<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_13_1847254</id>
	<title>Mass Speculation Suggests Oracle May Kill OpenSolaris</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1247514240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.computerworld.com/" rel="nofollow">CWmike</a> writes to point out that Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is one of many people questioning where Oracle may land once the acquisition of Sun is complete.  One concern that I have heard many people express is that there may be a good chance of <a href="http://blogs.computerworld.com/is\_oracle\_getting\_ready\_to\_kill\_opensolaris">OpenSolaris getting the axe</a> for not fitting in with the overall corporate vision.  <i>"People outside of IT seldom think of Oracle as a Linux company, but it is. Not only does Oracle encourage its customers to use its own house-brand clone of RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux), Oracle Unbreakable Linux, Oracle has long used Linux internally both on its servers and on some of its desktops. So, what does a Linux company like Oracle wants to do with its newly purchased Sun's open-source operating system, OpenSolaris? The answer appears to be: 'Nothing.'  Sun, Oracle and third-party sources are telling me that OpenSolaris developers are afraid that they'll be either moved over to working on Linux or let go once the Sun/Oracle merger is completed."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes to point out that Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is one of many people questioning where Oracle may land once the acquisition of Sun is complete .
One concern that I have heard many people express is that there may be a good chance of OpenSolaris getting the axe for not fitting in with the overall corporate vision .
" People outside of IT seldom think of Oracle as a Linux company , but it is .
Not only does Oracle encourage its customers to use its own house-brand clone of RHEL ( Red Hat Enterprise Linux ) , Oracle Unbreakable Linux , Oracle has long used Linux internally both on its servers and on some of its desktops .
So , what does a Linux company like Oracle wants to do with its newly purchased Sun 's open-source operating system , OpenSolaris ?
The answer appears to be : 'Nothing .
' Sun , Oracle and third-party sources are telling me that OpenSolaris developers are afraid that they 'll be either moved over to working on Linux or let go once the Sun/Oracle merger is completed .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes to point out that Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is one of many people questioning where Oracle may land once the acquisition of Sun is complete.
One concern that I have heard many people express is that there may be a good chance of OpenSolaris getting the axe for not fitting in with the overall corporate vision.
"People outside of IT seldom think of Oracle as a Linux company, but it is.
Not only does Oracle encourage its customers to use its own house-brand clone of RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux), Oracle Unbreakable Linux, Oracle has long used Linux internally both on its servers and on some of its desktops.
So, what does a Linux company like Oracle wants to do with its newly purchased Sun's open-source operating system, OpenSolaris?
The answer appears to be: 'Nothing.
'  Sun, Oracle and third-party sources are telling me that OpenSolaris developers are afraid that they'll be either moved over to working on Linux or let go once the Sun/Oracle merger is completed.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28690047</id>
	<title>Re:Always wondered about this</title>
	<author>Mprx</author>
	<datestamp>1247581920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That wasn't revocation of a license.  WASTE was a work for hire, so the authors never held the copyright and never had the right to GPL it in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That was n't revocation of a license .
WASTE was a work for hire , so the authors never held the copyright and never had the right to GPL it in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That wasn't revocation of a license.
WASTE was a work for hire, so the authors never held the copyright and never had the right to GPL it in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28686491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683679</id>
	<title>GPL Is A Distribution License!</title>
	<author>JerkBoB</author>
	<datestamp>1247484540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RAAARGH!<br>.<br>Legally, there is no reason in the world that you (or I, or my dog) can not port ZFS to Linux and run it ourselves.  The licensing issues only come into effect when you want to DISTRIBUTE your work as binaries.  The idea that the FSF would sue someone for linking ZFS and Linux together in their basement is so fundamentally misguided that I would be shocked if this weren't a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. discussion.<br>.<br>Let me underscore this point: GPL ONLY COVERS BINARY DISTRIBUTION!  The goal is to prevent someone from taking GPL-covered code, compiling it to binary, and then redistributing it without accompanying source.  The CDDL and GPL are fundamentally incompatible in such a way that it is quite difficult if not impossible to distribute binaries derived from mixed CDDL/GPL code without violating some clause of one or the other license.  I won't claim to have an expert-level understanding of the details, but I work with several people who do.<br>.<br>Now, as for why "someone" doesn't distribute some magical patchset which will allow you to build a ZFS-enabled Linux kernel...  It's because "someone" doesn't feel like keeping up with the massive amount of work required to maintain said patchset against ZFS and Linux kernel changes.  The work would not get nearly the amount of exposure and testing necessary to make it a first-class filesystem option, and so would languish as a hobby/experiment with not much payout.<br>.<br>Much better to just focus on btrfs.  Or wait and see what happens after the acquisition completes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RAAARGH ! .Legally , there is no reason in the world that you ( or I , or my dog ) can not port ZFS to Linux and run it ourselves .
The licensing issues only come into effect when you want to DISTRIBUTE your work as binaries .
The idea that the FSF would sue someone for linking ZFS and Linux together in their basement is so fundamentally misguided that I would be shocked if this were n't a / .
discussion..Let me underscore this point : GPL ONLY COVERS BINARY DISTRIBUTION !
The goal is to prevent someone from taking GPL-covered code , compiling it to binary , and then redistributing it without accompanying source .
The CDDL and GPL are fundamentally incompatible in such a way that it is quite difficult if not impossible to distribute binaries derived from mixed CDDL/GPL code without violating some clause of one or the other license .
I wo n't claim to have an expert-level understanding of the details , but I work with several people who do..Now , as for why " someone " does n't distribute some magical patchset which will allow you to build a ZFS-enabled Linux kernel... It 's because " someone " does n't feel like keeping up with the massive amount of work required to maintain said patchset against ZFS and Linux kernel changes .
The work would not get nearly the amount of exposure and testing necessary to make it a first-class filesystem option , and so would languish as a hobby/experiment with not much payout..Much better to just focus on btrfs .
Or wait and see what happens after the acquisition completes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RAAARGH!.Legally, there is no reason in the world that you (or I, or my dog) can not port ZFS to Linux and run it ourselves.
The licensing issues only come into effect when you want to DISTRIBUTE your work as binaries.
The idea that the FSF would sue someone for linking ZFS and Linux together in their basement is so fundamentally misguided that I would be shocked if this weren't a /.
discussion..Let me underscore this point: GPL ONLY COVERS BINARY DISTRIBUTION!
The goal is to prevent someone from taking GPL-covered code, compiling it to binary, and then redistributing it without accompanying source.
The CDDL and GPL are fundamentally incompatible in such a way that it is quite difficult if not impossible to distribute binaries derived from mixed CDDL/GPL code without violating some clause of one or the other license.
I won't claim to have an expert-level understanding of the details, but I work with several people who do..Now, as for why "someone" doesn't distribute some magical patchset which will allow you to build a ZFS-enabled Linux kernel...  It's because "someone" doesn't feel like keeping up with the massive amount of work required to maintain said patchset against ZFS and Linux kernel changes.
The work would not get nearly the amount of exposure and testing necessary to make it a first-class filesystem option, and so would languish as a hobby/experiment with not much payout..Much better to just focus on btrfs.
Or wait and see what happens after the acquisition completes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451</id>
	<title>Already Open</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247517960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would be kinda hard to kill since the code is already "open" and out in the wild.  Oracle can't prevent the current code base from being forked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be kinda hard to kill since the code is already " open " and out in the wild .
Oracle ca n't prevent the current code base from being forked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be kinda hard to kill since the code is already "open" and out in the wild.
Oracle can't prevent the current code base from being forked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28739239</id>
	<title>Or just maybe ...</title>
	<author>dave87656</author>
	<datestamp>1247911380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or just maybe<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it might just be in Oracle's best interest to provide an OS platform, which they control, totally optimized for their DB from the kernel on up. Add Sun's servers into the mix and you've got a high-performance h/w, s/w environment tuned for Oracle. They can't really accomplish this with Linux, but they could with Solaris.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or just maybe ... it might just be in Oracle 's best interest to provide an OS platform , which they control , totally optimized for their DB from the kernel on up .
Add Sun 's servers into the mix and you 've got a high-performance h/w , s/w environment tuned for Oracle .
They ca n't really accomplish this with Linux , but they could with Solaris .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or just maybe ... it might just be in Oracle's best interest to provide an OS platform, which they control, totally optimized for their DB from the kernel on up.
Add Sun's servers into the mix and you've got a high-performance h/w, s/w environment tuned for Oracle.
They can't really accomplish this with Linux, but they could with Solaris.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28705547</id>
	<title>Reliance can make a license irrevocable</title>
	<author>mrmike37</author>
	<datestamp>1247682720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having one outside developer work on an open source project might be enough for reliance to make a license irrevocable.  I otherwise agree with you.  I think it's very unlikely that the license is a contract because it would have no consideration (i.e. what is the user giving up?)

Back to studying for the Bar for me!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having one outside developer work on an open source project might be enough for reliance to make a license irrevocable .
I otherwise agree with you .
I think it 's very unlikely that the license is a contract because it would have no consideration ( i.e .
what is the user giving up ?
) Back to studying for the Bar for me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having one outside developer work on an open source project might be enough for reliance to make a license irrevocable.
I otherwise agree with you.
I think it's very unlikely that the license is a contract because it would have no consideration (i.e.
what is the user giving up?
)

Back to studying for the Bar for me!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682023</id>
	<title>Re:Already Open</title>
	<author>elgaard</author>
	<datestamp>1247477040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And why would Oracle want to prevent if from being forked?</p><p>But maybe they could release it also under GPL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And why would Oracle want to prevent if from being forked ? But maybe they could release it also under GPL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why would Oracle want to prevent if from being forked?But maybe they could release it also under GPL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682303</id>
	<title>Perhaps FUD - Complete rubbish</title>
	<author>davecb</author>
	<datestamp>1247478240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I wanted to capture business from Sun, I'd start a rumor that Oracle was going to  get rid of big parts of Sun.
</p><p>And, just to add insult to injury, the rumor would have them laying off the people Oracle most wants to retain!
</p><p>--dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I wanted to capture business from Sun , I 'd start a rumor that Oracle was going to get rid of big parts of Sun .
And , just to add insult to injury , the rumor would have them laying off the people Oracle most wants to retain !
--dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I wanted to capture business from Sun, I'd start a rumor that Oracle was going to  get rid of big parts of Sun.
And, just to add insult to injury, the rumor would have them laying off the people Oracle most wants to retain!
--dave</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28686491</id>
	<title>Always wondered about this</title>
	<author>trawg</author>
	<datestamp>1247505540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...ever since Nullsoft's WASTE was released and AOL (or whoever) pulled it and revoked the license. From <a href="http://www.nullsoft.com/free/waste/" title="nullsoft.com">http://www.nullsoft.com/free/waste/</a> [nullsoft.com] : </p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you downloaded or otherwise obtained a copy of the Software, you acquired no lawful rights to the Software and must destroy any and all copies of the Software, including by deleting it from your computer. Any license that you may believe you acquired with the Software is void, revoked and terminated.</p> </div><p>It was released under a GPL license (IIRC). So they have effectively revoked the license. They haven't tried (actively) to stop redistribution - indeed, there's forks on Sourceforge. I think Asus or someone even made a derivative product from it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...ever since Nullsoft 's WASTE was released and AOL ( or whoever ) pulled it and revoked the license .
From http : //www.nullsoft.com/free/waste/ [ nullsoft.com ] : If you downloaded or otherwise obtained a copy of the Software , you acquired no lawful rights to the Software and must destroy any and all copies of the Software , including by deleting it from your computer .
Any license that you may believe you acquired with the Software is void , revoked and terminated .
It was released under a GPL license ( IIRC ) .
So they have effectively revoked the license .
They have n't tried ( actively ) to stop redistribution - indeed , there 's forks on Sourceforge .
I think Asus or someone even made a derivative product from it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...ever since Nullsoft's WASTE was released and AOL (or whoever) pulled it and revoked the license.
From http://www.nullsoft.com/free/waste/ [nullsoft.com] : If you downloaded or otherwise obtained a copy of the Software, you acquired no lawful rights to the Software and must destroy any and all copies of the Software, including by deleting it from your computer.
Any license that you may believe you acquired with the Software is void, revoked and terminated.
It was released under a GPL license (IIRC).
So they have effectively revoked the license.
They haven't tried (actively) to stop redistribution - indeed, there's forks on Sourceforge.
