<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_16_2322203</id>
	<title>Why OpenBSD's Release Process Works</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1247744220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Twelve years ago <a href="http://www.openbsd.org/">OpenBSD</a> developers started engineering a release process that has resulted in quality software being delivered on a consistent 6 month schedule &mdash; 25 times in a row, exactly on the date promised, and with no critical bugs. This on-time delivery process is very different from how corporations manage their product releases and much more in tune with how volunteer driven communities are supposed to function.
<a href="http://theos.com/">Theo de Raadt</a> explains in this presentation <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7pkyDUX5uM">how the OpenBSD release process is managed</a> (video) and why it has been such a success."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Twelve years ago OpenBSD developers started engineering a release process that has resulted in quality software being delivered on a consistent 6 month schedule    25 times in a row , exactly on the date promised , and with no critical bugs .
This on-time delivery process is very different from how corporations manage their product releases and much more in tune with how volunteer driven communities are supposed to function .
Theo de Raadt explains in this presentation how the OpenBSD release process is managed ( video ) and why it has been such a success .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Twelve years ago OpenBSD developers started engineering a release process that has resulted in quality software being delivered on a consistent 6 month schedule — 25 times in a row, exactly on the date promised, and with no critical bugs.
This on-time delivery process is very different from how corporations manage their product releases and much more in tune with how volunteer driven communities are supposed to function.
Theo de Raadt explains in this presentation how the OpenBSD release process is managed (video) and why it has been such a success.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28737379</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247841120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bah.<br>Linux is a kernel.<br>O/N/F/BSD are complete os.<br>How many linuxes are there?<br>Linux and the BSDs are all good and have their advantages and disadvantages.<br>For stability, efficiency, network and security we all have to admit OBSD is at the top.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah.Linux is a kernel.O/N/F/BSD are complete os.How many linuxes are there ? Linux and the BSDs are all good and have their advantages and disadvantages.For stability , efficiency , network and security we all have to admit OBSD is at the top .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah.Linux is a kernel.O/N/F/BSD are complete os.How many linuxes are there?Linux and the BSDs are all good and have their advantages and disadvantages.For stability, efficiency, network and security we all have to admit OBSD is at the top.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725087</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1247752380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most of the developers of the *BSDs are variously referred to as "difficult, abrasive, etc.," although Theo, to his credit, has had a major change in reputation over the past several years.</p></div><p>I've never heard that referring to anyone in the BSDs but Theo himself. When was the last time you heard complaints about NetBSD or the FreeBSD core team?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They also tend to fragment, as noted by the number of variants, which further weakens their position. Linux, on the other hand [...]</p></div><p>...is even more fragmented. How many Debian derivatives are there? RedHat?  What about Gentoo, LFS, etc.?  There's probably more similarity (and shared code) between FreeBSD and OpenBSD than between Ubuntu and Slackware.</p><p>Cut the BSDs some love. They deserve it, and there's plenty to go around.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the developers of the * BSDs are variously referred to as " difficult , abrasive , etc. , " although Theo , to his credit , has had a major change in reputation over the past several years.I 've never heard that referring to anyone in the BSDs but Theo himself .
When was the last time you heard complaints about NetBSD or the FreeBSD core team ? They also tend to fragment , as noted by the number of variants , which further weakens their position .
Linux , on the other hand [ ... ] ...is even more fragmented .
How many Debian derivatives are there ?
RedHat ? What about Gentoo , LFS , etc. ?
There 's probably more similarity ( and shared code ) between FreeBSD and OpenBSD than between Ubuntu and Slackware.Cut the BSDs some love .
They deserve it , and there 's plenty to go around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the developers of the *BSDs are variously referred to as "difficult, abrasive, etc.," although Theo, to his credit, has had a major change in reputation over the past several years.I've never heard that referring to anyone in the BSDs but Theo himself.
When was the last time you heard complaints about NetBSD or the FreeBSD core team?They also tend to fragment, as noted by the number of variants, which further weakens their position.
Linux, on the other hand [...]...is even more fragmented.
How many Debian derivatives are there?
RedHat?  What about Gentoo, LFS, etc.?
There's probably more similarity (and shared code) between FreeBSD and OpenBSD than between Ubuntu and Slackware.Cut the BSDs some love.
They deserve it, and there's plenty to go around.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725137</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>MeNeXT</author>
	<datestamp>1247752860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Marketshare? What does market share have to do with this? OpenBSD is for security. Secure out of the box. Joe six pak has no need for security. So OpenBSD is not for them. FreeBSD has stability, standardization and has been consistent since almost it's inception. If you like BSD and need it to run on obscure hardware then NetBSD is for you. If you wish a stable desktop Linux or one of it's flavors. Linux is also a good server. Mac OS X is great if you want user friendly and can be customized if need be. Windows  is great because everyone thinks they can support it and it runs a lot of business software.</p><p>Each and every one has its pros and cons and I'm glad that I CAN choose which I will use for a specific task. I couldn't see myself committing to  any one in particular for all of my computing needs.</p><p>As for people who choose the OS based on market share, all I have to say is good luck with that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Marketshare ?
What does market share have to do with this ?
OpenBSD is for security .
Secure out of the box .
Joe six pak has no need for security .
So OpenBSD is not for them .
FreeBSD has stability , standardization and has been consistent since almost it 's inception .
If you like BSD and need it to run on obscure hardware then NetBSD is for you .
If you wish a stable desktop Linux or one of it 's flavors .
Linux is also a good server .
Mac OS X is great if you want user friendly and can be customized if need be .
Windows is great because everyone thinks they can support it and it runs a lot of business software.Each and every one has its pros and cons and I 'm glad that I CAN choose which I will use for a specific task .
I could n't see myself committing to any one in particular for all of my computing needs.As for people who choose the OS based on market share , all I have to say is good luck with that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Marketshare?
What does market share have to do with this?
OpenBSD is for security.
Secure out of the box.
Joe six pak has no need for security.
So OpenBSD is not for them.
FreeBSD has stability, standardization and has been consistent since almost it's inception.
If you like BSD and need it to run on obscure hardware then NetBSD is for you.
If you wish a stable desktop Linux or one of it's flavors.
Linux is also a good server.
Mac OS X is great if you want user friendly and can be customized if need be.
Windows  is great because everyone thinks they can support it and it runs a lot of business software.Each and every one has its pros and cons and I'm glad that I CAN choose which I will use for a specific task.
I couldn't see myself committing to  any one in particular for all of my computing needs.As for people who choose the OS based on market share, all I have to say is good luck with that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727053</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?</title>
	<author>hoggy</author>
	<datestamp>1247823960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everyone runs the current build (he implies they run the daily build, but I expect that is too much hassle to upgrade every day, so in fact everyone runs the last sprint build (which is less than 2 weeks old, and has had a brief stabalizaiton period).</p></div><p>It's maybe worth noting that the BSDs have been source distributions for a very long time and that rebuilding the world is ingrained in the being of BSD developers. There's no real reason why they wouldn't be upgrading daily.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone runs the current build ( he implies they run the daily build , but I expect that is too much hassle to upgrade every day , so in fact everyone runs the last sprint build ( which is less than 2 weeks old , and has had a brief stabalizaiton period ) .It 's maybe worth noting that the BSDs have been source distributions for a very long time and that rebuilding the world is ingrained in the being of BSD developers .
There 's no real reason why they would n't be upgrading daily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone runs the current build (he implies they run the daily build, but I expect that is too much hassle to upgrade every day, so in fact everyone runs the last sprint build (which is less than 2 weeks old, and has had a brief stabalizaiton period).It's maybe worth noting that the BSDs have been source distributions for a very long time and that rebuilding the world is ingrained in the being of BSD developers.
There's no real reason why they wouldn't be upgrading daily.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724879</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?</title>
	<author>darthwader</author>
	<datestamp>1247750580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>To translate to the "agile" buzwords of the day, they use a 2 week sprint cycle, and at the end of each sprint, the features for that sprint are complete and working, and the product is stable.  They ensure this by doing daily builds and testing on those builds.  Everyone runs the current build (he implies they run the daily build, but I expect that is too much hassle to upgrade every day, so in fact everyone runs the last sprint build (which is less than 2 weeks old, and has had a brief stabalizaiton period).<br><br>It's not rocket science, the notion of small "sprints" and a releasable product ready at the end of each sprint is fairly well known.  All it requires is more discipline than 99\% of development teams have.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)  Kudos to them for having the discipline to make it work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To translate to the " agile " buzwords of the day , they use a 2 week sprint cycle , and at the end of each sprint , the features for that sprint are complete and working , and the product is stable .
They ensure this by doing daily builds and testing on those builds .
Everyone runs the current build ( he implies they run the daily build , but I expect that is too much hassle to upgrade every day , so in fact everyone runs the last sprint build ( which is less than 2 weeks old , and has had a brief stabalizaiton period ) .It 's not rocket science , the notion of small " sprints " and a releasable product ready at the end of each sprint is fairly well known .
All it requires is more discipline than 99 \ % of development teams have .
: - ) Kudos to them for having the discipline to make it work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To translate to the "agile" buzwords of the day, they use a 2 week sprint cycle, and at the end of each sprint, the features for that sprint are complete and working, and the product is stable.
They ensure this by doing daily builds and testing on those builds.
Everyone runs the current build (he implies they run the daily build, but I expect that is too much hassle to upgrade every day, so in fact everyone runs the last sprint build (which is less than 2 weeks old, and has had a brief stabalizaiton period).It's not rocket science, the notion of small "sprints" and a releasable product ready at the end of each sprint is fairly well known.
All it requires is more discipline than 99\% of development teams have.
:-)  Kudos to them for having the discipline to make it work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725063</id>
	<title>*Two* critical bugs, actually</title>
	<author>Nimey</author>
	<datestamp>1247752200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>both with SSH.  That's still damned impressive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>both with SSH .
That 's still damned impressive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>both with SSH.
That's still damned impressive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726837</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?</title>
	<author>Secret Rabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1247862960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"""<br>that many developers sit around idle when their work is completed early during this phase.<br>"""</p><p>Developers *can* code new features during this phase.  There is a difference between developing and committing those change to CVS.  Developers don't have to be idle.  If they don't want to do that, they can always help with the testing and bug fixing.  Just saying that developers can do more than just one little thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" " " that many developers sit around idle when their work is completed early during this phase .
" " " Developers * can * code new features during this phase .
There is a difference between developing and committing those change to CVS .
Developers do n't have to be idle .
If they do n't want to do that , they can always help with the testing and bug fixing .
Just saying that developers can do more than just one little thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"""that many developers sit around idle when their work is completed early during this phase.
"""Developers *can* code new features during this phase.
There is a difference between developing and committing those change to CVS.
Developers don't have to be idle.
If they don't want to do that, they can always help with the testing and bug fixing.
Just saying that developers can do more than just one little thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724929</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>Piranhaa</author>
	<datestamp>1247750940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have different philosophies. I really don't know where you're going with that post because isn't very accurate. You can't compare the "Linux Kernel" with OpenBSD's whole. A kernel is pretty much useless without a "userland." OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD are all operating systems. Linux, sorry to say, is not.</p><p>If you want to compare BSD versions to Linux versions, then you'd have to compare with (in no particular order):<br>-Gentoo<br>-Debian - Ubuntu - Xubuntu - Xandros - (how many more are there?)<br>-Slackware<br>-RedHat<br>-Ubuntu<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....  because I can't even keep track</p><p>So, you have a million confusion projects going on based on the code all, called "Linux". How many versions of "OpenBSD" are there out there? Umm, ONE. Sure, someone could go and make their own userland and such, but it cannot be called OpenBSD. So, before you go on a rant about how many times BSD has been forked, please get your facts straight.</p><p>Thanks,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have different philosophies .
I really do n't know where you 're going with that post because is n't very accurate .
You ca n't compare the " Linux Kernel " with OpenBSD 's whole .
A kernel is pretty much useless without a " userland .
" OpenBSD , FreeBSD , NetBSD are all operating systems .
Linux , sorry to say , is not.If you want to compare BSD versions to Linux versions , then you 'd have to compare with ( in no particular order ) : -Gentoo-Debian - Ubuntu - Xubuntu - Xandros - ( how many more are there ?
) -Slackware-RedHat-Ubuntu .... because I ca n't even keep trackSo , you have a million confusion projects going on based on the code all , called " Linux " .
How many versions of " OpenBSD " are there out there ?
Umm , ONE .
Sure , someone could go and make their own userland and such , but it can not be called OpenBSD .
So , before you go on a rant about how many times BSD has been forked , please get your facts straight.Thanks,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have different philosophies.
I really don't know where you're going with that post because isn't very accurate.
You can't compare the "Linux Kernel" with OpenBSD's whole.
A kernel is pretty much useless without a "userland.
" OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD are all operating systems.
Linux, sorry to say, is not.If you want to compare BSD versions to Linux versions, then you'd have to compare with (in no particular order):-Gentoo-Debian - Ubuntu - Xubuntu - Xandros - (how many more are there?
)-Slackware-RedHat-Ubuntu ....  because I can't even keep trackSo, you have a million confusion projects going on based on the code all, called "Linux".
How many versions of "OpenBSD" are there out there?
Umm, ONE.
Sure, someone could go and make their own userland and such, but it cannot be called OpenBSD.
So, before you go on a rant about how many times BSD has been forked, please get your facts straight.Thanks,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727999</id>
	<title>Sick of Debian fanboys</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247836380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Debian fanboys are really out in force in the comments on this article.</p><p>I'm tired of the refusal to acknowledge just how chronically Debian sucks.  It is the worst Linux/BSD distribution in existence, by a mile; the over-engineered garbage they try and add to virtually every application/package they get hold of is beyond belief.  I was wrestling with adding configs to both vim and apache in Ubuntu the other day, when I finally realised that the Debian idiots have tried to make their own conf hardwired in, and then have another file somewhere else (with God only knows what name, in most cases) for "user" changes.</p><p>The answer isn't simply to use another distribution if I don't like it, either.  Debian offends me to the point where I want it stopped.  The horrible mess of perl glue that they refer to as their custom kernel build framework is yet another example.  Good luck trying to compile a custom kernel in Ubuntu; there's just so many minor perl snags that it can fail on, that it is virtually impossible.</p><p>I savagely, passionately hate Debian, and even more, I <b>hate</b> the system's developers and users continuing to insist on how wonderful it is, because as long as they continue to do that, the system's problems will not get solved.</p><p>Debian is suffering from the same fundamental issue that most alcoholics do.  You need to be willing to acknowledge that a problem exists before you can begin solving it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Debian fanboys are really out in force in the comments on this article.I 'm tired of the refusal to acknowledge just how chronically Debian sucks .
It is the worst Linux/BSD distribution in existence , by a mile ; the over-engineered garbage they try and add to virtually every application/package they get hold of is beyond belief .
I was wrestling with adding configs to both vim and apache in Ubuntu the other day , when I finally realised that the Debian idiots have tried to make their own conf hardwired in , and then have another file somewhere else ( with God only knows what name , in most cases ) for " user " changes.The answer is n't simply to use another distribution if I do n't like it , either .
Debian offends me to the point where I want it stopped .
The horrible mess of perl glue that they refer to as their custom kernel build framework is yet another example .
Good luck trying to compile a custom kernel in Ubuntu ; there 's just so many minor perl snags that it can fail on , that it is virtually impossible.I savagely , passionately hate Debian , and even more , I hate the system 's developers and users continuing to insist on how wonderful it is , because as long as they continue to do that , the system 's problems will not get solved.Debian is suffering from the same fundamental issue that most alcoholics do .
You need to be willing to acknowledge that a problem exists before you can begin solving it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Debian fanboys are really out in force in the comments on this article.I'm tired of the refusal to acknowledge just how chronically Debian sucks.
It is the worst Linux/BSD distribution in existence, by a mile; the over-engineered garbage they try and add to virtually every application/package they get hold of is beyond belief.
I was wrestling with adding configs to both vim and apache in Ubuntu the other day, when I finally realised that the Debian idiots have tried to make their own conf hardwired in, and then have another file somewhere else (with God only knows what name, in most cases) for "user" changes.The answer isn't simply to use another distribution if I don't like it, either.
Debian offends me to the point where I want it stopped.
The horrible mess of perl glue that they refer to as their custom kernel build framework is yet another example.
Good luck trying to compile a custom kernel in Ubuntu; there's just so many minor perl snags that it can fail on, that it is virtually impossible.I savagely, passionately hate Debian, and even more, I hate the system's developers and users continuing to insist on how wonderful it is, because as long as they continue to do that, the system's problems will not get solved.Debian is suffering from the same fundamental issue that most alcoholics do.
