<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_26_0652216</id>
	<title>Microsoft-Backed Firm Says IBM Is Anticompetitive</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246018500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>BBCWatcher writes <i>"Microsoft has long claimed that the mainframe is dead, slain by the company's Windows monopoly. Yet, apparently without any mirror nearby, Microsoft is now complaining through the Microsoft-funded Computer &amp; Communications Industry Association that not only are mainframes not dead, but IBM is so anticompetitive that governments should intervene in the hyper-competitive server market. The Wall Street Journal reports that Microsoft is worried that the <a href="http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?ID=446738&amp;Page=0">trend toward cloud computing is introducing competition to the Windows franchise</a>, favoring better-positioned companies including IBM and Cisco. HP now <a href="http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/mainframe-blog/hp-pushes-mainframe-migration-hard-at-tech-forum/">talks about almost nothing but the IBM mainframe</a>, with <a href="//developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/16/1244240&amp;tid=102">no Tukwila CPUs to sell until 2010</a>. The global recession is encouraging more mainframe adoption as businesses slash IT costs, dominated by labor costs, and improve business execution. In 2008, IBM mainframe revenues rose 12.5\% even whilst mainframe prices fell. (IBM shipped 25\% more mainframe capacity than in 2007. Other <a href="http://www.itnews.com.au/News/104758,idc-australian-server-market-suffers-biggest-quarterly-decline.aspx">server sales reports</a> <a href="http://3000newswire.blogs.com/3000\_newswire/2009/05/hp-profits-fall-on-flagging-sales.html"> are not so good</a>.) IBM mainframes can run multiple operating systems concurrently, including <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux\_on\_zSeries">Linux</a> and, more recently, <a href="http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/systemz/">OpenSolaris</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>BBCWatcher writes " Microsoft has long claimed that the mainframe is dead , slain by the company 's Windows monopoly .
Yet , apparently without any mirror nearby , Microsoft is now complaining through the Microsoft-funded Computer &amp; Communications Industry Association that not only are mainframes not dead , but IBM is so anticompetitive that governments should intervene in the hyper-competitive server market .
The Wall Street Journal reports that Microsoft is worried that the trend toward cloud computing is introducing competition to the Windows franchise , favoring better-positioned companies including IBM and Cisco .
HP now talks about almost nothing but the IBM mainframe , with no Tukwila CPUs to sell until 2010 .
The global recession is encouraging more mainframe adoption as businesses slash IT costs , dominated by labor costs , and improve business execution .
In 2008 , IBM mainframe revenues rose 12.5 \ % even whilst mainframe prices fell .
( IBM shipped 25 \ % more mainframe capacity than in 2007 .
Other server sales reports are not so good .
) IBM mainframes can run multiple operating systems concurrently , including Linux and , more recently , OpenSolaris .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BBCWatcher writes "Microsoft has long claimed that the mainframe is dead, slain by the company's Windows monopoly.
Yet, apparently without any mirror nearby, Microsoft is now complaining through the Microsoft-funded Computer &amp; Communications Industry Association that not only are mainframes not dead, but IBM is so anticompetitive that governments should intervene in the hyper-competitive server market.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Microsoft is worried that the trend toward cloud computing is introducing competition to the Windows franchise, favoring better-positioned companies including IBM and Cisco.
HP now talks about almost nothing but the IBM mainframe, with no Tukwila CPUs to sell until 2010.
The global recession is encouraging more mainframe adoption as businesses slash IT costs, dominated by labor costs, and improve business execution.
In 2008, IBM mainframe revenues rose 12.5\% even whilst mainframe prices fell.
(IBM shipped 25\% more mainframe capacity than in 2007.
Other server sales reports  are not so good.
) IBM mainframes can run multiple operating systems concurrently, including Linux and, more recently, OpenSolaris.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480513</id>
	<title>They could be right even when they're doing wrong</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1246023900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!</p></div><p>Yeah, but you know... they could be right.</p><p>Say I'm littering in your front yard.  Then you start playing obnoxiously loud music in the middle of the night.</p><p>Should I be barred from suing you for being a nuisance, just because I'm a nuisance myself?</p><p>If you argue yes, I think the reasoning becomes even thinner than I think it has to be for that case when we're talking about this:</p><p>One party does something bad towards not any one particular party but society as a whole.  Then, another party points to the first party and says "they're doing it, so we can do it to" and go on to do something bad against society.</p><p>True, Microsoft isn't on the moral <em>high ground</em>, but that doesn't excuse IBM.  And it doesn't make it incorrect for Microsoft to point it out.  Just... the weird kind of funny.</p><p>disclaimer:  I don't know the facts of the case.  I don't know whether IBM is being anticompetitive.  I'm not well-enough informed to hold an informed opinion, so I won't state one.  I'm just saying that <em>if</em> IBM is being anticompetitive...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk about the pot calling the kettle black ! Yeah , but you know... they could be right.Say I 'm littering in your front yard .
Then you start playing obnoxiously loud music in the middle of the night.Should I be barred from suing you for being a nuisance , just because I 'm a nuisance myself ? If you argue yes , I think the reasoning becomes even thinner than I think it has to be for that case when we 're talking about this : One party does something bad towards not any one particular party but society as a whole .
Then , another party points to the first party and says " they 're doing it , so we can do it to " and go on to do something bad against society.True , Microsoft is n't on the moral high ground , but that does n't excuse IBM .
And it does n't make it incorrect for Microsoft to point it out .
Just... the weird kind of funny.disclaimer : I do n't know the facts of the case .
I do n't know whether IBM is being anticompetitive .
I 'm not well-enough informed to hold an informed opinion , so I wo n't state one .
I 'm just saying that if IBM is being anticompetitive.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!Yeah, but you know... they could be right.Say I'm littering in your front yard.
Then you start playing obnoxiously loud music in the middle of the night.Should I be barred from suing you for being a nuisance, just because I'm a nuisance myself?If you argue yes, I think the reasoning becomes even thinner than I think it has to be for that case when we're talking about this:One party does something bad towards not any one particular party but society as a whole.
Then, another party points to the first party and says "they're doing it, so we can do it to" and go on to do something bad against society.True, Microsoft isn't on the moral high ground, but that doesn't excuse IBM.
And it doesn't make it incorrect for Microsoft to point it out.
Just... the weird kind of funny.disclaimer:  I don't know the facts of the case.
I don't know whether IBM is being anticompetitive.
I'm not well-enough informed to hold an informed opinion, so I won't state one.
I'm just saying that if IBM is being anticompetitive...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480385</id>
	<title>Try reading the articles you linked to...</title>
	<author>quantum bit</author>
	<datestamp>1246023060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and not just the titles.  The HP one is talking about HP pushing for people to migrate <i>off</i> mainframes.  Onto HP servers.  Running Windows Server 2003.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and not just the titles .
The HP one is talking about HP pushing for people to migrate off mainframes .
Onto HP servers .
Running Windows Server 2003 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and not just the titles.
The HP one is talking about HP pushing for people to migrate off mainframes.
Onto HP servers.
Running Windows Server 2003.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480561</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft...the model of competitiveness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246024260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you took the words right out of my mouth</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you took the words right out of my mouth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you took the words right out of my mouth</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28484099</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Quite Understand</title>
	<author>Parker Lewis</author>
	<datestamp>1246036440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The main difference: the mainframes has some kind of backward compatibility, and (the main one) the price. All the "we now sell software" marketing has one objective: sell the extreme expensive mainframes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main difference : the mainframes has some kind of backward compatibility , and ( the main one ) the price .
All the " we now sell software " marketing has one objective : sell the extreme expensive mainframes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main difference: the mainframes has some kind of backward compatibility, and (the main one) the price.
All the "we now sell software" marketing has one objective: sell the extreme expensive mainframes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28505147</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft...the model of competitiveness</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246213380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. Let's ask the smallest mainframe buyers. With the least power to make their own rules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Let 's ask the smallest mainframe buyers .
With the least power to make their own rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
Let's ask the smallest mainframe buyers.
With the least power to make their own rules.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481083</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Quite Understand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246026600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Workload manager: able to on the fly change how much resources are allocated to images AND (this is the cool thing, cause other VMs do that) give it goal times for operations. As in: Complete this task in 1/100th of a second, and it will allocate, on the fly, for that to happen, and it will guarantee it.</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting\_problem" title="wikipedia.org">The Halting Problem</a> [wikipedia.org] would like a word with you about this one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Workload manager : able to on the fly change how much resources are allocated to images AND ( this is the cool thing , cause other VMs do that ) give it goal times for operations .
As in : Complete this task in 1/100th of a second , and it will allocate , on the fly , for that to happen , and it will guarantee it .
The Halting Problem [ wikipedia.org ] would like a word with you about this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Workload manager: able to on the fly change how much resources are allocated to images AND (this is the cool thing, cause other VMs do that) give it goal times for operations.
As in: Complete this task in 1/100th of a second, and it will allocate, on the fly, for that to happen, and it will guarantee it.
The Halting Problem [wikipedia.org] would like a word with you about this one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480837</id>
	<title>Sigh...</title>
	<author>Junta</author>
	<datestamp>1246025640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A system Z mainframe is always run in virtualization.  That's been one of their big features.</p><p>In terms of 'cloud', the term is so ill-defined and buzzed it's hard to say much, but generally speaking, a 'cloud' on a mainframe is not any less possible than a 'cloud' on disparate x86 rackmount servers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A system Z mainframe is always run in virtualization .
That 's been one of their big features.In terms of 'cloud ' , the term is so ill-defined and buzzed it 's hard to say much , but generally speaking , a 'cloud ' on a mainframe is not any less possible than a 'cloud ' on disparate x86 rackmount servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A system Z mainframe is always run in virtualization.
That's been one of their big features.In terms of 'cloud', the term is so ill-defined and buzzed it's hard to say much, but generally speaking, a 'cloud' on a mainframe is not any less possible than a 'cloud' on disparate x86 rackmount servers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480873</id>
	<title>Re:They could be right even when they're doing wro</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1246025760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Say I'm littering in your front yard. Then you start playing obnoxiously loud music in the middle of the night.
</p><p>Should I be barred from suing you for being a nuisance, just because I'm a nuisance myself?</p></div><p>Yeah, but I'm not sure it's really like that.  AFAICT it's almost more like if you were littering and the trash blew over into your neighbor's yard, and then you complained to the neighborhood association that your neighbor wasn't taking good enough care of their yard, because it was covered in trash.
</p><p>If IBM is dominant, it seems like it's at least partially because they're the one left standing after Microsoft leveraged their monopoly to drag the whole market in a different direction.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Say I 'm littering in your front yard .
Then you start playing obnoxiously loud music in the middle of the night .
Should I be barred from suing you for being a nuisance , just because I 'm a nuisance myself ? Yeah , but I 'm not sure it 's really like that .
AFAICT it 's almost more like if you were littering and the trash blew over into your neighbor 's yard , and then you complained to the neighborhood association that your neighbor was n't taking good enough care of their yard , because it was covered in trash .
If IBM is dominant , it seems like it 's at least partially because they 're the one left standing after Microsoft leveraged their monopoly to drag the whole market in a different direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say I'm littering in your front yard.
Then you start playing obnoxiously loud music in the middle of the night.
Should I be barred from suing you for being a nuisance, just because I'm a nuisance myself?Yeah, but I'm not sure it's really like that.
AFAICT it's almost more like if you were littering and the trash blew over into your neighbor's yard, and then you complained to the neighborhood association that your neighbor wasn't taking good enough care of their yard, because it was covered in trash.
If IBM is dominant, it seems like it's at least partially because they're the one left standing after Microsoft leveraged their monopoly to drag the whole market in a different direction.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481783</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft...the model of competitiveness</title>
	<author>dodden</author>
	<datestamp>1246029060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>beat me to it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>beat me to it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>beat me to it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481973</id>
	<title>Re:They could be right even when they're doing wro</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1246029780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>At the time, the Windows servers were nowhere near as reliable as the mainframe. Just cheaper.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I'd be willing to bet that this is still the case, actually.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the time , the Windows servers were nowhere near as reliable as the mainframe .
Just cheaper .
I 'd be willing to bet that this is still the case , actually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the time, the Windows servers were nowhere near as reliable as the mainframe.
Just cheaper.
I'd be willing to bet that this is still the case, actually.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28482223</id>
	<title>M$ whines too much -will follow GM and Chrysler</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246030500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always love it when these types of articles are spewed-forth, especially from Microsoft. M$ gets whacked in other countries so now it wants to try and turn an ugly head towards IBM.<br>Out of all the companies I've worked with (currently in production AIX enviornment); IBM is leaps and bounds ahead of M$ when it comes to services and support from both a hardware and software perspective - and guess what- their hardware and software just plain works.  If you want to look at the IBM business model and compare against M$ - what IBM doesn't do is tell it's customers (For example), that they have to change their OS and core systems every 2-3 years, as is the case with Vista, or fill the servers with bloat ware and unneeded services, faulty if not dangerous patches, and so on. Another example is the 'IE tied to Win' problem that was the original lawsuit filed against them &amp; still plagues new systems to this day- and it's gotten worse from there. Businesses didn't upgrade or even consider moving to Vista  and I hear now that Win7 will be priced in the range of $120+??? what a joke !<br>Amazing - goes to show how quickly the mighty have fallen...<br>Prediction: In less than 5 years M$ will no longer be the dominant force in software/hardware sales &amp; computing - with open source technology (BSD, Unix/Linux, Mac) and the handheld front taking center stage players such as RIM, iPhone, Android and many others will completely kill the WinMobile platform - which is now still large, and that spills over into the consumer market when it comes to PC's as well.  We won't need to have M$ at home, because the options given us will not be M$ - but opensource, reliable, and far more trustworthy than what were seeing now.<br>We can run MySQL or other db's, and don't have to be forced to run Windows, IE, Office or any of the other apps they'd like to shove our way<br>Kinda like the current situation with GM &amp; Chrysler - kinda eerie isn't it! - this will likely be the same route of downsizing and the new crap works as bad as the old crap<br>mentality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always love it when these types of articles are spewed-forth , especially from Microsoft .
M $ gets whacked in other countries so now it wants to try and turn an ugly head towards IBM.Out of all the companies I 've worked with ( currently in production AIX enviornment ) ; IBM is leaps and bounds ahead of M $ when it comes to services and support from both a hardware and software perspective - and guess what- their hardware and software just plain works .
If you want to look at the IBM business model and compare against M $ - what IBM does n't do is tell it 's customers ( For example ) , that they have to change their OS and core systems every 2-3 years , as is the case with Vista , or fill the servers with bloat ware and unneeded services , faulty if not dangerous patches , and so on .
Another example is the 'IE tied to Win ' problem that was the original lawsuit filed against them &amp; still plagues new systems to this day- and it 's gotten worse from there .
Businesses did n't upgrade or even consider moving to Vista and I hear now that Win7 will be priced in the range of $ 120 + ? ? ?
what a joke ! Amazing - goes to show how quickly the mighty have fallen...Prediction : In less than 5 years M $ will no longer be the dominant force in software/hardware sales &amp; computing - with open source technology ( BSD , Unix/Linux , Mac ) and the handheld front taking center stage players such as RIM , iPhone , Android and many others will completely kill the WinMobile platform - which is now still large , and that spills over into the consumer market when it comes to PC 's as well .
We wo n't need to have M $ at home , because the options given us will not be M $ - but opensource , reliable , and far more trustworthy than what were seeing now.We can run MySQL or other db 's , and do n't have to be forced to run Windows , IE , Office or any of the other apps they 'd like to shove our wayKinda like the current situation with GM &amp; Chrysler - kinda eerie is n't it !
- this will likely be the same route of downsizing and the new crap works as bad as the old crapmentality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always love it when these types of articles are spewed-forth, especially from Microsoft.
M$ gets whacked in other countries so now it wants to try and turn an ugly head towards IBM.Out of all the companies I've worked with (currently in production AIX enviornment); IBM is leaps and bounds ahead of M$ when it comes to services and support from both a hardware and software perspective - and guess what- their hardware and software just plain works.
If you want to look at the IBM business model and compare against M$ - what IBM doesn't do is tell it's customers (For example), that they have to change their OS and core systems every 2-3 years, as is the case with Vista, or fill the servers with bloat ware and unneeded services, faulty if not dangerous patches, and so on.
Another example is the 'IE tied to Win' problem that was the original lawsuit filed against them &amp; still plagues new systems to this day- and it's gotten worse from there.
Businesses didn't upgrade or even consider moving to Vista  and I hear now that Win7 will be priced in the range of $120+???
what a joke !Amazing - goes to show how quickly the mighty have fallen...Prediction: In less than 5 years M$ will no longer be the dominant force in software/hardware sales &amp; computing - with open source technology (BSD, Unix/Linux, Mac) and the handheld front taking center stage players such as RIM, iPhone, Android and many others will completely kill the WinMobile platform - which is now still large, and that spills over into the consumer market when it comes to PC's as well.
We won't need to have M$ at home, because the options given us will not be M$ - but opensource, reliable, and far more trustworthy than what were seeing now.We can run MySQL or other db's, and don't have to be forced to run Windows, IE, Office or any of the other apps they'd like to shove our wayKinda like the current situation with GM &amp; Chrysler - kinda eerie isn't it!