I think Asus or someone even made a derivative product from it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682299</id>
	<title>Re:Don't believe it....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247478240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It looks like you've misinterpreted the Solaris version numbering scheme.  5.10 is the current Solaris 10 range, which was preceded by 5.9 (Solaris 9).  5.11 is most likely Solaris 11.  My current Solaris box, for example is running Solaris 10, update 6, and looks like this:<br><tt><br>-bash-3.2$ cat<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/release<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Solaris 10 10/08 s10s\_u6wos\_07b SPARC<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Copyright 2008 Sun Microsystems, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Use is subject to license terms.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Assembled 27 October 2008<br>-bash-3.2$ uname -a<br>SunOS logan 5.10 Generic\_139555-08 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-1000<br>-bash-3.2$<br></tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like you 've misinterpreted the Solaris version numbering scheme .
5.10 is the current Solaris 10 range , which was preceded by 5.9 ( Solaris 9 ) .
5.11 is most likely Solaris 11 .
My current Solaris box , for example is running Solaris 10 , update 6 , and looks like this : -bash-3.2 $ cat /etc/release                                             Solaris 10 10/08 s10s \ _u6wos \ _07b SPARC                       Copyright 2008 Sun Microsystems , Inc. All Rights Reserved .
                                                Use is subject to license terms .
                                                        Assembled 27 October 2008-bash-3.2 $ uname -aSunOS logan 5.10 Generic \ _139555-08 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-1000-bash-3.2 $</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like you've misinterpreted the Solaris version numbering scheme.
5.10 is the current Solaris 10 range, which was preceded by 5.9 (Solaris 9).
5.11 is most likely Solaris 11.
My current Solaris box, for example is running Solaris 10, update 6, and looks like this:-bash-3.2$ cat /etc/release
                                            Solaris 10 10/08 s10s\_u6wos\_07b SPARC
                      Copyright 2008 Sun Microsystems, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
                                                Use is subject to license terms.
                                                        Assembled 27 October 2008-bash-3.2$ uname -aSunOS logan 5.10 Generic\_139555-08 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-1000-bash-3.2$</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28689949</id>
	<title>Re:Always wondered about this</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1247581500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Justin Frankel didn't have permission to release the source code under the GPL in the first place as it belonged to his employer, not to him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Justin Frankel did n't have permission to release the source code under the GPL in the first place as it belonged to his employer , not to him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Justin Frankel didn't have permission to release the source code under the GPL in the first place as it belonged to his employer, not to him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28686491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682153</id>
	<title>Re:Makes absolutely no sense</title>
	<author>UID30</author>
	<datestamp>1247477580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What you talkin 'bout Willis?  Oracle's primary development platform has been Linux for years now.  I think the vague "runs better" test is pretty much a wash when you compare optimized code builds running on similarly powered hardware.
<br> <br>
I think Sun hardware is really more of a vanity thing in business nowdays<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so "company a" can look down their nose at "company b" and say "we dont use Dell servers, we're a Sun house"...
<br> <br>
OMG!  THANK you for making me post this!  I NOW understand the Oracle-Sun merger!  They're both "vanity" business models!  Its been bothering me since the merger was announced<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but now I see the synergy plain as daylight.   Its all about super large corporate businesses and absurdly high maintenance contracts.
<br> <br>
Wow.  That is some kind of evil genius.  I'm going out to buy some Oracle stock.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you talkin 'bout Willis ?
Oracle 's primary development platform has been Linux for years now .
I think the vague " runs better " test is pretty much a wash when you compare optimized code builds running on similarly powered hardware .
I think Sun hardware is really more of a vanity thing in business nowdays ... so " company a " can look down their nose at " company b " and say " we dont use Dell servers , we 're a Sun house " .. . OMG ! THANK you for making me post this !
I NOW understand the Oracle-Sun merger !
They 're both " vanity " business models !
Its been bothering me since the merger was announced ... but now I see the synergy plain as daylight .
Its all about super large corporate businesses and absurdly high maintenance contracts .
Wow. That is some kind of evil genius .
I 'm going out to buy some Oracle stock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you talkin 'bout Willis?
Oracle's primary development platform has been Linux for years now.
I think the vague "runs better" test is pretty much a wash when you compare optimized code builds running on similarly powered hardware.
I think Sun hardware is really more of a vanity thing in business nowdays ... so "company a" can look down their nose at "company b" and say "we dont use Dell servers, we're a Sun house"...
 
OMG!  THANK you for making me post this!
I NOW understand the Oracle-Sun merger!
They're both "vanity" business models!
Its been bothering me since the merger was announced ... but now I see the synergy plain as daylight.
Its all about super large corporate businesses and absurdly high maintenance contracts.
Wow.  That is some kind of evil genius.
I'm going out to buy some Oracle stock.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681769</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28685095</id>
	<title>Re:This just in...</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1247494020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If his Oracle were any good, he wouldn't even need to speculate!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If his Oracle were any good , he would n't even need to speculate !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If his Oracle were any good, he wouldn't even need to speculate!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28686973</id>
	<title>Re:Look at the bright side -- ZFS for Linux!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247510100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right - because that is the fundamental design of ZFS - the filesystem layer works with the data management layer so that they all know what is going on and hence you have consistant copy-on-write operations.  To maintain consistancy and performance it does its own IO scheduling - not all that different to UFS but far more advanced.  All the cool features that come out derive from this simple integration.</p><p>Its not as straight forward and dictating that it should integrate into LVM or provide its interfaces to UFS - they simply dont work that way and ZFS cannot work without the fully integrated stack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right - because that is the fundamental design of ZFS - the filesystem layer works with the data management layer so that they all know what is going on and hence you have consistant copy-on-write operations .
To maintain consistancy and performance it does its own IO scheduling - not all that different to UFS but far more advanced .
All the cool features that come out derive from this simple integration.Its not as straight forward and dictating that it should integrate into LVM or provide its interfaces to UFS - they simply dont work that way and ZFS can not work without the fully integrated stack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right - because that is the fundamental design of ZFS - the filesystem layer works with the data management layer so that they all know what is going on and hence you have consistant copy-on-write operations.
To maintain consistancy and performance it does its own IO scheduling - not all that different to UFS but far more advanced.
All the cool features that come out derive from this simple integration.Its not as straight forward and dictating that it should integrate into LVM or provide its interfaces to UFS - they simply dont work that way and ZFS cannot work without the fully integrated stack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28690079</id>
	<title>Re:Already Open</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247582040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if an open source license is revoked, the functionality can easily be rebuilt in a new project, because the code is known and can serve as an example for a new build.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if an open source license is revoked , the functionality can easily be rebuilt in a new project , because the code is known and can serve as an example for a new build .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if an open source license is revoked, the functionality can easily be rebuilt in a new project, because the code is known and can serve as an example for a new build.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681515</id>
	<title>Don't believe it....</title>
	<author>GuyverDH</author>
	<datestamp>1247518260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>opensolaris - the regular SXCE builds are Sun's testbed for new updates, patches, fixes and  technology updates...</p><p>It's noted as 5.11 for the version, codenamed Nevada.</p><p>It's very similar to the way the unix kernel builds happened at one time (to be honest I haven't looked lately to know if they still do this or not) - in that the even number release is production and the odd numbered release is development...</p><p>Unless Oracle intends to kill off Solaris altogether, I don't see them killing OpenSolaris.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>opensolaris - the regular SXCE builds are Sun 's testbed for new updates , patches , fixes and technology updates...It 's noted as 5.11 for the version , codenamed Nevada.It 's very similar to the way the unix kernel builds happened at one time ( to be honest I have n't looked lately to know if they still do this or not ) - in that the even number release is production and the odd numbered release is development...Unless Oracle intends to kill off Solaris altogether , I do n't see them killing OpenSolaris .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>opensolaris - the regular SXCE builds are Sun's testbed for new updates, patches, fixes and  technology updates...It's noted as 5.11 for the version, codenamed Nevada.It's very similar to the way the unix kernel builds happened at one time (to be honest I haven't looked lately to know if they still do this or not) - in that the even number release is production and the odd numbered release is development...Unless Oracle intends to kill off Solaris altogether, I don't see them killing OpenSolaris.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682733</id>
	<title>Re:Look at the bright side -- ZFS for Linux!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247480040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with that is that ZFS is not just a filesystem, it's a complete "IO stack". It's everything that does from the VFS to the device drivers. Sun didn't improve their old stack, they wrote a new brand system and they left the old system there.</p><p>Such thing would not be tollerated on the Linux main tree, it would be considered a very ugly design mistake. For them, the IO stack would need to work for ZFS and for FAT, and they would never buy the logic of "ZFS is special and needs special treatment to be better than the rest". If ZFS was released, Linus &amp; co wouldn't accept it until ZFS is modified to fit the Linux IO stack, and/or they modify the Linux I/O layer to fit what ZFS needs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with that is that ZFS is not just a filesystem , it 's a complete " IO stack " .
It 's everything that does from the VFS to the device drivers .
Sun did n't improve their old stack , they wrote a new brand system and they left the old system there.Such thing would not be tollerated on the Linux main tree , it would be considered a very ugly design mistake .
For them , the IO stack would need to work for ZFS and for FAT , and they would never buy the logic of " ZFS is special and needs special treatment to be better than the rest " .
If ZFS was released , Linus &amp; co would n't accept it until ZFS is modified to fit the Linux IO stack , and/or they modify the Linux I/O layer to fit what ZFS needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with that is that ZFS is not just a filesystem, it's a complete "IO stack".
It's everything that does from the VFS to the device drivers.
Sun didn't improve their old stack, they wrote a new brand system and they left the old system there.Such thing would not be tollerated on the Linux main tree, it would be considered a very ugly design mistake.
For them, the IO stack would need to work for ZFS and for FAT, and they would never buy the logic of "ZFS is special and needs special treatment to be better than the rest".
If ZFS was released, Linus &amp; co wouldn't accept it until ZFS is modified to fit the Linux IO stack, and/or they modify the Linux I/O layer to fit what ZFS needs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681931</id>
	<title>One word: Dtrace</title>
	<author>seifried</author>
	<datestamp>1247476680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>One thing Linux is lacking (and will possibly never have due to politics) is Dtrace, which is sad because a) Dtrace kicks ass, b) it's mature and works well and c) system tap is... well.. one day when a vendor ships it I guess we'll find out how well it works. This is one spot OpenSolaris and Solaris (and Mac OS X which now has Dtrace) really shine, you can extract useful telemetry and performance data from the system easily.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing Linux is lacking ( and will possibly never have due to politics ) is Dtrace , which is sad because a ) Dtrace kicks ass , b ) it 's mature and works well and c ) system tap is... well.. one day when a vendor ships it I guess we 'll find out how well it works .
This is one spot OpenSolaris and Solaris ( and Mac OS X which now has Dtrace ) really shine , you can extract useful telemetry and performance data from the system easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing Linux is lacking (and will possibly never have due to politics) is Dtrace, which is sad because a) Dtrace kicks ass, b) it's mature and works well and c) system tap is... well.. one day when a vendor ships it I guess we'll find out how well it works.
This is one spot OpenSolaris and Solaris (and Mac OS X which now has Dtrace) really shine, you can extract useful telemetry and performance data from the system easily.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28686283</id>
	<title>Re:Look at the bright side -- ZFS for Linux!</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1247503980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FreeBSD 7-STABLE already does.  I'm running it on several machines with good results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>FreeBSD 7-STABLE already does .
I 'm running it on several machines with good results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FreeBSD 7-STABLE already does.
I'm running it on several machines with good results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28687487</id>
	<title>Re:Dead??</title>
	<author>Fred\_A</author>
	<datestamp>1247603220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>OpenSolaris will not be completely dead.</p></div><p>It depends whether the new Sun management is willing to collaborate...</p><p>Oracle : Bring out your dead !<br>Sun : I've got one. nine pence.<br>Solaris : I'm not dead!<br>Oracle : What ?<br>Sun : Nothing -- here's your nine pence.<br>Solaris : I'm not dead!<br>Oracle : Here -- he says he's not dead!<br>Sun : Yes, he is.<br>Solaris : I'm getting better!<br>Sun : No, you're not -- you'll be stone dead in a moment.<br>[<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenSolaris will not be completely dead.It depends whether the new Sun management is willing to collaborate...Oracle : Bring out your dead ! Sun : I 've got one .
nine pence.Solaris : I 'm not dead ! Oracle : What ? Sun : Nothing -- here 's your nine pence.Solaris : I 'm not dead ! Oracle : Here -- he says he 's not dead ! Sun : Yes , he is.Solaris : I 'm getting better ! Sun : No , you 're not -- you 'll be stone dead in a moment .
[ ... ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenSolaris will not be completely dead.It depends whether the new Sun management is willing to collaborate...Oracle : Bring out your dead !Sun : I've got one.
nine pence.Solaris : I'm not dead!Oracle : What ?Sun : Nothing -- here's your nine pence.Solaris : I'm not dead!Oracle : Here -- he says he's not dead!Sun : Yes, he is.Solaris : I'm getting better!Sun : No, you're not -- you'll be stone dead in a moment.
