<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_14_1544205</id>
	<title>How Nokia Learned To Love Openness</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1255535940000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ChiefMonkeyGrinder writes <i>"Once Sebastian Nystr&#246;m laid out the logic of moving to open source, there was <a href="http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2582&amp;blogid=14">very little resistance within Nokia to doing so</a>. I think that's significant; it means that, just as the GNU GPL has been tested in various courts and found valid, so has the logic behind open source &mdash; the openness that allows software to spread further, and improve quicker, for the mutual benefit of all. That idea is also increasingly accepted by hard-headed business people: it's become self-evident that it's a better way."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ChiefMonkeyGrinder writes " Once Sebastian Nystr   m laid out the logic of moving to open source , there was very little resistance within Nokia to doing so .
I think that 's significant ; it means that , just as the GNU GPL has been tested in various courts and found valid , so has the logic behind open source    the openness that allows software to spread further , and improve quicker , for the mutual benefit of all .
That idea is also increasingly accepted by hard-headed business people : it 's become self-evident that it 's a better way .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ChiefMonkeyGrinder writes "Once Sebastian Nyström laid out the logic of moving to open source, there was very little resistance within Nokia to doing so.
I think that's significant; it means that, just as the GNU GPL has been tested in various courts and found valid, so has the logic behind open source — the openness that allows software to spread further, and improve quicker, for the mutual benefit of all.
That idea is also increasingly accepted by hard-headed business people: it's become self-evident that it's a better way.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746193</id>
	<title>Re:Openess</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255541100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This.  Open Source is self evidently a better way for certain areas of software development and certain companies. It doesn't necessarily follow that it is  self evidently a better way in general.  Open source libraries make sens in a lot of the same ways that open standards make sense.  They're, in fact, the next obvious growth of open standards.  If we can all agree on the inputs and the outputs of the blackbox, why don't we all just use the same transparent box instead?</p><p>Open source also makes a lot of sense when you look at "reinventing the wheel" type problems.  I need an Operating System for my device.  I don't really care about making money on the operating system, I want to make money on the device.  Hey, look, here's this Open Source operating system that works on lots of devices, can be easily modified to work on my device, and saves me a ton of work.   Open source makes sense.  I can save a lot of work reinventing the wheel on a non-monetized product by using something someone else has already done and opened for me.</p><p>Open source makes less sense when your software is your product.  Microsoft is understandably reluctant to release their source code.  It is not self evident that Microsoft would benefit from opening up its products.  In fact, most would agrue that the opposite is self evident.</p><p>Apple looked at the same problem that Nokia is looking at and decided that since they had an operating system in house already, it made more sense to just modify it then modifying  someone else's open operating system.  It's worked for them and it is not self evident that making a different choice would have worked out better.</p><p>It is self evident that using Open Source is superior in certain situations and under certain circumstances.  It is self evident that NOT using Open Source is superior in certain situations and under circumstances.  It is NOT self evident that using Open Source is inherently superior.  At least not to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This .
Open Source is self evidently a better way for certain areas of software development and certain companies .
It does n't necessarily follow that it is self evidently a better way in general .
Open source libraries make sens in a lot of the same ways that open standards make sense .
They 're , in fact , the next obvious growth of open standards .
If we can all agree on the inputs and the outputs of the blackbox , why do n't we all just use the same transparent box instead ? Open source also makes a lot of sense when you look at " reinventing the wheel " type problems .
I need an Operating System for my device .
I do n't really care about making money on the operating system , I want to make money on the device .
Hey , look , here 's this Open Source operating system that works on lots of devices , can be easily modified to work on my device , and saves me a ton of work .
Open source makes sense .
I can save a lot of work reinventing the wheel on a non-monetized product by using something someone else has already done and opened for me.Open source makes less sense when your software is your product .
Microsoft is understandably reluctant to release their source code .
It is not self evident that Microsoft would benefit from opening up its products .
In fact , most would agrue that the opposite is self evident.Apple looked at the same problem that Nokia is looking at and decided that since they had an operating system in house already , it made more sense to just modify it then modifying someone else 's open operating system .
It 's worked for them and it is not self evident that making a different choice would have worked out better.It is self evident that using Open Source is superior in certain situations and under certain circumstances .
It is self evident that NOT using Open Source is superior in certain situations and under circumstances .
It is NOT self evident that using Open Source is inherently superior .
At least not to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This.
Open Source is self evidently a better way for certain areas of software development and certain companies.
It doesn't necessarily follow that it is  self evidently a better way in general.
Open source libraries make sens in a lot of the same ways that open standards make sense.
They're, in fact, the next obvious growth of open standards.
If we can all agree on the inputs and the outputs of the blackbox, why don't we all just use the same transparent box instead?Open source also makes a lot of sense when you look at "reinventing the wheel" type problems.
I need an Operating System for my device.
I don't really care about making money on the operating system, I want to make money on the device.
Hey, look, here's this Open Source operating system that works on lots of devices, can be easily modified to work on my device, and saves me a ton of work.
Open source makes sense.
I can save a lot of work reinventing the wheel on a non-monetized product by using something someone else has already done and opened for me.Open source makes less sense when your software is your product.