- this will likely be the same route of downsizing and the new crap works as bad as the old crapmentality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28482307</id>
	<title>sh17</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246030680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Again. There are is wiped off and then disappeared hobbyist dileetante</htmltext>
<tokenext>Again .
There are is wiped off and then disappeared hobbyist dileetante</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Again.
There are is wiped off and then disappeared hobbyist dileetante</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28490129</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Quite Understand</title>
	<author>lenski</author>
	<datestamp>1246023060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up, daethon is essentially right. IBM got their asses handed to them in the '80's, learned very hard lessons, and built a set of tools and technologies for a specific marketplace. During that time, they perfected both their technologies and the match between their technology and their chosen market. I think I've heard of mainframe applications running continuously for decades...  Too lazy to find a specific link though.</p><blockquote><div><p>7) Hipervisor: Its a network in a box. Applications talking to each other use IP, not TCP/IP, so you aren't sending 35\% data, 65\% header when applications talk. Network is at the speed of memory. zVM has been developed for over 20 years.</p></div></blockquote><p>I remember booting VM/CMS and DOS (which is all we had licenses to run) under VM/370 in 1975, though of course the networking was not quite as polished then!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) (that is the DOS that eventually grew into DOS/VSE their second-tier OS.) I've long forgotten the begats leading from OS/360 through MFT, MVT, etc. which led to VM/370 and on to today's Z series, but as I look back through all that history I see that IBM has built a truly remarkable system that almost certainly deserves the praise it receives for reliability and scalability.</p><p>IBM (who at the time were RAGING monopolists and on occasion behaved as as badly as Microsoft is behaving today) has been researching, implementing and improving virtualization technology for *at least* 35 years, could be 40.</p><p>I also remember an event that I believe brought the mainframe to relative currency, in 1998 or 1999: The day that a developer ported Linux to an S/390, and just for the adventure of it, tried to find a limit of the number of Linux images he could run on it. I remember indistinctly that he quit trying at 40,000 instances. It's not really functional (see <a href="http://librenix.com/?inode=1264" title="librenix.com">this article</a> [librenix.com] but it still gives a hint of the capabilities that modern mainframe technology offers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up , daethon is essentially right .
IBM got their asses handed to them in the '80 's , learned very hard lessons , and built a set of tools and technologies for a specific marketplace .
During that time , they perfected both their technologies and the match between their technology and their chosen market .
I think I 've heard of mainframe applications running continuously for decades... Too lazy to find a specific link though.7 ) Hipervisor : Its a network in a box .
Applications talking to each other use IP , not TCP/IP , so you are n't sending 35 \ % data , 65 \ % header when applications talk .
Network is at the speed of memory .
zVM has been developed for over 20 years.I remember booting VM/CMS and DOS ( which is all we had licenses to run ) under VM/370 in 1975 , though of course the networking was not quite as polished then !
: - ) : - ) ( that is the DOS that eventually grew into DOS/VSE their second-tier OS .
) I 've long forgotten the begats leading from OS/360 through MFT , MVT , etc .
which led to VM/370 and on to today 's Z series , but as I look back through all that history I see that IBM has built a truly remarkable system that almost certainly deserves the praise it receives for reliability and scalability.IBM ( who at the time were RAGING monopolists and on occasion behaved as as badly as Microsoft is behaving today ) has been researching , implementing and improving virtualization technology for * at least * 35 years , could be 40.I also remember an event that I believe brought the mainframe to relative currency , in 1998 or 1999 : The day that a developer ported Linux to an S/390 , and just for the adventure of it , tried to find a limit of the number of Linux images he could run on it .
I remember indistinctly that he quit trying at 40,000 instances .
It 's not really functional ( see this article [ librenix.com ] but it still gives a hint of the capabilities that modern mainframe technology offers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up, daethon is essentially right.
IBM got their asses handed to them in the '80's, learned very hard lessons, and built a set of tools and technologies for a specific marketplace.
During that time, they perfected both their technologies and the match between their technology and their chosen market.
I think I've heard of mainframe applications running continuously for decades...  Too lazy to find a specific link though.7) Hipervisor: Its a network in a box.
Applications talking to each other use IP, not TCP/IP, so you aren't sending 35\% data, 65\% header when applications talk.
Network is at the speed of memory.
zVM has been developed for over 20 years.I remember booting VM/CMS and DOS (which is all we had licenses to run) under VM/370 in 1975, though of course the networking was not quite as polished then!
:-) :-) (that is the DOS that eventually grew into DOS/VSE their second-tier OS.
) I've long forgotten the begats leading from OS/360 through MFT, MVT, etc.
which led to VM/370 and on to today's Z series, but as I look back through all that history I see that IBM has built a truly remarkable system that almost certainly deserves the praise it receives for reliability and scalability.IBM (who at the time were RAGING monopolists and on occasion behaved as as badly as Microsoft is behaving today) has been researching, implementing and improving virtualization technology for *at least* 35 years, could be 40.I also remember an event that I believe brought the mainframe to relative currency, in 1998 or 1999: The day that a developer ported Linux to an S/390, and just for the adventure of it, tried to find a limit of the number of Linux images he could run on it.
I remember indistinctly that he quit trying at 40,000 instances.
It's not really functional (see this article [librenix.com] but it still gives a hint of the capabilities that modern mainframe technology offers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28505089</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft...the model of competitiveness</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246213140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If anyone knows what he's talking about. ^^</p><p>Ironically, the motivation of Microsoft, to do so, is most likely, to stifle competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If anyone knows what he 's talking about .
^ ^ Ironically , the motivation of Microsoft , to do so , is most likely , to stifle competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anyone knows what he's talking about.
^^Ironically, the motivation of Microsoft, to do so, is most likely, to stifle competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480583</id>
	<title>No, you don't have to apply to everyone</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1246024380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And if you're going to argue that, you might as well argue that Microsoft open up Windows or Intel layout the insides of its Atom processors for the world to see.  [...] you have to draw the line somewhere or apply to everyone.</p></div><p>Note that if we're talking about companies being anticompetitive, "everyone" is the set of market players which have the ability to behave anticompetitively.</p><p>If we talk about, say, tying music players to online music stores, "everyone" is {Apple}.  I don't know much about the Zune--does Microsoft have a music store?  If they do, do they also have a big enough market presence to behave anti-competitively in that space?  No.</p><p>I don't know why you picked Intel and Microsoft as examples, but there are cases to be made that they have the ability to engage in monopolistic behavior.  For that reason, one should <em>at least</em> keep an eye on what they're doing; maybe even modify their behavior in ways that encourage competition (or in other ways which avoid the bad effects of monopolies).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if you 're going to argue that , you might as well argue that Microsoft open up Windows or Intel layout the insides of its Atom processors for the world to see .
[ ... ] you have to draw the line somewhere or apply to everyone.Note that if we 're talking about companies being anticompetitive , " everyone " is the set of market players which have the ability to behave anticompetitively.If we talk about , say , tying music players to online music stores , " everyone " is { Apple } .
I do n't know much about the Zune--does Microsoft have a music store ?
If they do , do they also have a big enough market presence to behave anti-competitively in that space ?
No.I do n't know why you picked Intel and Microsoft as examples , but there are cases to be made that they have the ability to engage in monopolistic behavior .
For that reason , one should at least keep an eye on what they 're doing ; maybe even modify their behavior in ways that encourage competition ( or in other ways which avoid the bad effects of monopolies ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if you're going to argue that, you might as well argue that Microsoft open up Windows or Intel layout the insides of its Atom processors for the world to see.
[...] you have to draw the line somewhere or apply to everyone.Note that if we're talking about companies being anticompetitive, "everyone" is the set of market players which have the ability to behave anticompetitively.If we talk about, say, tying music players to online music stores, "everyone" is {Apple}.
I don't know much about the Zune--does Microsoft have a music store?
If they do, do they also have a big enough market presence to behave anti-competitively in that space?
No.I don't know why you picked Intel and Microsoft as examples, but there are cases to be made that they have the ability to engage in monopolistic behavior.
For that reason, one should at least keep an eye on what they're doing; maybe even modify their behavior in ways that encourage competition (or in other ways which avoid the bad effects of monopolies).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480597</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft...the model of competitiveness</title>
	<author>mashiyach</author>
	<datestamp>1246024440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's OK when then other companies compete with each other, but if they start to compete with Microsoft then it's unfair...</p><p>Their business model is not built upon competition, it's built upon killing competitors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's OK when then other companies compete with each other , but if they start to compete with Microsoft then it 's unfair...Their business model is not built upon competition , it 's built upon killing competitors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's OK when then other companies compete with each other, but if they start to compete with Microsoft then it's unfair...Their business model is not built upon competition, it's built upon killing competitors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481019</id>
	<title>Re:They could be right even when they're doing wro</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1246026300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Should I be barred from suing you for being a nuisance, just because I'm a nuisance myself?</p></div><p>Yes. It is called "unclean hands" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean\_hands).</p><p>You being a jackass undermines your suit against me being a jackass.</p><p>Microsoft calling anyone anti-competitive should result in the court bursting out in raucous laughter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should I be barred from suing you for being a nuisance , just because I 'm a nuisance myself ? Yes .
It is called " unclean hands " ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean \ _hands ) .You being a jackass undermines your suit against me being a jackass.Microsoft calling anyone anti-competitive should result in the court bursting out in raucous laughter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should I be barred from suing you for being a nuisance, just because I'm a nuisance myself?Yes.
It is called "unclean hands" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean\_hands).You being a jackass undermines your suit against me being a jackass.Microsoft calling anyone anti-competitive should result in the court bursting out in raucous laughter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28482581</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Quite Understand</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1246031460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not a hardware guy and I'm no fan of IBM but I must be missing something here: what is it about mainframes that makes them so different from servers?</p></div><p>I'm not a mainframe guy, but from the little that I know about them, mainframes are very, very good at performing multiple, computationally-intensive processes very, very quickly. Their architecture allows them to do massive calculations that would take some servers out; a company I worked with previously used them specifically for pricing schemes, and I know of several HUGE financial institutions that are still using them today (though I wouldn't doubt that a large reason why they are still in use is because the cost to migrate to servers would be way too high for little return). They are also horrifically over-engineered, which I believe plays a major part in capitalizing their extremely high price tags.
<br> <br>
What they are not so good at is performing <b>small</b> tasks repeatedly, simply because they are optimized for large-scale computation. This is where servers excel significantly, in that they perform these tasks quicker, more efficiently, and at a MUCH lower cost. They also save lots of power, which makes for better environmental ratings and such.
<br> <br>
Again, I'm not that experienced with mainframes, but in short: if you want to do lots and lots of hard maths, go with mainframes; otherwise, stick with servers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a hardware guy and I 'm no fan of IBM but I must be missing something here : what is it about mainframes that makes them so different from servers ? I 'm not a mainframe guy , but from the little that I know about them , mainframes are very , very good at performing multiple , computationally-intensive processes very , very quickly .
Their architecture allows them to do massive calculations that would take some servers out ; a company I worked with previously used them specifically for pricing schemes , and I know of several HUGE financial institutions that are still using them today ( though I would n't doubt that a large reason why they are still in use is because the cost to migrate to servers would be way too high for little return ) .
They are also horrifically over-engineered , which I believe plays a major part in capitalizing their extremely high price tags .
What they are not so good at is performing small tasks repeatedly , simply because they are optimized for large-scale computation .
This is where servers excel significantly , in that they perform these tasks quicker , more efficiently , and at a MUCH lower cost .
They also save lots of power , which makes for better environmental ratings and such .
Again , I 'm not that experienced with mainframes , but in short : if you want to do lots and lots of hard maths , go with mainframes ; otherwise , stick with servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a hardware guy and I'm no fan of IBM but I must be missing something here: what is it about mainframes that makes them so different from servers?I'm not a mainframe guy, but from the little that I know about them, mainframes are very, very good at performing multiple, computationally-intensive processes very, very quickly.
Their architecture allows them to do massive calculations that would take some servers out; a company I worked with previously used them specifically for pricing schemes, and I know of several HUGE financial institutions that are still using them today (though I wouldn't doubt that a large reason why they are still in use is because the cost to migrate to servers would be way too high for little return).
They are also horrifically over-engineered, which I believe plays a major part in capitalizing their extremely high price tags.
What they are not so good at is performing small tasks repeatedly, simply because they are optimized for large-scale computation.
This is where servers excel significantly, in that they perform these tasks quicker, more efficiently, and at a MUCH lower cost.
They also save lots of power, which makes for better environmental ratings and such.
Again, I'm not that experienced with mainframes, but in short: if you want to do lots and lots of hard maths, go with mainframes; otherwise, stick with servers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480695</id>
	<title>Silliness</title>
	<author>Malenx</author>
	<datestamp>1246024980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IBM in no way forces a customer to use their systems.  At any time, a customer could leave and move to another setup.</p><p>It sounds like the issue is competitors want IBM to release more details on how things are engineered, so they can design solutions for people who want to transition from IBM to other products.</p><p>IBM stuck with their investment and are positioned to make some great cash of this.  The other companies need to make their own solutions that are good enough to win over customers.  Lawyers have way to much time on their hands imo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IBM in no way forces a customer to use their systems .
At any time , a customer could leave and move to another setup.It sounds like the issue is competitors want IBM to release more details on how things are engineered , so they can design solutions for people who want to transition from IBM to other products.IBM stuck with their investment and are positioned to make some great cash of this .
The other companies need to make their own solutions that are good enough to win over customers .
Lawyers have way to much time on their hands imo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IBM in no way forces a customer to use their systems.
At any time, a customer could leave and move to another setup.It sounds like the issue is competitors want IBM to release more details on how things are engineered, so they can design solutions for people who want to transition from IBM to other products.IBM stuck with their investment and are positioned to make some great cash of this.
The other companies need to make their own solutions that are good enough to win over customers.
Lawyers have way to much time on their hands imo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480299</id>
	<title>What loons!</title>
	<author>SandiConoverJones</author>
	<datestamp>1246022580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They CANNOT be serious!</htmltext>
<tokenext>They CAN NOT be serious !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They CANNOT be serious!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28484375</id>
	<title>Re:They could be right even when they're doing wro</title>
	<author>BlindRobin</author>
	<datestamp>1246037460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course they are right. The pot/kettle analogy is a statement implying that both parties are guilty of the same accusation/offense. Besides, most corporations are anti-competitive in the sense that the attempt to counter the efforts of their competitors. That is simply 'business as usual' This sort of accusation by Microsoft is simply an indication that they have weighed the risks and deemed that there is some tactical advantage for them in bringing such an issue forth at this time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course they are right .
The pot/kettle analogy is a statement implying that both parties are guilty of the same accusation/offense .
Besides , most corporations are anti-competitive in the sense that the attempt to counter the efforts of their competitors .
That is simply 'business as usual ' This sort of accusation by Microsoft is simply an indication that they have weighed the risks and deemed that there is some tactical advantage for them in bringing such an issue forth at this time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course they are right.
The pot/kettle analogy is a statement implying that both parties are guilty of the same accusation/offense.
Besides, most corporations are anti-competitive in the sense that the attempt to counter the efforts of their competitors.
That is simply 'business as usual' This sort of accusation by Microsoft is simply an indication that they have weighed the risks and deemed that there is some tactical advantage for them in bringing such an issue forth at this time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480885</id>
	<title>Re:They could be right even when they're doing wro</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246025820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it didn't stop you from offering an opinion...jackass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it did n't stop you from offering an opinion...jackass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it didn't stop you from offering an opinion...jackass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480417</id>
	<title>Governments *should* intervene</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246023240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And <b>REQUIRE</b> data be transferred and stored in open, <i>unencumbered</i> standards.</p><p>Of course, Microsoft and all their paid shills would shit their pants were that to happen...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And REQUIRE data be transferred and stored in open , unencumbered standards.Of course , Microsoft and all their paid shills would shit their pants were that to happen.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And REQUIRE data be transferred and stored in open, unencumbered standards.Of course, Microsoft and all their paid shills would shit their pants were that to happen...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275</id>
	<title>I Don't Quite Understand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246022460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>

