<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_08_1851209</id>
	<title>Jazz Technical Lead Erich Gamma Answers Your Questions</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1247081400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Last week you asked Jazz technical lead Erich Gamma questions about Jazz or anything else in his realm of expertise. Here are his answers, along with many external links and places to continue the conversation if you are interested.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last week you asked Jazz technical lead Erich Gamma questions about Jazz or anything else in his realm of expertise .
Here are his answers , along with many external links and places to continue the conversation if you are interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last week you asked Jazz technical lead Erich Gamma questions about Jazz or anything else in his realm of expertise.
Here are his answers, along with many external links and places to continue the conversation if you are interested.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28628561</id>
	<title>Wait</title>
	<author>Merc248</author>
	<datestamp>1247048580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this type of Jazz more like Coltrane's earlier work or his later free jazz?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this type of Jazz more like Coltrane 's earlier work or his later free jazz ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this type of Jazz more like Coltrane's earlier work or his later free jazz?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28634845</id>
	<title>Thought this was about music tech...</title>
	<author>tubeguy</author>
	<datestamp>1247146200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...but after all this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but after all this is / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but after all this is /.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28633717</id>
	<title>It's good to hear</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1247134620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that Erich has finally got out of Beta.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that Erich has finally got out of Beta .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that Erich has finally got out of Beta.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28629189</id>
	<title>Is it true about Jazz?</title>
	<author>aqk</author>
	<datestamp>1247051700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does being a junkie really help?<br>
Was Miles a heroin addict?<br>
<br>
More to the point:<br>
Will Jazz go the same way as "warp"?  Hey man- now <i>that</i> was a groovy name, daddy-o!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does being a junkie really help ?
Was Miles a heroin addict ?
More to the point : Will Jazz go the same way as " warp " ?
Hey man- now that was a groovy name , daddy-o !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does being a junkie really help?
Was Miles a heroin addict?
More to the point:
Will Jazz go the same way as "warp"?
Hey man- now that was a groovy name, daddy-o!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28627121</id>
	<title>didn't answer my question :(</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247085060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do some women refuse to shave their beavers?!?!?!?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do some women refuse to shave their beavers ? ! ? ! ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do some women refuse to shave their beavers?!?!?!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28627729</id>
	<title>They forgot the most important Jazz question of al</title>
	<author>Gizzmonic</author>
	<datestamp>1247044680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's Karl Malone really like?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's Karl Malone really like ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's Karl Malone really like?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28628679</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect history.</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1247049300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Not that it really matters, but the Design Patterns book just under 15 years old (published October of 1994),</i></p><p>It depends what you consider the relevant date... from our perspective, publication date is the most critical thing.  From the perspective of an author, and from the perspective of somebody trying to place it in history alongside things that might have influenced it, the date of the last word being written is probably more relevant, which given the glacial pace of publishing was probably 6 months or so prior to publication.</p><p><i>and it certainly doesn't predate the Internet</i></p><p>This is clearly true.  I'm thinking that what he meant to say was probably the <i>popularisation</i> of the Internet.  Which is hard to place a date on, but probably occurred not long before the first<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com bubble began, some time around '96 or '97 by my estimation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that it really matters , but the Design Patterns book just under 15 years old ( published October of 1994 ) ,It depends what you consider the relevant date... from our perspective , publication date is the most critical thing .
From the perspective of an author , and from the perspective of somebody trying to place it in history alongside things that might have influenced it , the date of the last word being written is probably more relevant , which given the glacial pace of publishing was probably 6 months or so prior to publication.and it certainly does n't predate the InternetThis is clearly true .
I 'm thinking that what he meant to say was probably the popularisation of the Internet .
Which is hard to place a date on , but probably occurred not long before the first .com bubble began , some time around '96 or '97 by my estimation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that it really matters, but the Design Patterns book just under 15 years old (published October of 1994),It depends what you consider the relevant date... from our perspective, publication date is the most critical thing.
From the perspective of an author, and from the perspective of somebody trying to place it in history alongside things that might have influenced it, the date of the last word being written is probably more relevant, which given the glacial pace of publishing was probably 6 months or so prior to publication.and it certainly doesn't predate the InternetThis is clearly true.
I'm thinking that what he meant to say was probably the popularisation of the Internet.
Which is hard to place a date on, but probably occurred not long before the first .com bubble began, some time around '96 or '97 by my estimation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28628127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28627719</id>
	<title>Ladies and gentlemen, Erich Gamma</title>
	<author>yerktoader</author>
	<datestamp>1247044620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who wants to see Erich Gamma play jazz flute!?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who wants to see Erich Gamma play jazz flute !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who wants to see Erich Gamma play jazz flute!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28629095</id>
	<title>The Best Comment</title>
	<author>David Greene</author>
	<datestamp>1247051160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Brilliant:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Products are constantly being renamed, discontinued, bundled, unbundled and rebranded. Names are long, generic, and practically interchangeable</p></div><p>That summarizes a lot of the problems the Free Software community has, actually.  GNOME and KDE are particularly bad offenders.  What's a Phonon?  Dolphin?  What?  Totem?  Huh?</p><p>And we wonder why most people don't take Free Software seriously.  People don't even know what's there because the names are so obscure.  Codenames are worse than useless in a Free Software setting.  They actually tend to become the actual name of the project and that just leads to confusion.  It's silly all around.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Brilliant : Products are constantly being renamed , discontinued , bundled , unbundled and rebranded .
Names are long , generic , and practically interchangeableThat summarizes a lot of the problems the Free Software community has , actually .
GNOME and KDE are particularly bad offenders .
What 's a Phonon ?
Dolphin ? What ?
Totem ? Huh ? And we wonder why most people do n't take Free Software seriously .