[ ... ]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28685469</id>
	<title>Re:Makes absolutely no sense</title>
	<author>bky1701</author>
	<datestamp>1247498040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If that were true, Oracsun would be planning to merge with Apple, but that could never... OH SHI-</htmltext>
<tokenext>If that were true , Oracsun would be planning to merge with Apple , but that could never... OH SHI-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that were true, Oracsun would be planning to merge with Apple, but that could never... OH SHI-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28687175</id>
	<title>Re:Look at the bright side -- ZFS for Linux!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247513280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I may be wrong, but I thought the reason FreeBSD had a lot of this stuff is because they include it in source form, don't compile it in stock kernels, then tell you 'if you want this feature compile it in, but it's governed under X license terms'.</p><p>Mind you I haven't run FBSD since 4.7-4.8 but I seem to remember something like that when rolling a custom kernel for a server I was running.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I may be wrong , but I thought the reason FreeBSD had a lot of this stuff is because they include it in source form , do n't compile it in stock kernels , then tell you 'if you want this feature compile it in , but it 's governed under X license terms'.Mind you I have n't run FBSD since 4.7-4.8 but I seem to remember something like that when rolling a custom kernel for a server I was running .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I may be wrong, but I thought the reason FreeBSD had a lot of this stuff is because they include it in source form, don't compile it in stock kernels, then tell you 'if you want this feature compile it in, but it's governed under X license terms'.Mind you I haven't run FBSD since 4.7-4.8 but I seem to remember something like that when rolling a custom kernel for a server I was running.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28684537</id>
	<title>Re:Already Open</title>
	<author>Korin43</author>
	<datestamp>1247489640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems pointless to actively kill the project, it would just make the current Solaris users even more annoyed about it. Instead, it would make more sense for them to just stop supporting it and let it die on its own.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems pointless to actively kill the project , it would just make the current Solaris users even more annoyed about it .
Instead , it would make more sense for them to just stop supporting it and let it die on its own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems pointless to actively kill the project, it would just make the current Solaris users even more annoyed about it.
Instead, it would make more sense for them to just stop supporting it and let it die on its own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683119</id>
	<title>Re:Complete rubbish</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1247481600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's nice to own your own OS stack. It's nicer to offer what you customers want. Sun owned the same stack and they still had to offer Linux support, because it would have hurt their x64 sales big time if they hadn't. Management will have changed, but not the needs of customers. If anything, there will be a <i>stronger</i> emphasis on Linux, because management will lose a lot of its Solaris-uber-alles bigotry.</p><p>All these prognostications about Sun under Oracle are ridiculous. They're all made by people who don't know the first thing about the computer systems business. We start out with people assuming that Oracle will shut down Sun's hardware business "because Oracle is a software company." Now it's a lot of bugs either-or logic about OS choices.</p><p>Come to think of it, all of the prognostications people make when Oracle makes an acquisition end up  being pretty lame. They're usually based on lame assumptions, like "oh, this acquisition also does databases, they must be buying it in order to shut it down." Which never turns out to be the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's nice to own your own OS stack .
It 's nicer to offer what you customers want .
Sun owned the same stack and they still had to offer Linux support , because it would have hurt their x64 sales big time if they had n't .
Management will have changed , but not the needs of customers .
If anything , there will be a stronger emphasis on Linux , because management will lose a lot of its Solaris-uber-alles bigotry.All these prognostications about Sun under Oracle are ridiculous .
They 're all made by people who do n't know the first thing about the computer systems business .
We start out with people assuming that Oracle will shut down Sun 's hardware business " because Oracle is a software company .
" Now it 's a lot of bugs either-or logic about OS choices.Come to think of it , all of the prognostications people make when Oracle makes an acquisition end up being pretty lame .
They 're usually based on lame assumptions , like " oh , this acquisition also does databases , they must be buying it in order to shut it down .
" Which never turns out to be the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's nice to own your own OS stack.
It's nicer to offer what you customers want.
Sun owned the same stack and they still had to offer Linux support, because it would have hurt their x64 sales big time if they hadn't.
Management will have changed, but not the needs of customers.
If anything, there will be a stronger emphasis on Linux, because management will lose a lot of its Solaris-uber-alles bigotry.All these prognostications about Sun under Oracle are ridiculous.
They're all made by people who don't know the first thing about the computer systems business.
We start out with people assuming that Oracle will shut down Sun's hardware business "because Oracle is a software company.
" Now it's a lot of bugs either-or logic about OS choices.Come to think of it, all of the prognostications people make when Oracle makes an acquisition end up  being pretty lame.
They're usually based on lame assumptions, like "oh, this acquisition also does databases, they must be buying it in order to shut it down.
" Which never turns out to be the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682175</id>
	<title>Re:Look at the bright side -- ZFS for Linux!</title>
	<author>The-Pheon</author>
	<datestamp>1247477640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've long been immensely frustrated that you can't get kernel-space ZFS (sorry FUSE) compiled into a Linux kernel because of inane licensing issues*....</p></div><p>Well it is a good thing FreeBSD does not have a restrictive license like that. FreeBSD 8.0 will have ZFS with zpool 13, and here is how to use it.</p><p><a href="http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSQuickStartGuide" title="freebsd.org">http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSQuickStartGuide</a> [freebsd.org]</p><p>Cheers!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've long been immensely frustrated that you ca n't get kernel-space ZFS ( sorry FUSE ) compiled into a Linux kernel because of inane licensing issues * ....Well it is a good thing FreeBSD does not have a restrictive license like that .
FreeBSD 8.0 will have ZFS with zpool 13 , and here is how to use it.http : //wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSQuickStartGuide [ freebsd.org ] Cheers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've long been immensely frustrated that you can't get kernel-space ZFS (sorry FUSE) compiled into a Linux kernel because of inane licensing issues*....Well it is a good thing FreeBSD does not have a restrictive license like that.
FreeBSD 8.0 will have ZFS with zpool 13, and here is how to use it.http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSQuickStartGuide [freebsd.org]Cheers!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28694757</id>
	<title>Re:One of my favorite quotes...</title>
	<author>mzs</author>
	<datestamp>1247602260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know why it panic()ed (no not a segfault)? Because the processor board was not offlined first. That guy was a moron, more over since the boards on those systems did not have pins of sufficiently different lengths it could have fried an expensive component to simply yank the card out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know why it panic ( ) ed ( no not a segfault ) ?
Because the processor board was not offlined first .
That guy was a moron , more over since the boards on those systems did not have pins of sufficiently different lengths it could have fried an expensive component to simply yank the card out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know why it panic()ed (no not a segfault)?
Because the processor board was not offlined first.
That guy was a moron, more over since the boards on those systems did not have pins of sufficiently different lengths it could have fried an expensive component to simply yank the card out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28694555</id>
	<title>Re:Linux is the biggest fish in the "open" space.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247601180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think UNIX <i>with</i> Solaris is still the biggest fish in the open space.
<br>
Mind you that plenty of companies (HP, Sun, Oracle, Cisco, IBM, etc...) have many installations in Unix, Solaris and OSF stuff. Most of them are critical systems too.
<br>
<br>
Linux just has the biggest <i>mouth</i> in the "open" space to date. Guess what, it's still smaller than app-level stuff like Java, PHP, Python, and Apache stuff).  It still has a number of years to go and more hardening to a core kernel solution (vs the forking that <i>everyone</i> is doing...).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think UNIX with Solaris is still the biggest fish in the open space .
Mind you that plenty of companies ( HP , Sun , Oracle , Cisco , IBM , etc... ) have many installations in Unix , Solaris and OSF stuff .
Most of them are critical systems too .
Linux just has the biggest mouth in the " open " space to date .
Guess what , it 's still smaller than app-level stuff like Java , PHP , Python , and Apache stuff ) .
It still has a number of years to go and more hardening to a core kernel solution ( vs the forking that everyone is doing... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think UNIX with Solaris is still the biggest fish in the open space.
Mind you that plenty of companies (HP, Sun, Oracle, Cisco, IBM, etc...) have many installations in Unix, Solaris and OSF stuff.
Most of them are critical systems too.
Linux just has the biggest mouth in the "open" space to date.
Guess what, it's still smaller than app-level stuff like Java, PHP, Python, and Apache stuff).
It still has a number of years to go and more hardening to a core kernel solution (vs the forking that everyone is doing...).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682395</id>
	<title>you FAIL 1t!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247478660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">First, 7Jou have to go find something [tux.org]?  Are you THE NEXT ROUND OF MAKES ME SICK JUST</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , 7Jou have to go find something [ tux.org ] ?
Are you THE NEXT ROUND OF MAKES ME SICK JUST [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, 7Jou have to go find something [tux.org]?
Are you THE NEXT ROUND OF MAKES ME SICK JUST [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28691285</id>
	<title>(Linux is the biggest fish) = inspiration</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247587440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The typical geek who builds a freeware application builds it for Linux first since Linux is the dominant freeware operating system."</p><p>I think it's all about statistics.<br>For me it's mainly because it's free and advertised by its fans as the only true free operating system with bells and whistles whereas other communities are smaller and not funded by IBM/HP/Red Hat/Novell and other *big* corporations.<br>I know many Linux users who keep criticizing every other UNIX-like systems and sometimes without having actually used them (They kept talking about "Slowwwwwwlaris).</p><p>I started with Linux because there was a Linux user group in my school and after 2 years I disliked the way GNU/Linux systems are developed and documented and switched.<br>I tried FreeBSD (+ other BSDs as well) and (Open)Solaris and found that almost every claims about slowness, unfriendlyness, lack of ergonomy were mostly *false* and only biaised claimed.<br>It's now +5 years since I discovered the UNIX way and I can draw some personal conclusions about what I like and dislike.</p><p>- Sometimes one is slower, sometimes one is faster, but what is the point of being faster when you must spend much time with configuration ?<br>- I dislike silent corruption of my filesystems with GNU/Linux.<br>- I dislike my system hanging because my RAM is corrupted and Linux does not check it whereas Solaris  detects corrupted blocks and discard them.<br>- I like the documentation of *BSD and Solaris, the "logical" way things are organized, the ergonomy of command line utilities (pw under freebsd and zoneadm, svcadm, dladm)<br>- I dislike the way Linux distibution assert that "something works (tm)" when it's actually not the case !!!<br>- I dislike the lack of backward compatbility in Linux and the poor documentation of standards, and looooove well-written and stable interfaces.<br>- I dislike manpages in Linux and the facts that they sometimes points to websites (what is the point when you have no access to a network !), I like when they actually point to references and standards.<br>- I dislike the USB framework in Linux and the way devices are unconsistently supported from one minor version to another.<br>- I dislike the fact that my webcam is not recognized under Solaris.<br>- I like Dtrace and the "verbosity" of Solaris.<br>- I looooooooooove ZFS under Solaris and FreeBSD.<br>- I dislike the lack of simple how-to under Solaris.<br>- I like when a device is "not supported" by Solaris and actually works perfectly !!!<br>- Last time I upgraded my Debian systems it has been completly broken, last time I upgraded my OpenSolaris system<br>- I dislike ALSA (very much) and looooove OSS/Boomer.<br>- I dislike "lot a of features" without respect of standards and lack of documentation.<br>- I don't like when my GNU/Linux dies when swapping (no ssh)-</p><p>See... to me, every system has its plus and cons, and every community has its way of doing things.<br>Actually I like OpenSolaris the most because of modularity, consideration of standards, and higher level of abstraction (!!!) and think that "it gets better every day".</p><p>Now I think the learning curve seems lower with Linux because you can find many how-to's so that you can copy/paste (without sometimes understanding what you do). (call it "momentum")</p><p>People I met in Solaris and FreeBSD communities are all kind and smart as most users in the Linux community \_id\_ \_est\_ apart from some *intolerant* people who think they are the only enlightened ones.<br>More important Sun devs are friendly and eager to share their knowledge.</p><p>Hey all<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... please do not consider all the FUD and Marketing garbage and use the system you like and enhance the "libre" eco-system and its bio-diversity !<br>I use OpenSolaris in the field of Scientific Computing and as Desktop (24/7), and don't feel like switching back. &gt;\_</p><p>Long live the OpenSolaris community and other communities<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>-- jollyd</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The typical geek who builds a freeware application builds it for Linux first since Linux is the dominant freeware operating system .