So through the whole article from Total Telecom all I could find for a concrete complaint is:<p><div class="quote"><p>T3 contends that IBM pens in mainframe customers faced with a high cost of switching to other systems, while refusing to share blueprints necessary to offer a cheaper alternative.</p></div><p>I'm not a hardware guy and I'm no fan of IBM but I must be missing something here: what is it about mainframes that makes them so different from servers?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Tampa-based T3 develops mainframe technology compatible with IBM software that is designed for small and midsize enterprises.</p></div><p>Maybe they can't release details but I'm guessing that there's some proprietary chipsets and microcontrollers inside these things to run the (what are they at 32 or 64 processors) CPUs stacked on top of each other and banks of memory and storage and database crap.  So what you've gotten software written specifically to take advantage of this stuff?  And it's going to be hard to move to another mainframe or standardized servers with that stuff?  Are you surprised?  It'd be like if I wrote something for Windows and then complained I couldn't get the blueprint from Windows of how the API works so I could move to a "cheaper solution" like Linux.  <br> <br>

So if T3 wins this case, what's the ideal outcome?  IBM open sources the software that runs on these mainframes?  IBM releases detailed chipset information?  Both are laughable.  And if you're going to argue that, you might as well argue that Microsoft open up Windows or Intel layout the insides of its Atom processors for the world to see.  <br> <br>

I wish I didn't find myself defending IBM (I hate their software and these mainframes sound like a scam) but you have to draw the line somewhere or apply to everyone.  My advice to the poor companies still at the hands of IBM: get out.  Of course that's my advice to anyone foolish enough to buy into vendor "lock-in" software like Flash.  Lesson learned: An extra layer of well defined and thought out abstraction will add a bit of overhead but in the end it might save your ass when you need to switch technologies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So through the whole article from Total Telecom all I could find for a concrete complaint is : T3 contends that IBM pens in mainframe customers faced with a high cost of switching to other systems , while refusing to share blueprints necessary to offer a cheaper alternative.I 'm not a hardware guy and I 'm no fan of IBM but I must be missing something here : what is it about mainframes that makes them so different from servers ? Tampa-based T3 develops mainframe technology compatible with IBM software that is designed for small and midsize enterprises.Maybe they ca n't release details but I 'm guessing that there 's some proprietary chipsets and microcontrollers inside these things to run the ( what are they at 32 or 64 processors ) CPUs stacked on top of each other and banks of memory and storage and database crap .
So what you 've gotten software written specifically to take advantage of this stuff ?
And it 's going to be hard to move to another mainframe or standardized servers with that stuff ?
Are you surprised ?
It 'd be like if I wrote something for Windows and then complained I could n't get the blueprint from Windows of how the API works so I could move to a " cheaper solution " like Linux .
So if T3 wins this case , what 's the ideal outcome ?
IBM open sources the software that runs on these mainframes ?
IBM releases detailed chipset information ?
Both are laughable .
And if you 're going to argue that , you might as well argue that Microsoft open up Windows or Intel layout the insides of its Atom processors for the world to see .
I wish I did n't find myself defending IBM ( I hate their software and these mainframes sound like a scam ) but you have to draw the line somewhere or apply to everyone .
My advice to the poor companies still at the hands of IBM : get out .
Of course that 's my advice to anyone foolish enough to buy into vendor " lock-in " software like Flash .
Lesson learned : An extra layer of well defined and thought out abstraction will add a bit of overhead but in the end it might save your ass when you need to switch technologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

So through the whole article from Total Telecom all I could find for a concrete complaint is:T3 contends that IBM pens in mainframe customers faced with a high cost of switching to other systems, while refusing to share blueprints necessary to offer a cheaper alternative.I'm not a hardware guy and I'm no fan of IBM but I must be missing something here: what is it about mainframes that makes them so different from servers?Tampa-based T3 develops mainframe technology compatible with IBM software that is designed for small and midsize enterprises.Maybe they can't release details but I'm guessing that there's some proprietary chipsets and microcontrollers inside these things to run the (what are they at 32 or 64 processors) CPUs stacked on top of each other and banks of memory and storage and database crap.
So what you've gotten software written specifically to take advantage of this stuff?
And it's going to be hard to move to another mainframe or standardized servers with that stuff?
Are you surprised?
It'd be like if I wrote something for Windows and then complained I couldn't get the blueprint from Windows of how the API works so I could move to a "cheaper solution" like Linux.
So if T3 wins this case, what's the ideal outcome?
IBM open sources the software that runs on these mainframes?
IBM releases detailed chipset information?
Both are laughable.
And if you're going to argue that, you might as well argue that Microsoft open up Windows or Intel layout the insides of its Atom processors for the world to see.
I wish I didn't find myself defending IBM (I hate their software and these mainframes sound like a scam) but you have to draw the line somewhere or apply to everyone.
My advice to the poor companies still at the hands of IBM: get out.
Of course that's my advice to anyone foolish enough to buy into vendor "lock-in" software like Flash.
Lesson learned: An extra layer of well defined and thought out abstraction will add a bit of overhead but in the end it might save your ass when you need to switch technologies.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481673</id>
	<title>Microsoft Can't Do That</title>
	<author>Comatose51</author>
	<datestamp>1246028700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft can't call IBM anti-competitive; I'm sure IBM already has patents on technologies related to "methods by which a pot calls a kettle black".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft ca n't call IBM anti-competitive ; I 'm sure IBM already has patents on technologies related to " methods by which a pot calls a kettle black " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft can't call IBM anti-competitive; I'm sure IBM already has patents on technologies related to "methods by which a pot calls a kettle black".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481067</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Quite Understand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246026540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2) Backward compatibility, there are people still running applications written 40 years ago</p></div><p>Oh, so they are still playing "Hunt the Wumpus"?</p><p>(OK, so it was written 37 years ago, not 40. Sue me.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 ) Backward compatibility , there are people still running applications written 40 years agoOh , so they are still playing " Hunt the Wumpus " ?
( OK , so it was written 37 years ago , not 40 .
Sue me .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2) Backward compatibility, there are people still running applications written 40 years agoOh, so they are still playing "Hunt the Wumpus"?
(OK, so it was written 37 years ago, not 40.
Sue me.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28487435</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft...the model of competitiveness ++++</title>
	<author>davidsyes</author>
	<datestamp>1246006920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More than THAT, this appears to me that ms is just hopping mad and grousing that the Obama administration is tapping an IBM Open Source advocate for USPTO...</p><p><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/19/1941241/Obama-Taps-IBM-Open-Source-Advocate-For-USPTO" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/19/1941241/Obama-Taps-IBM-Open-Source-Advocate-For-USPTO</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/main/homepagenews/2009jun19.htm" title="uspto.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.uspto.gov/main/homepagenews/2009jun19.htm</a> [uspto.gov]</p><p>Eat your HEART OUT, microsoft. Instead of BITCHING behind proxies (read: paid-for-shills, sychophants, and suck-ups attorneys and advertisers (*computer manufacturer* recommends MICROSOFT *product* for ALL YOUR COMPUTING/SURFING/ENTERTAINMENT needs. See if keep bying products from pricks that lie to me in the name of getting marketing dollars from you....)), go and try to make an iPhone killer and get it right. Stop trying to commit subterfuge against Open Source and people's RIGHT to not be sewn in or sewn up by you and companies LIKE yours. And, stop hiding behind "there are no morals in business". If a company can be accorded the rights and privileges of a person, then maybe if ms is smacked, prodded, and skewered LIKE a person, then you might GROW UP.</p><p>Sheesh...</p><p>(JUSt TRY it... just TRY to send the suits after me....)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More than THAT , this appears to me that ms is just hopping mad and grousing that the Obama administration is tapping an IBM Open Source advocate for USPTO...http : //yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/19/1941241/Obama-Taps-IBM-Open-Source-Advocate-For-USPTO [ slashdot.org ] http : //www.uspto.gov/main/homepagenews/2009jun19.htm [ uspto.gov ] Eat your HEART OUT , microsoft .
Instead of BITCHING behind proxies ( read : paid-for-shills , sychophants , and suck-ups attorneys and advertisers ( * computer manufacturer * recommends MICROSOFT * product * for ALL YOUR COMPUTING/SURFING/ENTERTAINMENT needs .
See if keep bying products from pricks that lie to me in the name of getting marketing dollars from you.... ) ) , go and try to make an iPhone killer and get it right .
Stop trying to commit subterfuge against Open Source and people 's RIGHT to not be sewn in or sewn up by you and companies LIKE yours .
And , stop hiding behind " there are no morals in business " .
If a company can be accorded the rights and privileges of a person , then maybe if ms is smacked , prodded , and skewered LIKE a person , then you might GROW UP.Sheesh... ( JUSt TRY it... just TRY to send the suits after me.... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More than THAT, this appears to me that ms is just hopping mad and grousing that the Obama administration is tapping an IBM Open Source advocate for USPTO...http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/19/1941241/Obama-Taps-IBM-Open-Source-Advocate-For-USPTO [slashdot.org]http://www.uspto.gov/main/homepagenews/2009jun19.htm [uspto.gov]Eat your HEART OUT, microsoft.
Instead of BITCHING behind proxies (read: paid-for-shills, sychophants, and suck-ups attorneys and advertisers (*computer manufacturer* recommends MICROSOFT *product* for ALL YOUR COMPUTING/SURFING/ENTERTAINMENT needs.
See if keep bying products from pricks that lie to me in the name of getting marketing dollars from you....)), go and try to make an iPhone killer and get it right.
Stop trying to commit subterfuge against Open Source and people's RIGHT to not be sewn in or sewn up by you and companies LIKE yours.
And, stop hiding behind "there are no morals in business".
If a company can be accorded the rights and privileges of a person, then maybe if ms is smacked, prodded, and skewered LIKE a person, then you might GROW UP.Sheesh...(JUSt TRY it... just TRY to send the suits after me....)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28485399</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft...the model of competitiveness</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1246041180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, you can't expect Microsoft to recognise the similarity in their accusations and their own behavior, when, by their accusations, they really mean "Linux is tough to beat in the server market technically, so we'd like to have a swipe using legal means now".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , you ca n't expect Microsoft to recognise the similarity in their accusations and their own behavior , when , by their accusations , they really mean " Linux is tough to beat in the server market technically , so we 'd like to have a swipe using legal means now " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, you can't expect Microsoft to recognise the similarity in their accusations and their own behavior, when, by their accusations, they really mean "Linux is tough to beat in the server market technically, so we'd like to have a swipe using legal means now".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480571</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft...the model of competitiveness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246024320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Big Iron! Glad that in a previous life I worked as a IBM Systems Program and Telecomunications Specilist!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Big Iron !
Glad that in a previous life I worked as a IBM Systems Program and Telecomunications Specilist !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big Iron!
Glad that in a previous life I worked as a IBM Systems Program and Telecomunications Specilist!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480439</id>
	<title>Re:a case of sour grapes?</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1246023480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
This is just to distract people from the growing rumble that Vista SPx (a.k.a. Windows 7) pricing is <b>way</b> off the mark<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
</p><p>
Q. Top ten reason why Windows on a mainframe is like Michael Jackson:
<br>
A. Neither one can fog a mirror.
<br>
A2. Neither one of them can win by a nose.
<br>
A3. As of yesterday, you <b>can</b> blend either one.
<br>
A4. They both target the immature.
<br>
A5. They've both been seriously broken for a looong time.
<br>
A6. "It just looks strange<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."
<br>
A7. They both have high maintenance costs.
<br>
A8. They both have a history of instability.
<br>
A9. One's a faceless corporation, the other one's just faceless.
<br>
A10. They're both past their "best before" date.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just to distract people from the growing rumble that Vista SPx ( a.k.a .
Windows 7 ) pricing is way off the mark .. . Q. Top ten reason why Windows on a mainframe is like Michael Jackson : A. Neither one can fog a mirror .
A2. Neither one of them can win by a nose .
A3. As of yesterday , you can blend either one .
A4. They both target the immature .
A5. They 've both been seriously broken for a looong time .
A6. " It just looks strange ... " A7 .
They both have high maintenance costs .
A8. They both have a history of instability .
A9. One 's a faceless corporation , the other one 's just faceless .
A10. They 're both past their " best before " date .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
This is just to distract people from the growing rumble that Vista SPx (a.k.a.
Windows 7) pricing is way off the mark ...

Q. Top ten reason why Windows on a mainframe is like Michael Jackson:

A. Neither one can fog a mirror.
A2. Neither one of them can win by a nose.
A3. As of yesterday, you can blend either one.
A4. They both target the immature.
A5. They've both been seriously broken for a looong time.
A6. "It just looks strange ..."