People do n't even know what 's there because the names are so obscure .
Codenames are worse than useless in a Free Software setting .
They actually tend to become the actual name of the project and that just leads to confusion .
It 's silly all around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brilliant:Products are constantly being renamed, discontinued, bundled, unbundled and rebranded.
Names are long, generic, and practically interchangeableThat summarizes a lot of the problems the Free Software community has, actually.
GNOME and KDE are particularly bad offenders.
What's a Phonon?
Dolphin?  What?
Totem?  Huh?And we wonder why most people don't take Free Software seriously.
People don't even know what's there because the names are so obscure.
Codenames are worse than useless in a Free Software setting.
They actually tend to become the actual name of the project and that just leads to confusion.
It's silly all around.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28675879</id>
	<title>Re:the first question</title>
	<author>rsnelson</author>
	<datestamp>1247498340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Free for 3 means 3 free full developer licenses for all editions of RTC.  The RTC Express-C server is truly free.  You get agile planning, scm, work items, continuous build integration, customized project dashboards and a customizable out of the box scrum process template with 30 built in reporting viewlets.    To add additoonal licenses to RTC Express -C or Express is $1,260 / developer.   Read access in RTC is completely "free" in all editions.   You can outfit a team of 10 developers with Express-C for less than $900 a developer seat.   Maintenance for year 2 and beyond woul be about $180/developer/year.  Also, read access is free you could have anyone view work items  or a project status dashboard without incremental cost.   Try it and see if it doesn't make your development team more aware and improve communication and traceability.  Especially if your teams are distributed....or working from home.   Come to jazz.net and tell us what you like or don't like about RTC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Free for 3 means 3 free full developer licenses for all editions of RTC .
The RTC Express-C server is truly free .
You get agile planning , scm , work items , continuous build integration , customized project dashboards and a customizable out of the box scrum process template with 30 built in reporting viewlets .
To add additoonal licenses to RTC Express -C or Express is $ 1,260 / developer .
Read access in RTC is completely " free " in all editions .
You can outfit a team of 10 developers with Express-C for less than $ 900 a developer seat .
Maintenance for year 2 and beyond woul be about $ 180/developer/year .
Also , read access is free you could have anyone view work items or a project status dashboard without incremental cost .
Try it and see if it does n't make your development team more aware and improve communication and traceability .
Especially if your teams are distributed....or working from home .
Come to jazz.net and tell us what you like or do n't like about RTC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free for 3 means 3 free full developer licenses for all editions of RTC.
The RTC Express-C server is truly free.
You get agile planning, scm, work items, continuous build integration, customized project dashboards and a customizable out of the box scrum process template with 30 built in reporting viewlets.
To add additoonal licenses to RTC Express -C or Express is $1,260 / developer.
Read access in RTC is completely "free" in all editions.
You can outfit a team of 10 developers with Express-C for less than $900 a developer seat.
Maintenance for year 2 and beyond woul be about $180/developer/year.
Also, read access is free you could have anyone view work items  or a project status dashboard without incremental cost.
Try it and see if it doesn't make your development team more aware and improve communication and traceability.
Especially if your teams are distributed....or working from home.
Come to jazz.net and tell us what you like or don't like about RTC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28627347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28631555</id>
	<title>Re:IBM</title>
	<author>H0p313ss</author>
	<datestamp>1247067360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is no way to quickly evaluate any of the technologies to see if it would be an improvement over what we are currently using.</p></div><p>Not true at all... you can download the client/server trial and take it for a spin.</p><p>My team just migrated from CVS + Eclipse to Jazz (RTC 1.0) and I can tell you it's like moving forward a decade in sophistication, capability, flexibility and agility. (It also doesn't hurt that they've basically implemented the system I described in my honors thesis a decade ago!)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no way to quickly evaluate any of the technologies to see if it would be an improvement over what we are currently using.Not true at all... you can download the client/server trial and take it for a spin.My team just migrated from CVS + Eclipse to Jazz ( RTC 1.0 ) and I can tell you it 's like moving forward a decade in sophistication , capability , flexibility and agility .
( It also does n't hurt that they 've basically implemented the system I described in my honors thesis a decade ago !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no way to quickly evaluate any of the technologies to see if it would be an improvement over what we are currently using.Not true at all... you can download the client/server trial and take it for a spin.My team just migrated from CVS + Eclipse to Jazz (RTC 1.0) and I can tell you it's like moving forward a decade in sophistication, capability, flexibility and agility.
(It also doesn't hurt that they've basically implemented the system I described in my honors thesis a decade ago!
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28628335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28628335</id>
	<title>IBM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247047500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This whole interview is a good reason not to do any software business with IBM. Its too confusing and marketing driven. Erich Gamma really missed a golden opportunity to explain the platform in simple language to potential users. Instead of explaining anything at all, he just rambled on forever and linked to a web cast. Webcast == Vender controlled message. If you put the same information into a website or heck even a pdf, and I can browse through it for the parts that are relevant to me very quickly. There is no way to quickly evaluate any of the technologies to see if it would be an improvement over what we are currently using.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole interview is a good reason not to do any software business with IBM .
Its too confusing and marketing driven .
Erich Gamma really missed a golden opportunity to explain the platform in simple language to potential users .
Instead of explaining anything at all , he just rambled on forever and linked to a web cast .
Webcast = = Vender controlled message .
If you put the same information into a website or heck even a pdf , and I can browse through it for the parts that are relevant to me very quickly .
There is no way to quickly evaluate any of the technologies to see if it would be an improvement over what we are currently using .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole interview is a good reason not to do any software business with IBM.
Its too confusing and marketing driven.
Erich Gamma really missed a golden opportunity to explain the platform in simple language to potential users.
Instead of explaining anything at all, he just rambled on forever and linked to a web cast.