You need to be willing to acknowledge that a problem exists before you can begin solving it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28730611</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247848680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are members of the FreeBSD core team who are excessively rude and "abrasive", specifically Kris Kennaway.  You can peruse many of the FreeBSD mailing lists and find him repetitively arguing with other developers and end-users alike.  Occasionally he's tolerable and even civil, but many of his personality traits mimic that of another FreeBSD developer who might as well be part of Core as a result of his extensive work: Dag-Erling Smorgrav.  Dag-Erling has been recently fixing the large number of warnings output during buildworld/buildkernel, which is a noble effort -- but is also the sole maintainer/author of OpenPAM, which has many bugs (leaking fds and other oddities, some of which affect Dovecot), and hasn't been updated in nearly 4 years.  But back to his behaviour: like Kris, peruse the mailing lists and you'll find him flaming people left and right, being rude constantly.  The best part is that you will always find these two at BSD conventions hanging on one another like flies on shit.</p><p>On the other hand, FreeBSD Core members such as Robert Watson, Philip Paeps, Brooks Davis, and SATO Hiroki are incredibly friendly, fun to work with, talk to, discuss things with, and are always kind, even to those who they disagree with.  Robert is probably the best example there is of someone in the FreeBSD development group who actually listens to opposing views and discusses -- not debates -- them.  Another individual, who is not part of FreeBSD Core (but should be) is John Baldwin; friendly, and highly technical.  Many of his commits are worthwhile, and he understands the need to improve FreeBSD for server environments.  John truly improves the OS and fixes low-level bugs.  Another worthy mention is Matt Dillon of the DragonflyBSD Project, who is an amazing individual -- if you mail him, expect a verbose, well-written, friendly response that answers your question.</p><p>On the other side of the fence you have developers who are constantly missing in action, such as Soren Schmidt (original author of the FreeBSD ATA layer) and David O'Brien.  Look through some open FreeBSD PRs; you'll find many assigned to these individuals which have gone untouched and unanswered for literally 3-4 years, and some of which even include working patches to address the problems -- yet are not committed.  I remember seeing a FreeBSD Wiki page which documented known bugs and broken behaviour in the FreeBSD ATA layer, and other areas of the kernel as well; this should come as no surprise.  FreeBSD still lacks NCQ support, despite supporting AHCI; another example of how slow the evolutionary process is with BSD.</p><p>With regards to BSDs as a whole, as someone who has been a part of their development since 1995, I can assure you the stereotypes presented (behaviour and attitudes that are aggressive, rude, arrogant and often argumentative) are accurate.  They do not apply to all developers, but they apply to many -- especially those who are in key roles or maintain key components.  OpenBSD's Theo is just an extreme example.</p><p>Key Linux developers, on the other hand, are very similar in this regard.  Linux application (userland) developers, on the contrary, are not (as a majority).  Most of those developers want to accomplish goals and do so -- while in BSD-land, application (userland) developers often find themselves "stuck in a rut" because the kernel or device layer contains bugs or lacks proper ioctl support for what they're trying to interface with.  Opening PRs, sending Email to the responsible committer or maintainer, or even posting to mailing lists, often results in one of two things: a) silence, or b) replies from other developers or end-users who want to "do battle" rather than address the core issue.</p><p>What people need to understand is that the number of eyes developing and supporting Linux (I'm referring to kernel, device support, and ABI) is significantly greater than that of the BSDs, and this is where Linux has the upper hand.  The BSDs have a very strong, supportive userbase, but the number of developers who actually</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are members of the FreeBSD core team who are excessively rude and " abrasive " , specifically Kris Kennaway .
You can peruse many of the FreeBSD mailing lists and find him repetitively arguing with other developers and end-users alike .
Occasionally he 's tolerable and even civil , but many of his personality traits mimic that of another FreeBSD developer who might as well be part of Core as a result of his extensive work : Dag-Erling Smorgrav .
Dag-Erling has been recently fixing the large number of warnings output during buildworld/buildkernel , which is a noble effort -- but is also the sole maintainer/author of OpenPAM , which has many bugs ( leaking fds and other oddities , some of which affect Dovecot ) , and has n't been updated in nearly 4 years .
But back to his behaviour : like Kris , peruse the mailing lists and you 'll find him flaming people left and right , being rude constantly .
The best part is that you will always find these two at BSD conventions hanging on one another like flies on shit.On the other hand , FreeBSD Core members such as Robert Watson , Philip Paeps , Brooks Davis , and SATO Hiroki are incredibly friendly , fun to work with , talk to , discuss things with , and are always kind , even to those who they disagree with .
Robert is probably the best example there is of someone in the FreeBSD development group who actually listens to opposing views and discusses -- not debates -- them .
Another individual , who is not part of FreeBSD Core ( but should be ) is John Baldwin ; friendly , and highly technical .
Many of his commits are worthwhile , and he understands the need to improve FreeBSD for server environments .
John truly improves the OS and fixes low-level bugs .
Another worthy mention is Matt Dillon of the DragonflyBSD Project , who is an amazing individual -- if you mail him , expect a verbose , well-written , friendly response that answers your question.On the other side of the fence you have developers who are constantly missing in action , such as Soren Schmidt ( original author of the FreeBSD ATA layer ) and David O'Brien .
Look through some open FreeBSD PRs ; you 'll find many assigned to these individuals which have gone untouched and unanswered for literally 3-4 years , and some of which even include working patches to address the problems -- yet are not committed .
I remember seeing a FreeBSD Wiki page which documented known bugs and broken behaviour in the FreeBSD ATA layer , and other areas of the kernel as well ; this should come as no surprise .
FreeBSD still lacks NCQ support , despite supporting AHCI ; another example of how slow the evolutionary process is with BSD.With regards to BSDs as a whole , as someone who has been a part of their development since 1995 , I can assure you the stereotypes presented ( behaviour and attitudes that are aggressive , rude , arrogant and often argumentative ) are accurate .
They do not apply to all developers , but they apply to many -- especially those who are in key roles or maintain key components .
OpenBSD 's Theo is just an extreme example.Key Linux developers , on the other hand , are very similar in this regard .
Linux application ( userland ) developers , on the contrary , are not ( as a majority ) .
Most of those developers want to accomplish goals and do so -- while in BSD-land , application ( userland ) developers often find themselves " stuck in a rut " because the kernel or device layer contains bugs or lacks proper ioctl support for what they 're trying to interface with .
Opening PRs , sending Email to the responsible committer or maintainer , or even posting to mailing lists , often results in one of two things : a ) silence , or b ) replies from other developers or end-users who want to " do battle " rather than address the core issue.What people need to understand is that the number of eyes developing and supporting Linux ( I 'm referring to kernel , device support , and ABI ) is significantly greater than that of the BSDs , and this is where Linux has the upper hand .
The BSDs have a very strong , supportive userbase , but the number of developers who actually</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are members of the FreeBSD core team who are excessively rude and "abrasive", specifically Kris Kennaway.
You can peruse many of the FreeBSD mailing lists and find him repetitively arguing with other developers and end-users alike.
Occasionally he's tolerable and even civil, but many of his personality traits mimic that of another FreeBSD developer who might as well be part of Core as a result of his extensive work: Dag-Erling Smorgrav.
Dag-Erling has been recently fixing the large number of warnings output during buildworld/buildkernel, which is a noble effort -- but is also the sole maintainer/author of OpenPAM, which has many bugs (leaking fds and other oddities, some of which affect Dovecot), and hasn't been updated in nearly 4 years.
But back to his behaviour: like Kris, peruse the mailing lists and you'll find him flaming people left and right, being rude constantly.
The best part is that you will always find these two at BSD conventions hanging on one another like flies on shit.On the other hand, FreeBSD Core members such as Robert Watson, Philip Paeps, Brooks Davis, and SATO Hiroki are incredibly friendly, fun to work with, talk to, discuss things with, and are always kind, even to those who they disagree with.
Robert is probably the best example there is of someone in the FreeBSD development group who actually listens to opposing views and discusses -- not debates -- them.
Another individual, who is not part of FreeBSD Core (but should be) is John Baldwin; friendly, and highly technical.
Many of his commits are worthwhile, and he understands the need to improve FreeBSD for server environments.
John truly improves the OS and fixes low-level bugs.
Another worthy mention is Matt Dillon of the DragonflyBSD Project, who is an amazing individual -- if you mail him, expect a verbose, well-written, friendly response that answers your question.On the other side of the fence you have developers who are constantly missing in action, such as Soren Schmidt (original author of the FreeBSD ATA layer) and David O'Brien.
Look through some open FreeBSD PRs; you'll find many assigned to these individuals which have gone untouched and unanswered for literally 3-4 years, and some of which even include working patches to address the problems -- yet are not committed.
I remember seeing a FreeBSD Wiki page which documented known bugs and broken behaviour in the FreeBSD ATA layer, and other areas of the kernel as well; this should come as no surprise.
FreeBSD still lacks NCQ support, despite supporting AHCI; another example of how slow the evolutionary process is with BSD.With regards to BSDs as a whole, as someone who has been a part of their development since 1995, I can assure you the stereotypes presented (behaviour and attitudes that are aggressive, rude, arrogant and often argumentative) are accurate.
They do not apply to all developers, but they apply to many -- especially those who are in key roles or maintain key components.
OpenBSD's Theo is just an extreme example.Key Linux developers, on the other hand, are very similar in this regard.
Linux application (userland) developers, on the contrary, are not (as a majority).
Most of those developers want to accomplish goals and do so -- while in BSD-land, application (userland) developers often find themselves "stuck in a rut" because the kernel or device layer contains bugs or lacks proper ioctl support for what they're trying to interface with.
Opening PRs, sending Email to the responsible committer or maintainer, or even posting to mailing lists, often results in one of two things: a) silence, or b) replies from other developers or end-users who want to "do battle" rather than address the core issue.What people need to understand is that the number of eyes developing and supporting Linux (I'm referring to kernel, device support, and ABI) is significantly greater than that of the BSDs, and this is where Linux has the upper hand.
The BSDs have a very strong, supportive userbase, but the number of developers who actually</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726149</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1247765820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A couple of points.  First not everyone regards the binary blobs as a truly horrible situation - we are talking about linux here and not hurd.  Linux is not a gnu project and most of those frustrated "on all sides" were from the outside looking in without contributing a single line  and were even at times working at cross purposes (eg. RMS demanding that gcc stop working on linux only optimisations becuase that wouldn't nelp hurd).<br>In the second case I think you are trying to compare success vs exceptional success, like comparing a mystery novel that sells hundreds of thousands of copies per year to the entire Harry Potter series.  Not even hurd is a failure since it is still an ongoing project and people use it.  With BSD a lot of work has been done and a lot of people use it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple of points .
First not everyone regards the binary blobs as a truly horrible situation - we are talking about linux here and not hurd .
Linux is not a gnu project and most of those frustrated " on all sides " were from the outside looking in without contributing a single line and were even at times working at cross purposes ( eg .
RMS demanding that gcc stop working on linux only optimisations becuase that would n't nelp hurd ) .In the second case I think you are trying to compare success vs exceptional success , like comparing a mystery novel that sells hundreds of thousands of copies per year to the entire Harry Potter series .
Not even hurd is a failure since it is still an ongoing project and people use it .
With BSD a lot of work has been done and a lot of people use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple of points.
First not everyone regards the binary blobs as a truly horrible situation - we are talking about linux here and not hurd.
Linux is not a gnu project and most of those frustrated "on all sides" were from the outside looking in without contributing a single line  and were even at times working at cross purposes (eg.
RMS demanding that gcc stop working on linux only optimisations becuase that wouldn't nelp hurd).In the second case I think you are trying to compare success vs exceptional success, like comparing a mystery novel that sells hundreds of thousands of copies per year to the entire Harry Potter series.
Not even hurd is a failure since it is still an ongoing project and people use it.
With BSD a lot of work has been done and a lot of people use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727543</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1247830440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More importantly, there are no long code freezes and branches.  Whatever is in CVS HEAD at a specific time is the next release.  The tree is locked for 6-9 weeks during which time only bug fixes are allowed in, and then it's unlocked and development continues.  You can contrast this with FreeBSD, where the release is branched and undergoes testing in that branch, while new features and bug fixes are committed into the main tree.  Developers on FreeBSD tend to run -CURRENT, but that's not the branch that's actually released, so bug fixes need to be back-ported from the branch the developers are running to the branch that everyone else is using.  Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages (as Theo says) but the OpenBSD approach seems to work very well for their project structure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More importantly , there are no long code freezes and branches .
Whatever is in CVS HEAD at a specific time is the next release .
The tree is locked for 6-9 weeks during which time only bug fixes are allowed in , and then it 's unlocked and development continues .
You can contrast this with FreeBSD , where the release is branched and undergoes testing in that branch , while new features and bug fixes are committed into the main tree .
Developers on FreeBSD tend to run -CURRENT , but that 's not the branch that 's actually released , so bug fixes need to be back-ported from the branch the developers are running to the branch that everyone else is using .
Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages ( as Theo says ) but the OpenBSD approach seems to work very well for their project structure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More importantly, there are no long code freezes and branches.
Whatever is in CVS HEAD at a specific time is the next release.
The tree is locked for 6-9 weeks during which time only bug fixes are allowed in, and then it's unlocked and development continues.
You can contrast this with FreeBSD, where the release is branched and undergoes testing in that branch, while new features and bug fixes are committed into the main tree.
Developers on FreeBSD tend to run -CURRENT, but that's not the branch that's actually released, so bug fixes need to be back-ported from the branch the developers are running to the branch that everyone else is using.
Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages (as Theo says) but the OpenBSD approach seems to work very well for their project structure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727705</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1247832900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've never heard that referring to anyone in the BSDs but Theo himself. When was the last time you heard complaints about NetBSD or the FreeBSD core team?</p></div><p>If you haven't, then I'll be the one to say it.  About 18 months ago, I wrote a series of articles about the major BSDs.  I approached each of the teams with a series of questions and got varying responses:</p><p>
<b>OpenBSD:</b> Marco Peereboom chased all of the other developers and made sure I got detailed and interesting answers from them.  More recently I've written an article about OpenBSD on ARM platforms and got some great material from Dale Rahn, the maintainer of the ARM ports.  At all times, the team was friendly and helpful.</p><p>
<b>NetBSD:</b> Geert Hendrickx took my questions, forwarded them to whoever he thought would be best able to answer them, collected the replies, and sent them back.  He did the same with follow-up questions, and I ended up with a great set of quotes for the article.</p><p>
<b>Dragonfly BSD:</b> Matt Dillon personally answered all of my questions in detail.  He even managed to convince me that 1:1 threading was a better idea than M:N in the process.  </p><p>
<b>FreeBSD:</b> No replies for about a month.  When I sent a follow-up, I got one abusive reply ending with 'never contact me again'.  I forwarded this to one of the other developers, and received an apology, but no useful material.  </p><p>
In the end, I decided to drop the FreeBSD article from the series; I wasn't being paid enough for it to deal with the FreeBSD team.  It's a shame, because I like FreeBSD as an operating system - it's my main development platform - but I'm glad I don't have to work on the project.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never heard that referring to anyone in the BSDs but Theo himself .
When was the last time you heard complaints about NetBSD or the FreeBSD core team ? If you have n't , then I 'll be the one to say it .
About 18 months ago , I wrote a series of articles about the major BSDs .
I approached each of the teams with a series of questions and got varying responses : OpenBSD : Marco Peereboom chased all of the other developers and made sure I got detailed and interesting answers from them .
More recently I 've written an article about OpenBSD on ARM platforms and got some great material from Dale Rahn , the maintainer of the ARM ports .
At all times , the team was friendly and helpful .
NetBSD : Geert Hendrickx took my questions , forwarded them to whoever he thought would be best able to answer them , collected the replies , and sent them back .
He did the same with follow-up questions , and I ended up with a great set of quotes for the article .
Dragonfly BSD : Matt Dillon personally answered all of my questions in detail .
He even managed to convince me that 1 : 1 threading was a better idea than M : N in the process .
FreeBSD : No replies for about a month .
When I sent a follow-up , I got one abusive reply ending with 'never contact me again' .
I forwarded this to one of the other developers , and received an apology , but no useful material .
In the end , I decided to drop the FreeBSD article from the series ; I was n't being paid enough for it to deal with the FreeBSD team .
It 's a shame , because I like FreeBSD as an operating system - it 's my main development platform - but I 'm glad I do n't have to work on the project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never heard that referring to anyone in the BSDs but Theo himself.
When was the last time you heard complaints about NetBSD or the FreeBSD core team?If you haven't, then I'll be the one to say it.
About 18 months ago, I wrote a series of articles about the major BSDs.
I approached each of the teams with a series of questions and got varying responses:
OpenBSD: Marco Peereboom chased all of the other developers and made sure I got detailed and interesting answers from them.
More recently I've written an article about OpenBSD on ARM platforms and got some great material from Dale Rahn, the maintainer of the ARM ports.
At all times, the team was friendly and helpful.
NetBSD: Geert Hendrickx took my questions, forwarded them to whoever he thought would be best able to answer them, collected the replies, and sent them back.
He did the same with follow-up questions, and I ended up with a great set of quotes for the article.
Dragonfly BSD: Matt Dillon personally answered all of my questions in detail.
He even managed to convince me that 1:1 threading was a better idea than M:N in the process.
FreeBSD: No replies for about a month.
When I sent a follow-up, I got one abusive reply ending with 'never contact me again'.
I forwarded this to one of the other developers, and received an apology, but no useful material.