A7.
They both have high maintenance costs.
A8. They both have a history of instability.
A9. One's a faceless corporation, the other one's just faceless.
A10. They're both past their "best before" date.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28484327</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft...the model of competitiveness</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1246037340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When it comes to a monopoly in the computer business, IBM invented both the pot and the kettle. IBM was a lot better at playing the politics than MS, that's why the DOJ could never close the deal on them after investigating for a decade.</p><p>Also remember that in order for MS to be successfully sued for anti-trust, servers had to be excluded from the market defined in the suit. If it's OK to define an OS market that is desktop specific, it's equally OK to define a computer market that is limited to mainframes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When it comes to a monopoly in the computer business , IBM invented both the pot and the kettle .
IBM was a lot better at playing the politics than MS , that 's why the DOJ could never close the deal on them after investigating for a decade.Also remember that in order for MS to be successfully sued for anti-trust , servers had to be excluded from the market defined in the suit .
If it 's OK to define an OS market that is desktop specific , it 's equally OK to define a computer market that is limited to mainframes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it comes to a monopoly in the computer business, IBM invented both the pot and the kettle.
IBM was a lot better at playing the politics than MS, that's why the DOJ could never close the deal on them after investigating for a decade.Also remember that in order for MS to be successfully sued for anti-trust, servers had to be excluded from the market defined in the suit.
If it's OK to define an OS market that is desktop specific, it's equally OK to define a computer market that is limited to mainframes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28484707</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft...the model of competitiveness</title>
	<author>Harley\_Ghostrider</author>
	<datestamp>1246038540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!</p></div><p>
Welcome to capitalism.  Microsoft built a monopoly under it and now that the economy is favoring a different computer model... they call foul.</p><p>
I for one plan on buying a couple of IBM I-series systems for my IT department.  I may also invest in a couple of servers to run windows for one thing or another, but the main system will be Linux. </p><p>
I got tired of beating my head against the Microsoft monopoly back when Windows 3.0 went to 3.1.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk about the pot calling the kettle black !
Welcome to capitalism .
Microsoft built a monopoly under it and now that the economy is favoring a different computer model... they call foul .
I for one plan on buying a couple of IBM I-series systems for my IT department .
I may also invest in a couple of servers to run windows for one thing or another , but the main system will be Linux .
I got tired of beating my head against the Microsoft monopoly back when Windows 3.0 went to 3.1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Welcome to capitalism.
Microsoft built a monopoly under it and now that the economy is favoring a different computer model... they call foul.
I for one plan on buying a couple of IBM I-series systems for my IT department.
I may also invest in a couple of servers to run windows for one thing or another, but the main system will be Linux.
I got tired of beating my head against the Microsoft monopoly back when Windows 3.0 went to 3.1.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480297</id>
	<title>Buh buh but....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246022580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The mainframe is a dead relic of times past surely?</p><p>I love the cyclical nature of all this stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The mainframe is a dead relic of times past surely ? I love the cyclical nature of all this stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mainframe is a dead relic of times past surely?I love the cyclical nature of all this stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28485899</id>
	<title>What?!!</title>
	<author>alukin</author>
	<datestamp>1246043280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What competition they are speaking about with 98\% of computer OS market? Oh! does mainframe run windoze? It does not? What a pity! It is anti-competitive practice of IBM and mainframes must be killed and eliminated if they are still not  dead already!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What competition they are speaking about with 98 \ % of computer OS market ?
Oh ! does mainframe run windoze ?
It does not ?
What a pity !
It is anti-competitive practice of IBM and mainframes must be killed and eliminated if they are still not dead already !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What competition they are speaking about with 98\% of computer OS market?
Oh! does mainframe run windoze?
It does not?
What a pity!
It is anti-competitive practice of IBM and mainframes must be killed and eliminated if they are still not  dead already!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480683</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Quite Understand</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1246024920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once upon a time, a company started selling an emulator for IBM's OS/360-derived line.  IBM used various legal tactics to make them stop.  This line (it keeps being renamed.  I think it's z/OS these days, but I could be wrong) has been backwards compatible since 1960.  Any of IBM's customers who bought binary-only software for this platform at any point in the last 50 years is locked in to buying IBM mainframes.  </p><p>
Any customer who insisted on receiving the source code and porting rights to the code is able to move to a new platform.  It therefore sounds like Microsoft is arguing against proprietary, binary-only, software.  If this goes to court, I imagine the Nazgul will point out that IBM recommends that their customers invest in an open-source software stack, which frees them from lock-in.  If people choose to be locked in when their supplier is recommending solutions which do not involve lock in then that's their problem.  If they win arguing this strategy then it could backfire on MS quite badly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once upon a time , a company started selling an emulator for IBM 's OS/360-derived line .
IBM used various legal tactics to make them stop .
This line ( it keeps being renamed .
I think it 's z/OS these days , but I could be wrong ) has been backwards compatible since 1960 .
Any of IBM 's customers who bought binary-only software for this platform at any point in the last 50 years is locked in to buying IBM mainframes .
Any customer who insisted on receiving the source code and porting rights to the code is able to move to a new platform .
It therefore sounds like Microsoft is arguing against proprietary , binary-only , software .
If this goes to court , I imagine the Nazgul will point out that IBM recommends that their customers invest in an open-source software stack , which frees them from lock-in .
If people choose to be locked in when their supplier is recommending solutions which do not involve lock in then that 's their problem .
If they win arguing this strategy then it could backfire on MS quite badly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once upon a time, a company started selling an emulator for IBM's OS/360-derived line.
IBM used various legal tactics to make them stop.
This line (it keeps being renamed.
I think it's z/OS these days, but I could be wrong) has been backwards compatible since 1960.
Any of IBM's customers who bought binary-only software for this platform at any point in the last 50 years is locked in to buying IBM mainframes.
Any customer who insisted on receiving the source code and porting rights to the code is able to move to a new platform.
It therefore sounds like Microsoft is arguing against proprietary, binary-only, software.
If this goes to court, I imagine the Nazgul will point out that IBM recommends that their customers invest in an open-source software stack, which frees them from lock-in.
If people choose to be locked in when their supplier is recommending solutions which do not involve lock in then that's their problem.
If they win arguing this strategy then it could backfire on MS quite badly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480519</id>
	<title>Imagine a Beowulf cluster of IBM mainframes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246023960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It had to be said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It had to be said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It had to be said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480995</id>
	<title>Can we change the 'M$' filter graphic to...</title>
	<author>Assmasher</author>
	<datestamp>1246026180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...something like Ballmer with a chair, Gates has been gone for a while now (and scarily enough - being incredibly philanthropic.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...something like Ballmer with a chair , Gates has been gone for a while now ( and scarily enough - being incredibly philanthropic .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...something like Ballmer with a chair, Gates has been gone for a while now (and scarily enough - being incredibly philanthropic.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28483423</id>
	<title>The whole premise of this is off-base</title>
	<author>notaprguy</author>
	<datestamp>1246033920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would IBM and Cisco be better positioned than Microsoft in the cloud? That makes no sense. Microsoft is still the leading or one of the leading developer platform providers. 10's of thousands of companies and millions of developers use Microsoft frameworks and tools for software development. Yes, there are lots of great alternatives (Java, Php, Ruby etc. etc. etc.) and that's a good thing. But all things being equal I'd probabyl rather be Microsoft right now than pretty much any other company trying to establsh itself in the cloud except perhaps Amazon and Google. In addition to the developer platform assets, they have the capital to build lots of big/expensive datacenters, the network of partners/ISV's who use their platforms and lots of mindshare. IBM, from what I can tell, is essentially just doing the same thing they've been doing forever - offering good but expensive outsourcing services for very large businesses who have too much money to spend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would IBM and Cisco be better positioned than Microsoft in the cloud ?
That makes no sense .
Microsoft is still the leading or one of the leading developer platform providers .
10 's of thousands of companies and millions of developers use Microsoft frameworks and tools for software development .
Yes , there are lots of great alternatives ( Java , Php , Ruby etc .
etc. etc .
) and that 's a good thing .
But all things being equal I 'd probabyl rather be Microsoft right now than pretty much any other company trying to establsh itself in the cloud except perhaps Amazon and Google .
In addition to the developer platform assets , they have the capital to build lots of big/expensive datacenters , the network of partners/ISV 's who use their platforms and lots of mindshare .
IBM , from what I can tell , is essentially just doing the same thing they 've been doing forever - offering good but expensive outsourcing services for very large businesses who have too much money to spend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would IBM and Cisco be better positioned than Microsoft in the cloud?
That makes no sense.
Microsoft is still the leading or one of the leading developer platform providers.
10's of thousands of companies and millions of developers use Microsoft frameworks and tools for software development.
Yes, there are lots of great alternatives (Java, Php, Ruby etc.
etc. etc.
) and that's a good thing.
But all things being equal I'd probabyl rather be Microsoft right now than pretty much any other company trying to establsh itself in the cloud except perhaps Amazon and Google.
In addition to the developer platform assets, they have the capital to build lots of big/expensive datacenters, the network of partners/ISV's who use their platforms and lots of mindshare.
IBM, from what I can tell, is essentially just doing the same thing they've been doing forever - offering good but expensive outsourcing services for very large businesses who have too much money to spend.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480649</id>
	<title>On the n-bit jokes about Windows 95</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1246024740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows 95 is a<br>32-bit shell for a<br>16-bit extension to an<br>8-bit operating system designed for a<br>4-bit microprocessor by a<br>2-bit company that can't stand<br>one bit of competition.</p><p>(stolen from <a href="http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2003-May/018396.html" title="gnupg.org">http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2003-May/018396.html</a> [gnupg.org])</p><p>Also, "two-bit" means "(1) cheap; gaudy; tawdry; or (2) Mediocre, inferior, or insignificant".</p><p>(stolen from <a href="http://www.yourdictionary.com/two-bit" title="yourdictionary.com">http://www.yourdictionary.com/two-bit</a> [yourdictionary.com].  Try to find the definition in-between all the ads.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 95 is a32-bit shell for a16-bit extension to an8-bit operating system designed for a4-bit microprocessor by a2-bit company that ca n't standone bit of competition .
( stolen from http : //lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2003-May/018396.html [ gnupg.org ] ) Also , " two-bit " means " ( 1 ) cheap ; gaudy ; tawdry ; or ( 2 ) Mediocre , inferior , or insignificant " .
( stolen from http : //www.yourdictionary.com/two-bit [ yourdictionary.com ] .
Try to find the definition in-between all the ads .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 95 is a32-bit shell for a16-bit extension to an8-bit operating system designed for a4-bit microprocessor by a2-bit company that can't standone bit of competition.
(stolen from http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2003-May/018396.html [gnupg.org])Also, "two-bit" means "(1) cheap; gaudy; tawdry; or (2) Mediocre, inferior, or insignificant".
(stolen from http://www.yourdictionary.com/two-bit [yourdictionary.com].
Try to find the definition in-between all the ads.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480611</id>
	<title>Details on the complaint?</title>
	<author>AlecC</author>
	<datestamp>1246024500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need more details about what anti-competitive things IBM is doing. OK, it sells machines that seem to give customers more value for money, in their perception, while still making massive profits. Lucky IBM, but isn't that what business is all about? What have they been doing to stop others competing with them - if they can? Have they been saying that you cannot connect Windows machines to their mainframes? Have they been refusing to run Microsoft software (if you can get the appropriate license) on their virtual machines? Or what else?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need more details about what anti-competitive things IBM is doing .
OK , it sells machines that seem to give customers more value for money , in their perception , while still making massive profits .
Lucky IBM , but is n't that what business is all about ?
What have they been doing to stop others competing with them - if they can ?
Have they been saying that you can not connect Windows machines to their mainframes ?
Have they been refusing to run Microsoft software ( if you can get the appropriate license ) on their virtual machines ?
Or what else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need more details about what anti-competitive things IBM is doing.
OK, it sells machines that seem to give customers more value for money, in their perception, while still making massive profits.
Lucky IBM, but isn't that what business is all about?
What have they been doing to stop others competing with them - if they can?
Have they been saying that you cannot connect Windows machines to their mainframes?
Have they been refusing to run Microsoft software (if you can get the appropriate license) on their virtual machines?
Or what else?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28484739</id>
	<title>BTW, the "Microsoft-funded" CCIA</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1246038660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>includes Google, the Linux Foundation, Oracle, Yahoo and Red Hat as members.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>includes Google , the Linux Foundation , Oracle , Yahoo and Red Hat as members .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>includes Google, the Linux Foundation, Oracle, Yahoo and Red Hat as members.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480369</id>
	<title>Relevance of HP link?</title>
	<author>BeardsmoreA</author>
	<datestamp>1246022940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As far as I could tell, that HP related link was just some blurb saying "HP would like people to buy their stuff, not IBM's" - what was the relevance of that exactly?  It seemed like almost exactly the opposite of the implication in context.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I could tell , that HP related link was just some blurb saying " HP would like people to buy their stuff , not IBM 's " - what was the relevance of that exactly ?
It seemed like almost exactly the opposite of the implication in context .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I could tell, that HP related link was just some blurb saying "HP would like people to buy their stuff, not IBM's" - what was the relevance of that exactly?
It seemed like almost exactly the opposite of the implication in context.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480869</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft...the model of competitiveness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246025700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this modded insightful? What has Microsoft's previous history got to do with IBM's potential anti-competitive stance? Oh, sorry, its a cheap shot at MS, my bad. +5 insighful!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this modded insightful ?
What has Microsoft 's previous history got to do with IBM 's potential anti-competitive stance ?
Oh , sorry , its a cheap shot at MS , my bad .
+ 5 insighful !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this modded insightful?
What has Microsoft's previous history got to do with IBM's potential anti-competitive stance?
Oh, sorry, its a cheap shot at MS, my bad.
+5 insighful!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480295</id>
	<title>a case of sour grapes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246022520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft is now complaining<nobr> <wbr></nobr>......... IBM is so anticompetitive that governments should intervene.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is now complaining ......... IBM is so anticompetitive that governments should intervene .
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is now complaining ......... IBM is so anticompetitive that governments should intervene.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480481</id>
	<title>Hyper-competetive?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246023660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait, if the server market is hyper-competetive, then there's no serious anti-trust issue right?  I mean, would you call the desktop OS market "hyper-competetive"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , if the server market is hyper-competetive , then there 's no serious anti-trust issue right ?
I mean , would you call the desktop OS market " hyper-competetive " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, if the server market is hyper-competetive, then there's no serious anti-trust issue right?
I mean, would you call the desktop OS market "hyper-competetive"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480471</id>
	<title>Tagged "potcallingkettleblack".</title>
	<author>Falkkin</author>
	<datestamp>1246023660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello? Mr. Kettle? This is Pot. You're black.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello ?
Mr. Kettle ?
This is Pot .
You 're black .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello?
Mr. Kettle?
This is Pot.
You're black.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481493</id>
	<title>Release it GPL3</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246027980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better, Affero GPL3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better , Affero GPL3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better, Affero GPL3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28485387</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Quite Understand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246041180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would scheluding algoriths for real-time operating systems and closely knitted integration between hardware and software satisfy this dilemma this time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would scheluding algoriths for real-time operating systems and closely knitted integration between hardware and software satisfy this dilemma this time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would scheluding algoriths for real-time operating systems and closely knitted integration between hardware and software satisfy this dilemma this time?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271</id>
	<title>Microsoft...the model of competitiveness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246022400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk about the pot calling the kettle black !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480549</id>
	<title>before and after .. :)</title>
	<author>rs232</author>
	<datestamp>1246024140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The Computer &amp; Communications Industry Association has filed a so-called
<a href="http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary\_0286-791771\_ITM" title="accessmylibrary.com">Tunney Act challenge</a> [accessmylibrary.com] to the Department of Justice's controversial
settlement with Microsoft in 2001", Sep 2003<br> <br>

"The Computer &amp; Communications Industry Association (CCIA) <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,84434,00.html" title="computerworld.com">is criticizing</a> [computerworld.com]
last month's decision by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
to <strong>exclusively use Microsoft</strong> Corp. software, arguing that recent
computer virus and worm attacks against Microsoft products are evidence
that such a decision is a poor choice", Aug 2003<br> <br>

I guess this was before <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/15/monoculture\_or\_mass\_hysteria/" title="theregister.co.uk">Daniel Geer</a> [theregister.co.uk] got fired<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..<br> <br>

<i>Membership as of 2003: Yahoo, Oracle, Sun, Nortel, AOL, not.Microsoft</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Computer &amp; Communications Industry Association has filed a so-called Tunney Act challenge [ accessmylibrary.com ] to the Department of Justice 's controversial settlement with Microsoft in 2001 " , Sep 2003 " The Computer &amp; Communications Industry Association ( CCIA ) is criticizing [ computerworld.com ] last month 's decision by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) to exclusively use Microsoft Corp. software , arguing that recent computer virus and worm attacks against Microsoft products are evidence that such a decision is a poor choice " , Aug 2003 I guess this was before Daniel Geer [ theregister.co.uk ] got fired . . Membership as of 2003 : Yahoo , Oracle , Sun , Nortel , AOL , not.Microsoft</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Computer &amp; Communications Industry Association has filed a so-called
Tunney Act challenge [accessmylibrary.com] to the Department of Justice's controversial
settlement with Microsoft in 2001", Sep 2003 

"The Computer &amp; Communications Industry Association (CCIA) is criticizing [computerworld.com]
last month's decision by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
to exclusively use Microsoft Corp. software, arguing that recent
computer virus and worm attacks against Microsoft products are evidence
that such a decision is a poor choice", Aug 2003 

I guess this was before Daniel Geer [theregister.co.uk] got fired .. 