Webcast == Vender controlled message.
If you put the same information into a website or heck even a pdf, and I can browse through it for the parts that are relevant to me very quickly.
There is no way to quickly evaluate any of the technologies to see if it would be an improvement over what we are currently using.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28745669</id>
	<title>Re:IBM</title>
	<author>aevans</author>
	<datestamp>1247939640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Considering how Subversion is a 20 year leap forward from CVS, and it wasn't even state of the art 10 years ago, I'd say you're being shortchanged with your ClearCase marketing wrapper Eclipse plugin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering how Subversion is a 20 year leap forward from CVS , and it was n't even state of the art 10 years ago , I 'd say you 're being shortchanged with your ClearCase marketing wrapper Eclipse plugin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering how Subversion is a 20 year leap forward from CVS, and it wasn't even state of the art 10 years ago, I'd say you're being shortchanged with your ClearCase marketing wrapper Eclipse plugin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28631555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28628751</id>
	<title>Re:What the hell is a Jazz?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247049600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other hand: Who cares?</p><p>The harder someone tries to push something into me, the more I fight it. (Reminds you of something? Well, that's for a reason. ^^)</p><p>Seriously. Let's try if we can get trough with a technology that does not exist, when we just make the summary tl;dr for ScuttleMonkey.</p><p>Anyone got any suggestion?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand : Who cares ? The harder someone tries to push something into me , the more I fight it .
( Reminds you of something ?
Well , that 's for a reason .
^ ^ ) Seriously. Let 's try if we can get trough with a technology that does not exist , when we just make the summary tl ; dr for ScuttleMonkey.Anyone got any suggestion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand: Who cares?The harder someone tries to push something into me, the more I fight it.
(Reminds you of something?
Well, that's for a reason.
^^)Seriously. Let's try if we can get trough with a technology that does not exist, when we just make the summary tl;dr for ScuttleMonkey.Anyone got any suggestion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28627819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28631393</id>
	<title>Jazz? JAZZ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247066100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So. Who are the top twenty FEMALE Jazz tenor saxophonists in the world?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So .
Who are the top twenty FEMALE Jazz tenor saxophonists in the world ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So.
Who are the top twenty FEMALE Jazz tenor saxophonists in the world?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28632127</id>
	<title>...constant flow of new features</title>
	<author>rfreedman</author>
	<datestamp>1247071560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To keep a software system interesting to users, you need a constant flow of new features.</p></div><p>No - that attitude is what is wrong with most software.<br>What users really want is for the basic functionality to work well, be stable and performant.<br>Only then should new features be considered, and considered carefully.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To keep a software system interesting to users , you need a constant flow of new features.No - that attitude is what is wrong with most software.What users really want is for the basic functionality to work well , be stable and performant.Only then should new features be considered , and considered carefully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To keep a software system interesting to users, you need a constant flow of new features.No - that attitude is what is wrong with most software.What users really want is for the basic functionality to work well, be stable and performant.Only then should new features be considered, and considered carefully.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28627141</id>
	<title>Yet another one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247085180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet another white man making money off the black man's music.</p><p>Oh, IBM Jazz. Never mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another white man making money off the black man 's music.Oh , IBM Jazz .
Never mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another white man making money off the black man's music.Oh, IBM Jazz.
Never mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28633335</id>
	<title>Re:A Review</title>
	<author>famouse</author>
	<datestamp>1247130240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the whole I would say that right now you're better off with Hudson + git/svn. </p></div><p>Yes for SCM and build. But what would you use for a tracker and iteration planning tool?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the whole I would say that right now you 're better off with Hudson + git/svn .
Yes for SCM and build .
But what would you use for a tracker and iteration planning tool ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the whole I would say that right now you're better off with Hudson + git/svn.
Yes for SCM and build.
But what would you use for a tracker and iteration planning tool?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28631291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28628235</id>
	<title>Typical IBM marketing speak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247046960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is nothing of substance here. It's just the IBM Marketing Machine that has latched on to some buzzwords. Move on, nothing to see here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is nothing of substance here .
It 's just the IBM Marketing Machine that has latched on to some buzzwords .
Move on , nothing to see here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is nothing of substance here.
It's just the IBM Marketing Machine that has latched on to some buzzwords.
Move on, nothing to see here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28634939</id>
	<title>Re:Broken license model kills it</title>
	<author>Octorian</author>
	<datestamp>1247146800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reminds me of my main gripe against ClearCase/ClearQuest when my last project team switched to it from CVS/Bugzilla.  It seemed like the #1 requirement for the product suite was to extract maximal license revenue.  (and it also had more admin overhead, and was less usable from the web, and was yet another toolset that works in Windows and Linux but doesn't give a flying F*\%#$ about the Mac)</p><p>Based on some off-the-wall estimates, they also wound up not getting enough floating licenses for the thing initially.  Seemed like it was a game, where you predict your grab/use/release license needs and buy accordingly, instead of just having it setup where everyone can use it whenever they want without caring.</p><p>Imagine not being able to check in your code because there are no ClearCase licenses free, and you have to kick someone off.  Imagine not being able to look up the ClearQuest bug # a manager just sent you (and they just sent the number) because there are no ClearQuest licenses free, yet all the managers leave their clients open 24/7 (hogging the licenses and making it easier for them to act like anyone can look up a # in 10 seconds)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of my main gripe against ClearCase/ClearQuest when my last project team switched to it from CVS/Bugzilla .
It seemed like the # 1 requirement for the product suite was to extract maximal license revenue .
( and it also had more admin overhead , and was less usable from the web , and was yet another toolset that works in Windows and Linux but does n't give a flying F * \ % # $ about the Mac ) Based on some off-the-wall estimates , they also wound up not getting enough floating licenses for the thing initially .