" I think it 's all about statistics.For me it 's mainly because it 's free and advertised by its fans as the only true free operating system with bells and whistles whereas other communities are smaller and not funded by IBM/HP/Red Hat/Novell and other * big * corporations.I know many Linux users who keep criticizing every other UNIX-like systems and sometimes without having actually used them ( They kept talking about " Slowwwwwwlaris ) .I started with Linux because there was a Linux user group in my school and after 2 years I disliked the way GNU/Linux systems are developed and documented and switched.I tried FreeBSD ( + other BSDs as well ) and ( Open ) Solaris and found that almost every claims about slowness , unfriendlyness , lack of ergonomy were mostly * false * and only biaised claimed.It 's now + 5 years since I discovered the UNIX way and I can draw some personal conclusions about what I like and dislike.- Sometimes one is slower , sometimes one is faster , but what is the point of being faster when you must spend much time with configuration ? - I dislike silent corruption of my filesystems with GNU/Linux.- I dislike my system hanging because my RAM is corrupted and Linux does not check it whereas Solaris detects corrupted blocks and discard them.- I like the documentation of * BSD and Solaris , the " logical " way things are organized , the ergonomy of command line utilities ( pw under freebsd and zoneadm , svcadm , dladm ) - I dislike the way Linux distibution assert that " something works ( tm ) " when it 's actually not the case ! !
! - I dislike the lack of backward compatbility in Linux and the poor documentation of standards , and looooove well-written and stable interfaces.- I dislike manpages in Linux and the facts that they sometimes points to websites ( what is the point when you have no access to a network !
) , I like when they actually point to references and standards.- I dislike the USB framework in Linux and the way devices are unconsistently supported from one minor version to another.- I dislike the fact that my webcam is not recognized under Solaris.- I like Dtrace and the " verbosity " of Solaris.- I looooooooooove ZFS under Solaris and FreeBSD.- I dislike the lack of simple how-to under Solaris.- I like when a device is " not supported " by Solaris and actually works perfectly ! !
! - Last time I upgraded my Debian systems it has been completly broken , last time I upgraded my OpenSolaris system- I dislike ALSA ( very much ) and looooove OSS/Boomer.- I dislike " lot a of features " without respect of standards and lack of documentation.- I do n't like when my GNU/Linux dies when swapping ( no ssh ) -See... to me , every system has its plus and cons , and every community has its way of doing things.Actually I like OpenSolaris the most because of modularity , consideration of standards , and higher level of abstraction ( ! ! !
) and think that " it gets better every day " .Now I think the learning curve seems lower with Linux because you can find many how-to 's so that you can copy/paste ( without sometimes understanding what you do ) .
( call it " momentum " ) People I met in Solaris and FreeBSD communities are all kind and smart as most users in the Linux community \ _id \ _ \ _est \ _ apart from some * intolerant * people who think they are the only enlightened ones.More important Sun devs are friendly and eager to share their knowledge.Hey all ... please do not consider all the FUD and Marketing garbage and use the system you like and enhance the " libre " eco-system and its bio-diversity ! I use OpenSolaris in the field of Scientific Computing and as Desktop ( 24/7 ) , and do n't feel like switching back .
&gt; \ _Long live the OpenSolaris community and other communities : ) -- jollyd</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The typical geek who builds a freeware application builds it for Linux first since Linux is the dominant freeware operating system.
"I think it's all about statistics.For me it's mainly because it's free and advertised by its fans as the only true free operating system with bells and whistles whereas other communities are smaller and not funded by IBM/HP/Red Hat/Novell and other *big* corporations.I know many Linux users who keep criticizing every other UNIX-like systems and sometimes without having actually used them (They kept talking about "Slowwwwwwlaris).I started with Linux because there was a Linux user group in my school and after 2 years I disliked the way GNU/Linux systems are developed and documented and switched.I tried FreeBSD (+ other BSDs as well) and (Open)Solaris and found that almost every claims about slowness, unfriendlyness, lack of ergonomy were mostly *false* and only biaised claimed.It's now +5 years since I discovered the UNIX way and I can draw some personal conclusions about what I like and dislike.- Sometimes one is slower, sometimes one is faster, but what is the point of being faster when you must spend much time with configuration ?- I dislike silent corruption of my filesystems with GNU/Linux.- I dislike my system hanging because my RAM is corrupted and Linux does not check it whereas Solaris  detects corrupted blocks and discard them.- I like the documentation of *BSD and Solaris, the "logical" way things are organized, the ergonomy of command line utilities (pw under freebsd and zoneadm, svcadm, dladm)- I dislike the way Linux distibution assert that "something works (tm)" when it's actually not the case !!
!- I dislike the lack of backward compatbility in Linux and the poor documentation of standards, and looooove well-written and stable interfaces.- I dislike manpages in Linux and the facts that they sometimes points to websites (what is the point when you have no access to a network !
), I like when they actually point to references and standards.- I dislike the USB framework in Linux and the way devices are unconsistently supported from one minor version to another.- I dislike the fact that my webcam is not recognized under Solaris.- I like Dtrace and the "verbosity" of Solaris.- I looooooooooove ZFS under Solaris and FreeBSD.- I dislike the lack of simple how-to under Solaris.- I like when a device is "not supported" by Solaris and actually works perfectly !!
!- Last time I upgraded my Debian systems it has been completly broken, last time I upgraded my OpenSolaris system- I dislike ALSA (very much) and looooove OSS/Boomer.- I dislike "lot a of features" without respect of standards and lack of documentation.- I don't like when my GNU/Linux dies when swapping (no ssh)-See... to me, every system has its plus and cons, and every community has its way of doing things.Actually I like OpenSolaris the most because of modularity, consideration of standards, and higher level of abstraction (!!!
) and think that "it gets better every day".Now I think the learning curve seems lower with Linux because you can find many how-to's so that you can copy/paste (without sometimes understanding what you do).
(call it "momentum")People I met in Solaris and FreeBSD communities are all kind and smart as most users in the Linux community \_id\_ \_est\_ apart from some *intolerant* people who think they are the only enlightened ones.More important Sun devs are friendly and eager to share their knowledge.Hey all ... please do not consider all the FUD and Marketing garbage and use the system you like and enhance the "libre" eco-system and its bio-diversity !I use OpenSolaris in the field of Scientific Computing and as Desktop (24/7), and don't feel like switching back.
&gt;\_Long live the OpenSolaris community and other communities :)-- jollyd</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681953</id>
	<title>Re:Already Open</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247476740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can cut off the project's oxygen pretty easily, actually. Most of the project's ecosystem consists of sun-sponsored resources (websites, source code repositories, they also host the mailing lists) and since Oracle will be purchasing Sun's rights they can easily revoke the rights to the binary-only blobs that are required to build a complete and bootable copy of the source tree (if you can't build it, you can't run it -can you?).</p><p>Oracle is in a great posistion to kill off Solaris. Considerting that there's little interest or expertise outside of Sun that would be able (much less willing) to maintain Solaris all they'd really have to do is shut down the projects resources and assign the people working on solaris to other projects.</p><p>It's sad that Solaris never really took off as a truly free Unix, but it didn't, and now it never will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can cut off the project 's oxygen pretty easily , actually .
Most of the project 's ecosystem consists of sun-sponsored resources ( websites , source code repositories , they also host the mailing lists ) and since Oracle will be purchasing Sun 's rights they can easily revoke the rights to the binary-only blobs that are required to build a complete and bootable copy of the source tree ( if you ca n't build it , you ca n't run it -can you ?
) .Oracle is in a great posistion to kill off Solaris .
Considerting that there 's little interest or expertise outside of Sun that would be able ( much less willing ) to maintain Solaris all they 'd really have to do is shut down the projects resources and assign the people working on solaris to other projects.It 's sad that Solaris never really took off as a truly free Unix , but it did n't , and now it never will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can cut off the project's oxygen pretty easily, actually.
Most of the project's ecosystem consists of sun-sponsored resources (websites, source code repositories, they also host the mailing lists) and since Oracle will be purchasing Sun's rights they can easily revoke the rights to the binary-only blobs that are required to build a complete and bootable copy of the source tree (if you can't build it, you can't run it -can you?
).Oracle is in a great posistion to kill off Solaris.
Considerting that there's little interest or expertise outside of Sun that would be able (much less willing) to maintain Solaris all they'd really have to do is shut down the projects resources and assign the people working on solaris to other projects.It's sad that Solaris never really took off as a truly free Unix, but it didn't, and now it never will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28697769</id>
	<title>Re:This just in...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247573400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Usually this sort or 'speculation' only gets to the press because it has 'some' reality on it: SJVN source's certainly are Sun's former developers and project managers involved on Open Solaris... it's much easier to hide a buyout rumour (only top execs involved) than the cancellation of a product line (everybody onboard has to be involved, sooner or later). Once someone who disagrees knows, everyone knows.<br>Think about how the Bush administration tried to shut the mouth off of the people involved in torture and other criminal activities... Or the Nixon one, if we go even further... As this is business and not politics, we'll certainly know the truth in just a few days, a week or two at most.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Usually this sort or 'speculation ' only gets to the press because it has 'some ' reality on it : SJVN source 's certainly are Sun 's former developers and project managers involved on Open Solaris... it 's much easier to hide a buyout rumour ( only top execs involved ) than the cancellation of a product line ( everybody onboard has to be involved , sooner or later ) .
Once someone who disagrees knows , everyone knows.Think about how the Bush administration tried to shut the mouth off of the people involved in torture and other criminal activities... Or the Nixon one , if we go even further... As this is business and not politics , we 'll certainly know the truth in just a few days , a week or two at most .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usually this sort or 'speculation' only gets to the press because it has 'some' reality on it: SJVN source's certainly are Sun's former developers and project managers involved on Open Solaris... it's much easier to hide a buyout rumour (only top execs involved) than the cancellation of a product line (everybody onboard has to be involved, sooner or later).
Once someone who disagrees knows, everyone knows.Think about how the Bush administration tried to shut the mouth off of the people involved in torture and other criminal activities... Or the Nixon one, if we go even further... As this is business and not politics, we'll certainly know the truth in just a few days, a week or two at most.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682053</id>
	<title>Old unix'es rarely ever really dies.</title>
	<author>DUdsen</author>
	<datestamp>1247477160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AIX is still somewhat in support, HP-UX the same no OpenSolaris will be around for decades to come we might see Oracle stop pushing it actively for new customers but you dont kill a prodoct like that not with the price some organisation is willing to pay for sevice and support deals for existing systems.<br><br>Sometimes it's not about the strategic game of cat and mouse and all about the cash flow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AIX is still somewhat in support , HP-UX the same no OpenSolaris will be around for decades to come we might see Oracle stop pushing it actively for new customers but you dont kill a prodoct like that not with the price some organisation is willing to pay for sevice and support deals for existing systems.Sometimes it 's not about the strategic game of cat and mouse and all about the cash flow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AIX is still somewhat in support, HP-UX the same no OpenSolaris will be around for decades to come we might see Oracle stop pushing it actively for new customers but you dont kill a prodoct like that not with the price some organisation is willing to pay for sevice and support deals for existing systems.Sometimes it's not about the strategic game of cat and mouse and all about the cash flow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681449</id>
	<title>Solaris</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247517960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is regular solaris going to live?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is regular solaris going to live ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is regular solaris going to live?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28684833</id>
	<title>Re:Linux is the biggest fish in the "open" space.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247492040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This shark-like mentality has gained popularity in recent years among American companies.</p></div><p>You are mistaken, this has always been the reality side of the "American Dream (tm)", anything that gives you a winning hand is good. Or to put it in videogame terms : your self-defined mental blocks prevent you to win, now get off my ring scrub!. But, may be you would prefer a car analogy?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This shark-like mentality has gained popularity in recent years among American companies.You are mistaken , this has always been the reality side of the " American Dream ( tm ) " , anything that gives you a winning hand is good .
Or to put it in videogame terms : your self-defined mental blocks prevent you to win , now get off my ring scrub ! .
But , may be you would prefer a car analogy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This shark-like mentality has gained popularity in recent years among American companies.You are mistaken, this has always been the reality side of the "American Dream (tm)", anything that gives you a winning hand is good.
Or to put it in videogame terms : your self-defined mental blocks prevent you to win, now get off my ring scrub!.
But, may be you would prefer a car analogy?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682183</id>
	<title>Re:time to steal features</title>
	<author>Tanktalus</author>
	<datestamp>1247477700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really, I thought that anyone watching Larry go about his regular routine that the appropriate response might just be to abandon Larry-ville the same way<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. seems to advocate abandoning Balmer-ville.  But maybe that's just me (running IBM DB2 on Linux...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , I thought that anyone watching Larry go about his regular routine that the appropriate response might just be to abandon Larry-ville the same way / .
seems to advocate abandoning Balmer-ville .
But maybe that 's just me ( running IBM DB2 on Linux... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, I thought that anyone watching Larry go about his regular routine that the appropriate response might just be to abandon Larry-ville the same way /.
seems to advocate abandoning Balmer-ville.