Membership as of 2003: Yahoo, Oracle, Sun, Nortel, AOL, not.Microsoft</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480929</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Quite Understand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246026000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not entirely certain of this but it sounds like the separation between mainframes and servers is essentially that IBM produce servers that are backwards-compatible with their very ancient mainframes.  I'm not sure that in the hardware there's any specific borderline between server and mainframe.  From my own experience, a LOT of companies are still using ancient COBOL-era software to run their core business.  It's been around for a long time and so the bugs are ironed out and it runs OK.  Software doesn't rust, and there isn't a compelling reason to replace something that works OK.  However, the hardware does rust and so at some point companies need to buy hardware that will run these ancient applications.</p><p>Sounds to me like IBM is reaping the rewards of continuing to support the stuff they did 30+ years ago.  The high cost with switching to another platform is rewriting their old and business critical applications.  And of course reluctance to do this means accepting a very high cost of new hardware, relative to other options.</p><p>I write applications, mainly on AIX as my day job, and the hardware is very expensive, but it's not uncommon for places to still have the same servers in place 10 or 20 years down the line.  It's quite common 3-4 years after an installation has gone live to have the customers IT personnel on the phone asking about replacing the hardware, and generally the advice is that there's no need to.  The cost can be triple the cost of mainstream hardware, but so is the lifespan, so I think on TCO terms, it's not that bad.</p><p>NB: the stuff we write is portable C so we're not tied in to AIX in any way - my current project is running on SLES 10 on cheap Dell servers.   But the real expensive servers made by IBM / Sun / HP do seem to have a reliability factor that isn't matched by cheap hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not entirely certain of this but it sounds like the separation between mainframes and servers is essentially that IBM produce servers that are backwards-compatible with their very ancient mainframes .
I 'm not sure that in the hardware there 's any specific borderline between server and mainframe .
From my own experience , a LOT of companies are still using ancient COBOL-era software to run their core business .
It 's been around for a long time and so the bugs are ironed out and it runs OK. Software does n't rust , and there is n't a compelling reason to replace something that works OK. However , the hardware does rust and so at some point companies need to buy hardware that will run these ancient applications.Sounds to me like IBM is reaping the rewards of continuing to support the stuff they did 30 + years ago .
The high cost with switching to another platform is rewriting their old and business critical applications .
And of course reluctance to do this means accepting a very high cost of new hardware , relative to other options.I write applications , mainly on AIX as my day job , and the hardware is very expensive , but it 's not uncommon for places to still have the same servers in place 10 or 20 years down the line .
It 's quite common 3-4 years after an installation has gone live to have the customers IT personnel on the phone asking about replacing the hardware , and generally the advice is that there 's no need to .
The cost can be triple the cost of mainstream hardware , but so is the lifespan , so I think on TCO terms , it 's not that bad.NB : the stuff we write is portable C so we 're not tied in to AIX in any way - my current project is running on SLES 10 on cheap Dell servers .
But the real expensive servers made by IBM / Sun / HP do seem to have a reliability factor that is n't matched by cheap hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not entirely certain of this but it sounds like the separation between mainframes and servers is essentially that IBM produce servers that are backwards-compatible with their very ancient mainframes.
I'm not sure that in the hardware there's any specific borderline between server and mainframe.
From my own experience, a LOT of companies are still using ancient COBOL-era software to run their core business.
It's been around for a long time and so the bugs are ironed out and it runs OK.  Software doesn't rust, and there isn't a compelling reason to replace something that works OK.  However, the hardware does rust and so at some point companies need to buy hardware that will run these ancient applications.Sounds to me like IBM is reaping the rewards of continuing to support the stuff they did 30+ years ago.
The high cost with switching to another platform is rewriting their old and business critical applications.
And of course reluctance to do this means accepting a very high cost of new hardware, relative to other options.I write applications, mainly on AIX as my day job, and the hardware is very expensive, but it's not uncommon for places to still have the same servers in place 10 or 20 years down the line.
It's quite common 3-4 years after an installation has gone live to have the customers IT personnel on the phone asking about replacing the hardware, and generally the advice is that there's no need to.
The cost can be triple the cost of mainstream hardware, but so is the lifespan, so I think on TCO terms, it's not that bad.NB: the stuff we write is portable C so we're not tied in to AIX in any way - my current project is running on SLES 10 on cheap Dell servers.
But the real expensive servers made by IBM / Sun / HP do seem to have a reliability factor that isn't matched by cheap hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28488711</id>
	<title>Behold! A Competitor!</title>
	<author>lordSaurontheGreat</author>
	<datestamp>1246012800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And in the far corner, weighing in at just over the weight of an IBM mainframe...  <a href="http://www.sun.com/products/sunmd/s20/" title="sun.com" rel="nofollow">SUN MODULAR DATACENTER</a> [sun.com]!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And in the far corner , weighing in at just over the weight of an IBM mainframe... SUN MODULAR DATACENTER [ sun.com ] !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And in the far corner, weighing in at just over the weight of an IBM mainframe...  SUN MODULAR DATACENTER [sun.com]!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28528457</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft...the model of competitiveness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246377240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's more a matter of "Oh, so that's how you want to play it."  Microsoft didn't make the antitrust rules, but they've sure been clubbed by them.  Its competitors have used the monopoly claim to harass them for more than a decade now.  This is just them using the same club to fight back.</p><p>That said, two wrongs don't make a right.  I'd rather that Microsoft and IBM (and whoever else wants to jump in) could compete in an open marketplace, without government interference pro or con.  The only people benefitting from the current arrangement are the lawyers.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's more a matter of " Oh , so that 's how you want to play it .
" Microsoft did n't make the antitrust rules , but they 've sure been clubbed by them .
Its competitors have used the monopoly claim to harass them for more than a decade now .
This is just them using the same club to fight back.That said , two wrongs do n't make a right .
I 'd rather that Microsoft and IBM ( and whoever else wants to jump in ) could compete in an open marketplace , without government interference pro or con .
The only people benefitting from the current arrangement are the lawyers .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's more a matter of "Oh, so that's how you want to play it.
"  Microsoft didn't make the antitrust rules, but they've sure been clubbed by them.
Its competitors have used the monopoly claim to harass them for more than a decade now.
This is just them using the same club to fight back.That said, two wrongs don't make a right.
I'd rather that Microsoft and IBM (and whoever else wants to jump in) could compete in an open marketplace, without government interference pro or con.
The only people benefitting from the current arrangement are the lawyers.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480723</id>
	<title>Re:They could be right even when they're doing wro</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246025040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>IBM is "anti competitive" because it is beating the crap out of MS in the new environment. I don't remember IBM screaming when MS was riding high on cheap Windows servers displacing mainframes. And MS was lying through their teeth. At the time, the Windows servers were nowhere near as reliable as the mainframe. Just cheaper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IBM is " anti competitive " because it is beating the crap out of MS in the new environment .
I do n't remember IBM screaming when MS was riding high on cheap Windows servers displacing mainframes .
And MS was lying through their teeth .
At the time , the Windows servers were nowhere near as reliable as the mainframe .
Just cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IBM is "anti competitive" because it is beating the crap out of MS in the new environment.
I don't remember IBM screaming when MS was riding high on cheap Windows servers displacing mainframes.
And MS was lying through their teeth.
At the time, the Windows servers were nowhere near as reliable as the mainframe.
Just cheaper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28485167</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Quite Understand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246040280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The halting problem states that is not possible to determine if a programs halt for ALL combination of program or data. It is however very possible (and often trivial) to determine if a KNOWN SINGLE program with a SINGLE set of data input will halt.</p><p>Actually, goal oriented load balancing (this is what the mainframe does) is a known and solved problem on multiple platforms (look at hard real time OS). The mainframe just does it better for general purpose business transactions</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The halting problem states that is not possible to determine if a programs halt for ALL combination of program or data .
It is however very possible ( and often trivial ) to determine if a KNOWN SINGLE program with a SINGLE set of data input will halt.Actually , goal oriented load balancing ( this is what the mainframe does ) is a known and solved problem on multiple platforms ( look at hard real time OS ) .
The mainframe just does it better for general purpose business transactions</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The halting problem states that is not possible to determine if a programs halt for ALL combination of program or data.
It is however very possible (and often trivial) to determine if a KNOWN SINGLE program with a SINGLE set of data input will halt.Actually, goal oriented load balancing (this is what the mainframe does) is a known and solved problem on multiple platforms (look at hard real time OS).
The mainframe just does it better for general purpose business transactions</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480329</id>
	<title>Clever advertisement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246022700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A huge IBM add posted on slashdot that looks like MS bashing. Really clever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A huge IBM add posted on slashdot that looks like MS bashing .
Really clever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A huge IBM add posted on slashdot that looks like MS bashing.
Really clever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481281</id>
	<title>Re:a case of sour grapes?</title>
	<author>willda</author>
	<datestamp>1246027320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, my comment is redundant but, if you look at the times, they are 2 minutes apart. I was editing mine when he posted his. Sorry about that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , my comment is redundant but , if you look at the times , they are 2 minutes apart .
I was editing mine when he posted his .
Sorry about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, my comment is redundant but, if you look at the times, they are 2 minutes apart.
I was editing mine when he posted his.
Sorry about that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480955</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Quite Understand</title>
	<author>baegucb</author>
	<datestamp>1246026060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mainframes can run webservers and Linux (and specialized chips to speed Linux up) for instance. Someone needs a new LINUX server set up? Get it in minutes. The advantage they have over PC based servers is massive IO capability and uptime. And if you're using databases this is a killer speed advantage in the server world. My mainframe hasn't been shutdown in years. And as far as the OS goes, it was open source years ago, but I don't think z/OS is now. Besides, if it just works, why would any company change?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mainframes can run webservers and Linux ( and specialized chips to speed Linux up ) for instance .
Someone needs a new LINUX server set up ?
Get it in minutes .
The advantage they have over PC based servers is massive IO capability and uptime .
And if you 're using databases this is a killer speed advantage in the server world .
My mainframe has n't been shutdown in years .
And as far as the OS goes , it was open source years ago , but I do n't think z/OS is now .
Besides , if it just works , why would any company change ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mainframes can run webservers and Linux (and specialized chips to speed Linux up) for instance.
Someone needs a new LINUX server set up?
Get it in minutes.
The advantage they have over PC based servers is massive IO capability and uptime.
And if you're using databases this is a killer speed advantage in the server world.
My mainframe hasn't been shutdown in years.
And as far as the OS goes, it was open source years ago, but I don't think z/OS is now.
Besides, if it just works, why would any company change?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28484345</id>
	<title>Microsoft SHOULD be worried...</title>
	<author>dtjohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1246037400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Microsoft approach with all of the desktop computers networked together is becoming fabulously expensive for support, maintenance, installation, and security.  The 'mainframe' computer still connects the desktops but the good stuff (apps and data) is on the 'mainframe' rather than the local desktops so most of the support, maintenance, installation, and security is done on a few of the 'mainframes' rather than the thousands of desktops.  The cost advantages of that are so enormous that Microsoft should be attempting to find a way to play in that space by buying companies rather than bellyaching about the anti-competitiveness of IBM.  Microsoft has never figured out what they want to do, anyway...video games, corporate computing, home multimedia centers, small business computing, or what?  Microsoft wants to do everything but they don't do anything very well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Microsoft approach with all of the desktop computers networked together is becoming fabulously expensive for support , maintenance , installation , and security .
The 'mainframe ' computer still connects the desktops but the good stuff ( apps and data ) is on the 'mainframe ' rather than the local desktops so most of the support , maintenance , installation , and security is done on a few of the 'mainframes ' rather than the thousands of desktops .
The cost advantages of that are so enormous that Microsoft should be attempting to find a way to play in that space by buying companies rather than bellyaching about the anti-competitiveness of IBM .
Microsoft has never figured out what they want to do , anyway...video games , corporate computing , home multimedia centers , small business computing , or what ?
Microsoft wants to do everything but they do n't do anything very well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Microsoft approach with all of the desktop computers networked together is becoming fabulously expensive for support, maintenance, installation, and security.
The 'mainframe' computer still connects the desktops but the good stuff (apps and data) is on the 'mainframe' rather than the local desktops so most of the support, maintenance, installation, and security is done on a few of the 'mainframes' rather than the thousands of desktops.
The cost advantages of that are so enormous that Microsoft should be attempting to find a way to play in that space by buying companies rather than bellyaching about the anti-competitiveness of IBM.
Microsoft has never figured out what they want to do, anyway...video games, corporate computing, home multimedia centers, small business computing, or what?
Microsoft wants to do everything but they don't do anything very well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480737</id>
	<title>Re:Buh buh but....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246025160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By the time you migrate off a mainframe to Servers, buy lots of Microslop licences, Buy VMWare, buy Citrix, and a gaggle of utilities and backup and firewall software - the 'savings' evaporate. Factor in reliability and true recovery times - mainframe is looking great. PC Servers do not have the hardware assist of mainframes - yet.</p><p>Mainframes are still doing well, because software and OS prices have not fallen, if anything gone up. MS does not like this, because Open Source starts to look respectable and reliable and viable.And when IBM looses a sale, the salesman can just fold and say' OK if you buy it, you can run anything you like on it'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By the time you migrate off a mainframe to Servers , buy lots of Microslop licences , Buy VMWare , buy Citrix , and a gaggle of utilities and backup and firewall software - the 'savings ' evaporate .
Factor in reliability and true recovery times - mainframe is looking great .
PC Servers do not have the hardware assist of mainframes - yet.Mainframes are still doing well , because software and OS prices have not fallen , if anything gone up .
MS does not like this , because Open Source starts to look respectable and reliable and viable.And when IBM looses a sale , the salesman can just fold and say ' OK if you buy it , you can run anything you like on it'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the time you migrate off a mainframe to Servers, buy lots of Microslop licences, Buy VMWare, buy Citrix, and a gaggle of utilities and backup and firewall software - the 'savings' evaporate.
Factor in reliability and true recovery times - mainframe is looking great.
PC Servers do not have the hardware assist of mainframes - yet.Mainframes are still doing well, because software and OS prices have not fallen, if anything gone up.
MS does not like this, because Open Source starts to look respectable and reliable and viable.And when IBM looses a sale, the salesman can just fold and say' OK if you buy it, you can run anything you like on it'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480647</id>
	<title>No bias, no bias at all...</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1246024680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://whatdoestheinternetthink.net/index.php?s=microsoft&amp;st=google" title="whatdoesth...tthink.net">http://whatdoestheinternetthink.net/index.php?s=microsoft&amp;st=google</a> [whatdoesth...tthink.net]<br><a href="http://whatdoestheinternetthink.net/index.php?s=microsoft&amp;st=bing" title="whatdoesth...tthink.net">http://whatdoestheinternetthink.net/index.php?s=microsoft&amp;st=bing</a> [whatdoesth...tthink.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //whatdoestheinternetthink.net/index.php ? s = microsoft&amp;st = google [ whatdoesth...tthink.net ] http : //whatdoestheinternetthink.net/index.php ? s = microsoft&amp;st = bing [ whatdoesth...tthink.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://whatdoestheinternetthink.net/index.php?s=microsoft&amp;st=google [whatdoesth...tthink.net]http://whatdoestheinternetthink.net/index.php?s=microsoft&amp;st=bing [whatdoesth...tthink.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481063</id>
	<title>Re:They could be right even when they're doing wro</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1246026540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The interesting part here is that Microsoft used a sock-puppet company for those statements.</p><p>Has MS come out and say it themselves it wouldn't be quite the news it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The interesting part here is that Microsoft used a sock-puppet company for those statements.Has MS come out and say it themselves it would n't be quite the news it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The interesting part here is that Microsoft used a sock-puppet company for those statements.Has MS come out and say it themselves it wouldn't be quite the news it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480319</id>
	<title>Trust Microsoft's judgement in the matter</title>
	<author>Rosco P. Coltrane</author>
	<datestamp>1246022640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they know all about being anticompetitive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they know all about being anticompetitive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they know all about being anticompetitive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481207</id>
	<title>How can you claim anticompetitive?</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1246026960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has microsoft ever had a mainframe?  No.<br>Do they have a mainframe OS?  no.<br>Could they develop one?  HPC could theoretically be considdered one if they added storage virtualization to it, and a few other mainframe class systems.<br>Would we use a microsoft OS to replace out IBM mainframes?  No.  I'll elaborate:</p><p>- We have MILLIONS of lines of code ON the mainframe that would ALL have to be completely re-done from scratch to move off the OS390 platform.<br>- We have 10 times that much code that would have to be modified to talk to a non-OS390 mainframe.<br>- We have hundreds of servers that run support applications for the mainframe or mainframe apps that don't run on Windows.<br>- Any competing platform uses far more space and many fold more power, and does not have the HA features of true mainframes.<br>- A LARGE part of the security of our mainframe environment is that since you can't exactly get access to OS390 easily, hacing it is damned near impossible...  Moving to a windows kernel based mainframe would NOT be adviseable even if we could afford it.<br>- IBM is here, and has been for decades, and there's more legacy code running on OS390 that's 10 years old than code running on it that's less than 10 years old.  they're NOT going to drop support for it.  I can't say that about any competitor.<br>- IBM has a FULL suite of tools to manage, monitor, and protect the mainframe.  Most technologies entering the x64 space now have been in use on mainframes for 5-10 years...  some longer.<br>- Licensing prices on the mainframe are a FRACTION of the price of lecensing x86 and P6 systems.  (we're saving about 10 million this year in licensing alone moving a few hundred machines to Suse Linux virtualised on z10 IFL processors.)<br>- Component hardware costs of the mainframe are a bit higher (about $8K for a gig of RAM), but the system as a whole is actually not only cheaper than an equivalent VMWare or hypervisor supercluster, but it;s energy use is also a fraction of the equivalent.<br>- the Z systems have 5-10 year lifespans, we have a few running 12 years without a critical outage, not 3-5 years like all other platforms...</p><p>We pay a never-ending maintenance plan on our mainframes.  We add new ones every year or two to replace old ones, but we don't really "buy" new mainframes, we simply pay to have a base number of MIPS available and IBM keeps the hardware running.  (and pay to increase those MIPS as necessary.  The licensing and hardware costs are FAR lower than out other platforms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has microsoft ever had a mainframe ?
No.Do they have a mainframe OS ?
no.Could they develop one ?
HPC could theoretically be considdered one if they added storage virtualization to it , and a few other mainframe class systems.Would we use a microsoft OS to replace out IBM mainframes ?
No. I 'll elaborate : - We have MILLIONS of lines of code ON the mainframe that would ALL have to be completely re-done from scratch to move off the OS390 platform.- We have 10 times that much code that would have to be modified to talk to a non-OS390 mainframe.- We have hundreds of servers that run support applications for the mainframe or mainframe apps that do n't run on Windows.- Any competing platform uses far more space and many fold more power , and does not have the HA features of true mainframes.- A LARGE part of the security of our mainframe environment is that since you ca n't exactly get access to OS390 easily , hacing it is damned near impossible... Moving to a windows kernel based mainframe would NOT be adviseable even if we could afford it.- IBM is here , and has been for decades , and there 's more legacy code running on OS390 that 's 10 years old than code running on it that 's less than 10 years old .
they 're NOT going to drop support for it .
I ca n't say that about any competitor.- IBM has a FULL suite of tools to manage , monitor , and protect the mainframe .
Most technologies entering the x64 space now have been in use on mainframes for 5-10 years... some longer.- Licensing prices on the mainframe are a FRACTION of the price of lecensing x86 and P6 systems .
( we 're saving about 10 million this year in licensing alone moving a few hundred machines to Suse Linux virtualised on z10 IFL processors .
) - Component hardware costs of the mainframe are a bit higher ( about $ 8K for a gig of RAM ) , but the system as a whole is actually not only cheaper than an equivalent VMWare or hypervisor supercluster , but it ; s energy use is also a fraction of the equivalent.- the Z systems have 5-10 year lifespans , we have a few running 12 years without a critical outage , not 3-5 years like all other platforms...We pay a never-ending maintenance plan on our mainframes .
We add new ones every year or two to replace old ones , but we do n't really " buy " new mainframes , we simply pay to have a base number of MIPS available and IBM keeps the hardware running .
( and pay to increase those MIPS as necessary .
The licensing and hardware costs are FAR lower than out other platforms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has microsoft ever had a mainframe?
No.Do they have a mainframe OS?
no.Could they develop one?
HPC could theoretically be considdered one if they added storage virtualization to it, and a few other mainframe class systems.Would we use a microsoft OS to replace out IBM mainframes?
No.  I'll elaborate:- We have MILLIONS of lines of code ON the mainframe that would ALL have to be completely re-done from scratch to move off the OS390 platform.- We have 10 times that much code that would have to be modified to talk to a non-OS390 mainframe.- We have hundreds of servers that run support applications for the mainframe or mainframe apps that don't run on Windows.- Any competing platform uses far more space and many fold more power, and does not have the HA features of true mainframes.- A LARGE part of the security of our mainframe environment is that since you can't exactly get access to OS390 easily, hacing it is damned near impossible...  Moving to a windows kernel based mainframe would NOT be adviseable even if we could afford it.- IBM is here, and has been for decades, and there's more legacy code running on OS390 that's 10 years old than code running on it that's less than 10 years old.
they're NOT going to drop support for it.
I can't say that about any competitor.- IBM has a FULL suite of tools to manage, monitor, and protect the mainframe.
Most technologies entering the x64 space now have been in use on mainframes for 5-10 years...  some longer.- Licensing prices on the mainframe are a FRACTION of the price of lecensing x86 and P6 systems.
(we're saving about 10 million this year in licensing alone moving a few hundred machines to Suse Linux virtualised on z10 IFL processors.
)- Component hardware costs of the mainframe are a bit higher (about $8K for a gig of RAM), but the system as a whole is actually not only cheaper than an equivalent VMWare or hypervisor supercluster, but it;s energy use is also a fraction of the equivalent.- the Z systems have 5-10 year lifespans, we have a few running 12 years without a critical outage, not 3-5 years like all other platforms...We pay a never-ending maintenance plan on our mainframes.
We add new ones every year or two to replace old ones, but we don't really "buy" new mainframes, we simply pay to have a base number of MIPS available and IBM keeps the hardware running.
(and pay to increase those MIPS as necessary.
The licensing and hardware costs are FAR lower than out other platforms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480623</id>
	<title>Re:Coming from Microsoft ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246024560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But personally I see the future going toward cloud computing and virtualization.</p></div></blockquote><p>Virtualization yes, but cloud computing? Give me a break.</p><p>Okay, let's give somebody else all of our data (and then trust them that they're going to play nicely with the encryption keys), and then make our business model utterly dependant upon network links and somebody at another location (maybe in another country), and then whine when shit goes down that they violated the SLA.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But personally I see the future going toward cloud computing and virtualization.Virtualization yes , but cloud computing ?
Give me a break.Okay , let 's give somebody else all of our data ( and then trust them that they 're going to play nicely with the encryption keys ) , and then make our business model utterly dependant upon network links and somebody at another location ( maybe in another country ) , and then whine when shit goes down that they violated the SLA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But personally I see the future going toward cloud computing and virtualization.Virtualization yes, but cloud computing?
Give me a break.Okay, let's give somebody else all of our data (and then trust them that they're going to play nicely with the encryption keys), and then make our business model utterly dependant upon network links and somebody at another location (maybe in another country), and then whine when shit goes down that they violated the SLA.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480591</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Quite Understand</title>
	<author>daethon</author>
	<datestamp>1246024440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is by no means fully comprehensive, but is about 90\% of the mainframe story. <br> <br>