Seemed like it was a game , where you predict your grab/use/release license needs and buy accordingly , instead of just having it setup where everyone can use it whenever they want without caring.Imagine not being able to check in your code because there are no ClearCase licenses free , and you have to kick someone off .
Imagine not being able to look up the ClearQuest bug # a manager just sent you ( and they just sent the number ) because there are no ClearQuest licenses free , yet all the managers leave their clients open 24/7 ( hogging the licenses and making it easier for them to act like anyone can look up a # in 10 seconds )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of my main gripe against ClearCase/ClearQuest when my last project team switched to it from CVS/Bugzilla.
It seemed like the #1 requirement for the product suite was to extract maximal license revenue.
(and it also had more admin overhead, and was less usable from the web, and was yet another toolset that works in Windows and Linux but doesn't give a flying F*\%#$ about the Mac)Based on some off-the-wall estimates, they also wound up not getting enough floating licenses for the thing initially.
Seemed like it was a game, where you predict your grab/use/release license needs and buy accordingly, instead of just having it setup where everyone can use it whenever they want without caring.Imagine not being able to check in your code because there are no ClearCase licenses free, and you have to kick someone off.
Imagine not being able to look up the ClearQuest bug # a manager just sent you (and they just sent the number) because there are no ClearQuest licenses free, yet all the managers leave their clients open 24/7 (hogging the licenses and making it easier for them to act like anyone can look up a # in 10 seconds)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28630737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28638735</id>
	<title>Re:IBM</title>
	<author>Kyont</author>
	<datestamp>1247163180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.  Design Patterns was a classic, but he lost me at the second question by using "on-board" as a verb (and more than once); a sure sign of marketing-speak having overwhelmed the technical side of his brain.  It felt sort of like the end of Brazil: "He's got away from us, Jack." "I'm afraid you're right, Mr. Helpmann. He's gone."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Design Patterns was a classic , but he lost me at the second question by using " on-board " as a verb ( and more than once ) ; a sure sign of marketing-speak having overwhelmed the technical side of his brain .
It felt sort of like the end of Brazil : " He 's got away from us , Jack .
" " I 'm afraid you 're right , Mr. Helpmann. He 's gone .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Design Patterns was a classic, but he lost me at the second question by using "on-board" as a verb (and more than once); a sure sign of marketing-speak having overwhelmed the technical side of his brain.
It felt sort of like the end of Brazil: "He's got away from us, Jack.
" "I'm afraid you're right, Mr. Helpmann. He's gone.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28628335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28631949</id>
	<title>Re:IBM</title>
	<author>Bill, Shooter of Bul</author>
	<datestamp>1247070120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To Clarify, I'm talking about IBM's failure to explain their products in a clear manner, rather than the ( at this point unkown) merits of their products.</p><p>Take this from their pdf entitled "Changes in Jazz 2.0"</p><p>First page contains the following bullet points:</p><p>* Deliver Global Enterprise Readiness<br>* Enhanced agile planning via web<br>* Support Collaborative ALM<br>* Support growth of a vibrant Ecosystem<br>* Bridges to your existing environments<br>* Other Enhancements</p><p>Seriously "Deliver Global Enterprise Readiness"?? Where do I sign up?! I need me some of that. Growth of a *vibrant* ecosystem? That's my problem, my software only supports the growth of feculent ecosystems!  What a fool I've been!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To Clarify , I 'm talking about IBM 's failure to explain their products in a clear manner , rather than the ( at this point unkown ) merits of their products.Take this from their pdf entitled " Changes in Jazz 2.0 " First page contains the following bullet points : * Deliver Global Enterprise Readiness * Enhanced agile planning via web * Support Collaborative ALM * Support growth of a vibrant Ecosystem * Bridges to your existing environments * Other EnhancementsSeriously " Deliver Global Enterprise Readiness " ? ?
Where do I sign up ? !
I need me some of that .
Growth of a * vibrant * ecosystem ?
That 's my problem , my software only supports the growth of feculent ecosystems !
What a fool I 've been !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To Clarify, I'm talking about IBM's failure to explain their products in a clear manner, rather than the ( at this point unkown) merits of their products.Take this from their pdf entitled "Changes in Jazz 2.0"First page contains the following bullet points:* Deliver Global Enterprise Readiness* Enhanced agile planning via web* Support Collaborative ALM* Support growth of a vibrant Ecosystem* Bridges to your existing environments* Other EnhancementsSeriously "Deliver Global Enterprise Readiness"??
Where do I sign up?!
I need me some of that.
Growth of a *vibrant* ecosystem?
That's my problem, my software only supports the growth of feculent ecosystems!
What a fool I've been!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28631555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28631985</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward's Perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247070420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I HATE CLEARCASE AND CLEARQUEST !!!</p><p>Awful, buggy, absurd crap!   (who came up with a clearquest query tool in a form of a tree with AND/OR nodes?  a lazy bum that decided to have the user construct a parse tree for him?)</p><p>Phew...  I wouldn't use this crapware if it were free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I HATE CLEARCASE AND CLEARQUEST ! !
! Awful , buggy , absurd crap !
( who came up with a clearquest query tool in a form of a tree with AND/OR nodes ?
a lazy bum that decided to have the user construct a parse tree for him ? ) Phew.. .
I would n't use this crapware if it were free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I HATE CLEARCASE AND CLEARQUEST !!
!Awful, buggy, absurd crap!
(who came up with a clearquest query tool in a form of a tree with AND/OR nodes?
a lazy bum that decided to have the user construct a parse tree for him?)Phew...