But maybe that's just me (running IBM DB2 on Linux...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683813</id>
	<title>Re:Old unix'es rarely ever really dies.</title>
	<author>jabuzz</author>
	<datestamp>1247485500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you mean AIX is still somewhat in support!!!</p><p>It is still in development, with new versions coming along and IBM are still producing new hardware for it. Admittedly none of it is cheap, an entry level p520 express is still eye wateringly expensive if you are used to x86 hardware, but it is just as much an alive platform as it ever was.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean AIX is still somewhat in support ! !
! It is still in development , with new versions coming along and IBM are still producing new hardware for it .
Admittedly none of it is cheap , an entry level p520 express is still eye wateringly expensive if you are used to x86 hardware , but it is just as much an alive platform as it ever was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean AIX is still somewhat in support!!
!It is still in development, with new versions coming along and IBM are still producing new hardware for it.
Admittedly none of it is cheap, an entry level p520 express is still eye wateringly expensive if you are used to x86 hardware, but it is just as much an alive platform as it ever was.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681731</id>
	<title>Re:Root is like crack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247475780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sudo suck my dick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sudo suck my dick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sudo suck my dick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681769</id>
	<title>Makes absolutely no sense</title>
	<author>javacowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1247475960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would Oracle kill Solaris?  Their first public pronouncement on the Sun takeover specifically mentioned Solaris next to Java as the reasons they want to acquire Sun.  Killing Solaris would be almost as much of an about face as killing Java.</p><p>Solaris represents one of Oracle's differentiators.  It has features that Linux can't due to licensing concerns, namely ZFS and DTrace.   It gives them the opportunity to add value to their offerings, as opposed to being simply a reseller, which is what they'd be if they'd favour Linux.</p><p>What's more, Oracle's database is well-known to run better on Solaris than on any other operating system.  Killing Solaris would remove that competitive advantage.</p><p>The only reason Oracle supported Linux so strong is that they didn't have an OS of their own.  When they acquire Sun, they will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would Oracle kill Solaris ?
Their first public pronouncement on the Sun takeover specifically mentioned Solaris next to Java as the reasons they want to acquire Sun .
Killing Solaris would be almost as much of an about face as killing Java.Solaris represents one of Oracle 's differentiators .
It has features that Linux ca n't due to licensing concerns , namely ZFS and DTrace .
It gives them the opportunity to add value to their offerings , as opposed to being simply a reseller , which is what they 'd be if they 'd favour Linux.What 's more , Oracle 's database is well-known to run better on Solaris than on any other operating system .
Killing Solaris would remove that competitive advantage.The only reason Oracle supported Linux so strong is that they did n't have an OS of their own .
When they acquire Sun , they will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would Oracle kill Solaris?
Their first public pronouncement on the Sun takeover specifically mentioned Solaris next to Java as the reasons they want to acquire Sun.
Killing Solaris would be almost as much of an about face as killing Java.Solaris represents one of Oracle's differentiators.
It has features that Linux can't due to licensing concerns, namely ZFS and DTrace.
It gives them the opportunity to add value to their offerings, as opposed to being simply a reseller, which is what they'd be if they'd favour Linux.What's more, Oracle's database is well-known to run better on Solaris than on any other operating system.
Killing Solaris would remove that competitive advantage.The only reason Oracle supported Linux so strong is that they didn't have an OS of their own.
When they acquire Sun, they will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682285</id>
	<title>Re:One of my favorite quotes...</title>
	<author>HogGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1247478240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they passed all of the I/O through the Two RS-232/423 ports on clock board...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they passed all of the I/O through the Two RS-232/423 ports on clock board.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they passed all of the I/O through the Two RS-232/423 ports on clock board...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681811</id>
	<title>They should spin it off - as a non-profit?</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1247476140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's open-sourced, so theoretically anyone can pick it up.</p><p>However, to be good corporate citizens, if they don't plan on keeping it they should spin it off and provide enough seed money to let a few employees go with it for a year or so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's open-sourced , so theoretically anyone can pick it up.However , to be good corporate citizens , if they do n't plan on keeping it they should spin it off and provide enough seed money to let a few employees go with it for a year or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's open-sourced, so theoretically anyone can pick it up.However, to be good corporate citizens, if they don't plan on keeping it they should spin it off and provide enough seed money to let a few employees go with it for a year or so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681915</id>
	<title>Look at the bright side -- ZFS for Linux!</title>
	<author>Wrath0fb0b</author>
	<datestamp>1247476560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've long been immensely frustrated that you can't get kernel-space ZFS (sorry FUSE) compiled into a Linux kernel because of inane licensing issues*. Someone should write a patch for those of us that want to compile it ourselves on the theory that the FSF would be insane to sue a personal user of open-source software for daring to compile it with other open source software of a different flavor.</p><p>* Porting ZFS to Linux is complicated by the fact that the GNU General Public License, which governs the Linux kernel, prohibits linking with code under certain licenses, such as CDDL, the license ZFS is released under. [Wikipedia]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've long been immensely frustrated that you ca n't get kernel-space ZFS ( sorry FUSE ) compiled into a Linux kernel because of inane licensing issues * .
Someone should write a patch for those of us that want to compile it ourselves on the theory that the FSF would be insane to sue a personal user of open-source software for daring to compile it with other open source software of a different flavor .
* Porting ZFS to Linux is complicated by the fact that the GNU General Public License , which governs the Linux kernel , prohibits linking with code under certain licenses , such as CDDL , the license ZFS is released under .
[ Wikipedia ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've long been immensely frustrated that you can't get kernel-space ZFS (sorry FUSE) compiled into a Linux kernel because of inane licensing issues*.
Someone should write a patch for those of us that want to compile it ourselves on the theory that the FSF would be insane to sue a personal user of open-source software for daring to compile it with other open source software of a different flavor.
* Porting ZFS to Linux is complicated by the fact that the GNU General Public License, which governs the Linux kernel, prohibits linking with code under certain licenses, such as CDDL, the license ZFS is released under.
[Wikipedia]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28686163</id>
	<title>See what happens</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1247503020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right, and Oracle could hasten this:  re-license OpenSolaris under GPLv3 (patents) and see what happens.  Worst case, nothing.</p><p>Likely case: the community ports everything great to Linux and they don't have to worry about what to do.</p><p>I have to say, my one Nexenta box is very impressive and Linux does have some work cut out for it.  Other parts are, eh, somewhat annoying.</p><p>I do hope Sun's documentation team stays on - they do such a great job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , and Oracle could hasten this : re-license OpenSolaris under GPLv3 ( patents ) and see what happens .
Worst case , nothing.Likely case : the community ports everything great to Linux and they do n't have to worry about what to do.I have to say , my one Nexenta box is very impressive and Linux does have some work cut out for it .
Other parts are , eh , somewhat annoying.I do hope Sun 's documentation team stays on - they do such a great job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, and Oracle could hasten this:  re-license OpenSolaris under GPLv3 (patents) and see what happens.
Worst case, nothing.Likely case: the community ports everything great to Linux and they don't have to worry about what to do.I have to say, my one Nexenta box is very impressive and Linux does have some work cut out for it.
Other parts are, eh, somewhat annoying.I do hope Sun's documentation team stays on - they do such a great job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682097</id>
	<title>Re:Look at the bright side -- ZFS for Linux!</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1247477340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, someone should port it and only provide it as source or a diff, there shouldn't be any licensing issues there since it isn't linked yet, and the GPL does not apply to anyone who just compiles it for their own use and doesn't distribute the binaries...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , someone should port it and only provide it as source or a diff , there should n't be any licensing issues there since it is n't linked yet , and the GPL does not apply to anyone who just compiles it for their own use and does n't distribute the binaries.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, someone should port it and only provide it as source or a diff, there shouldn't be any licensing issues there since it isn't linked yet, and the GPL does not apply to anyone who just compiles it for their own use and doesn't distribute the binaries...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682477</id>
	<title>This just in...</title>
	<author>Temujin\_12</author>
	<datestamp>1247479020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This just in: "Mass Speculation" also suggests:<br>1) The world will end in 2012<br>2) Man never landed on the moon<br>3) Vaccines cause autism<br>4) Technology = magic<br>5) Science is infallible<br>6) Religion is infallible<br>7) Windows is better than Mac<br>8) Mac is better than Windows<br>9) Mac is better than *nix<br>10) *nix is better than Mac<br>11) Windows is better than *nix<br>12) *nix is better than Windows</p><p>I really need to meet this "Mass Speculation" guy. He seems to be all over the board on things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This just in : " Mass Speculation " also suggests : 1 ) The world will end in 20122 ) Man never landed on the moon3 ) Vaccines cause autism4 ) Technology = magic5 ) Science is infallible6 ) Religion is infallible7 ) Windows is better than Mac8 ) Mac is better than Windows9 ) Mac is better than * nix10 ) * nix is better than Mac11 ) Windows is better than * nix12 ) * nix is better than WindowsI really need to meet this " Mass Speculation " guy .
He seems to be all over the board on things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just in: "Mass Speculation" also suggests:1) The world will end in 20122) Man never landed on the moon3) Vaccines cause autism4) Technology = magic5) Science is infallible6) Religion is infallible7) Windows is better than Mac8) Mac is better than Windows9) Mac is better than *nix10) *nix is better than Mac11) Windows is better than *nix12) *nix is better than WindowsI really need to meet this "Mass Speculation" guy.
He seems to be all over the board on things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28687385</id>
	<title>Re:Already Open</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247602020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, some valid points here, but let us all remember that for the GPL/LGPL none of the above concerns are legitimate. The author is talking about open source licensing in general.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , some valid points here , but let us all remember that for the GPL/LGPL none of the above concerns are legitimate .
The author is talking about open source licensing in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, some valid points here, but let us all remember that for the GPL/LGPL none of the above concerns are legitimate.
The author is talking about open source licensing in general.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682223</id>
	<title>Re:One of my favorite quotes...</title>
	<author>hoggoth</author>
	<datestamp>1247477880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a similar experience when I was at N.E.C. We were showing off one of our fully redundant servers to some execs from a Wall St. firm (I won't name them, but they are still in business, but with a merger). While my manager was talking about how fail-safe the server is one of the execs walked around behind the rack and just jammed his pen through the fan in the back to see what would happen.<br>Luckily back-up fans spun up and everything was fine, but there were a lot of sweaty foreheads in the room...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a similar experience when I was at N.E.C .
We were showing off one of our fully redundant servers to some execs from a Wall St. firm ( I wo n't name them , but they are still in business , but with a merger ) .
While my manager was talking about how fail-safe the server is one of the execs walked around behind the rack and just jammed his pen through the fan in the back to see what would happen.Luckily back-up fans spun up and everything was fine , but there were a lot of sweaty foreheads in the room.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a similar experience when I was at N.E.C.
We were showing off one of our fully redundant servers to some execs from a Wall St. firm (I won't name them, but they are still in business, but with a merger).
While my manager was talking about how fail-safe the server is one of the execs walked around behind the rack and just jammed his pen through the fan in the back to see what would happen.Luckily back-up fans spun up and everything was fine, but there were a lot of sweaty foreheads in the room...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682809</id>
	<title>fuck you</title>
	<author>mungtor</author>
	<datestamp>1247480400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you're probably right.  As much as I wanted to find fault and prove you wrong, I can't and now I'm just bitter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you 're probably right .
As much as I wanted to find fault and prove you wrong , I ca n't and now I 'm just bitter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you're probably right.
As much as I wanted to find fault and prove you wrong, I can't and now I'm just bitter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682227</id>
	<title>Re:Look at the bright side -- ZFS for Linux!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247477940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't you just patch it yourself and use it yourself? I've often wondered about rogue code warriors patching up their own Dr. Frankenstein's Monster Linux/BSD.</p><p>Any of you guys exist in reality or just in my head?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't you just patch it yourself and use it yourself ?
I 've often wondered about rogue code warriors patching up their own Dr. Frankenstein 's Monster Linux/BSD.Any of you guys exist in reality or just in my head ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't you just patch it yourself and use it yourself?
I've often wondered about rogue code warriors patching up their own Dr. Frankenstein's Monster Linux/BSD.Any of you guys exist in reality or just in my head?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28684917</id>
	<title>Re:Old unix'es rarely ever really dies.</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1247492580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tru64 is dead, HP has announced that it will no longer be supported past 2012 and that the last maintenance release will come out next year. They even shelved the plans to grab the best parts and graft them into HPUX. IRIX is dead as of 2013. Openserver might as well be dead as no sane IT manager would touch it with a ten foot pole. Basically there is only Solaris, AIX, HPUX and OS X as true Unix and then the unix-alikes linux and BSD derivatives.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tru64 is dead , HP has announced that it will no longer be supported past 2012 and that the last maintenance release will come out next year .