1) Reliability: 5 9's (99.999\%)<br>
2) Backward compatibility, there are people still running applications written 40 years ago<br>
3) Security: Physical (hard to move a refrigerator), Network (no external network when applications working internally), RACF, Highest level of security rating of ANY server, ever.<br>
4) Architecture: Redundant everything: Spare processors, spare power, spare, everything. Predictive failure/automatic fail over for individual components. Memory Bus greater than anything out there. Pipes to Storage extreme. Cryptographic processors to do SSL, etc.<br>
5) Scale up: 64 processors (4.4GHz), 1.5 TB of Memory, etc.<br>
6) Scale out: GDPS (Geographically Disperse Parallel Sysplex) up to 32 boxes?<br>
7) Hipervisor: Its a network in a box. Applications talking to each other use IP, not TCP/IP, so you aren't sending 35\% data, 65\% header when applications talk. Network is at the speed of memory. zVM has been developed for over 20 years.<br>
8) Power Efficiency: Compared to a server cluster + cooling + redundant power, etc.<br>
9) Network Simplicity: No need for a rats nest for your rack, cable simplicity in some cases from over 1000 cables down to 12. From 14 switches (which are very expensive) to 4.<br>
10) Management simplicity: Less staff needed to keep it up and running. Instead they are focused on adding business value<br>
11) Running Legacy (aka Business Critical) applications, your web presence, your portal, and a myriad of other disparate applications in one place.<br>
12) Create new servers in minutes without needing hardware "on standby."<br>
13) Compartmentalization in a single box<br>
14) Shared everything while still fully separate<br>
15) Workload manager: able to on the fly change how much resources are allocated to images AND (this is the cool thing, cause other VMs do that) give it goal times for operations. As in: Complete this task in 1/100th of a second, and it will allocate, on the fly, for that to happen, and it will guarantee it.<br>
<br>
Mainframes are NOT the answer to all questions. Intel is NOT the answer to all questions. Itanium, Solaris, Power, etc...none are the answer to all questions.<br>
<br>
Buy the right tool for the right purpose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is by no means fully comprehensive , but is about 90 \ % of the mainframe story .
1 ) Reliability : 5 9 's ( 99.999 \ % ) 2 ) Backward compatibility , there are people still running applications written 40 years ago 3 ) Security : Physical ( hard to move a refrigerator ) , Network ( no external network when applications working internally ) , RACF , Highest level of security rating of ANY server , ever .
4 ) Architecture : Redundant everything : Spare processors , spare power , spare , everything .
Predictive failure/automatic fail over for individual components .
Memory Bus greater than anything out there .
Pipes to Storage extreme .
Cryptographic processors to do SSL , etc .
5 ) Scale up : 64 processors ( 4.4GHz ) , 1.5 TB of Memory , etc .
6 ) Scale out : GDPS ( Geographically Disperse Parallel Sysplex ) up to 32 boxes ?
7 ) Hipervisor : Its a network in a box .
Applications talking to each other use IP , not TCP/IP , so you are n't sending 35 \ % data , 65 \ % header when applications talk .
Network is at the speed of memory .
zVM has been developed for over 20 years .
8 ) Power Efficiency : Compared to a server cluster + cooling + redundant power , etc .
9 ) Network Simplicity : No need for a rats nest for your rack , cable simplicity in some cases from over 1000 cables down to 12 .
From 14 switches ( which are very expensive ) to 4 .
10 ) Management simplicity : Less staff needed to keep it up and running .
Instead they are focused on adding business value 11 ) Running Legacy ( aka Business Critical ) applications , your web presence , your portal , and a myriad of other disparate applications in one place .
12 ) Create new servers in minutes without needing hardware " on standby .
" 13 ) Compartmentalization in a single box 14 ) Shared everything while still fully separate 15 ) Workload manager : able to on the fly change how much resources are allocated to images AND ( this is the cool thing , cause other VMs do that ) give it goal times for operations .
As in : Complete this task in 1/100th of a second , and it will allocate , on the fly , for that to happen , and it will guarantee it .
Mainframes are NOT the answer to all questions .
Intel is NOT the answer to all questions .
Itanium , Solaris , Power , etc...none are the answer to all questions .
Buy the right tool for the right purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is by no means fully comprehensive, but is about 90\% of the mainframe story.
1) Reliability: 5 9's (99.999\%)
2) Backward compatibility, there are people still running applications written 40 years ago
3) Security: Physical (hard to move a refrigerator), Network (no external network when applications working internally), RACF, Highest level of security rating of ANY server, ever.
4) Architecture: Redundant everything: Spare processors, spare power, spare, everything.
Predictive failure/automatic fail over for individual components.
Memory Bus greater than anything out there.
Pipes to Storage extreme.
Cryptographic processors to do SSL, etc.
5) Scale up: 64 processors (4.4GHz), 1.5 TB of Memory, etc.
6) Scale out: GDPS (Geographically Disperse Parallel Sysplex) up to 32 boxes?
7) Hipervisor: Its a network in a box.
Applications talking to each other use IP, not TCP/IP, so you aren't sending 35\% data, 65\% header when applications talk.
Network is at the speed of memory.
zVM has been developed for over 20 years.
8) Power Efficiency: Compared to a server cluster + cooling + redundant power, etc.
9) Network Simplicity: No need for a rats nest for your rack, cable simplicity in some cases from over 1000 cables down to 12.
From 14 switches (which are very expensive) to 4.
10) Management simplicity: Less staff needed to keep it up and running.
Instead they are focused on adding business value
11) Running Legacy (aka Business Critical) applications, your web presence, your portal, and a myriad of other disparate applications in one place.
12) Create new servers in minutes without needing hardware "on standby.
"
13) Compartmentalization in a single box
14) Shared everything while still fully separate
15) Workload manager: able to on the fly change how much resources are allocated to images AND (this is the cool thing, cause other VMs do that) give it goal times for operations.
As in: Complete this task in 1/100th of a second, and it will allocate, on the fly, for that to happen, and it will guarantee it.
Mainframes are NOT the answer to all questions.
Intel is NOT the answer to all questions.
Itanium, Solaris, Power, etc...none are the answer to all questions.
Buy the right tool for the right purpose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480853</id>
	<title>Re:Buh buh but....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246025700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hummmm, in fact it is very difficult to describe what a mainframe is in terms of the server-farm technology. It is a different beast. I would not describe it as a clustered linux environment, though it can simulate such an environment by virtualization techniques way before that VMWare &amp; Cia appeared in the market.</p><p>I would describe it better as a super-highway where the main hardware, and where IBM focuses the most, are not the processors but the I/O-controllers. Those I/O controllers are very specialized pieces of hardware achieving througputs near to those achieved in RAM chips internally. Besides those I/O-controllers there can be specialized CPU's tailored for the customer business: Java-runtime-specialized processors, Linux-runtime-specialized processors, number-crunching specialized processors, and of course ZOS-specialized processors, all of them being able to access simultaneously the underlying hardware through the same virtualization layer.</p><p>So no, i would not describe the mainframe as a linux cluster. Maybe for some customers, but not for the most of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hummmm , in fact it is very difficult to describe what a mainframe is in terms of the server-farm technology .
It is a different beast .
I would not describe it as a clustered linux environment , though it can simulate such an environment by virtualization techniques way before that VMWare &amp; Cia appeared in the market.I would describe it better as a super-highway where the main hardware , and where IBM focuses the most , are not the processors but the I/O-controllers .
Those I/O controllers are very specialized pieces of hardware achieving througputs near to those achieved in RAM chips internally .
Besides those I/O-controllers there can be specialized CPU 's tailored for the customer business : Java-runtime-specialized processors , Linux-runtime-specialized processors , number-crunching specialized processors , and of course ZOS-specialized processors , all of them being able to access simultaneously the underlying hardware through the same virtualization layer.So no , i would not describe the mainframe as a linux cluster .
Maybe for some customers , but not for the most of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hummmm, in fact it is very difficult to describe what a mainframe is in terms of the server-farm technology.
It is a different beast.
I would not describe it as a clustered linux environment, though it can simulate such an environment by virtualization techniques way before that VMWare &amp; Cia appeared in the market.I would describe it better as a super-highway where the main hardware, and where IBM focuses the most, are not the processors but the I/O-controllers.
Those I/O controllers are very specialized pieces of hardware achieving througputs near to those achieved in RAM chips internally.
Besides those I/O-controllers there can be specialized CPU's tailored for the customer business: Java-runtime-specialized processors, Linux-runtime-specialized processors, number-crunching specialized processors, and of course ZOS-specialized processors, all of them being able to access simultaneously the underlying hardware through the same virtualization layer.So no, i would not describe the mainframe as a linux cluster.
Maybe for some customers, but not for the most of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28482161</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Quite Understand</title>
	<author>AlexGr</author>
	<datestamp>1246030320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want to hear T3's side of it, there's a good article written by Steve Friedman, T3's president -- The T3 Technologies Story: <a href="http://openmainframe.org/featured-articles/the-t3-technologies-story.html" title="openmainframe.org">http://openmainframe.org/featured-articles/the-t3-technologies-story.html</a> [openmainframe.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to hear T3 's side of it , there 's a good article written by Steve Friedman , T3 's president -- The T3 Technologies Story : http : //openmainframe.org/featured-articles/the-t3-technologies-story.html [ openmainframe.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to hear T3's side of it, there's a good article written by Steve Friedman, T3's president -- The T3 Technologies Story: http://openmainframe.org/featured-articles/the-t3-technologies-story.html [openmainframe.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28482343</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Quite Understand</title>
	<author>garyj4</author>
	<datestamp>1246030800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a huge fan of mainframes.  But you are right on the money -- "buy the right tool for the right purpose."   Unfortunately many companies get rid of mainframes, Unix, etc to follow the dollar.  Then they are scrambling to write applications to do the same thing.  Seeing more and more companies jumping on the Linux band-wagon.  I like Linux, but it is not always the answer.  Guess I am getting old and cranky.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a huge fan of mainframes .
But you are right on the money -- " buy the right tool for the right purpose .
" Unfortunately many companies get rid of mainframes , Unix , etc to follow the dollar .
Then they are scrambling to write applications to do the same thing .
Seeing more and more companies jumping on the Linux band-wagon .
I like Linux , but it is not always the answer .
Guess I am getting old and cranky .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a huge fan of mainframes.
But you are right on the money -- "buy the right tool for the right purpose.
"   Unfortunately many companies get rid of mainframes, Unix, etc to follow the dollar.
Then they are scrambling to write applications to do the same thing.
Seeing more and more companies jumping on the Linux band-wagon.
I like Linux, but it is not always the answer.
Guess I am getting old and cranky.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481001</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Quite Understand</title>
	<author>uassholes</author>
	<datestamp>1246026240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>what is it about mainframes that makes them so different from servers</p></div><p>
Most servers are PCs in pizza boxes. This is from Wikipedia:</p><p>
 Released on February 26, 2008, the System z10 Enterprise Class is available in five hardware models: E12, E26, E40, E56, and E64...The number of "characterizable" (or configurable) processing units (PUs) is indicated in the hardware model designation (e.g., the E26 has 26 characterizable PUs).
   Depending on the capacity model a PU can be characterized as either a Central Processor (CP), Integrated Facility for Linux (IFL) processor, z Application Assist
   Processor (zAAP), z10 Integrated Information Processor (zIIP), or Internal Coupling Facility (ICF) processor. (The specialty processors are all identical and IBM locks
   out certain functions based on what the processor is characterized as.) It is also possible to configure additional System Assist Processors...The Enterprise Class PU cores (four per chip) operate at speeds of 4.4 GHz, still (December, 2008) the highest clock speed of any processor with more than two cores per
   chip. The processors are stored in one to four compartments referred to as "books". Each book is comprised of a multi-chip module (MCM) of processing units (PUs) and
   memory cards (including multi-level cache memory).</p><p>
Not quite the same as an x86, a disk, and some memory.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what is it about mainframes that makes them so different from servers Most servers are PCs in pizza boxes .
This is from Wikipedia : Released on February 26 , 2008 , the System z10 Enterprise Class is available in five hardware models : E12 , E26 , E40 , E56 , and E64...The number of " characterizable " ( or configurable ) processing units ( PUs ) is indicated in the hardware model designation ( e.g. , the E26 has 26 characterizable PUs ) .
Depending on the capacity model a PU can be characterized as either a Central Processor ( CP ) , Integrated Facility for Linux ( IFL ) processor , z Application Assist Processor ( zAAP ) , z10 Integrated Information Processor ( zIIP ) , or Internal Coupling Facility ( ICF ) processor .
( The specialty processors are all identical and IBM locks out certain functions based on what the processor is characterized as .
) It is also possible to configure additional System Assist Processors...The Enterprise Class PU cores ( four per chip ) operate at speeds of 4.4 GHz , still ( December , 2008 ) the highest clock speed of any processor with more than two cores per chip .
The processors are stored in one to four compartments referred to as " books " .
Each book is comprised of a multi-chip module ( MCM ) of processing units ( PUs ) and memory cards ( including multi-level cache memory ) .
Not quite the same as an x86 , a disk , and some memory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what is it about mainframes that makes them so different from servers
Most servers are PCs in pizza boxes.
This is from Wikipedia:
 Released on February 26, 2008, the System z10 Enterprise Class is available in five hardware models: E12, E26, E40, E56, and E64...The number of "characterizable" (or configurable) processing units (PUs) is indicated in the hardware model designation (e.g., the E26 has 26 characterizable PUs).
Depending on the capacity model a PU can be characterized as either a Central Processor (CP), Integrated Facility for Linux (IFL) processor, z Application Assist
   Processor (zAAP), z10 Integrated Information Processor (zIIP), or Internal Coupling Facility (ICF) processor.
(The specialty processors are all identical and IBM locks
   out certain functions based on what the processor is characterized as.
) It is also possible to configure additional System Assist Processors...The Enterprise Class PU cores (four per chip) operate at speeds of 4.4 GHz, still (December, 2008) the highest clock speed of any processor with more than two cores per
   chip.
The processors are stored in one to four compartments referred to as "books".
Each book is comprised of a multi-chip module (MCM) of processing units (PUs) and
   memory cards (including multi-level cache memory).
Not quite the same as an x86, a disk, and some memory.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480357</id>
	<title>Re:Buh buh but....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246022940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The mainframe of old - the single room-size unit with hundreds of CPU's, drives and memory is indeed dead. These days a 'mainframe' is nothing more but a clustered Linux environment that runs virtualized instances of an Operating System. Some mainframes still resemble the old mainframes (eg. the zSeries) but they take up about the size of a rack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The mainframe of old - the single room-size unit with hundreds of CPU 's , drives and memory is indeed dead .
These days a 'mainframe ' is nothing more but a clustered Linux environment that runs virtualized instances of an Operating System .
Some mainframes still resemble the old mainframes ( eg .
the zSeries ) but they take up about the size of a rack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mainframe of old - the single room-size unit with hundreds of CPU's, drives and memory is indeed dead.
These days a 'mainframe' is nothing more but a clustered Linux environment that runs virtualized instances of an Operating System.
Some mainframes still resemble the old mainframes (eg.
the zSeries) but they take up about the size of a rack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481455</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft...the model of competitiveness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246027920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's ask one of the biggest computer buyers in the world if they are being forced to use IBM mainframes, or, if maybe they have satisfactory and competitive alternatives.</p><p><a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001\_3-10209580-92.html" title="cnet.com">http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001\_3-10209580-92.html</a> [cnet.com]</p><p>I suspect that one of their datacenters has more computing capacity than most mainframes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's ask one of the biggest computer buyers in the world if they are being forced to use IBM mainframes , or , if maybe they have satisfactory and competitive alternatives.http : //news.cnet.com/8301-1001 \ _3-10209580-92.html [ cnet.com ] I suspect that one of their datacenters has more computing capacity than most mainframes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's ask one of the biggest computer buyers in the world if they are being forced to use IBM mainframes, or, if maybe they have satisfactory and competitive alternatives.http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001\_3-10209580-92.html [cnet.com]I suspect that one of their datacenters has more computing capacity than most mainframes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28484563</id>
	<title>Re:Buh buh but....</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1246038120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...err no a real mainframe as still used and still selling nicely thank you is a 5 9's system (99.999\% uptime)</p><p>Massively redundant, massively reliable hardware running a real OS that does nothing but run VM's that run Linux/Windows/Anything<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... and is still capable of running software systems written 40 years ago</p><p>These are single systems where anything can fail (although it rarely does) and if it did not tell you you would not notice because it just keeps on running<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you swap out the faulty component and it uses it as needed, these are systems where they plan on replacing the core hardware after 20 years.... and sometimes longer</p><p>A cluster of Linux boxes would use 10x the power and could never be as reliable... it would however (at least in the short term) be cheaper<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...err no a real mainframe as still used and still selling nicely thank you is a 5 9 's system ( 99.999 \ % uptime ) Massively redundant , massively reliable hardware running a real OS that does nothing but run VM 's that run Linux/Windows/Anything .... and is still capable of running software systems written 40 years agoThese are single systems where anything can fail ( although it rarely does ) and if it did not tell you you would not notice because it just keeps on running ... you swap out the faulty component and it uses it as needed , these are systems where they plan on replacing the core hardware after 20 years.... and sometimes longerA cluster of Linux boxes would use 10x the power and could never be as reliable... it would however ( at least in the short term ) be cheaper ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...err no a real mainframe as still used and still selling nicely thank you is a 5 9's system (99.999\% uptime)Massively redundant, massively reliable hardware running a real OS that does nothing but run VM's that run Linux/Windows/Anything .... and is still capable of running software systems written 40 years agoThese are single systems where anything can fail (although it rarely does) and if it did not tell you you would not notice because it just keeps on running ... you swap out the faulty component and it uses it as needed, these are systems where they plan on replacing the core hardware after 20 years.... and sometimes longerA cluster of Linux boxes would use 10x the power and could never be as reliable... it would however (at least in the short term) be cheaper ....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28484271</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Quite Understand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246037100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>what is it about mainframes that makes them so different from servers?</i></p><p>Structure of marketing, lack of benchmarks and pricing model.</p><p>Hardware wise, last I looked, it had POWER equivalent CPU's with minor fixes for mainframe quirks, DDR2-667 memory, internal bus bandwidth comparable to Hypertransport, and 2x IB for outward connections. Nice enough, but nothing special. The days of 'mainframes have massive I/O' are gone.</p><p>As far as costs go, from the information I've actually been able to find in the form of mainframe related benchmarks and some equivalency info, what you can infer from the hardware, etc, generic x86 using modern paravirtualization (reaching load levels close to the batch-processing mainframes like to do) will reach about 60 times better price for the CPU capacity delivered. Even if you're wasting most of your servers and don't virtualize, you're still end up spending a fifth of the cost per CPU capacity used on generic hardware.</p><p>Jeff Savit did a fairly through analysis of mainframe realities and comparisons with open systems (yes, he currently works for Sun, but he's been a mainframe guy and his statements certainly match what data I've been able to find).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what is it about mainframes that makes them so different from servers ? Structure of marketing , lack of benchmarks and pricing model.Hardware wise , last I looked , it had POWER equivalent CPU 's with minor fixes for mainframe quirks , DDR2-667 memory , internal bus bandwidth comparable to Hypertransport , and 2x IB for outward connections .
Nice enough , but nothing special .
The days of 'mainframes have massive I/O ' are gone.As far as costs go , from the information I 've actually been able to find in the form of mainframe related benchmarks and some equivalency info , what you can infer from the hardware , etc , generic x86 using modern paravirtualization ( reaching load levels close to the batch-processing mainframes like to do ) will reach about 60 times better price for the CPU capacity delivered .
Even if you 're wasting most of your servers and do n't virtualize , you 're still end up spending a fifth of the cost per CPU capacity used on generic hardware.Jeff Savit did a fairly through analysis of mainframe realities and comparisons with open systems ( yes , he currently works for Sun , but he 's been a mainframe guy and his statements certainly match what data I 've been able to find ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what is it about mainframes that makes them so different from servers?Structure of marketing, lack of benchmarks and pricing model.Hardware wise, last I looked, it had POWER equivalent CPU's with minor fixes for mainframe quirks, DDR2-667 memory, internal bus bandwidth comparable to Hypertransport, and 2x IB for outward connections.
Nice enough, but nothing special.
The days of 'mainframes have massive I/O' are gone.As far as costs go, from the information I've actually been able to find in the form of mainframe related benchmarks and some equivalency info, what you can infer from the hardware, etc, generic x86 using modern paravirtualization (reaching load levels close to the batch-processing mainframes like to do) will reach about 60 times better price for the CPU capacity delivered.
Even if you're wasting most of your servers and don't virtualize, you're still end up spending a fifth of the cost per CPU capacity used on generic hardware.Jeff Savit did a fairly through analysis of mainframe realities and comparisons with open systems (yes, he currently works for Sun, but he's been a mainframe guy and his statements certainly match what data I've been able to find).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480523</id>
	<title>IBM is more than that</title>
	<author>FudRucker</author>
	<datestamp>1246024020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>IBM makes the hardware &amp; software to work together as a complete marketable unit, if microsoft wants to compete in the mainframe market then they better build their own mainframe &amp; software to run on it as a complete unit ready for market, and quit bitching about being anti-competitive bunch of damn hypocrites...</htmltext>
<tokenext>IBM makes the hardware &amp; software to work together as a complete marketable unit , if microsoft wants to compete in the mainframe market then they better build their own mainframe &amp; software to run on it as a complete unit ready for market , and quit bitching about being anti-competitive bunch of damn hypocrites.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IBM makes the hardware &amp; software to work together as a complete marketable unit, if microsoft wants to compete in the mainframe market then they better build their own mainframe &amp; software to run on it as a complete unit ready for market, and quit bitching about being anti-competitive bunch of damn hypocrites...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28494649</id>
	<title>Re:They could be right even when they're doing wro</title>
	<author>lsatenstein</author>
	<datestamp>1246117080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have a gasoline monopoly and you sell your gas at $5.00 per gallon. This allows you to live the luxurious life with swimming pool, 3 cars per home, etc.