I wouldn't use this crapware if it were free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28634513</id>
	<title>Help!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247142960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the antidote for acronym poisoning?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the antidote for acronym poisoning ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the antidote for acronym poisoning?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28634157</id>
	<title>A Comparison of RTC</title>
	<author>Erich Gamma</author>
	<datestamp>1247138820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The following post from an RTC user on the jazz forums might also be interesting for this discussion. It compares RTC with SVN, Jira, Cruisecontrol etc.

<a href="https://jazz.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4383" title="jazz.net" rel="nofollow">https://jazz.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4383</a> [jazz.net]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The following post from an RTC user on the jazz forums might also be interesting for this discussion .
It compares RTC with SVN , Jira , Cruisecontrol etc .
https : //jazz.net/forums/viewtopic.php ? t = 4383 [ jazz.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The following post from an RTC user on the jazz forums might also be interesting for this discussion.
It compares RTC with SVN, Jira, Cruisecontrol etc.
https://jazz.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4383 [jazz.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28627347</id>
	<title>the first question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247086020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first question, was the best question, and the rest is pretty fluffy.</p><p>"Free for up to three users" means "useless for all intents and purposes, unless you pay up."</p><p>It's a neat space, and it's neat to see people interested in it, and i'm sure someone will learn some valuable lessons from jazz.</p><p>It'll probably only get used exclusively by IBM though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first question , was the best question , and the rest is pretty fluffy .
" Free for up to three users " means " useless for all intents and purposes , unless you pay up .
" It 's a neat space , and it 's neat to see people interested in it , and i 'm sure someone will learn some valuable lessons from jazz.It 'll probably only get used exclusively by IBM though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first question, was the best question, and the rest is pretty fluffy.
"Free for up to three users" means "useless for all intents and purposes, unless you pay up.
"It's a neat space, and it's neat to see people interested in it, and i'm sure someone will learn some valuable lessons from jazz.It'll probably only get used exclusively by IBM though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28627819</id>
	<title>What the hell is a Jazz?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247045040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where should I have heard about this?<br>What is it? Is this a consumer technology or server-room toy or a device or platform or what?<br>And most importantly: When will my manager start requiring 5 years experience in it despite never using it in projects?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where should I have heard about this ? What is it ?
Is this a consumer technology or server-room toy or a device or platform or what ? And most importantly : When will my manager start requiring 5 years experience in it despite never using it in projects ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where should I have heard about this?What is it?
Is this a consumer technology or server-room toy or a device or platform or what?And most importantly: When will my manager start requiring 5 years experience in it despite never using it in projects?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28628127</id>
	<title>Incorrect history.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247046540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Design Patterns book is now over fifteen years old and it predates the Internet, Java, and XML</p></div></blockquote><p>Not that it really matters, but the Design Patterns book <i>just under</i> 15 years old (published October of 1994), and it certainly doesn't predate the Internet (which is, if one dates from the adoption of the term as a term for the specific network of interlinked TCP/IP based networks that it still refers to, close to 25 years old) or even the World Wide Web(which is either a few months short of 19 years old, having first been implemented in late 1990, or 16 years old, dating either from the CERN announcement that the WWW would be free for everyone with no licensing fees or the introduction of NCSA Mosaic, both in 1993).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Design Patterns book is now over fifteen years old and it predates the Internet , Java , and XMLNot that it really matters , but the Design Patterns book just under 15 years old ( published October of 1994 ) , and it certainly does n't predate the Internet ( which is , if one dates from the adoption of the term as a term for the specific network of interlinked TCP/IP based networks that it still refers to , close to 25 years old ) or even the World Wide Web ( which is either a few months short of 19 years old , having first been implemented in late 1990 , or 16 years old , dating either from the CERN announcement that the WWW would be free for everyone with no licensing fees or the introduction of NCSA Mosaic , both in 1993 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Design Patterns book is now over fifteen years old and it predates the Internet, Java, and XMLNot that it really matters, but the Design Patterns book just under 15 years old (published October of 1994), and it certainly doesn't predate the Internet (which is, if one dates from the adoption of the term as a term for the specific network of interlinked TCP/IP based networks that it still refers to, close to 25 years old) or even the World Wide Web(which is either a few months short of 19 years old, having first been implemented in late 1990, or 16 years old, dating either from the CERN announcement that the WWW would be free for everyone with no licensing fees or the introduction of NCSA Mosaic, both in 1993).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28629859</id>
	<title>Broken licence model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247055780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Calling jazz.net a community is misleading. There might be 17.000 accounts by people who want to read the otherwise hidden content but that's not a community. The weird open-commercial, rather than open-source, license prevents a community from building. There is a network of IBM partners of course.</p><p>Three free users is a joke. Not even a single licence for bug reporters comes with it (called contributors). One contributor licence is ~$600. If you have 1000 end users, go figure how much that would be.</p><p>Usually you get a discount if you buy more licences. Not in the IBM world. First, when you add more users, you need to upgrade to a bigger server licence, starting at $0 you end up at $50k. At the same time, the cost of a developer license does not go down, it get's about twice as much! IBM is totally crazy offering such a sick license scheme. On the other hand, the are openly listing prices on their website. Respect! I would be ashamed. To me it seems IBM does not want to sell this great tool at all. In fact, I like it very much, only the licence model is brain-dead. It seems that not there are not many companies buying it. Great! IBM, change the licence! Open-source parts of it, free the Foundation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Calling jazz.net a community is misleading .
There might be 17.000 accounts by people who want to read the otherwise hidden content but that 's not a community .
The weird open-commercial , rather than open-source , license prevents a community from building .
There is a network of IBM partners of course.Three free users is a joke .
Not even a single licence for bug reporters comes with it ( called contributors ) .
One contributor licence is ~ $ 600 .
If you have 1000 end users , go figure how much that would be.Usually you get a discount if you buy more licences .
Not in the IBM world .