In the end, I decided to drop the FreeBSD article from the series; I wasn't being paid enough for it to deal with the FreeBSD team.
It's a shame, because I like FreeBSD as an operating system - it's my main development platform - but I'm glad I don't have to work on the project.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727197</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247826120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When was the last time you heard complaints about NetBSD or the FreeBSD core team?</p></div><p>When was the last time you heard ANYTHING about NetBSD or the FreeBSD core team?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When was the last time you heard complaints about NetBSD or the FreeBSD core team ? When was the last time you heard ANYTHING about NetBSD or the FreeBSD core team ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When was the last time you heard complaints about NetBSD or the FreeBSD core team?When was the last time you heard ANYTHING about NetBSD or the FreeBSD core team?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726555</id>
	<title>BSD Daemon!</title>
	<author>Zancarius</author>
	<datestamp>1247771880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Cut the BSDs some love. They deserve it, and there's plenty to go around.</p></div></blockquote><p>Especially for the beastie daemon. I just had a rather odd mental image of him in a "naughty suit."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cut the BSDs some love .
They deserve it , and there 's plenty to go around.Especially for the beastie daemon .
I just had a rather odd mental image of him in a " naughty suit .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cut the BSDs some love.
They deserve it, and there's plenty to go around.Especially for the beastie daemon.
I just had a rather odd mental image of him in a "naughty suit.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725333</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>man\_of\_mr\_e</author>
	<datestamp>1247754600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree.  The "forks" from original BSD weren't really forks.  They were Berkeley giving up on it and letting others take over.</p><p>Most of the various BSD's are "forks" because they have different purposes.  OpenBSD is security oriented, NetBSD is intended to run on vritually everything that has a CPU, FreeBSD was intended for more mainstram use.</p><p>The only real "schism" I can think of is when Matt Dillon broke off and formed DragonFly BSD.  Everything else was pretty much some guys saying "I'm gonna go off and do this instead".</p><p>There may not be any real Linux "forks", but that's because Linus has tried very hard to make Linux "one size fits all", and that has resulted in its own set of problems (see the various scheduler wars, for instance.. they were  bloody).  There are also any number of "branches" in which different patches are applied to the mainline kernel for different purposes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
The " forks " from original BSD were n't really forks .
They were Berkeley giving up on it and letting others take over.Most of the various BSD 's are " forks " because they have different purposes .
OpenBSD is security oriented , NetBSD is intended to run on vritually everything that has a CPU , FreeBSD was intended for more mainstram use.The only real " schism " I can think of is when Matt Dillon broke off and formed DragonFly BSD .
Everything else was pretty much some guys saying " I 'm gon na go off and do this instead " .There may not be any real Linux " forks " , but that 's because Linus has tried very hard to make Linux " one size fits all " , and that has resulted in its own set of problems ( see the various scheduler wars , for instance.. they were bloody ) .
There are also any number of " branches " in which different patches are applied to the mainline kernel for different purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
The "forks" from original BSD weren't really forks.
They were Berkeley giving up on it and letting others take over.Most of the various BSD's are "forks" because they have different purposes.
OpenBSD is security oriented, NetBSD is intended to run on vritually everything that has a CPU, FreeBSD was intended for more mainstram use.The only real "schism" I can think of is when Matt Dillon broke off and formed DragonFly BSD.
Everything else was pretty much some guys saying "I'm gonna go off and do this instead".There may not be any real Linux "forks", but that's because Linus has tried very hard to make Linux "one size fits all", and that has resulted in its own set of problems (see the various scheduler wars, for instance.. they were  bloody).
There are also any number of "branches" in which different patches are applied to the mainline kernel for different purposes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725379</id>
	<title>Re:WHY does OpenBSD's release process work?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247755080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>OpenBSD is as useless as a bag of rocks</p></div><p> <tt>**hits anonymous cowardon the head with a bag of rocks
<br> <tt>**thinks that was actually pretty useful.</tt></tt></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenBSD is as useless as a bag of rocks * * hits anonymous cowardon the head with a bag of rocks * * thinks that was actually pretty useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenBSD is as useless as a bag of rocks **hits anonymous cowardon the head with a bag of rocks
 **thinks that was actually pretty useful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725995</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?</title>
	<author>fadir</author>
	<datestamp>1247763780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course they all work in trunk. They still use friggin' cvs. Who really wants to branch in cvs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course they all work in trunk .
They still use friggin ' cvs .
Who really wants to branch in cvs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course they all work in trunk.
They still use friggin' cvs.
Who really wants to branch in cvs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726859</id>
	<title>Re:god i hate wanky titles.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247863140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>umm...not really</p><p>1) if you can't finish it in 6 months, you get to finish it for another release. the horror!</p><p>2) yes, because the 5 minutes of downtime doing an upgrade from bsd.rd is *so onerous* that you've got to helicopter someone in to do it who will charge you ten gajillion dollars to push buttons; seriously, have you upgraded an openbsd box in the past 4 years? i could teach a monkey to do it</p><p>3) what drain on resources? taking time away from your playing quake? Is sitting down and answering a series of yes/no questions for 5 minutes too much of a strain on your busy day? If so, you can script the mofo and get back to quake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>umm...not really1 ) if you ca n't finish it in 6 months , you get to finish it for another release .
the horror ! 2 ) yes , because the 5 minutes of downtime doing an upgrade from bsd.rd is * so onerous * that you 've got to helicopter someone in to do it who will charge you ten gajillion dollars to push buttons ; seriously , have you upgraded an openbsd box in the past 4 years ?
i could teach a monkey to do it3 ) what drain on resources ?
taking time away from your playing quake ?
Is sitting down and answering a series of yes/no questions for 5 minutes too much of a strain on your busy day ?
If so , you can script the mofo and get back to quake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>umm...not really1) if you can't finish it in 6 months, you get to finish it for another release.
the horror!2) yes, because the 5 minutes of downtime doing an upgrade from bsd.rd is *so onerous* that you've got to helicopter someone in to do it who will charge you ten gajillion dollars to push buttons; seriously, have you upgraded an openbsd box in the past 4 years?
i could teach a monkey to do it3) what drain on resources?
taking time away from your playing quake?
Is sitting down and answering a series of yes/no questions for 5 minutes too much of a strain on your busy day?
If so, you can script the mofo and get back to quake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724877</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247750580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your red thread between Linux never having been forked and BSD as a foundation having been forked many times is completely pointless - OpenBSD itself has never been forked, and that's the only valid comparison you can do in this context.</p><p>And Linux dev's not being abrasive and anal? N****h, please... Go follow any forum Mr. Torvalds regularly post in...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your red thread between Linux never having been forked and BSD as a foundation having been forked many times is completely pointless - OpenBSD itself has never been forked , and that 's the only valid comparison you can do in this context.And Linux dev 's not being abrasive and anal ?
N * * * * h , please... Go follow any forum Mr. Torvalds regularly post in.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your red thread between Linux never having been forked and BSD as a foundation having been forked many times is completely pointless - OpenBSD itself has never been forked, and that's the only valid comparison you can do in this context.And Linux dev's not being abrasive and anal?
N****h, please... Go follow any forum Mr. Torvalds regularly post in...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726799</id>
	<title>Re:god i hate wanky titles.</title>
	<author>neural.disruption</author>
	<datestamp>1247862360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having to work on a schedule makes most people work more efficiently(no more time lost playing "Who can hit the beer bottle with a piece of paper" or "lets paint Carl's face while he is a asleep").
<br>
Also if its security oriented I would never expect it to have a long release cycle (12 months is a lot of time in terms of security)
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having to work on a schedule makes most people work more efficiently ( no more time lost playing " Who can hit the beer bottle with a piece of paper " or " lets paint Carl 's face while he is a asleep " ) .
Also if its security oriented I would never expect it to have a long release cycle ( 12 months is a lot of time in terms of security )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having to work on a schedule makes most people work more efficiently(no more time lost playing "Who can hit the beer bottle with a piece of paper" or "lets paint Carl's face while he is a asleep").
Also if its security oriented I would never expect it to have a long release cycle (12 months is a lot of time in terms of security)
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727065</id>
	<title>Re:god i hate wanky titles.</title>
	<author>Anne Thwacks</author>
	<datestamp>1247824140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>openBSD EOL's it's releases so quickly, that only in the very rare instance that a business is willing to pay through the nose for inhouse support will you be able to see your system patched.</i> <p>
In house support is our only option. Cost or no cost. As someone who manages OpenBSD servers for OLTP (ie processing MONEY, live on the real Internet), <b> Its security wot counts.</b> Features, you ask? When you dont care if you are losing $5,000,000 a minute, <b> then you can care about features</b>. Meanwhile, I care about security and reliability, and I care about typical uptimes of a year. I buy the hardware that IS compatible (I use only SUN Sparc64 kit) </p><p>
Upgrade? you <b>are</b> kidding? We build a new set of servers, install the new versions of the apps, test them for several months, including actual disaster recovery, and then deploy them. OBSD may have had a new release before the system even gets deployed, as we have to test the new iteration of our application layer over the firewall/webserver/database server three tier architecture. </p><p>Official EOL is not a problem - we phase in the replacement in line with the scheduled date. If we are late, well, no patches will be supplied. Were there have been any anyway? Would we have time to test them?
Weekly patch cycle, eh? not in my world, matey!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>openBSD EOL 's it 's releases so quickly , that only in the very rare instance that a business is willing to pay through the nose for inhouse support will you be able to see your system patched .
In house support is our only option .
Cost or no cost .
As someone who manages OpenBSD servers for OLTP ( ie processing MONEY , live on the real Internet ) , Its security wot counts .
Features , you ask ?
When you dont care if you are losing $ 5,000,000 a minute , then you can care about features .
Meanwhile , I care about security and reliability , and I care about typical uptimes of a year .
I buy the hardware that IS compatible ( I use only SUN Sparc64 kit ) Upgrade ?
you are kidding ?
We build a new set of servers , install the new versions of the apps , test them for several months , including actual disaster recovery , and then deploy them .
OBSD may have had a new release before the system even gets deployed , as we have to test the new iteration of our application layer over the firewall/webserver/database server three tier architecture .
Official EOL is not a problem - we phase in the replacement in line with the scheduled date .
If we are late , well , no patches will be supplied .
Were there have been any anyway ?
Would we have time to test them ?
Weekly patch cycle , eh ?
not in my world , matey !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>openBSD EOL's it's releases so quickly, that only in the very rare instance that a business is willing to pay through the nose for inhouse support will you be able to see your system patched.
In house support is our only option.
Cost or no cost.
As someone who manages OpenBSD servers for OLTP (ie processing MONEY, live on the real Internet),  Its security wot counts.
Features, you ask?
When you dont care if you are losing $5,000,000 a minute,  then you can care about features.
Meanwhile, I care about security and reliability, and I care about typical uptimes of a year.
I buy the hardware that IS compatible (I use only SUN Sparc64 kit) 
Upgrade?
you are kidding?
We build a new set of servers, install the new versions of the apps, test them for several months, including actual disaster recovery, and then deploy them.
OBSD may have had a new release before the system even gets deployed, as we have to test the new iteration of our application layer over the firewall/webserver/database server three tier architecture.
Official EOL is not a problem - we phase in the replacement in line with the scheduled date.
If we are late, well, no patches will be supplied.
Were there have been any anyway?
Would we have time to test them?
Weekly patch cycle, eh?
not in my world, matey!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727207</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?</title>
	<author>xouumalperxe</author>
	<datestamp>1247826360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2) Everyone tests. There is no test team. All developers test things before a release. He does not talk about agile and how everyone should be testing their own stuff anyways.</p></div><p>That's "Agile Development" or "Extreme Programming" or whatever buzzwords people come up with next are just that: buzzwords. Most of what they espouse is essentially codified common sense. If your work process works, it works. If it doesn't, try to see what works for others and see if it works for you. I know, I'll call that "Pragmatic Programming", write a book or bunch of articles on it, do some conferences, and perhaps people will treat me as if I were some sort of guru because I said something elementary that makes sense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 ) Everyone tests .
There is no test team .
All developers test things before a release .
He does not talk about agile and how everyone should be testing their own stuff anyways.That 's " Agile Development " or " Extreme Programming " or whatever buzzwords people come up with next are just that : buzzwords .
Most of what they espouse is essentially codified common sense .
If your work process works , it works .
If it does n't , try to see what works for others and see if it works for you .
I know , I 'll call that " Pragmatic Programming " , write a book or bunch of articles on it , do some conferences , and perhaps people will treat me as if I were some sort of guru because I said something elementary that makes sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2) Everyone tests.
There is no test team.
All developers test things before a release.
He does not talk about agile and how everyone should be testing their own stuff anyways.That's "Agile Development" or "Extreme Programming" or whatever buzzwords people come up with next are just that: buzzwords.
Most of what they espouse is essentially codified common sense.
If your work process works, it works.
If it doesn't, try to see what works for others and see if it works for you.
I know, I'll call that "Pragmatic Programming", write a book or bunch of articles on it, do some conferences, and perhaps people will treat me as if I were some sort of guru because I said something elementary that makes sense.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543</id>
	<title>Summary?</title>
	<author>bananaquackmoo</author>
	<datestamp>1247747940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am NOT sitting through a 30 minute video. Can someone please summarize?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am NOT sitting through a 30 minute video .
Can someone please summarize ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am NOT sitting through a 30 minute video.
Can someone please summarize?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724903</id>
	<title>Debian</title>
	<author>kabloom</author>
	<datestamp>1247750760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds a lot like Debian's release process. Debian's primary release delays in the past have been infrastructure issues rather than software stability issues -- things like getting the right set of architectures on their mirrors, or getting security infrastructure set up for the new release.</p><p>I may very well be that the thing that makes this work is not only the release management practices, but also whatever they do to avoid security problems in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds a lot like Debian 's release process .
Debian 's primary release delays in the past have been infrastructure issues rather than software stability issues -- things like getting the right set of architectures on their mirrors , or getting security infrastructure set up for the new release.I may very well be that the thing that makes this work is not only the release management practices , but also whatever they do to avoid security problems in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds a lot like Debian's release process.
Debian's primary release delays in the past have been infrastructure issues rather than software stability issues -- things like getting the right set of architectures on their mirrors, or getting security infrastructure set up for the new release.I may very well be that the thing that makes this work is not only the release management practices, but also whatever they do to avoid security problems in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725751</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1247760780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I disagree. The "forks" from original BSD weren't really forks. They were Berkeley giving up on it and letting others take over.</p></div><p>Berkeley "gave up" exactly once, in 1995. And it wasn't because they made room for others, but because of USL v. BSDi, a lawsuit that probably created the conditions for Linux to rise to power in the first place. Linus himself once said that had there been no legal ambiguity regarding the BSD code base, he probably wouldn't have started a completely new project from scratch.</p><p>Second, since you may be unaware of what a "fork" means, it's simply a point where developers take the existing code and then begin independent development on it. With the exception of Minix and Linux, every UNIX-like operating system has its code base derived from the original Unics in some fashion. Every UNIX variant EXCEPT Minux and Linux has forks that trace back to that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
The " forks " from original BSD were n't really forks .
They were Berkeley giving up on it and letting others take over.Berkeley " gave up " exactly once , in 1995 .
And it was n't because they made room for others , but because of USL v. BSDi , a lawsuit that probably created the conditions for Linux to rise to power in the first place .
Linus himself once said that had there been no legal ambiguity regarding the BSD code base , he probably would n't have started a completely new project from scratch.Second , since you may be unaware of what a " fork " means , it 's simply a point where developers take the existing code and then begin independent development on it .
With the exception of Minix and Linux , every UNIX-like operating system has its code base derived from the original Unics in some fashion .
Every UNIX variant EXCEPT Minux and Linux has forks that trace back to that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
The "forks" from original BSD weren't really forks.
They were Berkeley giving up on it and letting others take over.Berkeley "gave up" exactly once, in 1995.
And it wasn't because they made room for others, but because of USL v. BSDi, a lawsuit that probably created the conditions for Linux to rise to power in the first place.
Linus himself once said that had there been no legal ambiguity regarding the BSD code base, he probably wouldn't have started a completely new project from scratch.Second, since you may be unaware of what a "fork" means, it's simply a point where developers take the existing code and then begin independent development on it.
With the exception of Minix and Linux, every UNIX-like operating system has its code base derived from the original Unics in some fashion.
Every UNIX variant EXCEPT Minux and Linux has forks that trace back to that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28731213</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1247851200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>2) Everyone tests. There is no test team. All developers test things before a release. He does not talk about agile and how everyone should be testing their own stuff anyways.</p></div></blockquote><p>They do test their own stuff.  They also test how their own stuff works with everyone elses changes rather than in a little sandbox on the side without interaction with all the other parts.  This interaction is where you run into problems.  Most developers can write small chunks of code that work fine when used exactly as expected, which is what the original developer will do since they know exactly how it was intended to be used.  You get in trouble when I start using your code that you documented one way and I interpreted a different way, which you didn't bother to sanitize the input or properly error check, and I just assumed your code was going to work flawlessly.  Now, through no fault of yours or mine directly, we've introduced a problem that neither one of us will notice when playing in our own little sandbox.</p><p>You point this out like its a bad thing, in reality this is the only way it should be done.</p><p>The developers who finish their work early are not sitting idle, they are testing.  The sooner the testing gets done and everything is signed off on, the sooner everyone can move forward.  It prevents you from just working on what you want to work on and leaving everyone else to do the dirty/unfun work.</p><p>Both of your points that you think are bad are just signs of selfishness on your part and a lack of willingness to be a team player.  The world doesn't revolve around you or your code, sorry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 ) Everyone tests .