Suddenly a competitor comes along with the same gasoline, only it is at $3.50 per gallon.  What do you propose to do? Force them to sell at $5.00, or learn to give the consumer the break, and drop your costs to allow selling at the same consumer cost.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have a gasoline monopoly and you sell your gas at $ 5.00 per gallon .
This allows you to live the luxurious life with swimming pool , 3 cars per home , etc .
Suddenly a competitor comes along with the same gasoline , only it is at $ 3.50 per gallon .
What do you propose to do ?
Force them to sell at $ 5.00 , or learn to give the consumer the break , and drop your costs to allow selling at the same consumer cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have a gasoline monopoly and you sell your gas at $5.00 per gallon.
This allows you to live the luxurious life with swimming pool, 3 cars per home, etc.
Suddenly a competitor comes along with the same gasoline, only it is at $3.50 per gallon.
What do you propose to do?
Force them to sell at $5.00, or learn to give the consumer the break, and drop your costs to allow selling at the same consumer cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481769</id>
	<title>BFD...mac, windows, and linux can run multiple OS</title>
	<author>jcypher</author>
	<datestamp>1246029000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would anyone spend huge sums of $ on a mainframe and the scarce mainframe programmers to keep it running, just to run a virtualized copy of linux?  That's *way* too much overhead.  Never mind that you can't virtualize windows on a mainframe -- talk about inflexible. IBM's increase in mainframe revenue has more to do with the success of its sales force in making existing hardware sound obsolete, and twisting the arms of existing customers who haven't managed to get off the 'legacy' mainframe environment yet.