First , when you add more users , you need to upgrade to a bigger server licence , starting at $ 0 you end up at $ 50k .
At the same time , the cost of a developer license does not go down , it get 's about twice as much !
IBM is totally crazy offering such a sick license scheme .
On the other hand , the are openly listing prices on their website .
Respect ! I would be ashamed .
To me it seems IBM does not want to sell this great tool at all .
In fact , I like it very much , only the licence model is brain-dead .
It seems that not there are not many companies buying it .
Great ! IBM , change the licence !
Open-source parts of it , free the Foundation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Calling jazz.net a community is misleading.
There might be 17.000 accounts by people who want to read the otherwise hidden content but that's not a community.
The weird open-commercial, rather than open-source, license prevents a community from building.
There is a network of IBM partners of course.Three free users is a joke.
Not even a single licence for bug reporters comes with it (called contributors).
One contributor licence is ~$600.
If you have 1000 end users, go figure how much that would be.Usually you get a discount if you buy more licences.
Not in the IBM world.
First, when you add more users, you need to upgrade to a bigger server licence, starting at $0 you end up at $50k.
At the same time, the cost of a developer license does not go down, it get's about twice as much!
IBM is totally crazy offering such a sick license scheme.
On the other hand, the are openly listing prices on their website.
Respect! I would be ashamed.
To me it seems IBM does not want to sell this great tool at all.
In fact, I like it very much, only the licence model is brain-dead.
It seems that not there are not many companies buying it.
Great! IBM, change the licence!
Open-source parts of it, free the Foundation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28631291</id>
	<title>A Review</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247065260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My team is currently using Jazz under an Academic license. Jazz is one of those systems that has potential. Right now it is to unstable, lacks 3rd party support and isn't very intuitive.</p><p>On the whole I would say that right now you're better off with Hudson + git/svn. That said if the developers focus more on usability and listen to their customers Jazz will be a major player in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My team is currently using Jazz under an Academic license .
Jazz is one of those systems that has potential .
Right now it is to unstable , lacks 3rd party support and is n't very intuitive.On the whole I would say that right now you 're better off with Hudson + git/svn .
That said if the developers focus more on usability and listen to their customers Jazz will be a major player in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My team is currently using Jazz under an Academic license.
Jazz is one of those systems that has potential.
Right now it is to unstable, lacks 3rd party support and isn't very intuitive.On the whole I would say that right now you're better off with Hudson + git/svn.
That said if the developers focus more on usability and listen to their customers Jazz will be a major player in the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28630685</id>
	<title>Re:The Best Comment</title>
	<author>DiegoBravo</author>
	<datestamp>1247060580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, the OSS names are stupid and ugly, but you just run the thing, and understand its purpose.</p><p>Now, go to the IBM web site and try to understand the "Rational" products... at least try to discover the very reason of their existence. It you're brave enough, you will download 80 Mb of an "intelligent installer" which in turn will download 2Gb of the real software. Often there will be no instructions about how to execute it, but you'll be referred to some broken IBM hiperlink for up to date instructions...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , the OSS names are stupid and ugly , but you just run the thing , and understand its purpose.Now , go to the IBM web site and try to understand the " Rational " products... at least try to discover the very reason of their existence .
It you 're brave enough , you will download 80 Mb of an " intelligent installer " which in turn will download 2Gb of the real software .
Often there will be no instructions about how to execute it , but you 'll be referred to some broken IBM hiperlink for up to date instructions.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, the OSS names are stupid and ugly, but you just run the thing, and understand its purpose.Now, go to the IBM web site and try to understand the "Rational" products... at least try to discover the very reason of their existence.
It you're brave enough, you will download 80 Mb of an "intelligent installer" which in turn will download 2Gb of the real software.
Often there will be no instructions about how to execute it, but you'll be referred to some broken IBM hiperlink for up to date instructions...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28629095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28632097</id>
	<title>Re:A Review</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247071260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Right now it is to unstable, lacks 3rd party support and isn't very intuitive."</p><p>Sounds exactly like clearcase/clearquest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Right now it is to unstable , lacks 3rd party support and is n't very intuitive .
" Sounds exactly like clearcase/clearquest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Right now it is to unstable, lacks 3rd party support and isn't very intuitive.
"Sounds exactly like clearcase/clearquest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28631291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28628375</id>
	<title>Sounds like a bad idea to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247047740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For example getting started on the Rational Team Concert project requires a new team member to learn a mix of things such as Java, JavaScript, Dojo, CSS, C# (when working on the Visual Studio Client), Eclipse Plug-ins, REST and finally our agile development practices. One possible area of improvement is more familiarity with larger software systems and their architectures. Open Source project like Eclipse can serve as great study material.</p></div><p>Great study material in what not to do?</p><p>This looks like a great example of two different philosophies of design. Here we have a completely integrated program that does everything, and under the hood uses a huge mish-mash of technologies. On the other hand is smaller isolated projects that you can put together how you want; SVN, Bugzilla, etc. Rolling your own still means a mish-mash of technologies under the hood, but they're not so tightly coupled that working on one piece means you have to learn all of those technologies; you only learn about the piece you need to change. It's the Unix philosophy of chaining together small tools that do specific things against the typical corporate "all-in-one" approach.</p><p>Between the two, I'll take the one that has:<br>a) Better isolation between components.<br>b) More flexibility to replace, use, or not use components as I choose.<br>c) More focused development on each component.</p><p>I think it would be a bad idea to study large systems like this, because large systems like this should not exist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example getting started on the Rational Team Concert project requires a new team member to learn a mix of things such as Java , JavaScript , Dojo , CSS , C # ( when working on the Visual Studio Client ) , Eclipse Plug-ins , REST and finally our agile development practices .