There is no test team .
All developers test things before a release .
He does not talk about agile and how everyone should be testing their own stuff anyways.They do test their own stuff .
They also test how their own stuff works with everyone elses changes rather than in a little sandbox on the side without interaction with all the other parts .
This interaction is where you run into problems .
Most developers can write small chunks of code that work fine when used exactly as expected , which is what the original developer will do since they know exactly how it was intended to be used .
You get in trouble when I start using your code that you documented one way and I interpreted a different way , which you did n't bother to sanitize the input or properly error check , and I just assumed your code was going to work flawlessly .
Now , through no fault of yours or mine directly , we 've introduced a problem that neither one of us will notice when playing in our own little sandbox.You point this out like its a bad thing , in reality this is the only way it should be done.The developers who finish their work early are not sitting idle , they are testing .
The sooner the testing gets done and everything is signed off on , the sooner everyone can move forward .
It prevents you from just working on what you want to work on and leaving everyone else to do the dirty/unfun work.Both of your points that you think are bad are just signs of selfishness on your part and a lack of willingness to be a team player .
The world does n't revolve around you or your code , sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2) Everyone tests.
There is no test team.
All developers test things before a release.
He does not talk about agile and how everyone should be testing their own stuff anyways.They do test their own stuff.
They also test how their own stuff works with everyone elses changes rather than in a little sandbox on the side without interaction with all the other parts.
This interaction is where you run into problems.
Most developers can write small chunks of code that work fine when used exactly as expected, which is what the original developer will do since they know exactly how it was intended to be used.
You get in trouble when I start using your code that you documented one way and I interpreted a different way, which you didn't bother to sanitize the input or properly error check, and I just assumed your code was going to work flawlessly.
Now, through no fault of yours or mine directly, we've introduced a problem that neither one of us will notice when playing in our own little sandbox.You point this out like its a bad thing, in reality this is the only way it should be done.The developers who finish their work early are not sitting idle, they are testing.
The sooner the testing gets done and everything is signed off on, the sooner everyone can move forward.
It prevents you from just working on what you want to work on and leaving everyone else to do the dirty/unfun work.Both of your points that you think are bad are just signs of selfishness on your part and a lack of willingness to be a team player.
The world doesn't revolve around you or your code, sorry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727519</id>
	<title>OpenBSD enterprise use</title>
	<author>fialar</author>
	<datestamp>1247830140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who had used Linux quite extensively for the past 11 years, I recently started rolling out OpenBSD servers at my job. Two OpenBSD firewalls power our production network (using CARP/pfsync) and they do it flawlessly.</p><p>In our office, an OpenBSD firewall connected to two DSL modems is able to load balance traffic out, and do proper asymmetric routing. All this thanks to the developers who make a lot of great, innovative code for pf, CARP, pfsync, etc..</p><p>I couldn't do any of this properly with Linux, especially not the asymmetric routing.</p><p>I've worked on OpenBSD ports to make them better. I've found the developers friendly and helpful. The code is quite solid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who had used Linux quite extensively for the past 11 years , I recently started rolling out OpenBSD servers at my job .
Two OpenBSD firewalls power our production network ( using CARP/pfsync ) and they do it flawlessly.In our office , an OpenBSD firewall connected to two DSL modems is able to load balance traffic out , and do proper asymmetric routing .
All this thanks to the developers who make a lot of great , innovative code for pf , CARP , pfsync , etc..I could n't do any of this properly with Linux , especially not the asymmetric routing.I 've worked on OpenBSD ports to make them better .
I 've found the developers friendly and helpful .
The code is quite solid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who had used Linux quite extensively for the past 11 years, I recently started rolling out OpenBSD servers at my job.
Two OpenBSD firewalls power our production network (using CARP/pfsync) and they do it flawlessly.In our office, an OpenBSD firewall connected to two DSL modems is able to load balance traffic out, and do proper asymmetric routing.
All this thanks to the developers who make a lot of great, innovative code for pf, CARP, pfsync, etc..I couldn't do any of this properly with Linux, especially not the asymmetric routing.I've worked on OpenBSD ports to make them better.
I've found the developers friendly and helpful.
The code is quite solid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726709</id>
	<title>Re:god i hate wanky titles.</title>
	<author>Secret Rabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1247860800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"""<br>the poster is making the assertion that it works, a lot of people would say their release cycle is a terrible burden on the project.<br>"""</p><p>Well, it does work.  And guess which people are best able to determine whether things work or not and whether the trade-offs are worth it?  That'd be the OpenBSD people.</p><p>"1"</p><p>Fixed by not allowing features/etc that aren't ready into release.</p><p>"2"</p><p>I've heard of systems running OpenBSD for *years* *non-stop* *without issue*.  Quite impressive.  Also, I've never heard anyone complain about there upgrade.  Things are very well documented and tested.  I did it once (I usually just clean wipe and start over) and only had one or two issues which would have been resolved quickly if I would have read the documentation<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/before/ I upgraded.</p><p>"3"</p><p>Unless you have a targeted release.  Which OpenBSD does.  Go check the releases.  There is typically a "this is what we focused on this time 'round" notice.  One *can* do such a quick release schedule under these conditions.  In fact, OpenBSD PROVES that it can be done.</p><p>As for the other comment, I'd consider what you might have to say if it weren't just so bloody inaccurate.  Not to mention your "kiddy" lack of capitalisation.  Seriously, there *is* a reason for it.  Just think back to primary school and you might remember why.  In fact, if you do it, you just might come off professional enough to fool people on the tubes that you're actually a professional!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" " " the poster is making the assertion that it works , a lot of people would say their release cycle is a terrible burden on the project .
" " " Well , it does work .
And guess which people are best able to determine whether things work or not and whether the trade-offs are worth it ?
That 'd be the OpenBSD people .
" 1 " Fixed by not allowing features/etc that are n't ready into release .
" 2 " I 've heard of systems running OpenBSD for * years * * non-stop * * without issue * .
Quite impressive .
Also , I 've never heard anyone complain about there upgrade .
Things are very well documented and tested .
I did it once ( I usually just clean wipe and start over ) and only had one or two issues which would have been resolved quickly if I would have read the documentation /before/ I upgraded .
" 3 " Unless you have a targeted release .
Which OpenBSD does .
Go check the releases .
There is typically a " this is what we focused on this time 'round " notice .
One * can * do such a quick release schedule under these conditions .
In fact , OpenBSD PROVES that it can be done.As for the other comment , I 'd consider what you might have to say if it were n't just so bloody inaccurate .
Not to mention your " kiddy " lack of capitalisation .
Seriously , there * is * a reason for it .
Just think back to primary school and you might remember why .
In fact , if you do it , you just might come off professional enough to fool people on the tubes that you 're actually a professional !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"""the poster is making the assertion that it works, a lot of people would say their release cycle is a terrible burden on the project.
"""Well, it does work.
And guess which people are best able to determine whether things work or not and whether the trade-offs are worth it?
That'd be the OpenBSD people.
"1"Fixed by not allowing features/etc that aren't ready into release.
"2"I've heard of systems running OpenBSD for *years* *non-stop* *without issue*.
Quite impressive.
Also, I've never heard anyone complain about there upgrade.
Things are very well documented and tested.
I did it once (I usually just clean wipe and start over) and only had one or two issues which would have been resolved quickly if I would have read the documentation /before/ I upgraded.
"3"Unless you have a targeted release.
Which OpenBSD does.
Go check the releases.
There is typically a "this is what we focused on this time 'round" notice.
One *can* do such a quick release schedule under these conditions.
In fact, OpenBSD PROVES that it can be done.As for the other comment, I'd consider what you might have to say if it weren't just so bloody inaccurate.
Not to mention your "kiddy" lack of capitalisation.
Seriously, there *is* a reason for it.
Just think back to primary school and you might remember why.
In fact, if you do it, you just might come off professional enough to fool people on the tubes that you're actually a professional!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28731475</id>
	<title>Re:god i hate wanky titles.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1247852520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> it's firewall was nice, but i've got that in freebsd now which is a far better OS.</p></div></blockquote><p>Wait wait wait!!  You mean someone actually uses OpenBSD for something OTHER than a firewall?  That sounds silly to me.</p><p>Either way, FBSD is a far superior firewall, and when you install it in the same manner that OBSD installs its just as secure.</p><p>OBSD is 'secure' because they don't install or start any services they don't have to.  Once you add an open port its claim to fame is gone.</p><p>FBSD when installed in the same way has the same track record, and a far better networking stack.</p><p>The main difference is, OBSD is just a pain in the ass to use regardless of how you install it.</p><p>FBSD isn't nearly as much of a pain in the ass, regardless of how you install it.</p><p>I really have never understood why people get so excited over OBSD, its not really that impressive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's firewall was nice , but i 've got that in freebsd now which is a far better OS.Wait wait wait ! !
You mean someone actually uses OpenBSD for something OTHER than a firewall ?
That sounds silly to me.Either way , FBSD is a far superior firewall , and when you install it in the same manner that OBSD installs its just as secure.OBSD is 'secure ' because they do n't install or start any services they do n't have to .
Once you add an open port its claim to fame is gone.FBSD when installed in the same way has the same track record , and a far better networking stack.The main difference is , OBSD is just a pain in the ass to use regardless of how you install it.FBSD is n't nearly as much of a pain in the ass , regardless of how you install it.I really have never understood why people get so excited over OBSD , its not really that impressive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> it's firewall was nice, but i've got that in freebsd now which is a far better OS.Wait wait wait!!
You mean someone actually uses OpenBSD for something OTHER than a firewall?
That sounds silly to me.Either way, FBSD is a far superior firewall, and when you install it in the same manner that OBSD installs its just as secure.OBSD is 'secure' because they don't install or start any services they don't have to.
Once you add an open port its claim to fame is gone.FBSD when installed in the same way has the same track record, and a far better networking stack.The main difference is, OBSD is just a pain in the ass to use regardless of how you install it.FBSD isn't nearly as much of a pain in the ass, regardless of how you install it.I really have never understood why people get so excited over OBSD, its not really that impressive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725993</id>
	<title>Re:Netcraft confims: *BSD is Dying</title>
	<author>Auxis</author>
	<datestamp>1247763720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I did a quick google and found an <a href="http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/02/11/1539225" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">8 year old<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. article</a> [slashdot.org] saying how BSD is dying.  If it's dying, how long is it going to take to finally kick the bucket?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did a quick google and found an 8 year old / .
article [ slashdot.org ] saying how BSD is dying .
If it 's dying , how long is it going to take to finally kick the bucket ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did a quick google and found an 8 year old /.
article [slashdot.org] saying how BSD is dying.
If it's dying, how long is it going to take to finally kick the bucket?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724861</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247750460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good point about their work towards the project being idle. However, I would also like to point out that although idle to the committed code, they do involve themselves with side-projects that will possibly be integrated into openbsd.</p><p>I'm not an openbsd pro, but I think a two of those recent examples would be opensmtpd and the improved malloc()</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good point about their work towards the project being idle .
However , I would also like to point out that although idle to the committed code , they do involve themselves with side-projects that will possibly be integrated into openbsd.I 'm not an openbsd pro , but I think a two of those recent examples would be opensmtpd and the improved malloc ( )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good point about their work towards the project being idle.
However, I would also like to point out that although idle to the committed code, they do involve themselves with side-projects that will possibly be integrated into openbsd.I'm not an openbsd pro, but I think a two of those recent examples would be opensmtpd and the improved malloc()</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725723</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1247760600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"does not talk about agile and how everyone should be testing their own stuff anyways."</p><p>Interesting how that idea suddenly became this cool new idea.  When I was doing my undergrad in CS we just called that coding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" does not talk about agile and how everyone should be testing their own stuff anyways .
" Interesting how that idea suddenly became this cool new idea .
When I was doing my undergrad in CS we just called that coding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"does not talk about agile and how everyone should be testing their own stuff anyways.
"Interesting how that idea suddenly became this cool new idea.
When I was doing my undergrad in CS we just called that coding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785</id>
	<title>It works?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247749740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's compare --</p><p>Linux (1991--present): The code base has never forked. The release process has remained largely in the hands of Alan Cox and Linus Torvalds throughout its history, and except for some cosmetic differences, patch submission and integration has been handled the same way. Most people consider the two head developers and various major contributors to be, on the whole, pretty nice guys, though the snafu with loading binary blobs, and the driver architecture supporting 'non-free' elements in kernel-space was notable for the high level of frustration on all sides.</p><p>OpenBSD (1994--present): Forked from NetBSD (1993--present), who forked from 386BSD (1992--1994), that originally derived its codebase from BSD4 (1977--1995). The history of BSD is a blood-bath of politics leading to forks; Most of the developers of the *BSDs are variously referred to as "difficult, abrasive, etc.," although Theo, to his credit, has had a major change in reputation over the past several years.</p><p>Historically, the BSD variants have enjoyed a smaller uptake in the market and casual open source contributors find it difficult to get involved because of cultural/political differences. They also tend to fragment, as noted by the number of variants, which further weakens their position. Linux, on the other hand, likely enjoys a much broader userbase and more contributions due to its more relaxed community standards and the general approachability of its core team. I would say the "release process works", but by feature count, contributions, and hardware support, the process is full of fail. Does that mean it's a failed project? No--I'm just saying that the differing priorities and political/cultural values held by the core developers has had an overwhelming impact. Businesses might appreciate the consistency of the release schedule and the relatively bug-free nature of those releases, but looking at market share it's pretty clear those are not the priorities for most businesses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's compare --Linux ( 1991--present ) : The code base has never forked .
The release process has remained largely in the hands of Alan Cox and Linus Torvalds throughout its history , and except for some cosmetic differences , patch submission and integration has been handled the same way .
Most people consider the two head developers and various major contributors to be , on the whole , pretty nice guys , though the snafu with loading binary blobs , and the driver architecture supporting 'non-free ' elements in kernel-space was notable for the high level of frustration on all sides.OpenBSD ( 1994--present ) : Forked from NetBSD ( 1993--present ) , who forked from 386BSD ( 1992--1994 ) , that originally derived its codebase from BSD4 ( 1977--1995 ) .
The history of BSD is a blood-bath of politics leading to forks ; Most of the developers of the * BSDs are variously referred to as " difficult , abrasive , etc. , " although Theo , to his credit , has had a major change in reputation over the past several years.Historically , the BSD variants have enjoyed a smaller uptake in the market and casual open source contributors find it difficult to get involved because of cultural/political differences .
They also tend to fragment , as noted by the number of variants , which further weakens their position .
Linux , on the other hand , likely enjoys a much broader userbase and more contributions due to its more relaxed community standards and the general approachability of its core team .
I would say the " release process works " , but by feature count , contributions , and hardware support , the process is full of fail .
Does that mean it 's a failed project ?
No--I 'm just saying that the differing priorities and political/cultural values held by the core developers has had an overwhelming impact .
Businesses might appreciate the consistency of the release schedule and the relatively bug-free nature of those releases , but looking at market share it 's pretty clear those are not the priorities for most businesses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's compare --Linux (1991--present): The code base has never forked.
The release process has remained largely in the hands of Alan Cox and Linus Torvalds throughout its history, and except for some cosmetic differences, patch submission and integration has been handled the same way.
Most people consider the two head developers and various major contributors to be, on the whole, pretty nice guys, though the snafu with loading binary blobs, and the driver architecture supporting 'non-free' elements in kernel-space was notable for the high level of frustration on all sides.OpenBSD (1994--present): Forked from NetBSD (1993--present), who forked from 386BSD (1992--1994), that originally derived its codebase from BSD4 (1977--1995).
The history of BSD is a blood-bath of politics leading to forks; Most of the developers of the *BSDs are variously referred to as "difficult, abrasive, etc.," although Theo, to his credit, has had a major change in reputation over the past several years.Historically, the BSD variants have enjoyed a smaller uptake in the market and casual open source contributors find it difficult to get involved because of cultural/political differences.
They also tend to fragment, as noted by the number of variants, which further weakens their position.
Linux, on the other hand, likely enjoys a much broader userbase and more contributions due to its more relaxed community standards and the general approachability of its core team.
I would say the "release process works", but by feature count, contributions, and hardware support, the process is full of fail.
Does that mean it's a failed project?
No--I'm just saying that the differing priorities and political/cultural values held by the core developers has had an overwhelming impact.