OTOH, if you use VMWare (or Sun xVM or Zen) you can run on pretty much commodity hardware, and virtualize linux, windows, and solaris to your heart's content.  My macbook pro runs VMWare's Fusion which allows me to virtualize Microsoft from Vista back to Windows 3.11, and any linux variant I can get my hands on, and Solaris 8 thru 10, and *bsd, and Netware, JunOS, etc.  And whatever skills I learn from running VMWare's desktop virtualization product is fairly transferable to virtualization on their server and management products (think ESX and VirtualCenter).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would anyone spend huge sums of $ on a mainframe and the scarce mainframe programmers to keep it running , just to run a virtualized copy of linux ?
That 's * way * too much overhead .
Never mind that you ca n't virtualize windows on a mainframe -- talk about inflexible .
IBM 's increase in mainframe revenue has more to do with the success of its sales force in making existing hardware sound obsolete , and twisting the arms of existing customers who have n't managed to get off the 'legacy ' mainframe environment yet .
OTOH , if you use VMWare ( or Sun xVM or Zen ) you can run on pretty much commodity hardware , and virtualize linux , windows , and solaris to your heart 's content .
My macbook pro runs VMWare 's Fusion which allows me to virtualize Microsoft from Vista back to Windows 3.11 , and any linux variant I can get my hands on , and Solaris 8 thru 10 , and * bsd , and Netware , JunOS , etc .
And whatever skills I learn from running VMWare 's desktop virtualization product is fairly transferable to virtualization on their server and management products ( think ESX and VirtualCenter ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would anyone spend huge sums of $ on a mainframe and the scarce mainframe programmers to keep it running, just to run a virtualized copy of linux?
That's *way* too much overhead.
Never mind that you can't virtualize windows on a mainframe -- talk about inflexible.
IBM's increase in mainframe revenue has more to do with the success of its sales force in making existing hardware sound obsolete, and twisting the arms of existing customers who haven't managed to get off the 'legacy' mainframe environment yet.
OTOH, if you use VMWare (or Sun xVM or Zen) you can run on pretty much commodity hardware, and virtualize linux, windows, and solaris to your heart's content.
My macbook pro runs VMWare's Fusion which allows me to virtualize Microsoft from Vista back to Windows 3.11, and any linux variant I can get my hands on, and Solaris 8 thru 10, and *bsd, and Netware, JunOS, etc.
And whatever skills I learn from running VMWare's desktop virtualization product is fairly transferable to virtualization on their server and management products (think ESX and VirtualCenter).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28483077</id>
	<title>The rules of the market are sooo interesting</title>
	<author>idontgno</author>
	<datestamp>1246032900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Market dominance based on technical superiority is anti-competitive. Market dominance based on FUD, dirty tricks, bribery, intimidation, and theft is just business success.</p><p>I understand now, Microsoft! Thanks for clarifying that for us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Market dominance based on technical superiority is anti-competitive .
Market dominance based on FUD , dirty tricks , bribery , intimidation , and theft is just business success.I understand now , Microsoft !
Thanks for clarifying that for us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Market dominance based on technical superiority is anti-competitive.
Market dominance based on FUD, dirty tricks, bribery, intimidation, and theft is just business success.I understand now, Microsoft!
Thanks for clarifying that for us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481243</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Quite Understand</title>
	<author>bb5ch39t</author>
	<datestamp>1246027140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The mainframe hardware has many things in it which are patented. Including some of the instructions! In particular, a number undocumented instructions which are used by the OS (z/OS and z/VM). So, without a patent license from IBM, you cannot build a competitive hardware (or software emulator). And IBM has either refused to license the patents, or put the fee so high that nobody can afford to make compatible hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The mainframe hardware has many things in it which are patented .
Including some of the instructions !
In particular , a number undocumented instructions which are used by the OS ( z/OS and z/VM ) .
So , without a patent license from IBM , you can not build a competitive hardware ( or software emulator ) .
And IBM has either refused to license the patents , or put the fee so high that nobody can afford to make compatible hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mainframe hardware has many things in it which are patented.
Including some of the instructions!
In particular, a number undocumented instructions which are used by the OS (z/OS and z/VM).
So, without a patent license from IBM, you cannot build a competitive hardware (or software emulator).
And IBM has either refused to license the patents, or put the fee so high that nobody can afford to make compatible hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480353</id>
	<title>Coming from Microsoft ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246022940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As long as the mainframe can deliver the advantage and deliver a reliable service, I don't see it going out of the market. But personally I see the future going toward cloud computing and virtualization.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the mainframe can deliver the advantage and deliver a reliable service , I do n't see it going out of the market .
But personally I see the future going toward cloud computing and virtualization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as the mainframe can deliver the advantage and deliver a reliable service, I don't see it going out of the market.
But personally I see the future going toward cloud computing and virtualization.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480889</id>
	<title>Re:They could be right even when they're doing wro</title>
	<author>riegel</author>
	<datestamp>1246025820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>But sir thats the point - It is difficult to make an informed decision when the information recieved is from Microsoft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But sir thats the point - It is difficult to make an informed decision when the information recieved is from Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But sir thats the point - It is difficult to make an informed decision when the information recieved is from Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28483345</id>
	<title>This link helped me understand ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246033680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In all honesty, I didn't understand how IBM was being anti-comp<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... this story helped me understand the situation a little better
<a href="http://www.crn.com/hardware/196601593;jsessionid=XPBGBSFXHFVD0QSNDLPCKH0CJUNN2JVN" title="crn.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.crn.com/hardware/196601593;jsessionid=XPBGBSFXHFVD0QSNDLPCKH0CJUNN2JVN</a> [crn.com]

For those that don't want to read it, it basically states the IBM will not license it's z/OS operating system (used on mainframes) for any hardware but their own.  I can see where this could be considered as bad as with the whole Windows/IE thing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

Ironically, the main distinction between IBM and MS in this case is that people actually want to use (or have to due to legacy) the z/OS operating system without IBM hardware where-as people want to use PCs without having to use Windows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

It's kind of funny how quality difference between MS and IBM enterprise products can affect peoples perception anti-trust.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In all honesty , I did n't understand how IBM was being anti-comp ... this story helped me understand the situation a little better http : //www.crn.com/hardware/196601593 ; jsessionid = XPBGBSFXHFVD0QSNDLPCKH0CJUNN2JVN [ crn.com ] For those that do n't want to read it , it basically states the IBM will not license it 's z/OS operating system ( used on mainframes ) for any hardware but their own .
I can see where this could be considered as bad as with the whole Windows/IE thing .. . Ironically , the main distinction between IBM and MS in this case is that people actually want to use ( or have to due to legacy ) the z/OS operating system without IBM hardware where-as people want to use PCs without having to use Windows : ) It 's kind of funny how quality difference between MS and IBM enterprise products can affect peoples perception anti-trust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In all honesty, I didn't understand how IBM was being anti-comp ... this story helped me understand the situation a little better
http://www.crn.com/hardware/196601593;jsessionid=XPBGBSFXHFVD0QSNDLPCKH0CJUNN2JVN [crn.com]

For those that don't want to read it, it basically states the IBM will not license it's z/OS operating system (used on mainframes) for any hardware but their own.
I can see where this could be considered as bad as with the whole Windows/IE thing ...

Ironically, the main distinction between IBM and MS in this case is that people actually want to use (or have to due to legacy) the z/OS operating system without IBM hardware where-as people want to use PCs without having to use Windows :)

It's kind of funny how quality difference between MS and IBM enterprise products can affect peoples perception anti-trust.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480963</id>
	<title>Re:They could be right even when they're doing wro</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246026060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, shut the fuck up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , shut the fuck up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, shut the fuck up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480333</id>
	<title>A few generations from now</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1246022760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, you mean computers were actually capable of opening more than one window at a time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , you mean computers were actually capable of opening more than one window at a time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, you mean computers were actually capable of opening more than one window at a time?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480431</id>
	<title>Anyone Remember Win95?</title>
	<author>filesiteguy</author>
	<datestamp>1246023420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I still remember the old saying after Win95 came out - in direct competition with the mainframe-centric OS/2 - "Windows 95 is a 32-bit shell to a 16-bit operating sysetm, written by an 8-bit company, originally written for a 4-bit processor by a company that can't stand one bit of competition."<br><br>Seems to hold somewhat true today.<br><br>Seriously, though. When you look at the ability to run VMs inside mainframes and potentially reduce floorspace and the associated costs, it may seem tempting to go mainframe. Even HP is always pushing the SuperDome on me.   Funny, tho, I was just at a data center yesterday where they had an AS390 sitting on the side of the room, next to a z9. The z890 bought to replace the AS390 was about to be swapped out for the z9.<br><br>Time marches on.<br><br>IBM's big iron sill lives.<br><br>However, wanna bet that some portion of those running mainframes are running host OS's such as SLED and then running Xen inside of that with Win2008 servers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still remember the old saying after Win95 came out - in direct competition with the mainframe-centric OS/2 - " Windows 95 is a 32-bit shell to a 16-bit operating sysetm , written by an 8-bit company , originally written for a 4-bit processor by a company that ca n't stand one bit of competition .
" Seems to hold somewhat true today.Seriously , though .
When you look at the ability to run VMs inside mainframes and potentially reduce floorspace and the associated costs , it may seem tempting to go mainframe .
Even HP is always pushing the SuperDome on me .
Funny , tho , I was just at a data center yesterday where they had an AS390 sitting on the side of the room , next to a z9 .
The z890 bought to replace the AS390 was about to be swapped out for the z9.Time marches on.IBM 's big iron sill lives.However , wan na bet that some portion of those running mainframes are running host OS 's such as SLED and then running Xen inside of that with Win2008 servers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still remember the old saying after Win95 came out - in direct competition with the mainframe-centric OS/2 - "Windows 95 is a 32-bit shell to a 16-bit operating sysetm, written by an 8-bit company, originally written for a 4-bit processor by a company that can't stand one bit of competition.
"Seems to hold somewhat true today.Seriously, though.
When you look at the ability to run VMs inside mainframes and potentially reduce floorspace and the associated costs, it may seem tempting to go mainframe.
Even HP is always pushing the SuperDome on me.
Funny, tho, I was just at a data center yesterday where they had an AS390 sitting on the side of the room, next to a z9.
The z890 bought to replace the AS390 was about to be swapped out for the z9.Time marches on.IBM's big iron sill lives.However, wanna bet that some portion of those running mainframes are running host OS's such as SLED and then running Xen inside of that with Win2008 servers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481709</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't Quite Understand</title>
	<author>cellurl</author>
	<datestamp>1246028820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would say OMPL (one mainframe per lab) would save a company money. WIth GigaEthernet, thats the way to go. Make it redundant with <a href="http://www.linux-ha.org/" title="linux-ha.org" rel="nofollow">High Availability</a> [linux-ha.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say OMPL ( one mainframe per lab ) would save a company money .
WIth GigaEthernet , thats the way to go .
Make it redundant with High Availability [ linux-ha.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say OMPL (one mainframe per lab) would save a company money.
WIth GigaEthernet, thats the way to go.
Make it redundant with High Availability [linux-ha.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480591</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28494649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28490129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28482581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28505089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28484099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28485399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28484271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28484375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28482343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28485387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28484327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28482161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28484707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28505147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28528457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28484563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28485167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28487435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_26_0652216_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0652216.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28483423
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0652216.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481207
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0652216.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480623
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0652216.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480649
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0652216.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0652216.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28484327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28485399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28487435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481455
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28505147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480513
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481063
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480889
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480873
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28484375
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480723
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481973
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480963
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481019
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28494649
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28528457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28484707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28505089
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0652216.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480385
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0652216.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480319
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0652216.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28483345
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0652216.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480329
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0652216.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480357
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28484563
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480853
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0652216.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28483077
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0652216.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480481
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0652216.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480695
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0652216.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481281
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0652216.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28482581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28484099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480591
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28490129
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481709
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481083
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28485167
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28485387
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481067
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28482343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28482161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28484271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481243
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0652216.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28481769
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_26_0652216.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_26_0652216.28480611
</commentlist>
</conversation>
