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One can always use the Intel compiler on Linux .
The performance of compiled code is comparable to that the Intel compiler produces with its Windows version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One can always use the Intel compiler on Linux.
The performance of compiled code is comparable to that the Intel compiler produces with its Windows version.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428977</id>
	<title>Re:But why?</title>
	<author>pseudonomous</author>
	<datestamp>1245665340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't there also an Intel compiler available for Linux?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't there also an Intel compiler available for Linux ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't there also an Intel compiler available for Linux?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427407</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28436721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28432801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28440279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28440015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28430405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28430755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28435215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28434451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28437795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28432607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28436455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28431593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28430723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28436547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28437531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28437701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28434451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28431105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28430153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28437839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28430627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28448597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28436029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1854258_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28435981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1854258.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28437795
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1854258.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428075
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28437531
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28430723
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427961
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1854258.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427569
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28432607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1854258.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428695
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1854258.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28430311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1854258.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28434451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28437701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28435215
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1854258.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427407
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429257
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28432801
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429429
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428439
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428037
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428977
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428019
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428087
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429545
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28430405
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28440015
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28430153
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1854258.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427385
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1854258.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28440279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427781
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28448597
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429947
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28431105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28429259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427419
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28430627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427537
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427319
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1854258.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28436547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28430755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428237
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28437839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428089
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1854258.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426933
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1854258.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28428295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28431593
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28436455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28435981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427335
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28436029
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28436721
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1854258.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28426993
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1854258.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28430787
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1854258.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1854258.28427313
</commentlist>
</conversation>