Businesses might appreciate the consistency of the release schedule and the relatively bug-free nature of those releases, but looking at market share it's pretty clear those are not the priorities for most businesses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724911</id>
	<title>Why is Theo trying to help Microsoft?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247750760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The reasons, mechanics and social workings of our process have never been detailed outside the project, but now will be, hopefully providing some insight to others who face delays and quality issues with their own product lines.</p></div><p>He's clearly talking about Microsoft here, but why would he want to help <i>them</i>?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reasons , mechanics and social workings of our process have never been detailed outside the project , but now will be , hopefully providing some insight to others who face delays and quality issues with their own product lines.He 's clearly talking about Microsoft here , but why would he want to help them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reasons, mechanics and social workings of our process have never been detailed outside the project, but now will be, hopefully providing some insight to others who face delays and quality issues with their own product lines.He's clearly talking about Microsoft here, but why would he want to help them?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725279</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1247754060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a developer, I think I'd work faster/better if I knew a quality product would let me work on side projects in the end.  If I knew that I'd never have time to experiment and play then I'd just trudge along and get depressed.  It would be a tremendous moral boost.  Developing has downtime unless you work for a slave trade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a developer , I think I 'd work faster/better if I knew a quality product would let me work on side projects in the end .
If I knew that I 'd never have time to experiment and play then I 'd just trudge along and get depressed .
It would be a tremendous moral boost .
Developing has downtime unless you work for a slave trade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a developer, I think I'd work faster/better if I knew a quality product would let me work on side projects in the end.
If I knew that I'd never have time to experiment and play then I'd just trudge along and get depressed.
It would be a tremendous moral boost.
Developing has downtime unless you work for a slave trade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727579</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247830920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They have different philosophies. I really don't know where you're going with that post because isn't very accurate. You can't compare the "Linux Kernel" with OpenBSD's whole. A kernel is pretty much useless without a "userland." OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD are all operating systems. Linux, sorry to say, is not.</p></div><p>And you just dont know anything about operating systems and kernels? Didn't you know that the monolith kernel is the operating system and nothing else? FreeBSD, OpenBSD and even NetBSD are all monolithic kernels. All those kernels are the operating systems. There is not such OS as GNU/Linux. Monolith kernel is the operating system structure where the whole OS runs alone in kernel space as one binary. Even that OS is monolithic, it can be modular in filesystem leve, but not on binary level. You can have all drivers as own files but when they are loaded to RAM, they are exactly the same way integrated to kernel as they would be the one giant binary blob on disk.</p><p>The microkernel is different thing. Now you are referring Linux as being such. The microkernel ide.a is to slice down the OS for multiple parts that are all protected from errors. You do loose speed (10-50\%, in theory) of OS functions but you are better way protected (in theory).</p><p>The microkernel is the OS what is sliced to tiny kernel and userspace OS servers. The kernel itself exist alone in the kernel space in the pure form of microkernel. While all the OS servers runs as protected processes to it. Every OS server runs as supervisor mode with the microkernel and they all builds up the whole OS.<br>The monolithic OS structure is different. It is the original way to build up the Unix OS like BSD or HP-UX or SunOS.</p><p>On microkernel-based operating systems the OS needs a kernel. Just like kernel needs the OS servers.it<br>On monolithic operating systems the kernel is the operating system. The kernel does not need anything outside of kernel space to build up a operating system. The monolithic kernel runs alone as supervisor mode.</p><p>In the shortest and most accurate definition of the operating system is, it is the that part of the software system what runs in the kernel space or as supervisor mode.</p><p>When you talk about FreeBSD or OpenBSD or NetBSD you are talking about monolithic kernels. But the marketing is different too because all those three BSD OS's use own userland tools and mixtures as well and same way many belives that the OS is something else than the monolithic kernels.</p><p>Even the XNU, the operating system of mac osx has parts of FreeBSD. The Darwin project (what is XNU OS + Apples own development tools) is such version that you can use mac osx architecture on it. XNU has driver kit and mach microkernel and FreeBSD OS servers doing some parts of it. XNU is marketed as hybrid kernel, but it is just marketing. It is true microkernel-based OS where just some of the OS servers has moved from userland to kernel space, but still not integrated in binary level to kernel itself like on monolithic OS.</p><p>There are few other microkernel-based OS's like NT or Minix and Hurd. Few monolithic OS's are Linux, FreeBSD or NetBSD or OpenBSD and SunOS, HP-UX and so on.</p><p>Just for example.<br>http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/2006-04/openpdfs/herder.pdf</p><p>If you talk about Linux or Linux kernel. You talk about the operating system. If you talk about GNU/Linux, you talk about development platform. If you talk about GNU/Linux/Xorg/Gnome/Firefox you talk about software system and if someone else takes that and modifies it littlebit and distributes it for other people, you talk about different Linux distribution. It is clear and simple as that.</p><p>Simple basics.<br>http://www.topology.org/human/?a=/linux/lingl.html</p><p>No one, does anything just with the OS. They need other software, libraries and programs to build up applications what they can use to drawn UI's and write some memos and send email and download p0rn and watch it with videoplayers. Without OS like Linux (kernel), all those are not working at all (unless you code them to work on bare hardware alone)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have different philosophies .
I really do n't know where you 're going with that post because is n't very accurate .
You ca n't compare the " Linux Kernel " with OpenBSD 's whole .
A kernel is pretty much useless without a " userland .
" OpenBSD , FreeBSD , NetBSD are all operating systems .
Linux , sorry to say , is not.And you just dont know anything about operating systems and kernels ?
Did n't you know that the monolith kernel is the operating system and nothing else ?
FreeBSD , OpenBSD and even NetBSD are all monolithic kernels .
All those kernels are the operating systems .
There is not such OS as GNU/Linux .
Monolith kernel is the operating system structure where the whole OS runs alone in kernel space as one binary .
Even that OS is monolithic , it can be modular in filesystem leve , but not on binary level .
You can have all drivers as own files but when they are loaded to RAM , they are exactly the same way integrated to kernel as they would be the one giant binary blob on disk.The microkernel is different thing .
Now you are referring Linux as being such .
The microkernel ide.a is to slice down the OS for multiple parts that are all protected from errors .
You do loose speed ( 10-50 \ % , in theory ) of OS functions but you are better way protected ( in theory ) .The microkernel is the OS what is sliced to tiny kernel and userspace OS servers .
The kernel itself exist alone in the kernel space in the pure form of microkernel .
While all the OS servers runs as protected processes to it .
Every OS server runs as supervisor mode with the microkernel and they all builds up the whole OS.The monolithic OS structure is different .
It is the original way to build up the Unix OS like BSD or HP-UX or SunOS.On microkernel-based operating systems the OS needs a kernel .
Just like kernel needs the OS servers.itOn monolithic operating systems the kernel is the operating system .
The kernel does not need anything outside of kernel space to build up a operating system .
The monolithic kernel runs alone as supervisor mode.In the shortest and most accurate definition of the operating system is , it is the that part of the software system what runs in the kernel space or as supervisor mode.When you talk about FreeBSD or OpenBSD or NetBSD you are talking about monolithic kernels .
But the marketing is different too because all those three BSD OS 's use own userland tools and mixtures as well and same way many belives that the OS is something else than the monolithic kernels.Even the XNU , the operating system of mac osx has parts of FreeBSD .
The Darwin project ( what is XNU OS + Apples own development tools ) is such version that you can use mac osx architecture on it .
XNU has driver kit and mach microkernel and FreeBSD OS servers doing some parts of it .
XNU is marketed as hybrid kernel , but it is just marketing .
It is true microkernel-based OS where just some of the OS servers has moved from userland to kernel space , but still not integrated in binary level to kernel itself like on monolithic OS.There are few other microkernel-based OS 's like NT or Minix and Hurd .
Few monolithic OS 's are Linux , FreeBSD or NetBSD or OpenBSD and SunOS , HP-UX and so on.Just for example.http : //www.usenix.org/publications/login/2006-04/openpdfs/herder.pdfIf you talk about Linux or Linux kernel .
You talk about the operating system .
If you talk about GNU/Linux , you talk about development platform .
If you talk about GNU/Linux/Xorg/Gnome/Firefox you talk about software system and if someone else takes that and modifies it littlebit and distributes it for other people , you talk about different Linux distribution .
It is clear and simple as that.Simple basics.http : //www.topology.org/human/ ? a = /linux/lingl.htmlNo one , does anything just with the OS .
They need other software , libraries and programs to build up applications what they can use to drawn UI 's and write some memos and send email and download p0rn and watch it with videoplayers .
Without OS like Linux ( kernel ) , all those are not working at all ( unless you code them to work on bare hardware alone )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have different philosophies.
I really don't know where you're going with that post because isn't very accurate.
You can't compare the "Linux Kernel" with OpenBSD's whole.
A kernel is pretty much useless without a "userland.
" OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD are all operating systems.
Linux, sorry to say, is not.And you just dont know anything about operating systems and kernels?
Didn't you know that the monolith kernel is the operating system and nothing else?
FreeBSD, OpenBSD and even NetBSD are all monolithic kernels.
All those kernels are the operating systems.
There is not such OS as GNU/Linux.
Monolith kernel is the operating system structure where the whole OS runs alone in kernel space as one binary.
Even that OS is monolithic, it can be modular in filesystem leve, but not on binary level.
You can have all drivers as own files but when they are loaded to RAM, they are exactly the same way integrated to kernel as they would be the one giant binary blob on disk.The microkernel is different thing.
Now you are referring Linux as being such.
The microkernel ide.a is to slice down the OS for multiple parts that are all protected from errors.
You do loose speed (10-50\%, in theory) of OS functions but you are better way protected (in theory).The microkernel is the OS what is sliced to tiny kernel and userspace OS servers.
The kernel itself exist alone in the kernel space in the pure form of microkernel.
While all the OS servers runs as protected processes to it.
Every OS server runs as supervisor mode with the microkernel and they all builds up the whole OS.The monolithic OS structure is different.
It is the original way to build up the Unix OS like BSD or HP-UX or SunOS.On microkernel-based operating systems the OS needs a kernel.
Just like kernel needs the OS servers.itOn monolithic operating systems the kernel is the operating system.
The kernel does not need anything outside of kernel space to build up a operating system.
The monolithic kernel runs alone as supervisor mode.In the shortest and most accurate definition of the operating system is, it is the that part of the software system what runs in the kernel space or as supervisor mode.When you talk about FreeBSD or OpenBSD or NetBSD you are talking about monolithic kernels.
But the marketing is different too because all those three BSD OS's use own userland tools and mixtures as well and same way many belives that the OS is something else than the monolithic kernels.Even the XNU, the operating system of mac osx has parts of FreeBSD.
The Darwin project (what is XNU OS + Apples own development tools) is such version that you can use mac osx architecture on it.
XNU has driver kit and mach microkernel and FreeBSD OS servers doing some parts of it.
XNU is marketed as hybrid kernel, but it is just marketing.
It is true microkernel-based OS where just some of the OS servers has moved from userland to kernel space, but still not integrated in binary level to kernel itself like on monolithic OS.There are few other microkernel-based OS's like NT or Minix and Hurd.
Few monolithic OS's are Linux, FreeBSD or NetBSD or OpenBSD and SunOS, HP-UX and so on.Just for example.http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/2006-04/openpdfs/herder.pdfIf you talk about Linux or Linux kernel.
You talk about the operating system.
If you talk about GNU/Linux, you talk about development platform.
If you talk about GNU/Linux/Xorg/Gnome/Firefox you talk about software system and if someone else takes that and modifies it littlebit and distributes it for other people, you talk about different Linux distribution.
It is clear and simple as that.Simple basics.http://www.topology.org/human/?a=/linux/lingl.htmlNo one, does anything just with the OS.
They need other software, libraries and programs to build up applications what they can use to drawn UI's and write some memos and send email and download p0rn and watch it with videoplayers.
Without OS like Linux (kernel), all those are not working at all (unless you code them to work on bare hardware alone)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28728235</id>
	<title>What's the advantage?</title>
	<author>fmaresca</author>
	<datestamp>1247838180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am sysadmin for a number of boxes running some of the three Debian variants (mostly stable and testing in production).</p><p>Can someone explain what's the advantage of getting a new release exactly every N months (or days, or years or whatever time unit you like)?</p><p>I'm much comfortable with updates and security fixes that gets in my current system whenever the need for them dictates an upgrade for some piece of software (i.e. packages in Debian), in a non-disruptive manner and the most automatically possible, and complete new releases of the distro as a whole when something *really* different is going to get into stable. This barely  occurs every six months, and not so frequently every year, in Debian nor in any other system I'm aware of.</p><p>This six month release cycle is artificial: what are the "milestones" in those 25 6-months releases?</p><p>I think this is only a marketroid artifact.</p><p>(Note for Debian haters and illiterates: if you're about to argue that stable release cycle is too long, and need backports for new software, drivers, etc., let me say that for a long time now testing has had security updates too; you're able to get backports or make your own, and even run a mixed stable-testing system if you want, but I don't think the scenario for such a need would be very common having testing with security updates available. If that's the case, you're probably in a situation where every distro or system will need hand tweaking and maintenance too).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sysadmin for a number of boxes running some of the three Debian variants ( mostly stable and testing in production ) .Can someone explain what 's the advantage of getting a new release exactly every N months ( or days , or years or whatever time unit you like ) ? I 'm much comfortable with updates and security fixes that gets in my current system whenever the need for them dictates an upgrade for some piece of software ( i.e .
packages in Debian ) , in a non-disruptive manner and the most automatically possible , and complete new releases of the distro as a whole when something * really * different is going to get into stable .
This barely occurs every six months , and not so frequently every year , in Debian nor in any other system I 'm aware of.This six month release cycle is artificial : what are the " milestones " in those 25 6-months releases ? I think this is only a marketroid artifact .
( Note for Debian haters and illiterates : if you 're about to argue that stable release cycle is too long , and need backports for new software , drivers , etc. , let me say that for a long time now testing has had security updates too ; you 're able to get backports or make your own , and even run a mixed stable-testing system if you want , but I do n't think the scenario for such a need would be very common having testing with security updates available .
If that 's the case , you 're probably in a situation where every distro or system will need hand tweaking and maintenance too ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sysadmin for a number of boxes running some of the three Debian variants (mostly stable and testing in production).Can someone explain what's the advantage of getting a new release exactly every N months (or days, or years or whatever time unit you like)?I'm much comfortable with updates and security fixes that gets in my current system whenever the need for them dictates an upgrade for some piece of software (i.e.
packages in Debian), in a non-disruptive manner and the most automatically possible, and complete new releases of the distro as a whole when something *really* different is going to get into stable.
This barely  occurs every six months, and not so frequently every year, in Debian nor in any other system I'm aware of.This six month release cycle is artificial: what are the "milestones" in those 25 6-months releases?I think this is only a marketroid artifact.
(Note for Debian haters and illiterates: if you're about to argue that stable release cycle is too long, and need backports for new software, drivers, etc., let me say that for a long time now testing has had security updates too; you're able to get backports or make your own, and even run a mixed stable-testing system if you want, but I don't think the scenario for such a need would be very common having testing with security updates available.
If that's the case, you're probably in a situation where every distro or system will need hand tweaking and maintenance too).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724851</id>
	<title>Similar to Ruby...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247750340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...at least, in that Matz releases a new version at Christmas each year.  For example, here's his <a href="http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/124413" title="nagaokaut.ac.jp">Christmas post from Dec 2004 for Ruby 1.8.2</a> [nagaokaut.ac.jp].  Way back when!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...at least , in that Matz releases a new version at Christmas each year .
For example , here 's his Christmas post from Dec 2004 for Ruby 1.8.2 [ nagaokaut.ac.jp ] .
Way back when !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...at least, in that Matz releases a new version at Christmas each year.
For example, here's his Christmas post from Dec 2004 for Ruby 1.8.2 [nagaokaut.ac.jp].
Way back when!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724631</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247748480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sabotage</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sabotage</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sabotage</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28733347</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>kelnos</author>
	<datestamp>1247860800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, you have a million confusion projects going on based on the code all, called "Linux". How many versions of "OpenBSD" are there out there? Umm, ONE. Sure, someone could go and make their own userland and such, but it cannot be called OpenBSD.  So, before you go on a rant about how many times BSD has been forked, please get your facts straight.</p></div><p>Well, while you are correct in the distinction between the BSDs being full package-deal OSes, whereas Linux is just a kernel, and the better comparison would be between the BSDs and the various LInux-based distros, there's another way of looking at it, which I suspect the original poster was actually talking about.<br>
<br>
The three main BSD *kernels* (Free, Open, Net... and should we count Dragonfly too?) are all forks of an original BSD kernel.  They've diverged quite a lot, and in the unlikely event that they wanted to reunify, it would take many years of work to combine them all into a single kernel... if it's even possible.<br>
<br>
On the other hand, there is really just one Linux kernel.  Yes, there are small, (comparatively) short-lived forks.  Most distros ship patched kernels, and some independent patchsets exist, but they tend not to diverge too much, or, when they do, usually diverge due to patches and driver support backported from later kernel versions.  Many patches in distro kernels get pushed upstream.  While they are technically forks in the real definition of the term, they're not anywhere in the same league as the differences between the various BSD kernels.<br>
<br>
So while it's not true to say Linux-based OSes don't fork all the time (there are hundreds of them), it is, for practical purposes, safe to say that there is pretty much one Linux kernel.  You can't say the same thing where BSD kernels are concerned.<br>
<br>
Whether or not this really matters for any practical purpose is up to the reader to decide; it may just be an academic exercise to recognise the difference.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you have a million confusion projects going on based on the code all , called " Linux " .