They even shelved the plans to grab the best parts and graft them into HPUX .
IRIX is dead as of 2013 .
Openserver might as well be dead as no sane IT manager would touch it with a ten foot pole .
Basically there is only Solaris , AIX , HPUX and OS X as true Unix and then the unix-alikes linux and BSD derivatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tru64 is dead, HP has announced that it will no longer be supported past 2012 and that the last maintenance release will come out next year.
They even shelved the plans to grab the best parts and graft them into HPUX.
IRIX is dead as of 2013.
Openserver might as well be dead as no sane IT manager would touch it with a ten foot pole.
Basically there is only Solaris, AIX, HPUX and OS X as true Unix and then the unix-alikes linux and BSD derivatives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682985</id>
	<title>Re:Already Open</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1247481060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, but unless you have the powerhouse ( with a vested interest ) like sun working on it, it might as well be dead as it will stagnate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , but unless you have the powerhouse ( with a vested interest ) like sun working on it , it might as well be dead as it will stagnate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, but unless you have the powerhouse ( with a vested interest ) like sun working on it, it might as well be dead as it will stagnate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28687531</id>
	<title>Re:One of my favorite quotes...</title>
	<author>Fred\_A</author>
	<datestamp>1247603520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the Sun rep was giving an executive overview of its HA features, full hot swap of processor boards, power supplies, yadda yadda yadda.  My (then) boss, a lowly manager in the VP crowd, walks up to the e4500 and pops a processor card out<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the whole system seg faults an UGLY death.  Ahhh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... good times.</p></div><p>Nothing kills a demo like a manager. The rep should have remembered to tie them to their chairs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the Sun rep was giving an executive overview of its HA features , full hot swap of processor boards , power supplies , yadda yadda yadda .
My ( then ) boss , a lowly manager in the VP crowd , walks up to the e4500 and pops a processor card out ... the whole system seg faults an UGLY death .
Ahhh ... good times.Nothing kills a demo like a manager .
The rep should have remembered to tie them to their chairs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Sun rep was giving an executive overview of its HA features, full hot swap of processor boards, power supplies, yadda yadda yadda.
My (then) boss, a lowly manager in the VP crowd, walks up to the e4500 and pops a processor card out ... the whole system seg faults an UGLY death.
Ahhh ... good times.Nothing kills a demo like a manager.
The rep should have remembered to tie them to their chairs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682135</id>
	<title>GPL...</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1247477460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Oracle don't want to commit resources to developing solaris, they should triple license (including GPL) it... Solaris is too widely used to die, so third parties will continue developing it and having it GPL licensed will allow drivers to flow from linux (which linux has a lot more of and solaris is very much lacking) and zfs/dtrace to flow back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Oracle do n't want to commit resources to developing solaris , they should triple license ( including GPL ) it... Solaris is too widely used to die , so third parties will continue developing it and having it GPL licensed will allow drivers to flow from linux ( which linux has a lot more of and solaris is very much lacking ) and zfs/dtrace to flow back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Oracle don't want to commit resources to developing solaris, they should triple license (including GPL) it... Solaris is too widely used to die, so third parties will continue developing it and having it GPL licensed will allow drivers to flow from linux (which linux has a lot more of and solaris is very much lacking) and zfs/dtrace to flow back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28689639</id>
	<title>Would it make more sense to kill Oracle Linux?</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1247580180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have had worked at four different companies that use Oracle, and they all ran Oracle on Solaris. I have never seen one installation of "Oracle Unbreakable Linux."</p><p>It would seem to me that Sun will be a much bigger part of the merged company than Linux. If something has to go, shouldn't it be Linux.</p><p>BTW: I personally like Linux better than Solaris. But I am trying to look at this from a business perspective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have had worked at four different companies that use Oracle , and they all ran Oracle on Solaris .
I have never seen one installation of " Oracle Unbreakable Linux .
" It would seem to me that Sun will be a much bigger part of the merged company than Linux .
If something has to go , should n't it be Linux.BTW : I personally like Linux better than Solaris .
But I am trying to look at this from a business perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have had worked at four different companies that use Oracle, and they all ran Oracle on Solaris.
I have never seen one installation of "Oracle Unbreakable Linux.
"It would seem to me that Sun will be a much bigger part of the merged company than Linux.
If something has to go, shouldn't it be Linux.BTW: I personally like Linux better than Solaris.
But I am trying to look at this from a business perspective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681841</id>
	<title>One of my favorite quotes...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247476260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had enough exposure to Solaris in the 90s<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I remember when a Sun install team put in the 1st e4500 16 processor high availability box at my employer<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... they had powered it up and had a bunch of our company VPs standing around the cold room oogling it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the Sun rep was giving an executive overview of its HA features, full hot swap of processor boards, power supplies, yadda yadda yadda.  My (then) boss, a lowly manager in the VP crowd, walks up to the e4500 and pops a processor card out<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the whole system seg faults an UGLY death.  Ahhh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... good times.
<br> <br>
If operating systems are weapons, Solaris is a World War II German railway gun with a cracked breech block.<br>
  - Charlie Stross</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had enough exposure to Solaris in the 90s ... I remember when a Sun install team put in the 1st e4500 16 processor high availability box at my employer ... they had powered it up and had a bunch of our company VPs standing around the cold room oogling it ... the Sun rep was giving an executive overview of its HA features , full hot swap of processor boards , power supplies , yadda yadda yadda .
My ( then ) boss , a lowly manager in the VP crowd , walks up to the e4500 and pops a processor card out ... the whole system seg faults an UGLY death .
Ahhh ... good times .
If operating systems are weapons , Solaris is a World War II German railway gun with a cracked breech block .
- Charlie Stross</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had enough exposure to Solaris in the 90s ... I remember when a Sun install team put in the 1st e4500 16 processor high availability box at my employer ... they had powered it up and had a bunch of our company VPs standing around the cold room oogling it ... the Sun rep was giving an executive overview of its HA features, full hot swap of processor boards, power supplies, yadda yadda yadda.
My (then) boss, a lowly manager in the VP crowd, walks up to the e4500 and pops a processor card out ... the whole system seg faults an UGLY death.
Ahhh ... good times.
If operating systems are weapons, Solaris is a World War II German railway gun with a cracked breech block.
- Charlie Stross</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683361</id>
	<title>Re:Already Open</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1247482680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> It would be kinda hard to kill since the code is already "open" and out in the wild. Oracle can't prevent the current code base from being forked</p></div><p>The notion that once you make something open source, you can't revoke that, is interesting. It's widely believed, but I've seen very little legal analysis to support that belief. What little I've seen from open source lawyers has said that it might NOT be true. I'd love to see a test case.</p><p>Some of the factors that would affect a particular case are whether or not the open source license involved is a contract or a bare license. Bare licenses ARE revokable at will by the licensor. In Rosen's book on open source licensing, that is one of the reasons he recommends against using them, in favor of making sure your license is a contract. This is interesting, because one rather prominent open source license, GPL, is not a contract, according to its authors. They are quite insistent about that.</p><p>If a particular open source license IS a contract, then whether it is revocable or not will depend on the terms of the contract. Even then, it may be possible to revoke it, if the licensor is willing to suffer a penalty for breach of contract. Contract penalties are almost always just monetary damages, not an order of specific performance. I'll leave it to others to speculate how that would work out.</p><p>Another issue is sublicensing. With some open source licenses, if you give me your software, I get my license from you. If I then give the software to a third person, they get their license from me. With other open source licenses, the third person gets their license from you, rather than getting a sublicense from me. GPLv3 is one of the latter kinds of license--it has a specific statement in the license that you cannot sublicense it.</p><p>For licenses that are not sublicensible, what happens if the original licensor simply announces that they are giving out no new licenses? People who have the software could still distribute it, free of risk of copyright suit, since they have a license to distribute. But the recipients would not have a license, so they could not redistribute. It might take a way to kill off some open code this way, because it could take a while for all the current owners of copies to stop distributing, but those would probably eventually go away.</p><p>Note that I am <b>NOT</b> saying that open source licenses ARE revokable. Just that no one has given a convincing reason that they are not, and that almost nothing else in contract/licensing law is irrevocable, so the notion that open source licenses are irrevocable should be treated with skepticism at this point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be kinda hard to kill since the code is already " open " and out in the wild .
Oracle ca n't prevent the current code base from being forkedThe notion that once you make something open source , you ca n't revoke that , is interesting .
It 's widely believed , but I 've seen very little legal analysis to support that belief .
What little I 've seen from open source lawyers has said that it might NOT be true .
I 'd love to see a test case.Some of the factors that would affect a particular case are whether or not the open source license involved is a contract or a bare license .
Bare licenses ARE revokable at will by the licensor .
In Rosen 's book on open source licensing , that is one of the reasons he recommends against using them , in favor of making sure your license is a contract .
This is interesting , because one rather prominent open source license , GPL , is not a contract , according to its authors .
They are quite insistent about that.If a particular open source license IS a contract , then whether it is revocable or not will depend on the terms of the contract .
Even then , it may be possible to revoke it , if the licensor is willing to suffer a penalty for breach of contract .
Contract penalties are almost always just monetary damages , not an order of specific performance .
I 'll leave it to others to speculate how that would work out.Another issue is sublicensing .
With some open source licenses , if you give me your software , I get my license from you .
If I then give the software to a third person , they get their license from me .
With other open source licenses , the third person gets their license from you , rather than getting a sublicense from me .
GPLv3 is one of the latter kinds of license--it has a specific statement in the license that you can not sublicense it.For licenses that are not sublicensible , what happens if the original licensor simply announces that they are giving out no new licenses ?
People who have the software could still distribute it , free of risk of copyright suit , since they have a license to distribute .
But the recipients would not have a license , so they could not redistribute .
It might take a way to kill off some open code this way , because it could take a while for all the current owners of copies to stop distributing , but those would probably eventually go away.Note that I am NOT saying that open source licenses ARE revokable .
Just that no one has given a convincing reason that they are not , and that almost nothing else in contract/licensing law is irrevocable , so the notion that open source licenses are irrevocable should be treated with skepticism at this point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It would be kinda hard to kill since the code is already "open" and out in the wild.
Oracle can't prevent the current code base from being forkedThe notion that once you make something open source, you can't revoke that, is interesting.
It's widely believed, but I've seen very little legal analysis to support that belief.
What little I've seen from open source lawyers has said that it might NOT be true.
I'd love to see a test case.Some of the factors that would affect a particular case are whether or not the open source license involved is a contract or a bare license.
Bare licenses ARE revokable at will by the licensor.
In Rosen's book on open source licensing, that is one of the reasons he recommends against using them, in favor of making sure your license is a contract.
This is interesting, because one rather prominent open source license, GPL, is not a contract, according to its authors.
They are quite insistent about that.If a particular open source license IS a contract, then whether it is revocable or not will depend on the terms of the contract.
Even then, it may be possible to revoke it, if the licensor is willing to suffer a penalty for breach of contract.
Contract penalties are almost always just monetary damages, not an order of specific performance.
I'll leave it to others to speculate how that would work out.Another issue is sublicensing.
With some open source licenses, if you give me your software, I get my license from you.
If I then give the software to a third person, they get their license from me.
With other open source licenses, the third person gets their license from you, rather than getting a sublicense from me.
GPLv3 is one of the latter kinds of license--it has a specific statement in the license that you cannot sublicense it.For licenses that are not sublicensible, what happens if the original licensor simply announces that they are giving out no new licenses?
People who have the software could still distribute it, free of risk of copyright suit, since they have a license to distribute.
But the recipients would not have a license, so they could not redistribute.
It might take a way to kill off some open code this way, because it could take a while for all the current owners of copies to stop distributing, but those would probably eventually go away.Note that I am NOT saying that open source licenses ARE revokable.
Just that no one has given a convincing reason that they are not, and that almost nothing else in contract/licensing law is irrevocable, so the notion that open source licenses are irrevocable should be treated with skepticism at this point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682573</id>
	<title>Re:Complete rubbish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247479380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh my god!! It has started already!!  Sun's legendary inability to make up its mind on Linux will infect Oracle. We'll start hearing that Linux is evil, and then Linux is the saviour. Maybe it will be like Solaris/X86 too.  Praise it. Kill it. Resurrect it.</p><p>We're planning rollouts of RHEL and OpenSolaris/Solaris is nowhere on the horizon.</p><p>As a former Sun admin I appreciated SunOS/Solaris because it paid for my first house.  Alas, they dropped the ball when it came to small and fast and cheap (funny, considering how Sun was once the small/fast/cheap alternative). They got niched between the really high end and the low end.</p><p>I could see Unbreakable Linux going away, but I don't see a benefit to replacing it with Solaris. There are so many deployments happening on x86/x64 Linux that it would be like shooting themselves in the foot.. But hey, Sun was very good at that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh my god ! !