One possible area of improvement is more familiarity with larger software systems and their architectures .
Open Source project like Eclipse can serve as great study material.Great study material in what not to do ? This looks like a great example of two different philosophies of design .
Here we have a completely integrated program that does everything , and under the hood uses a huge mish-mash of technologies .
On the other hand is smaller isolated projects that you can put together how you want ; SVN , Bugzilla , etc .
Rolling your own still means a mish-mash of technologies under the hood , but they 're not so tightly coupled that working on one piece means you have to learn all of those technologies ; you only learn about the piece you need to change .
It 's the Unix philosophy of chaining together small tools that do specific things against the typical corporate " all-in-one " approach.Between the two , I 'll take the one that has : a ) Better isolation between components.b ) More flexibility to replace , use , or not use components as I choose.c ) More focused development on each component.I think it would be a bad idea to study large systems like this , because large systems like this should not exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example getting started on the Rational Team Concert project requires a new team member to learn a mix of things such as Java, JavaScript, Dojo, CSS, C# (when working on the Visual Studio Client), Eclipse Plug-ins, REST and finally our agile development practices.
One possible area of improvement is more familiarity with larger software systems and their architectures.
Open Source project like Eclipse can serve as great study material.Great study material in what not to do?This looks like a great example of two different philosophies of design.
Here we have a completely integrated program that does everything, and under the hood uses a huge mish-mash of technologies.
On the other hand is smaller isolated projects that you can put together how you want; SVN, Bugzilla, etc.
Rolling your own still means a mish-mash of technologies under the hood, but they're not so tightly coupled that working on one piece means you have to learn all of those technologies; you only learn about the piece you need to change.
It's the Unix philosophy of chaining together small tools that do specific things against the typical corporate "all-in-one" approach.Between the two, I'll take the one that has:a) Better isolation between components.b) More flexibility to replace, use, or not use components as I choose.c) More focused development on each component.I think it would be a bad idea to study large systems like this, because large systems like this should not exist.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28630737</id>
	<title>Broken license model kills it</title>
	<author>famouse</author>
	<datestamp>1247060940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think Jazz is a great technology and Team Concert is a wonderful tool. But the license model kills it. Dead on arrival. Not many companies are buying into it and here is why, and why you should not care either:
<br> <br>
Three free user license are a joke. The free edition is useless except for student projects. It's just a marketing gag.
<br> <br>
No edition includes free contributor licences needed for people reporting bugs. Say you have 1000 end users, you should buy contributer licences at $630 each. This make RTC useless for product companies.
<br> <br>
Floating licenses are another pain point. They are not available for the free or the medium edition. They are only available in the $35k Standard edition.
<br> <br>
Usually you get a discount if you buy more licenses. Not at IBM. If you seem to like the product and want more licenses, IBM inflicts massive financial pain on you. First, you can't use the free server for more than 10 developers. It is known to scale nicely beyond 70 users but it is artificially limited to max 10 users. Has IBM ever heard of volume discounts? Hello???
Sure, if you are Fortune 500 company you get 60-70\% discounts but if you are not, you won't even get a sales guy talking to you, possibly giving you 5\% when you kiss his feet.
<br> <br>
If you want say &gt;50 users, you need the 35k server. As if that would not be enough, the price of a developer license jumps from $1260 to $4k on the 35k server. If you go so far, IBM is so nice to offer you floating developer licenses at $7.1k each. A setup with 10 floating licenses is $115k. You still need contributor licenses for bug reporting at $630 or $2k floating.
<br> <br>
Stop considering it. Look somewhere else. IBM does not want to sell it. Don't make a fool of yourself suggesting this to your boss.
<br> <br>
IBM has a webcast explaining the license model in 10 minutes. 10 minutes!? Why can't the licence model be so simple that it can be explained in 30 seconds, e.g. like for the MS Team Foundation Server? Just take out all these pain points!
<br> <br>
IBM also has a ROI calculator online. For my scenario I only got negative ROI. I truly respect that IBM has the guts to list the prices publicly on their website. No need to call an "IBM representative" and getting dragged into professional sales talk. At <a href="http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rtc/standard/" title="ibm.com" rel="nofollow">http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rtc/standard/</a> [ibm.com] they list their brain-dead model. Other companies would be ashamed. The arrogance that IBM shows there makes many people hate IBM right away even if they like Jazz and Team Concert.
<br> <br>
At that IBM page you can put all those licenses mentioned above in your shopping cart, say the $35k server, 100 developers, 100 contributors, and then pay with your credit card. Or print it for your boss. You get into the range of millions quicly. In a shopping cart! It's pretty funny.  IBM has really lost any sense for reality.
<br> <br>
Open-source anything? Nothing. You can get the OSLC specifications for free. That's all.
<br> <br>
The Rational Requirements Composer is a nice tool as well and has a license model that is broken in a similar way as that of RTC. The licensing starts with three users for $33k. Not even a free edition.
<br> <br>
About Erich, I think he is a nice guy and he did a great job. He's the #1 guy suffering from the Incredible Bullshit Machine around him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Jazz is a great technology and Team Concert is a wonderful tool .
But the license model kills it .
Dead on arrival .
Not many companies are buying into it and here is why , and why you should not care either : Three free user license are a joke .
The free edition is useless except for student projects .
It 's just a marketing gag .
No edition includes free contributor licences needed for people reporting bugs .
Say you have 1000 end users , you should buy contributer licences at $ 630 each .
This make RTC useless for product companies .
Floating licenses are another pain point .
They are not available for the free or the medium edition .
They are only available in the $ 35k Standard edition .
Usually you get a discount if you buy more licenses .
Not at IBM .
If you seem to like the product and want more licenses , IBM inflicts massive financial pain on you .