How many versions of " OpenBSD " are there out there ?
Umm , ONE .
Sure , someone could go and make their own userland and such , but it can not be called OpenBSD .
So , before you go on a rant about how many times BSD has been forked , please get your facts straight.Well , while you are correct in the distinction between the BSDs being full package-deal OSes , whereas Linux is just a kernel , and the better comparison would be between the BSDs and the various LInux-based distros , there 's another way of looking at it , which I suspect the original poster was actually talking about .
The three main BSD * kernels * ( Free , Open , Net... and should we count Dragonfly too ?
) are all forks of an original BSD kernel .
They 've diverged quite a lot , and in the unlikely event that they wanted to reunify , it would take many years of work to combine them all into a single kernel... if it 's even possible .
On the other hand , there is really just one Linux kernel .
Yes , there are small , ( comparatively ) short-lived forks .
Most distros ship patched kernels , and some independent patchsets exist , but they tend not to diverge too much , or , when they do , usually diverge due to patches and driver support backported from later kernel versions .
Many patches in distro kernels get pushed upstream .
While they are technically forks in the real definition of the term , they 're not anywhere in the same league as the differences between the various BSD kernels .
So while it 's not true to say Linux-based OSes do n't fork all the time ( there are hundreds of them ) , it is , for practical purposes , safe to say that there is pretty much one Linux kernel .
You ca n't say the same thing where BSD kernels are concerned .
Whether or not this really matters for any practical purpose is up to the reader to decide ; it may just be an academic exercise to recognise the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you have a million confusion projects going on based on the code all, called "Linux".
How many versions of "OpenBSD" are there out there?
Umm, ONE.
Sure, someone could go and make their own userland and such, but it cannot be called OpenBSD.
So, before you go on a rant about how many times BSD has been forked, please get your facts straight.Well, while you are correct in the distinction between the BSDs being full package-deal OSes, whereas Linux is just a kernel, and the better comparison would be between the BSDs and the various LInux-based distros, there's another way of looking at it, which I suspect the original poster was actually talking about.
The three main BSD *kernels* (Free, Open, Net... and should we count Dragonfly too?
) are all forks of an original BSD kernel.
They've diverged quite a lot, and in the unlikely event that they wanted to reunify, it would take many years of work to combine them all into a single kernel... if it's even possible.
On the other hand, there is really just one Linux kernel.
Yes, there are small, (comparatively) short-lived forks.
Most distros ship patched kernels, and some independent patchsets exist, but they tend not to diverge too much, or, when they do, usually diverge due to patches and driver support backported from later kernel versions.
Many patches in distro kernels get pushed upstream.
While they are technically forks in the real definition of the term, they're not anywhere in the same league as the differences between the various BSD kernels.
So while it's not true to say Linux-based OSes don't fork all the time (there are hundreds of them), it is, for practical purposes, safe to say that there is pretty much one Linux kernel.
You can't say the same thing where BSD kernels are concerned.
Whether or not this really matters for any practical purpose is up to the reader to decide; it may just be an academic exercise to recognise the difference.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725025</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247751960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your post is off-topic from the video and the Slashdot article. This isn't a comparison about how Linux compares versus OpenBSD. The video, if you watch it, is about how the OpenBSD team manages their releases, meets their agreed upon release dates, and makes sure that each release is a quality product.</p><p>The points he discusses in his video revolve around conducting adequate testing of the product and having the developers use the to-be-released system rather than throwing something out as a release and moving on. His points about managing the release process are just as valid if they were applied to manufacturing and releasing cars, paper products, or skateboards as they are to operating systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post is off-topic from the video and the Slashdot article .
This is n't a comparison about how Linux compares versus OpenBSD .
The video , if you watch it , is about how the OpenBSD team manages their releases , meets their agreed upon release dates , and makes sure that each release is a quality product.The points he discusses in his video revolve around conducting adequate testing of the product and having the developers use the to-be-released system rather than throwing something out as a release and moving on .
His points about managing the release process are just as valid if they were applied to manufacturing and releasing cars , paper products , or skateboards as they are to operating systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post is off-topic from the video and the Slashdot article.
This isn't a comparison about how Linux compares versus OpenBSD.
The video, if you watch it, is about how the OpenBSD team manages their releases, meets their agreed upon release dates, and makes sure that each release is a quality product.The points he discusses in his video revolve around conducting adequate testing of the product and having the developers use the to-be-released system rather than throwing something out as a release and moving on.
His points about managing the release process are just as valid if they were applied to manufacturing and releasing cars, paper products, or skateboards as they are to operating systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726763</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>neural.disruption</author>
	<datestamp>1247861820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Lets Get The Facts:

Most BSDs - Kernel code is significantly different - Operating Systems
<br>
Most Linux Distributions - Kernel code is mostly the same - Distributions
<br> <br>
So you can say they share a initial common base (4.4BSD in the case of Free and Net, since Open is a Fork of Net), but I welcome you to compare the code between them and then compare it between Linux Dists and see for yourself the difference.<br> <br>
Saying they're the same is the same as saying Solaris and HP-UX are the same(because they share a common base in System Vr4).
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets Get The Facts : Most BSDs - Kernel code is significantly different - Operating Systems Most Linux Distributions - Kernel code is mostly the same - Distributions So you can say they share a initial common base ( 4.4BSD in the case of Free and Net , since Open is a Fork of Net ) , but I welcome you to compare the code between them and then compare it between Linux Dists and see for yourself the difference .
Saying they 're the same is the same as saying Solaris and HP-UX are the same ( because they share a common base in System Vr4 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Lets Get The Facts:

Most BSDs - Kernel code is significantly different - Operating Systems

Most Linux Distributions - Kernel code is mostly the same - Distributions
 
So you can say they share a initial common base (4.4BSD in the case of Free and Net, since Open is a Fork of Net), but I welcome you to compare the code between them and then compare it between Linux Dists and see for yourself the difference.
Saying they're the same is the same as saying Solaris and HP-UX are the same(because they share a common base in System Vr4).
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724735</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247749320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two points:</p><p>1) they do not create a separate branch for a release.  The release stays in TRUNK until it is released.  This has the advantage that ALL developers are working towards a release.  Introduction of features is slowed as a release approaches.  He does not address the disadvantage of this system: that many developers sit around idle when their work is completed early during this phase.</p><p>2) Everyone tests.  There is no test team.  All developers test things before a release.  He does not talk about agile and how everyone should be testing their own stuff anyways.</p><p>Point 1) was interesting.  It works for them because they are volunteer based.  They are not paying the salaries of the idle developers during the release phase.  It would not work in a corporate environment because those people are to valuable to be underutilized.</p><p>NOTE: I did not listen to him talk... just read his slides.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two points : 1 ) they do not create a separate branch for a release .
The release stays in TRUNK until it is released .
This has the advantage that ALL developers are working towards a release .
Introduction of features is slowed as a release approaches .
He does not address the disadvantage of this system : that many developers sit around idle when their work is completed early during this phase.2 ) Everyone tests .
There is no test team .
All developers test things before a release .
He does not talk about agile and how everyone should be testing their own stuff anyways.Point 1 ) was interesting .
It works for them because they are volunteer based .
They are not paying the salaries of the idle developers during the release phase .
It would not work in a corporate environment because those people are to valuable to be underutilized.NOTE : I did not listen to him talk... just read his slides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two points:1) they do not create a separate branch for a release.
The release stays in TRUNK until it is released.
This has the advantage that ALL developers are working towards a release.
Introduction of features is slowed as a release approaches.
He does not address the disadvantage of this system: that many developers sit around idle when their work is completed early during this phase.2) Everyone tests.
There is no test team.
All developers test things before a release.
He does not talk about agile and how everyone should be testing their own stuff anyways.Point 1) was interesting.
It works for them because they are volunteer based.
They are not paying the salaries of the idle developers during the release phase.
It would not work in a corporate environment because those people are to valuable to be underutilized.NOTE: I did not listen to him talk... just read his slides.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727553</id>
	<title>Re:god i hate wanky titles.</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1247830620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I call bullshit on all of that, and I <b>do</b> have a couple OpenBSD systems installed in a commercial setting.</p><p>1.) if you wait for the coders to finish up the "cool", uh, sorry "desperately needed" features, you could just as well put the release date on Independence Day, 2025. Having a fixed date forces the coders to concentrate on the essential, instead of the "cool" stuff.</p><p>2.) yes, you need to upgrade rapidly. However, your point is misleading. Upgrading OpenBSD has, in all the many upgrades I have made, been no more problematic than, say, running "apt-get update &amp;&amp; apt-get upgrade" on Debian.</p><p>3.) it's not a "whole new release". It's minor version numbers every six months. And six months can be a damn short time in the security world.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>i've used openbsd in production environment, and it doesn't cut it in hardware support or speed.</p> </div><p>So you're lamenting why, exactly? If the release cycle isn't even your main problem?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I call bullshit on all of that , and I do have a couple OpenBSD systems installed in a commercial setting.1 .
) if you wait for the coders to finish up the " cool " , uh , sorry " desperately needed " features , you could just as well put the release date on Independence Day , 2025 .
Having a fixed date forces the coders to concentrate on the essential , instead of the " cool " stuff.2 .
) yes , you need to upgrade rapidly .
However , your point is misleading .
Upgrading OpenBSD has , in all the many upgrades I have made , been no more problematic than , say , running " apt-get update &amp;&amp; apt-get upgrade " on Debian.3 .
) it 's not a " whole new release " .
It 's minor version numbers every six months .
And six months can be a damn short time in the security world.i 've used openbsd in production environment , and it does n't cut it in hardware support or speed .
So you 're lamenting why , exactly ?
If the release cycle is n't even your main problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call bullshit on all of that, and I do have a couple OpenBSD systems installed in a commercial setting.1.
) if you wait for the coders to finish up the "cool", uh, sorry "desperately needed" features, you could just as well put the release date on Independence Day, 2025.
Having a fixed date forces the coders to concentrate on the essential, instead of the "cool" stuff.2.
) yes, you need to upgrade rapidly.
However, your point is misleading.
Upgrading OpenBSD has, in all the many upgrades I have made, been no more problematic than, say, running "apt-get update &amp;&amp; apt-get upgrade" on Debian.3.
) it's not a "whole new release".
It's minor version numbers every six months.
And six months can be a damn short time in the security world.i've used openbsd in production environment, and it doesn't cut it in hardware support or speed.
So you're lamenting why, exactly?
If the release cycle isn't even your main problem?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727091</id>
	<title>Re:Netcraft confims: *BSD is Dying</title>
	<author>Anne Thwacks</author>
	<datestamp>1247824800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>If it's dying, how long is it going to take to finally kick the bucket?</i> <p>
The most reliable estimate to date is</p><p>
(remaining life of BSD) = (expected total life of Microsoft) * 2 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's dying , how long is it going to take to finally kick the bucket ?
The most reliable estimate to date is ( remaining life of BSD ) = ( expected total life of Microsoft ) * 2 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's dying, how long is it going to take to finally kick the bucket?
The most reliable estimate to date is
(remaining life of BSD) = (expected total life of Microsoft) * 2 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725993</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725219</id>
	<title>WHY does OpenBSD's release process work?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247753640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOW EXPECTATIONS.</p><p>I'm srs. OpenBSD is as useless as a bag of rocks, and the developers grind away at either obscure (but easy) features, wasting time duplicating already-existing programs (CVS) when the rest of the world has move on (GIT) and generally taking a half-assed easy route to developing. The suggestion that they implement anything original or useful is met with general derision.</p><p>OpenBSD is NOT a serious operating system. When it comes to security, Solaris has it beat, when it comes to performance even VMS works better. The only thing I can honestly credit OpenBSD with is OpenSSH -and that was a decade ago! In that time the rest of the BSDs have made major contributions to the computing world (NetBSD was the first OS to incorporate USB, FreeBSD gave us two new file systems AND developed a free software port of Dtrace).</p><p>OpenBSD only works if your metric is based on how prone supposedly adult devlopers to flaming on mailing lists for no reason. They're neither competent, nor professional.</p><p>Talk to us about a REAL development community -not the sad myopic joke that is the OpenBSD community.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOW EXPECTATIONS.I 'm srs .
OpenBSD is as useless as a bag of rocks , and the developers grind away at either obscure ( but easy ) features , wasting time duplicating already-existing programs ( CVS ) when the rest of the world has move on ( GIT ) and generally taking a half-assed easy route to developing .
The suggestion that they implement anything original or useful is met with general derision.OpenBSD is NOT a serious operating system .
When it comes to security , Solaris has it beat , when it comes to performance even VMS works better .
The only thing I can honestly credit OpenBSD with is OpenSSH -and that was a decade ago !
In that time the rest of the BSDs have made major contributions to the computing world ( NetBSD was the first OS to incorporate USB , FreeBSD gave us two new file systems AND developed a free software port of Dtrace ) .OpenBSD only works if your metric is based on how prone supposedly adult devlopers to flaming on mailing lists for no reason .
They 're neither competent , nor professional.Talk to us about a REAL development community -not the sad myopic joke that is the OpenBSD community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOW EXPECTATIONS.I'm srs.
OpenBSD is as useless as a bag of rocks, and the developers grind away at either obscure (but easy) features, wasting time duplicating already-existing programs (CVS) when the rest of the world has move on (GIT) and generally taking a half-assed easy route to developing.
The suggestion that they implement anything original or useful is met with general derision.OpenBSD is NOT a serious operating system.
When it comes to security, Solaris has it beat, when it comes to performance even VMS works better.
The only thing I can honestly credit OpenBSD with is OpenSSH -and that was a decade ago!
In that time the rest of the BSDs have made major contributions to the computing world (NetBSD was the first OS to incorporate USB, FreeBSD gave us two new file systems AND developed a free software port of Dtrace).OpenBSD only works if your metric is based on how prone supposedly adult devlopers to flaming on mailing lists for no reason.
They're neither competent, nor professional.Talk to us about a REAL development community -not the sad myopic joke that is the OpenBSD community.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725465</id>
	<title>Re:WHY does OpenBSD's release process work?</title>
	<author>iggymanz</author>
	<datestamp>1247756280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>hahaha, what a farce, Solaris through version 9 could never be hooked straight to the internet in default install or it would be pwn3d.   Who runs a Solaris router or firewall?  no one, that's who.  Not even Sun marketing droids are dumb enough to spout the shit you just did.

VMS is slower than OpenBSD on a comparable platform running the same code because of the more complicated file system.  And running DCL is slower than bash scripts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>hahaha , what a farce , Solaris through version 9 could never be hooked straight to the internet in default install or it would be pwn3d .
Who runs a Solaris router or firewall ?
no one , that 's who .
Not even Sun marketing droids are dumb enough to spout the shit you just did .
VMS is slower than OpenBSD on a comparable platform running the same code because of the more complicated file system .
And running DCL is slower than bash scripts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hahaha, what a farce, Solaris through version 9 could never be hooked straight to the internet in default install or it would be pwn3d.
Who runs a Solaris router or firewall?
no one, that's who.
Not even Sun marketing droids are dumb enough to spout the shit you just did.
VMS is slower than OpenBSD on a comparable platform running the same code because of the more complicated file system.
And running DCL is slower than bash scripts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28728243</id>
	<title>Re:WHY does OpenBSD's release process work?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247838300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Care to show us what you have ever done for anyone? NO EXPECTATIONS describes my thoughts very good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Care to show us what you have ever done for anyone ?
NO EXPECTATIONS describes my thoughts very good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Care to show us what you have ever done for anyone?
NO EXPECTATIONS describes my thoughts very good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28729293</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?</title>
	<author>DuckDodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1247843220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks.  It's an interesting idea, although I don't know how easy it would be to generalize it to other open source projects.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks .
It 's an interesting idea , although I do n't know how easy it would be to generalize it to other open source projects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks.
It's an interesting idea, although I don't know how easy it would be to generalize it to other open source projects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726295</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1247767740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find that in a corporate lifecycle, having two projects to work on helps.. as one project approaches release, another is just coming out of a release, and into a rapid bugfix push...   alternating the primary focus of your development time... This works pretty well actually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find that in a corporate lifecycle , having two projects to work on helps.. as one project approaches release , another is just coming out of a release , and into a rapid bugfix push... alternating the primary focus of your development time... This works pretty well actually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find that in a corporate lifecycle, having two projects to work on helps.. as one project approaches release, another is just coming out of a release, and into a rapid bugfix push...   alternating the primary focus of your development time... This works pretty well actually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725131</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247752800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The original BSD code base was maintained by UC Berkeley and a bare bones system that was used as the basis for many industrial operating systems (e.g. SunOS). It was never meant to be a full fledged operating system for all usages, so different groups forked in order to target special niches. Similarly System-V would be considered forked (e.g. Solaris). Generally one considers both a base design, as neither were mature enough or managed in way to solve all of the purposes that were spawned.</p><p>386BSD was a port of 4.3BSD to x86 and when development ceased then NetBSD and FreeBSD were created simultaniously to continue development.</p><p>It was only the NetBSD/OpenBSD clash that was a political/cultural difference. All others were natural progressions given the maturity of the industry, communication technology, and specializations required. The primary reasons that Linux became successful was (a) the BSD lawsuit, (b) IBM. The SVLUG was one of the earliest user groups and its archives site members stating that they switched communities due to concerns at the time. Still, both were equally popular until IBM became involved in the late 90s promoting it with their illegal spray painting all over San Francisco. As IBM was a hardware company, the GPL was more attractive than the BSD license due to restricting competitors (Sun) from leveraging IBM's contributions. Before IBM's commitment and promotion of Linux, which was followed by other big vendors like SGI for similar reasons, FreeBSD was arguably more popular (e.g. it was adopted by EBay, Yahoo!, and other startups).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The original BSD code base was maintained by UC Berkeley and a bare bones system that was used as the basis for many industrial operating systems ( e.g .