It has started already ! !
Sun 's legendary inability to make up its mind on Linux will infect Oracle .
We 'll start hearing that Linux is evil , and then Linux is the saviour .
Maybe it will be like Solaris/X86 too .
Praise it .
Kill it .
Resurrect it.We 're planning rollouts of RHEL and OpenSolaris/Solaris is nowhere on the horizon.As a former Sun admin I appreciated SunOS/Solaris because it paid for my first house .
Alas , they dropped the ball when it came to small and fast and cheap ( funny , considering how Sun was once the small/fast/cheap alternative ) .
They got niched between the really high end and the low end.I could see Unbreakable Linux going away , but I do n't see a benefit to replacing it with Solaris .
There are so many deployments happening on x86/x64 Linux that it would be like shooting themselves in the foot.. But hey , Sun was very good at that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh my god!!
It has started already!!
Sun's legendary inability to make up its mind on Linux will infect Oracle.
We'll start hearing that Linux is evil, and then Linux is the saviour.
Maybe it will be like Solaris/X86 too.
Praise it.
Kill it.
Resurrect it.We're planning rollouts of RHEL and OpenSolaris/Solaris is nowhere on the horizon.As a former Sun admin I appreciated SunOS/Solaris because it paid for my first house.
Alas, they dropped the ball when it came to small and fast and cheap (funny, considering how Sun was once the small/fast/cheap alternative).
They got niched between the really high end and the low end.I could see Unbreakable Linux going away, but I don't see a benefit to replacing it with Solaris.
There are so many deployments happening on x86/x64 Linux that it would be like shooting themselves in the foot.. But hey, Sun was very good at that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28688523</id>
	<title>Re:Already Open- SAPDB/MAxDB case study example</title>
	<author>emes</author>
	<datestamp>1247571720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SAP closed-sourced SAPDB/MaxDB.</p><p>They never provided anything resembling a decent explanation as to why.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SAP closed-sourced SAPDB/MaxDB.They never provided anything resembling a decent explanation as to why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SAP closed-sourced SAPDB/MaxDB.They never provided anything resembling a decent explanation as to why.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682013</id>
	<title>Re:Makes absolutely no sense</title>
	<author>$RANDOMLUSER</author>
	<datestamp>1247476980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What's more, Oracle's database is well-known to run better on Solaris than on any other operating system. Killing Solaris would remove that competitive advantage.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Indeed. Also, support for Solaris will be a revenue stream for Oracle as well. Solaris on big-boy hardware in the data-center isn't going anywhere any time soon. However, <b>Open</b>Solaris only attracts people trying to do it on the cheap. Oracle can move those people to Unbreakable and plug up the money drain that is OpenSolaris.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's more , Oracle 's database is well-known to run better on Solaris than on any other operating system .
Killing Solaris would remove that competitive advantage .
Indeed. Also , support for Solaris will be a revenue stream for Oracle as well .
Solaris on big-boy hardware in the data-center is n't going anywhere any time soon .
However , OpenSolaris only attracts people trying to do it on the cheap .
Oracle can move those people to Unbreakable and plug up the money drain that is OpenSolaris .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's more, Oracle's database is well-known to run better on Solaris than on any other operating system.
Killing Solaris would remove that competitive advantage.
Indeed. Also, support for Solaris will be a revenue stream for Oracle as well.
Solaris on big-boy hardware in the data-center isn't going anywhere any time soon.
However, OpenSolaris only attracts people trying to do it on the cheap.
Oracle can move those people to Unbreakable and plug up the money drain that is OpenSolaris.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681769</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681469</id>
	<title>Complete rubbish</title>
	<author>saleenS281</author>
	<datestamp>1247518020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oracle aligned with the Linux project because they could have a say in the direction the OS went, and put back code to the project that they wanted/needed for the wares they were selling to be successful.
<br> <br>
Now that they own an entire OS stack, they have no need.  If nothing else, I expect unbreakable Linux to fade away rather quickly once the acquisition is complete, as well as Oracle shifting the focus of all future DB enhancements to have a Solaris focus with Linux as a secondary, as was the case historically.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle aligned with the Linux project because they could have a say in the direction the OS went , and put back code to the project that they wanted/needed for the wares they were selling to be successful .
Now that they own an entire OS stack , they have no need .
If nothing else , I expect unbreakable Linux to fade away rather quickly once the acquisition is complete , as well as Oracle shifting the focus of all future DB enhancements to have a Solaris focus with Linux as a secondary , as was the case historically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle aligned with the Linux project because they could have a say in the direction the OS went, and put back code to the project that they wanted/needed for the wares they were selling to be successful.
Now that they own an entire OS stack, they have no need.
If nothing else, I expect unbreakable Linux to fade away rather quickly once the acquisition is complete, as well as Oracle shifting the focus of all future DB enhancements to have a Solaris focus with Linux as a secondary, as was the case historically.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682063</id>
	<title>Re:One of my favorite quotes...</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1247477220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sure you had 16 cpus?<br>The E4500 has 8 slots, 2 cpus per slot, but you need to use at least one of those slots for an IO board otherwise you have no scsi and no networking, so the practical limit is 14 cpus...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sure you had 16 cpus ? The E4500 has 8 slots , 2 cpus per slot , but you need to use at least one of those slots for an IO board otherwise you have no scsi and no networking , so the practical limit is 14 cpus.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sure you had 16 cpus?The E4500 has 8 slots, 2 cpus per slot, but you need to use at least one of those slots for an IO board otherwise you have no scsi and no networking, so the practical limit is 14 cpus...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681985</id>
	<title>GPL ZFS</title>
	<author>TyFoN</author>
	<datestamp>1247476920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe we finally will see GPLd ZFS now even though btrfs is superior in design. I wouldn't really trust ZFS to hold my data given all the ignored bug reports about data corruption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe we finally will see GPLd ZFS now even though btrfs is superior in design .
I would n't really trust ZFS to hold my data given all the ignored bug reports about data corruption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe we finally will see GPLd ZFS now even though btrfs is superior in design.
I wouldn't really trust ZFS to hold my data given all the ignored bug reports about data corruption.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681435</id>
	<title>Root is like crack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247517900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Root is like crack.</b> Don't smoke it.  I did once and got hooked.  I ran Mac OS Updates as root.  ****, I even had sex with my girlfriend as root.  Man, that caused some permissions problems.  When I started the road to recovery (logging in as Zacks) my girlfriend was all like: &quot;**** no!  You can't get any cause you don't own me an I don't go groups.  You don't have the power to read, write OR execute so get out of my FACE&quot;  So I was all HELL NO bitch.  And she wuz like you do not have root (superuser) privlages so get out of my TruBlueEnvironment!  So then I went chown and chmodded her ass to me.  Dat be-otch be up in my hizzouse.  What what.  Holla!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Root is like crack .
Do n't smoke it .
I did once and got hooked .
I ran Mac OS Updates as root .
* * * * , I even had sex with my girlfriend as root .
Man , that caused some permissions problems .
When I started the road to recovery ( logging in as Zacks ) my girlfriend was all like : " * * * * no !
You ca n't get any cause you do n't own me an I do n't go groups .
You do n't have the power to read , write OR execute so get out of my FACE " So I was all HELL NO bitch .
And she wuz like you do not have root ( superuser ) privlages so get out of my TruBlueEnvironment !
So then I went chown and chmodded her ass to me .
Dat be-otch be up in my hizzouse .
What what .
Holla !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Root is like crack.
Don't smoke it.
I did once and got hooked.
I ran Mac OS Updates as root.
****, I even had sex with my girlfriend as root.
Man, that caused some permissions problems.
When I started the road to recovery (logging in as Zacks) my girlfriend was all like: "**** no!
You can't get any cause you don't own me an I don't go groups.
You don't have the power to read, write OR execute so get out of my FACE"  So I was all HELL NO bitch.
And she wuz like you do not have root (superuser) privlages so get out of my TruBlueEnvironment!
So then I went chown and chmodded her ass to me.
Dat be-otch be up in my hizzouse.
What what.
Holla!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681585</id>
	<title>time to steal features</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247518440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
For anyone already committed to OpenSolaris, there are some obvious things to do: (1) Celebrate the fact that it's open-source, which limits how badly you can be screwed. (2) Write a plan to start transitioning to Linux or FreeBSD or whatever. (3) Help to organize a community operating outside of Oracle that will coordinate on maintaining the OS with security patches for the rest of its lifetime.
</p><p>
For anyone else, now would be a good time to think about stealing features. I know a lot of people really like DTrace. Well, it's already been ported to FreeBSD, and the Linux port seems to be nearing completion.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For anyone already committed to OpenSolaris , there are some obvious things to do : ( 1 ) Celebrate the fact that it 's open-source , which limits how badly you can be screwed .
( 2 ) Write a plan to start transitioning to Linux or FreeBSD or whatever .
( 3 ) Help to organize a community operating outside of Oracle that will coordinate on maintaining the OS with security patches for the rest of its lifetime .
For anyone else , now would be a good time to think about stealing features .
I know a lot of people really like DTrace .
Well , it 's already been ported to FreeBSD , and the Linux port seems to be nearing completion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
For anyone already committed to OpenSolaris, there are some obvious things to do: (1) Celebrate the fact that it's open-source, which limits how badly you can be screwed.
(2) Write a plan to start transitioning to Linux or FreeBSD or whatever.
(3) Help to organize a community operating outside of Oracle that will coordinate on maintaining the OS with security patches for the rest of its lifetime.
For anyone else, now would be a good time to think about stealing features.
I know a lot of people really like DTrace.
Well, it's already been ported to FreeBSD, and the Linux port seems to be nearing completion.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681805</id>
	<title>Dead??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247476140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>OpenSolaris will not be completely dead.  The community at large will pick it up and it will take on a life of its own much in the same way as BSD UNIX was when the Berkeley CSRG group disbanded.  OpenSolaris is still important and used heavily throughout industry.  It is not my intention to start a flame war, but Solaris is even more mature as a platform than Linux.  I am a fan of all open source operating systems and software because it takes computing out of the power of the corporation and puts it in the hands of the users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenSolaris will not be completely dead .
The community at large will pick it up and it will take on a life of its own much in the same way as BSD UNIX was when the Berkeley CSRG group disbanded .
OpenSolaris is still important and used heavily throughout industry .
It is not my intention to start a flame war , but Solaris is even more mature as a platform than Linux .
I am a fan of all open source operating systems and software because it takes computing out of the power of the corporation and puts it in the hands of the users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenSolaris will not be completely dead.
The community at large will pick it up and it will take on a life of its own much in the same way as BSD UNIX was when the Berkeley CSRG group disbanded.
OpenSolaris is still important and used heavily throughout industry.
It is not my intention to start a flame war, but Solaris is even more mature as a platform than Linux.
I am a fan of all open source operating systems and software because it takes computing out of the power of the corporation and puts it in the hands of the users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681561</id>
	<title>Just wondering</title>
	<author>JonJ</author>
	<datestamp>1247518380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Has Nichols ever hit a homerun on his speculations? Most of the time, he seems to me like an old man that just can't seem to connect the dots.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has Nichols ever hit a homerun on his speculations ?
Most of the time , he seems to me like an old man that just ca n't seem to connect the dots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has Nichols ever hit a homerun on his speculations?