First , you ca n't use the free server for more than 10 developers .
It is known to scale nicely beyond 70 users but it is artificially limited to max 10 users .
Has IBM ever heard of volume discounts ?
Hello ? ? ? Sure , if you are Fortune 500 company you get 60-70 \ % discounts but if you are not , you wo n't even get a sales guy talking to you , possibly giving you 5 \ % when you kiss his feet .
If you want say &gt; 50 users , you need the 35k server .
As if that would not be enough , the price of a developer license jumps from $ 1260 to $ 4k on the 35k server .
If you go so far , IBM is so nice to offer you floating developer licenses at $ 7.1k each .
A setup with 10 floating licenses is $ 115k .
You still need contributor licenses for bug reporting at $ 630 or $ 2k floating .
Stop considering it .
Look somewhere else .
IBM does not want to sell it .
Do n't make a fool of yourself suggesting this to your boss .
IBM has a webcast explaining the license model in 10 minutes .
10 minutes ! ?
Why ca n't the licence model be so simple that it can be explained in 30 seconds , e.g .
like for the MS Team Foundation Server ?
Just take out all these pain points !
IBM also has a ROI calculator online .
For my scenario I only got negative ROI .
I truly respect that IBM has the guts to list the prices publicly on their website .
No need to call an " IBM representative " and getting dragged into professional sales talk .
At http : //www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rtc/standard/ [ ibm.com ] they list their brain-dead model .
Other companies would be ashamed .
The arrogance that IBM shows there makes many people hate IBM right away even if they like Jazz and Team Concert .
At that IBM page you can put all those licenses mentioned above in your shopping cart , say the $ 35k server , 100 developers , 100 contributors , and then pay with your credit card .
Or print it for your boss .
You get into the range of millions quicly .
In a shopping cart !
It 's pretty funny .
IBM has really lost any sense for reality .
Open-source anything ?
Nothing. You can get the OSLC specifications for free .
That 's all .
The Rational Requirements Composer is a nice tool as well and has a license model that is broken in a similar way as that of RTC .
The licensing starts with three users for $ 33k .
Not even a free edition .
About Erich , I think he is a nice guy and he did a great job .
He 's the # 1 guy suffering from the Incredible Bullshit Machine around him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Jazz is a great technology and Team Concert is a wonderful tool.
But the license model kills it.
Dead on arrival.
Not many companies are buying into it and here is why, and why you should not care either:
 
Three free user license are a joke.
The free edition is useless except for student projects.
It's just a marketing gag.
No edition includes free contributor licences needed for people reporting bugs.
Say you have 1000 end users, you should buy contributer licences at $630 each.
This make RTC useless for product companies.
Floating licenses are another pain point.
They are not available for the free or the medium edition.
They are only available in the $35k Standard edition.
Usually you get a discount if you buy more licenses.
Not at IBM.
If you seem to like the product and want more licenses, IBM inflicts massive financial pain on you.
First, you can't use the free server for more than 10 developers.
It is known to scale nicely beyond 70 users but it is artificially limited to max 10 users.
Has IBM ever heard of volume discounts?
Hello???
Sure, if you are Fortune 500 company you get 60-70\% discounts but if you are not, you won't even get a sales guy talking to you, possibly giving you 5\% when you kiss his feet.
If you want say &gt;50 users, you need the 35k server.
As if that would not be enough, the price of a developer license jumps from $1260 to $4k on the 35k server.
If you go so far, IBM is so nice to offer you floating developer licenses at $7.1k each.
A setup with 10 floating licenses is $115k.
You still need contributor licenses for bug reporting at $630 or $2k floating.
Stop considering it.
Look somewhere else.
IBM does not want to sell it.
Don't make a fool of yourself suggesting this to your boss.
IBM has a webcast explaining the license model in 10 minutes.
10 minutes!?
Why can't the licence model be so simple that it can be explained in 30 seconds, e.g.
like for the MS Team Foundation Server?
Just take out all these pain points!
IBM also has a ROI calculator online.
For my scenario I only got negative ROI.
I truly respect that IBM has the guts to list the prices publicly on their website.
No need to call an "IBM representative" and getting dragged into professional sales talk.
At http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rtc/standard/ [ibm.com] they list their brain-dead model.
Other companies would be ashamed.
The arrogance that IBM shows there makes many people hate IBM right away even if they like Jazz and Team Concert.
At that IBM page you can put all those licenses mentioned above in your shopping cart, say the $35k server, 100 developers, 100 contributors, and then pay with your credit card.
Or print it for your boss.
You get into the range of millions quicly.
In a shopping cart!
It's pretty funny.
IBM has really lost any sense for reality.
Open-source anything?
Nothing. You can get the OSLC specifications for free.
That's all.
The Rational Requirements Composer is a nice tool as well and has a license model that is broken in a similar way as that of RTC.
The licensing starts with three users for $33k.
Not even a free edition.
About Erich, I think he is a nice guy and he did a great job.
He's the #1 guy suffering from the Incredible Bullshit Machine around him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1851209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28632097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28631291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1851209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28745669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28631555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28628335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1851209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28638735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28628335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1851209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28628751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28627819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1851209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28631949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28631555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28628335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1851209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28634939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28630737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1851209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28630685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28629095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1851209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28633335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28631291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1851209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28675879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28627347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1851209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28628679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28628127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1851209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28631291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28633335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28632097
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1851209.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28634513
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1851209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28627121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1851209.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28628127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28628679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1851209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28627141
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1851209.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28627819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28628751
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1851209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28627347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28675879
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1851209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28629095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28630685
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1851209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28630737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28634939
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1851209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28631393
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1851209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28628335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28631555
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28631949
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28745669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28638735
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1851209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1851209.28627719
</commentlist>
</conversation>