SunOS ) . It was never meant to be a full fledged operating system for all usages , so different groups forked in order to target special niches .
Similarly System-V would be considered forked ( e.g .
Solaris ) . Generally one considers both a base design , as neither were mature enough or managed in way to solve all of the purposes that were spawned.386BSD was a port of 4.3BSD to x86 and when development ceased then NetBSD and FreeBSD were created simultaniously to continue development.It was only the NetBSD/OpenBSD clash that was a political/cultural difference .
All others were natural progressions given the maturity of the industry , communication technology , and specializations required .
The primary reasons that Linux became successful was ( a ) the BSD lawsuit , ( b ) IBM .
The SVLUG was one of the earliest user groups and its archives site members stating that they switched communities due to concerns at the time .
Still , both were equally popular until IBM became involved in the late 90s promoting it with their illegal spray painting all over San Francisco .
As IBM was a hardware company , the GPL was more attractive than the BSD license due to restricting competitors ( Sun ) from leveraging IBM 's contributions .
Before IBM 's commitment and promotion of Linux , which was followed by other big vendors like SGI for similar reasons , FreeBSD was arguably more popular ( e.g .
it was adopted by EBay , Yahoo ! , and other startups ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original BSD code base was maintained by UC Berkeley and a bare bones system that was used as the basis for many industrial operating systems (e.g.
SunOS). It was never meant to be a full fledged operating system for all usages, so different groups forked in order to target special niches.
Similarly System-V would be considered forked (e.g.
Solaris). Generally one considers both a base design, as neither were mature enough or managed in way to solve all of the purposes that were spawned.386BSD was a port of 4.3BSD to x86 and when development ceased then NetBSD and FreeBSD were created simultaniously to continue development.It was only the NetBSD/OpenBSD clash that was a political/cultural difference.
All others were natural progressions given the maturity of the industry, communication technology, and specializations required.
The primary reasons that Linux became successful was (a) the BSD lawsuit, (b) IBM.
The SVLUG was one of the earliest user groups and its archives site members stating that they switched communities due to concerns at the time.
Still, both were equally popular until IBM became involved in the late 90s promoting it with their illegal spray painting all over San Francisco.
As IBM was a hardware company, the GPL was more attractive than the BSD license due to restricting competitors (Sun) from leveraging IBM's contributions.
Before IBM's commitment and promotion of Linux, which was followed by other big vendors like SGI for similar reasons, FreeBSD was arguably more popular (e.g.
it was adopted by EBay, Yahoo!, and other startups).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725185</id>
	<title>god i hate wanky titles.</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1247753280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>the poster is making the assertion that it works, a lot of people would say their release cycle is a terrible burden on the project.<p>
1. code freeze happens every six months meaning you don't get to finish off features and fixes which might have been of huge benefit. it would make much more sense to base your release cycle around features and improvements, then some arbitary number of days.</p><p>
2. openBSD EOL's it's releases so quickly, that only in the very rare instance that a business is willing to pay through the nose for inhouse support will you be able to see your system patched.</p><p>
3. 6 months is way WAY too short of a time for a whole new release. 12 months (if you have to go with the retarded time based release) would be much less of a drain on resources as there is a certain amount of work that must go into a release wether it's got useful upgrades or not.</p><p>

i've used openbsd in production environment, and it doesn't cut it in hardware support or speed. it's firewall was nice, but i've got that in freebsd now which is a far better OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the poster is making the assertion that it works , a lot of people would say their release cycle is a terrible burden on the project .
1. code freeze happens every six months meaning you do n't get to finish off features and fixes which might have been of huge benefit .
it would make much more sense to base your release cycle around features and improvements , then some arbitary number of days .
2. openBSD EOL 's it 's releases so quickly , that only in the very rare instance that a business is willing to pay through the nose for inhouse support will you be able to see your system patched .
3. 6 months is way WAY too short of a time for a whole new release .
12 months ( if you have to go with the retarded time based release ) would be much less of a drain on resources as there is a certain amount of work that must go into a release wether it 's got useful upgrades or not .
i 've used openbsd in production environment , and it does n't cut it in hardware support or speed .
it 's firewall was nice , but i 've got that in freebsd now which is a far better OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the poster is making the assertion that it works, a lot of people would say their release cycle is a terrible burden on the project.
1. code freeze happens every six months meaning you don't get to finish off features and fixes which might have been of huge benefit.
it would make much more sense to base your release cycle around features and improvements, then some arbitary number of days.
2. openBSD EOL's it's releases so quickly, that only in the very rare instance that a business is willing to pay through the nose for inhouse support will you be able to see your system patched.
3. 6 months is way WAY too short of a time for a whole new release.
12 months (if you have to go with the retarded time based release) would be much less of a drain on resources as there is a certain amount of work that must go into a release wether it's got useful upgrades or not.
i've used openbsd in production environment, and it doesn't cut it in hardware support or speed.
it's firewall was nice, but i've got that in freebsd now which is a far better OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724675</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?</title>
	<author>nacredata</author>
	<datestamp>1247748780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I got out of it was that the core developers, not some other group, do the testing. Rather than hand the task of quality control/testing to some other group just prior to release, all developers are held to a high level of participation in this regard. Theo and other developers use nightly builds in their day-to-day work and the entire system compiles most every night.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I got out of it was that the core developers , not some other group , do the testing .
Rather than hand the task of quality control/testing to some other group just prior to release , all developers are held to a high level of participation in this regard .
Theo and other developers use nightly builds in their day-to-day work and the entire system compiles most every night .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I got out of it was that the core developers, not some other group, do the testing.
Rather than hand the task of quality control/testing to some other group just prior to release, all developers are held to a high level of participation in this regard.
Theo and other developers use nightly builds in their day-to-day work and the entire system compiles most every night.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725847</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>ripratm</author>
	<datestamp>1247761860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Stop trying to redefine the term "Operating System". The rest of what you said might have merit, but once you tried to force your (wrong) interpretation of "Operating System" onto others I lost interest. Please explain to me and others how Linux is <i>not</i> an operating system.</p><p>

No, he's correct.  Linux is not an OS its a kernel, pure a simple.  You can download the latest version of "Linux" from kernel.org but but you can't to anything with it.  You can't burn it to an iso and boot it.  Now Red Hat Linux is an operating system, because they bundle the kernel with GNU but "Linux" is not.  OpenBSD is an OS, it contains a kernel PLUS everything else needed to perform functions.  Linux is like car engine but with out the rest of the car is pretty useless.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop trying to redefine the term " Operating System " .
The rest of what you said might have merit , but once you tried to force your ( wrong ) interpretation of " Operating System " onto others I lost interest .
Please explain to me and others how Linux is not an operating system .
No , he 's correct .
Linux is not an OS its a kernel , pure a simple .
You can download the latest version of " Linux " from kernel.org but but you ca n't to anything with it .
You ca n't burn it to an iso and boot it .
Now Red Hat Linux is an operating system , because they bundle the kernel with GNU but " Linux " is not .
OpenBSD is an OS , it contains a kernel PLUS everything else needed to perform functions .
Linux is like car engine but with out the rest of the car is pretty useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop trying to redefine the term "Operating System".
The rest of what you said might have merit, but once you tried to force your (wrong) interpretation of "Operating System" onto others I lost interest.
Please explain to me and others how Linux is not an operating system.
No, he's correct.
Linux is not an OS its a kernel, pure a simple.
You can download the latest version of "Linux" from kernel.org but but you can't to anything with it.
You can't burn it to an iso and boot it.
Now Red Hat Linux is an operating system, because they bundle the kernel with GNU but "Linux" is not.
OpenBSD is an OS, it contains a kernel PLUS everything else needed to perform functions.
Linux is like car engine but with out the rest of the car is pretty useless.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727641</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247832000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Debian, RedHat, Slackware and many others are distributions. Not OS's. The Linux kernel is the monolithic OS. You do not have variants from it like you have from BSD. From BSD you have NetBSD, FreeBSD and OpenBSD and all are monolithic OS's like Linux (kernel). Those projects just uphold all the userspace software as well together with other parties. There are distributions of those OS's as well. Like PC-BSD from FreeBSD.</p><p>OS:<br>Linux<br>FreeBSD<br>NetBSD<br>OpenBSD<br>SunOS<br>XNU<br>Hurd<br>Minix<br>NT</p><p>Variants:<br>of BSD<br>FreeBSD<br>NetBSD<br>OpenBSD</p><p>Distributions:<br>of NetBSD<br>PC-BSD<br>BSDBox<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....<br>of Linux<br>Debian<br>Slackware<br>Gentoo<br>RedHat<br>SUSE</p><p>distributions derived from other distribution:<br>Ubuntu from Debian<br>Xandros from Debian<br>SUSE from RedHat<br>Mandriva from RedHat<br>Kubuntu from Debian<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Debian , RedHat , Slackware and many others are distributions .
Not OS 's .
The Linux kernel is the monolithic OS .
You do not have variants from it like you have from BSD .
From BSD you have NetBSD , FreeBSD and OpenBSD and all are monolithic OS 's like Linux ( kernel ) .
Those projects just uphold all the userspace software as well together with other parties .
There are distributions of those OS 's as well .
Like PC-BSD from FreeBSD.OS : LinuxFreeBSDNetBSDOpenBSDSunOSXNUHurdMinixNTVariants : of BSDFreeBSDNetBSDOpenBSDDistributions : of NetBSDPC-BSDBSDBox ....of LinuxDebianSlackwareGentooRedHatSUSEdistributions derived from other distribution : Ubuntu from DebianXandros from DebianSUSE from RedHatMandriva from RedHatKubuntu from Debian ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Debian, RedHat, Slackware and many others are distributions.
Not OS's.
The Linux kernel is the monolithic OS.
You do not have variants from it like you have from BSD.
From BSD you have NetBSD, FreeBSD and OpenBSD and all are monolithic OS's like Linux (kernel).
Those projects just uphold all the userspace software as well together with other parties.
There are distributions of those OS's as well.
Like PC-BSD from FreeBSD.OS:LinuxFreeBSDNetBSDOpenBSDSunOSXNUHurdMinixNTVariants:of BSDFreeBSDNetBSDOpenBSDDistributions:of NetBSDPC-BSDBSDBox ....of LinuxDebianSlackwareGentooRedHatSUSEdistributions derived from other distribution:Ubuntu from DebianXandros from DebianSUSE from RedHatMandriva from RedHatKubuntu from Debian ....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727155</id>
	<title>Text version please ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247825640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Video is for the english native too lazy to read. I want a quick scan through what he says and skipping his "ahhhh" "errrr"....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Video is for the english native too lazy to read .
I want a quick scan through what he says and skipping his " ahhhh " " errrr " ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Video is for the english native too lazy to read.
I want a quick scan through what he says and skipping his "ahhhh" "errrr"....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726897</id>
	<title>all it requires</title>
	<author>Gary W. Longsine</author>
	<datestamp>1247863740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bureaucracies seem to be scared of this agile stuff, because it doesn't pretend to be able to answer questions like, "given this enormous pile of features, how many developers do we need to get this project done in 18 months?"  Of course, the various methods they use do give them answers to these sorts of questions, demonstrably and wildly incorrect answers.  So really, all it requires is a fundamental shift in mindset, and a shift to managing projects with an agile mindset.  That's probably not possible for most organizations.  They prefer certainty and predictability, out into the range where it simply doesn't exist.  They prefer to fail time after time after time, and are willing to live with occasional, accidental success for thirty years past its useful life.  But of course  you know this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bureaucracies seem to be scared of this agile stuff , because it does n't pretend to be able to answer questions like , " given this enormous pile of features , how many developers do we need to get this project done in 18 months ?
" Of course , the various methods they use do give them answers to these sorts of questions , demonstrably and wildly incorrect answers .
So really , all it requires is a fundamental shift in mindset , and a shift to managing projects with an agile mindset .
That 's probably not possible for most organizations .
They prefer certainty and predictability , out into the range where it simply does n't exist .
They prefer to fail time after time after time , and are willing to live with occasional , accidental success for thirty years past its useful life .
But of course you know this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bureaucracies seem to be scared of this agile stuff, because it doesn't pretend to be able to answer questions like, "given this enormous pile of features, how many developers do we need to get this project done in 18 months?
"  Of course, the various methods they use do give them answers to these sorts of questions, demonstrably and wildly incorrect answers.
So really, all it requires is a fundamental shift in mindset, and a shift to managing projects with an agile mindset.
That's probably not possible for most organizations.
They prefer certainty and predictability, out into the range where it simply doesn't exist.
They prefer to fail time after time after time, and are willing to live with occasional, accidental success for thirty years past its useful life.
But of course  you know this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726663</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>Secret Rabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1247773320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, there's kind of other stuff in there as well.  Like, Linux (kernel) being written from scratch and using the userland developed from scratch by others and the BSDs coming from a corp and then being subsequently re-written so that no corp code was left in the code base.  Lots of suing in there as well (corps don't like such things).  Etc, etc, etc.</p><p>Also,</p><p>"""<br>but looking at market share it's pretty clear those are not the priorities for most businesses.<br>"""</p><p>That is sophistry (at best).  The reason why there is more "Linux" out there is because there are more zealots of that nature.  But, even then, it's arguable that there aren't.  I can't tell you how many "Linux" people I've run into that have a couple "Linux" boxes running apps, yet there entire perimeter is running OpenBSD and then some.  The only thing that can really be said is that the "Linux" people are a hell of a lot more loud than the BSD people.  And that makes the (anecdotal) numbers quite unreliable.</p><p>I could go on about "Linux" being a buzz-word, etc, etc, etc.  But, I'll stop there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , there 's kind of other stuff in there as well .
Like , Linux ( kernel ) being written from scratch and using the userland developed from scratch by others and the BSDs coming from a corp and then being subsequently re-written so that no corp code was left in the code base .
Lots of suing in there as well ( corps do n't like such things ) .
Etc , etc , etc.Also , " " " but looking at market share it 's pretty clear those are not the priorities for most businesses .
" " " That is sophistry ( at best ) .
The reason why there is more " Linux " out there is because there are more zealots of that nature .
But , even then , it 's arguable that there are n't .
I ca n't tell you how many " Linux " people I 've run into that have a couple " Linux " boxes running apps , yet there entire perimeter is running OpenBSD and then some .
The only thing that can really be said is that the " Linux " people are a hell of a lot more loud than the BSD people .
And that makes the ( anecdotal ) numbers quite unreliable.I could go on about " Linux " being a buzz-word , etc , etc , etc .
But , I 'll stop there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, there's kind of other stuff in there as well.
Like, Linux (kernel) being written from scratch and using the userland developed from scratch by others and the BSDs coming from a corp and then being subsequently re-written so that no corp code was left in the code base.
Lots of suing in there as well (corps don't like such things).
Etc, etc, etc.Also,"""but looking at market share it's pretty clear those are not the priorities for most businesses.
"""That is sophistry (at best).
The reason why there is more "Linux" out there is because there are more zealots of that nature.
But, even then, it's arguable that there aren't.
I can't tell you how many "Linux" people I've run into that have a couple "Linux" boxes running apps, yet there entire perimeter is running OpenBSD and then some.
The only thing that can really be said is that the "Linux" people are a hell of a lot more loud than the BSD people.
And that makes the (anecdotal) numbers quite unreliable.I could go on about "Linux" being a buzz-word, etc, etc, etc.
But, I'll stop there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725057</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>Troy</author>
	<datestamp>1247752140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is somewhat of an apples/oranges comparison. Linux proper is principally the kernel, while the development teams for most *BSD variants manage both the BSD kernel and the userland. While it may be the case (and I don't know for sure honestly) that there are no viable forks of the Linux kernel, that really doesn't provide a fair basis for comparison.</p><p>I would suggest that a BSD variant (OpenBSD, FreeBSD, etc) is much more analogous to a Linux distribution than just the Linux kernel. When you frame it that way, I think it is safe to say that there is much more fragmentation in the Linux world than the BSD world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is somewhat of an apples/oranges comparison .
Linux proper is principally the kernel , while the development teams for most * BSD variants manage both the BSD kernel and the userland .