Most of the time, he seems to me like an old man that just can't seem to connect the dots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681751</id>
	<title>My final bid for Open Solaris: +1, Ingenious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247475900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is U.S. $ 1.00 and all rights and attachments of Open Solaris.</p><p>Yours In Capitalism,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is U.S. $ 1.00 and all rights and attachments of Open Solaris.Yours In Capitalism,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is U.S. $ 1.00 and all rights and attachments of Open Solaris.Yours In Capitalism,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28684457</id>
	<title>Re:This just in...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247489160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who's not an idiot knows the <i>real</i> truth: Plan 9 is better than all those other shitty OSes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who 's not an idiot knows the real truth : Plan 9 is better than all those other shitty OSes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who's not an idiot knows the real truth: Plan 9 is better than all those other shitty OSes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28688933</id>
	<title>kernel merge?</title>
	<author>shish</author>
	<datestamp>1247576340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Step 1) Relicence opensolaris in a linux-compatible way, then dump it in a tarball somewhere and forget about it for a while
<br>Step 2) Wait for open source developers to port all the useful features to linux for you
<br>Step 3) Profit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Step 1 ) Relicence opensolaris in a linux-compatible way , then dump it in a tarball somewhere and forget about it for a while Step 2 ) Wait for open source developers to port all the useful features to linux for you Step 3 ) Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Step 1) Relicence opensolaris in a linux-compatible way, then dump it in a tarball somewhere and forget about it for a while
Step 2) Wait for open source developers to port all the useful features to linux for you
Step 3) Profit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28687819</id>
	<title>"Is Oracle getting ready to kill OpenSolaris?" FUD</title>
	<author>Zubby</author>
	<datestamp>1247563800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Blog response by Ben Rockwood - Quite a good read if you want some facts in your stories. <a href="http://cuddletech.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=1047" title="cuddletech.com" rel="nofollow">http://cuddletech.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=1047</a> [cuddletech.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blog response by Ben Rockwood - Quite a good read if you want some facts in your stories .
http : //cuddletech.com/blog/pivot/entry.php ? id = 1047 [ cuddletech.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blog response by Ben Rockwood - Quite a good read if you want some facts in your stories.
http://cuddletech.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=1047 [cuddletech.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28697673</id>
	<title>lesson taken</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247572680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering the number of people proposing Solaris to be GPL'd so that ZFS and Dtrace can be ported to Linux<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... an immediate conclusion could be drawn: Solaris features are valuable whatever some may say.</p><p>Then if Oracle decided to favor and support Solaris it could own a home-made solution (full sw stack) proposing several advantages over "corporate" Linux solutions (say RH,Suse)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>I assume that its underlying cost would be negligible in regard of the advantage.</p><p>OpenSolaris is a great way to experiment before integrating in a "rock solid" version.</p><p>I don't see the point in discontinuing either Solaris or OpenSolaris</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering the number of people proposing Solaris to be GPL 'd so that ZFS and Dtrace can be ported to Linux ... an immediate conclusion could be drawn : Solaris features are valuable whatever some may say.Then if Oracle decided to favor and support Solaris it could own a home-made solution ( full sw stack ) proposing several advantages over " corporate " Linux solutions ( say RH,Suse ) ...I assume that its underlying cost would be negligible in regard of the advantage.OpenSolaris is a great way to experiment before integrating in a " rock solid " version.I do n't see the point in discontinuing either Solaris or OpenSolaris</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering the number of people proposing Solaris to be GPL'd so that ZFS and Dtrace can be ported to Linux ... an immediate conclusion could be drawn: Solaris features are valuable whatever some may say.Then if Oracle decided to favor and support Solaris it could own a home-made solution (full sw stack) proposing several advantages over "corporate" Linux solutions (say RH,Suse) ...I assume that its underlying cost would be negligible in regard of the advantage.OpenSolaris is a great way to experiment before integrating in a "rock solid" version.I don't see the point in discontinuing either Solaris or OpenSolaris</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681993</id>
	<title>Re:Already Open</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1247476920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It would be kinda hard to kill since the code is already "open" and out in the wild.</p></div> </blockquote><p>That makes it hard for them to stop anyone who has the resources and desire from starting their own product based on the OpenSolaris code, but it doesn't make it that hard for them to kill OpenSolaris <i>as an actively developed Sun project</i>.</p><p>Not, I should hasten to add, that I think they will do that, just that they can. And if they did, I doubt there'd be a big community keeping OpenSolaris alive after they did. It might survive, but it would become obscure compared to its current status.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be kinda hard to kill since the code is already " open " and out in the wild .
That makes it hard for them to stop anyone who has the resources and desire from starting their own product based on the OpenSolaris code , but it does n't make it that hard for them to kill OpenSolaris as an actively developed Sun project.Not , I should hasten to add , that I think they will do that , just that they can .
And if they did , I doubt there 'd be a big community keeping OpenSolaris alive after they did .
It might survive , but it would become obscure compared to its current status .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be kinda hard to kill since the code is already "open" and out in the wild.
That makes it hard for them to stop anyone who has the resources and desire from starting their own product based on the OpenSolaris code, but it doesn't make it that hard for them to kill OpenSolaris as an actively developed Sun project.Not, I should hasten to add, that I think they will do that, just that they can.
And if they did, I doubt there'd be a big community keeping OpenSolaris alive after they did.
It might survive, but it would become obscure compared to its current status.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28684641</id>
	<title>Re:Look at the bright side -- ZFS for Linux!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247490300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...compiled into a Linux kernel because of inane licensing issues*. Someone should write a patch for those of us that want to compile it ourselves on the theory that the FSF would be insane to sue a personal user of open-source software</p></div><p>Where someone ( particularly on the Opensolaris side ) to have suggested doing this with a GPL based project the immense outcry would be heard on the moon. Why not re-implement it per the spec ( I know someone who did it in Java ), or just use OpenSolaris.<br>OpenSolaris NAS, nothing short of amazing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...compiled into a Linux kernel because of inane licensing issues * .
Someone should write a patch for those of us that want to compile it ourselves on the theory that the FSF would be insane to sue a personal user of open-source softwareWhere someone ( particularly on the Opensolaris side ) to have suggested doing this with a GPL based project the immense outcry would be heard on the moon .
Why not re-implement it per the spec ( I know someone who did it in Java ) , or just use OpenSolaris.OpenSolaris NAS , nothing short of amazing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...compiled into a Linux kernel because of inane licensing issues*.
Someone should write a patch for those of us that want to compile it ourselves on the theory that the FSF would be insane to sue a personal user of open-source softwareWhere someone ( particularly on the Opensolaris side ) to have suggested doing this with a GPL based project the immense outcry would be heard on the moon.
Why not re-implement it per the spec ( I know someone who did it in Java ), or just use OpenSolaris.OpenSolaris NAS, nothing short of amazing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683879</id>
	<title>Re:Makes absolutely no sense</title>
	<author>jabuzz</author>
	<datestamp>1247485800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the moment there is only one company I can goto and by a database with support and not have the vendor be able to pass the buck. That company is IBM with the DB2 on AIX on Power stack. It is IBM end to end. If Oracle take over Sun, then there will be another stack in the mix, Oracle on Solaris on Sparc. That has to be some selling point.</p><p>That said if I where Larry, I would do away with OpenSolaris, but only because I would make no distinction between Solaris and OpenSolaris. I would push it for all it is worth against Linux</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the moment there is only one company I can goto and by a database with support and not have the vendor be able to pass the buck .
That company is IBM with the DB2 on AIX on Power stack .
It is IBM end to end .
If Oracle take over Sun , then there will be another stack in the mix , Oracle on Solaris on Sparc .
That has to be some selling point.That said if I where Larry , I would do away with OpenSolaris , but only because I would make no distinction between Solaris and OpenSolaris .
I would push it for all it is worth against Linux</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the moment there is only one company I can goto and by a database with support and not have the vendor be able to pass the buck.
That company is IBM with the DB2 on AIX on Power stack.
It is IBM end to end.
If Oracle take over Sun, then there will be another stack in the mix, Oracle on Solaris on Sparc.
That has to be some selling point.That said if I where Larry, I would do away with OpenSolaris, but only because I would make no distinction between Solaris and OpenSolaris.
I would push it for all it is worth against Linux</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681769</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683841</id>
	<title>Cut And Paste</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247485620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow... does Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols actually write stuff?</p><p>I thought he just cut and pasted from press releases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow... does Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols actually write stuff ? I thought he just cut and pasted from press releases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow... does Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols actually write stuff?I thought he just cut and pasted from press releases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683887</id>
	<title>Re:Linux is the biggest fish in the "open" space.</title>
	<author>kindbud</author>
	<datestamp>1247485920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obvious troll is obvious.  Well, except to all you n00bs who modded him "interesting."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obvious troll is obvious .
Well , except to all you n00bs who modded him " interesting .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obvious troll is obvious.
Well, except to all you n00bs who modded him "interesting.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28728161</id>
	<title>Re:Look at the bright side -- ZFS for Linux!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247837700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>INALB, GPL doesn't prevent end users from linking to anything.<br>It does prevent distribution of a linked version and the non-GPL entity from bundling their code with GPL stuff.</p><p>OTOH, if the library/extension could be easily linked to the Linux kernel, but it just takes extra effort by the users, that's fine.</p><p>Need a precedence?  nVidia video drivers and MP3 audio codecs. Users have to chose to add these things in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>INALB , GPL does n't prevent end users from linking to anything.It does prevent distribution of a linked version and the non-GPL entity from bundling their code with GPL stuff.OTOH , if the library/extension could be easily linked to the Linux kernel , but it just takes extra effort by the users , that 's fine.Need a precedence ?
nVidia video drivers and MP3 audio codecs .
Users have to chose to add these things in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>INALB, GPL doesn't prevent end users from linking to anything.It does prevent distribution of a linked version and the non-GPL entity from bundling their code with GPL stuff.OTOH, if the library/extension could be easily linked to the Linux kernel, but it just takes extra effort by the users, that's fine.Need a precedence?
nVidia video drivers and MP3 audio codecs.
Users have to chose to add these things in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28694255</id>
	<title>Re:Linux is the biggest fish in the "open" space.</title>
	<author>thommym</author>
	<datestamp>1247599740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Two comments.

1. Not only is Linux the biggest fish, it's by far the ugliest too

2. OpenSolaris development wouldn't die if Oracle only layed off the bottom 10\%. They'd have to start picking from the positive sigma side...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Two comments .
1. Not only is Linux the biggest fish , it 's by far the ugliest too 2 .
OpenSolaris development would n't die if Oracle only layed off the bottom 10 \ % .
They 'd have to start picking from the positive sigma side.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two comments.
1. Not only is Linux the biggest fish, it's by far the ugliest too

2.
OpenSolaris development wouldn't die if Oracle only layed off the bottom 10\%.
They'd have to start picking from the positive sigma side...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681773</id>
	<title>Linux is the biggest fish in the "open" space.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247475960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless Oracle explicitly spends resources to develop OpenSolaris, it will fade away and die in the "open" space as Linux is the biggest fish there.  The typical geek who builds a freeware application builds it for Linux first since Linux is the dominant freeware operating system.
<p>
So, what is the chance that Oracle will spend resources on OpenSolaris?    The probability is exactly 0.
</p><p>
Oracle -- along with Intel and Cisco -- is notorious for viewing engineers as dots on a graph and rating them on a bell curve, firing the bottom 10\% annually.  These companies do not waste any money or time on "underperformance" by either engineers or products.  If a product does not produce any revenue, then it is abandoned.
</p><p>
This shark-like mentality has gained popularity in recent years among American companies.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless Oracle explicitly spends resources to develop OpenSolaris , it will fade away and die in the " open " space as Linux is the biggest fish there .
The typical geek who builds a freeware application builds it for Linux first since Linux is the dominant freeware operating system .
So , what is the chance that Oracle will spend resources on OpenSolaris ?
The probability is exactly 0 .
Oracle -- along with Intel and Cisco -- is notorious for viewing engineers as dots on a graph and rating them on a bell curve , firing the bottom 10 \ % annually .
These companies do not waste any money or time on " underperformance " by either engineers or products .
If a product does not produce any revenue , then it is abandoned .
This shark-like mentality has gained popularity in recent years among American companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless Oracle explicitly spends resources to develop OpenSolaris, it will fade away and die in the "open" space as Linux is the biggest fish there.
The typical geek who builds a freeware application builds it for Linux first since Linux is the dominant freeware operating system.
So, what is the chance that Oracle will spend resources on OpenSolaris?
The probability is exactly 0.
Oracle -- along with Intel and Cisco -- is notorious for viewing engineers as dots on a graph and rating them on a bell curve, firing the bottom 10\% annually.
These companies do not waste any money or time on "underperformance" by either engineers or products.
If a product does not produce any revenue, then it is abandoned.
This shark-like mentality has gained popularity in recent years among American companies.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28686973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28684917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28728161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28694555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28684641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28686283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28694757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28705547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28687531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28694255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28697769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28688523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28686163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28691285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28685469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28687385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28684537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28687175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28685095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28689949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28686491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28687487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28690047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28686491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28690079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28684457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28684833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1847254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1847254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682153
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28685469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683879
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1847254.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28687487
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1847254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681773
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683887
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28684833
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28691285
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682809
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28694555
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28694255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681953
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28684537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28686491
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28689949
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28690047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683361
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28688523
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28705547
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28687385
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28690079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1847254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681731
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1847254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28686163
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1847254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682299
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1847254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682733
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28686973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682175
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28686283
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28687175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28684641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28728161
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1847254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1847254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28687531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28694757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682063
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682285
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1847254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681931
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1847254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28697769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28685095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28684457
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1847254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28681469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682573
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1847254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28682053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28683813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1847254.28684917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