While it may be the case ( and I do n't know for sure honestly ) that there are no viable forks of the Linux kernel , that really does n't provide a fair basis for comparison.I would suggest that a BSD variant ( OpenBSD , FreeBSD , etc ) is much more analogous to a Linux distribution than just the Linux kernel .
When you frame it that way , I think it is safe to say that there is much more fragmentation in the Linux world than the BSD world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is somewhat of an apples/oranges comparison.
Linux proper is principally the kernel, while the development teams for most *BSD variants manage both the BSD kernel and the userland.
While it may be the case (and I don't know for sure honestly) that there are no viable forks of the Linux kernel, that really doesn't provide a fair basis for comparison.I would suggest that a BSD variant (OpenBSD, FreeBSD, etc) is much more analogous to a Linux distribution than just the Linux kernel.
When you frame it that way, I think it is safe to say that there is much more fragmentation in the Linux world than the BSD world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724629</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247748480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The slides are here: <a href="http://www.openbsd.org/papers/asiabsdcon2009-release\_engineering/" title="openbsd.org">http://www.openbsd.org/papers/asiabsdcon2009-release\_engineering/</a> [openbsd.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The slides are here : http : //www.openbsd.org/papers/asiabsdcon2009-release \ _engineering/ [ openbsd.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The slides are here: http://www.openbsd.org/papers/asiabsdcon2009-release\_engineering/ [openbsd.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724703</id>
	<title>Netcraft confims: *BSD is Dying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247749020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>It is now official - Netcraft has confirmed: *BSD is dying</b> <br>
<br>
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest <b>Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share</b>, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by <a href="http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1148/sam0107a/0107a.htm" title="samag.com" rel="nofollow">failing dead last</a> [samag.com] in the recent <i>Sys Admin</i> comprehensive networking test.<br>
<br>
You don't need to be a <a href="http://www.amdest.com/stars/Kreskin.html" title="amdest.com" rel="nofollow">Kreskin</a> [amdest.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because <b>*BSD is dying</b>. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93\% of its core developers.<br>

<br>
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.<br>
<br>
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.<br>
<br>
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, <b>FreeBSD went out of business</b> and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. <b>Now BSDI is also dead</b>, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.<br>
<br>
Recently, Slashdot confirmed that FreeBSD has been bucked away by WindRiver to FreeBSD Mall, for a carton of Winston's and a six-pack of Pabst Blue Ribbon. This only serves to confirm the fact that FreeBSD is unwanted, doomed to be passed around like a harelipped orphan from one foster parent to another.<br>

<br>
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.<br>
<br>
<b>Fact: *BSD is dead</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is now official - Netcraft has confirmed : * BSD is dying Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered * BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that * BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers .
Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that * BSD has lost more market share , this news serves to reinforce what we 've known all along .
* BSD is collapsing in complete disarray , as further exemplified by failing dead last [ samag.com ] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test .
You do n't need to be a Kreskin [ amdest.com ] to predict * BSD 's future .
The hand writing is on the wall : * BSD faces a bleak future .
In fact there wo n't be any future at all for * BSD because * BSD is dying .
Things are looking very bad for * BSD .
As many of us are already aware , * BSD continues to lose market share .
Red ink flows like a river of blood .
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all , having lost 93 \ % of its core developers .
Let 's keep to the facts and look at the numbers .
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD .
How many users of NetBSD are there ?
Let 's see .
The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1 .
Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users .
BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts .
Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS .
A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the * BSD market .
Therefore there are ( 7000 + 1400 + 700 ) * 4 = 36400 FreeBSD users .
This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts .
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek , abysmal sales and so on , FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS .
Now BSDI is also dead , its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house .
Recently , Slashdot confirmed that FreeBSD has been bucked away by WindRiver to FreeBSD Mall , for a carton of Winston 's and a six-pack of Pabst Blue Ribbon .
This only serves to confirm the fact that FreeBSD is unwanted , doomed to be passed around like a harelipped orphan from one foster parent to another .
All major surveys show that * BSD has steadily declined in market share .
* BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim .
If * BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers .
* BSD continues to decay .
Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time .
For all practical purposes , * BSD is dead .
Fact : * BSD is dead</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is now official - Netcraft has confirmed: *BSD is dying 

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers.
Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along.
*BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict *BSD's future.
The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future.
In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying.
Things are looking very bad for *BSD.
As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share.
Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93\% of its core developers.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD.
How many users of NetBSD are there?
Let's see.
The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1.
Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users.
BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts.
Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS.
A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market.
Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users.
This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS.
Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
Recently, Slashdot confirmed that FreeBSD has been bucked away by WindRiver to FreeBSD Mall, for a carton of Winston's and a six-pack of Pabst Blue Ribbon.
This only serves to confirm the fact that FreeBSD is unwanted, doomed to be passed around like a harelipped orphan from one foster parent to another.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share.
*BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim.
If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers.
*BSD continues to decay.
Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time.
For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dead</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725099</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1247752440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The video, if you watch it, is about how the OpenBSD team manages their releases, meets their agreed upon release dates, and makes sure that each release is a quality product.</p></div><p>Yes, and I'm noting that various cultural and political influences that come from the core developers have a substantial impact on all of the above, and then comparing those influences in similar projects (ie, Linux).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>His points about managing the release process are just as valid if they were applied to manufacturing and releasing cars, paper products, or skateboards as they are to operating systems.</p></div><p>And I don't think anyone's going to argue there's a different corporate culture at Ford than Toyota and it translates directly to the products those respective brands produce.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The video , if you watch it , is about how the OpenBSD team manages their releases , meets their agreed upon release dates , and makes sure that each release is a quality product.Yes , and I 'm noting that various cultural and political influences that come from the core developers have a substantial impact on all of the above , and then comparing those influences in similar projects ( ie , Linux ) .His points about managing the release process are just as valid if they were applied to manufacturing and releasing cars , paper products , or skateboards as they are to operating systems.And I do n't think anyone 's going to argue there 's a different corporate culture at Ford than Toyota and it translates directly to the products those respective brands produce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The video, if you watch it, is about how the OpenBSD team manages their releases, meets their agreed upon release dates, and makes sure that each release is a quality product.Yes, and I'm noting that various cultural and political influences that come from the core developers have a substantial impact on all of the above, and then comparing those influences in similar projects (ie, Linux).His points about managing the release process are just as valid if they were applied to manufacturing and releasing cars, paper products, or skateboards as they are to operating systems.And I don't think anyone's going to argue there's a different corporate culture at Ford than Toyota and it translates directly to the products those respective brands produce.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725803</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247761260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I disagree.  The "forks" from original BSD weren't really forks.  They were Berkeley giving up on it and letting others take over.</p><p>Most of the various BSD's are "forks" because they have different purposes.  OpenBSD is security oriented, NetBSD is intended to run on vritually everything that has a CPU, FreeBSD was intended for more mainstram use.</p></div><p>First of all they weren't forks directly from Berkeley, they all forked from a dead OS called 386BSD that had a lot of development problems.</p><p>Second, everything I've read on the topic indicates this was very much personality-driven and related to 386BSD politics. The "reasoning" behind each BSD was something that was developed later.</p><p>In an ideal world, I suppose, 386BSD would have been managed better and there would be no forks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
The " forks " from original BSD were n't really forks .
They were Berkeley giving up on it and letting others take over.Most of the various BSD 's are " forks " because they have different purposes .
OpenBSD is security oriented , NetBSD is intended to run on vritually everything that has a CPU , FreeBSD was intended for more mainstram use.First of all they were n't forks directly from Berkeley , they all forked from a dead OS called 386BSD that had a lot of development problems.Second , everything I 've read on the topic indicates this was very much personality-driven and related to 386BSD politics .
The " reasoning " behind each BSD was something that was developed later.In an ideal world , I suppose , 386BSD would have been managed better and there would be no forks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
The "forks" from original BSD weren't really forks.
They were Berkeley giving up on it and letting others take over.Most of the various BSD's are "forks" because they have different purposes.
OpenBSD is security oriented, NetBSD is intended to run on vritually everything that has a CPU, FreeBSD was intended for more mainstram use.First of all they weren't forks directly from Berkeley, they all forked from a dead OS called 386BSD that had a lot of development problems.Second, everything I've read on the topic indicates this was very much personality-driven and related to 386BSD politics.
The "reasoning" behind each BSD was something that was developed later.In an ideal world, I suppose, 386BSD would have been managed better and there would be no forks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28730579</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247848560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean kudos to them for inventing the concept.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean kudos to them for inventing the concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean kudos to them for inventing the concept.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725065</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1247752260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Businesses might appreciate the consistency of the release schedule and the relatively bug-free nature of those releases, but looking at market share it's pretty clear those are not the priorities for most businesses.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>And? The article is about how/why they have a consistent release schedule. Since Linux already has a different process, why should BSD adopt the same? If a consistent, stable release schedule is important, use BSD. If Linux is better for your needs use it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Businesses might appreciate the consistency of the release schedule and the relatively bug-free nature of those releases , but looking at market share it 's pretty clear those are not the priorities for most businesses .
And ? The article is about how/why they have a consistent release schedule .
Since Linux already has a different process , why should BSD adopt the same ?
If a consistent , stable release schedule is important , use BSD .
If Linux is better for your needs use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Businesses might appreciate the consistency of the release schedule and the relatively bug-free nature of those releases, but looking at market share it's pretty clear those are not the priorities for most businesses.
And? The article is about how/why they have a consistent release schedule.
Since Linux already has a different process, why should BSD adopt the same?
If a consistent, stable release schedule is important, use BSD.
If Linux is better for your needs use it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28730295</id>
	<title>Re:god i hate wanky titles.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247847480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could go on a big tirade against you for the inane jibba-jabba you just spewed forth, but instead I will state that I disagree with you and find you to be incapable of using OpenBSD, or even brain cells.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could go on a big tirade against you for the inane jibba-jabba you just spewed forth , but instead I will state that I disagree with you and find you to be incapable of using OpenBSD , or even brain cells .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could go on a big tirade against you for the inane jibba-jabba you just spewed forth, but instead I will state that I disagree with you and find you to be incapable of using OpenBSD, or even brain cells.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724669</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247748780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is the executive summary:</p><ul> <li>OpenBSD is dying</li><li>OpenBSD is incapable of supporting Beowulf clustering</li><li>it runs Linux, but only in compatibility mode</li><li>Netcraft has confirmed all of these items</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the executive summary : OpenBSD is dyingOpenBSD is incapable of supporting Beowulf clusteringit runs Linux , but only in compatibility modeNetcraft has confirmed all of these items</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the executive summary: OpenBSD is dyingOpenBSD is incapable of supporting Beowulf clusteringit runs Linux, but only in compatibility modeNetcraft has confirmed all of these items</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28731281</id>
	<title>lesson learned?</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1247851620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't overload your releases with latest and greatest features (compare the feature list of openBSD vs. Debian, RedHat, or Ubuntu).
<p>
No need to release often, but always release consistently.
<br> <br>
From my experience, big industry (aerospace, power plants, mission critical apps) have been doing this since the 70's--with both average and exceptional developers working together...
<br> <br>
Also, having no pressure (from competition) and a big backer (Apple via FreeBSD) does have its advantages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't overload your releases with latest and greatest features ( compare the feature list of openBSD vs. Debian , RedHat , or Ubuntu ) .
No need to release often , but always release consistently .
From my experience , big industry ( aerospace , power plants , mission critical apps ) have been doing this since the 70 's--with both average and exceptional developers working together.. . Also , having no pressure ( from competition ) and a big backer ( Apple via FreeBSD ) does have its advantages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't overload your releases with latest and greatest features (compare the feature list of openBSD vs. Debian, RedHat, or Ubuntu).
No need to release often, but always release consistently.
From my experience, big industry (aerospace, power plants, mission critical apps) have been doing this since the 70's--with both average and exceptional developers working together...
 
Also, having no pressure (from competition) and a big backer (Apple via FreeBSD) does have its advantages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724907</id>
	<title>Is the OS as good as the Art?</title>
	<author>Sir Hossfly</author>
	<datestamp>1247750760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I couldn't finishing watching the video...(sorry guys...I bet there was some great info in there tho)...I'm not as developie.

Anyways...Check the freaking art on their site!

Developer Dudes...You change your marketing style just a bit...You'll get people asking for your disk...and then they might even install and try out your OS.

Make the two forms of art work together. Developing + Painting...merge the right combination...then...\m/()\m/</htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't finishing watching the video... ( sorry guys...I bet there was some great info in there tho ) ...I 'm not as developie .
Anyways...Check the freaking art on their site !
Developer Dudes...You change your marketing style just a bit...You 'll get people asking for your disk...and then they might even install and try out your OS .
Make the two forms of art work together .
Developing + Painting...merge the right combination...then... \ m/ ( ) \ m/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't finishing watching the video...(sorry guys...I bet there was some great info in there tho)...I'm not as developie.
Anyways...Check the freaking art on their site!
Developer Dudes...You change your marketing style just a bit...You'll get people asking for your disk...and then they might even install and try out your OS.
Make the two forms of art work together.
Developing + Painting...merge the right combination...then...\m/()\m/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725287</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>Psychotria</author>
	<datestamp>1247754120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A kernel is pretty much useless without a "userland." OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD are all operating systems. Linux, sorry to say, is not.</p></div><p>Stop trying to redefine the term "Operating System". The rest of what you said might have merit, but once you tried to force your (wrong) interpretation of "Operating System" onto others I lost interest. Please explain to me and others how Linux is <i>not</i> an operating system.</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p><div class="quote"><p>So, before you go on a rant about how many times BSD has been forked, please get your facts straight.</p></div><p>How about you following your own advice?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A kernel is pretty much useless without a " userland .
" OpenBSD , FreeBSD , NetBSD are all operating systems .
Linux , sorry to say , is not.Stop trying to redefine the term " Operating System " .
The rest of what you said might have merit , but once you tried to force your ( wrong ) interpretation of " Operating System " onto others I lost interest .
Please explain to me and others how Linux is not an operating system .
  So , before you go on a rant about how many times BSD has been forked , please get your facts straight.How about you following your own advice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A kernel is pretty much useless without a "userland.
" OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD are all operating systems.
Linux, sorry to say, is not.Stop trying to redefine the term "Operating System".
The rest of what you said might have merit, but once you tried to force your (wrong) interpretation of "Operating System" onto others I lost interest.
Please explain to me and others how Linux is not an operating system.
  So, before you go on a rant about how many times BSD has been forked, please get your facts straight.How about you following your own advice?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28734597</id>
	<title>Re:Text version please ?</title>
	<author>kelnos</author>
	<datestamp>1247823060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I look at it the other way around... I'm too lazy to watch a video, would rather read text.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I look at it the other way around... I 'm too lazy to watch a video , would rather read text .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I look at it the other way around... I'm too lazy to watch a video, would rather read text.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725591</id>
	<title>Re:It works?</title>
	<author>rbanffy</author>
	<datestamp>1247758560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are all GNU/Linux. You can't compare BSD to the Linux kernel, but you can compare it to the Linux kernel plus the GNU userland.</p><p>The fact there are different distros that share slightly off-sync versions of a common base continuously forking and merging back makes for a more interesting history than the, as the GP aptly described, BSD fork bloodbath.</p><p>BSD is for those who want to write free software, while GPL is for those who write free software and want it to be free forever. They may be called ideologues, but you can't question the GPL side of the fence breeds greater diversity and a richer ecosystem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are all GNU/Linux .
You ca n't compare BSD to the Linux kernel , but you can compare it to the Linux kernel plus the GNU userland.The fact there are different distros that share slightly off-sync versions of a common base continuously forking and merging back makes for a more interesting history than the , as the GP aptly described , BSD fork bloodbath.BSD is for those who want to write free software , while GPL is for those who write free software and want it to be free forever .
They may be called ideologues , but you ca n't question the GPL side of the fence breeds greater diversity and a richer ecosystem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are all GNU/Linux.
You can't compare BSD to the Linux kernel, but you can compare it to the Linux kernel plus the GNU userland.The fact there are different distros that share slightly off-sync versions of a common base continuously forking and merging back makes for a more interesting history than the, as the GP aptly described, BSD fork bloodbath.BSD is for those who want to write free software, while GPL is for those who write free software and want it to be free forever.
They may be called ideologues, but you can't question the GPL side of the fence breeds greater diversity and a richer ecosystem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724929</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28730295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28730579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28730611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28731475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28737379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28731213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28734597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28733347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28728243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28729293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2322203_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2322203.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724629
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28729293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724703
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725993
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724675
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724735
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725723
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726295
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727207
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726837
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28731213
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725995
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725279
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724879
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727053
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28730579
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724631
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2322203.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2322203.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727999
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2322203.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28731475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28730295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2322203.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724851
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2322203.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724903
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2322203.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28728243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2322203.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725025
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724929
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28733347
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727579
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725591
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725287
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725847
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725087
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727197
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726555
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727705
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727641
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28730611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28737379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28726149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725333
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725803
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28725751
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2322203.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28724911
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2322203.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28727155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28734597
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2322203.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2322203.28728235
</commentlist>
</conversation>