Microsoft is understandably reluctant to release their source code.
It is not self evident that Microsoft would benefit from opening up its products.
In fact, most would agrue that the opposite is self evident.Apple looked at the same problem that Nokia is looking at and decided that since they had an operating system in house already, it made more sense to just modify it then modifying  someone else's open operating system.
It's worked for them and it is not self evident that making a different choice would have worked out better.It is self evident that using Open Source is superior in certain situations and under certain circumstances.
It is self evident that NOT using Open Source is superior in certain situations and under circumstances.
It is NOT self evident that using Open Source is inherently superior.
At least not to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746283</id>
	<title>I wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255541400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If  the "hard-headed" business people starts to realise this. Then I have to wonder, how should I, label those people where I work?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the " hard-headed " business people starts to realise this .
Then I have to wonder , how should I , label those people where I work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If  the "hard-headed" business people starts to realise this.
Then I have to wonder, how should I, label those people where I work?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29754265</id>
	<title>Re:FTFY</title>
	<author>lordandmaker</author>
	<datestamp>1255639620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>His point is pretty much exactly what he said:<blockquote><div><p>It can be a better way. It often *is* a better way. But it is not automatically a better way</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
So, no, there's not meant to be an inference that closed source is better, or that XFree86 is proof that OSS is a silly idea or any of that nonsense. XFree86 is just a good and well-known example of a project that was open source without being free of problems.
<br> <br>
It's pretty difficult to read that post without seeing that as a point, and this is first thing in the morning for me, too. <br>
I must say, the '+1 Informative' and '-1 Troll' have never been close enough for me to hit one when aiming for the other.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>His point is pretty much exactly what he said : It can be a better way .
It often * is * a better way .
But it is not automatically a better way So , no , there 's not meant to be an inference that closed source is better , or that XFree86 is proof that OSS is a silly idea or any of that nonsense .
XFree86 is just a good and well-known example of a project that was open source without being free of problems .
It 's pretty difficult to read that post without seeing that as a point , and this is first thing in the morning for me , too .
I must say , the ' + 1 Informative ' and '-1 Troll ' have never been close enough for me to hit one when aiming for the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His point is pretty much exactly what he said:It can be a better way.
It often *is* a better way.
But it is not automatically a better way

So, no, there's not meant to be an inference that closed source is better, or that XFree86 is proof that OSS is a silly idea or any of that nonsense.
XFree86 is just a good and well-known example of a project that was open source without being free of problems.
It's pretty difficult to read that post without seeing that as a point, and this is first thing in the morning for me, too.
I must say, the '+1 Informative' and '-1 Troll' have never been close enough for me to hit one when aiming for the other.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29791045</id>
	<title>Open PC-Suite anyone?</title>
	<author>keesto</author>
	<datestamp>1255984020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now only if Nokia would release PC-Suite under GPL, or at least some kind of SDK for OSPhone software. Don't really care whether the software running on my phone is FOSS or not. However the horrible PC-Suite would probably be vastly improved if open source community could put their hands on it. PC-Suite sucks ass big time, which is news to no-one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now only if Nokia would release PC-Suite under GPL , or at least some kind of SDK for OSPhone software .
Do n't really care whether the software running on my phone is FOSS or not .
However the horrible PC-Suite would probably be vastly improved if open source community could put their hands on it .
PC-Suite sucks ass big time , which is news to no-one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now only if Nokia would release PC-Suite under GPL, or at least some kind of SDK for OSPhone software.
Don't really care whether the software running on my phone is FOSS or not.
However the horrible PC-Suite would probably be vastly improved if open source community could put their hands on it.
PC-Suite sucks ass big time, which is news to no-one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746115</id>
	<title>Re:Narrowsighted executives is nothing new.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255540680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Others who want to compete on software might disagree.</i> <p>Competing on software is becoming a losing proposition for most. Software has become such a cheap commodity that solutions for most problems are available for free. </p><p>The markets have spoken: software has in many cases become worthless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Others who want to compete on software might disagree .
Competing on software is becoming a losing proposition for most .
Software has become such a cheap commodity that solutions for most problems are available for free .
The markets have spoken : software has in many cases become worthless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Others who want to compete on software might disagree.
Competing on software is becoming a losing proposition for most.
Software has become such a cheap commodity that solutions for most problems are available for free.
The markets have spoken: software has in many cases become worthless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746815</id>
	<title>Re:Narrowsighted executives is nothing new.</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1255543920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So that's why there's still plenty of software packages commanding thousands of dollars per license, meanwhile hardware prices are at rock bottom?  I'd argue that hardware is much more commoditized than software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So that 's why there 's still plenty of software packages commanding thousands of dollars per license , meanwhile hardware prices are at rock bottom ?
I 'd argue that hardware is much more commoditized than software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that's why there's still plenty of software packages commanding thousands of dollars per license, meanwhile hardware prices are at rock bottom?
I'd argue that hardware is much more commoditized than software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746697</id>
	<title>Re:"Openness" is a strategy for failure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255543440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know I will get moderated as a troll since this is Slashdot [...]</p></div><p>Well... nah, you're getting moderated as a troll because you're a troll.  Hope that clears up any confusion!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I will get moderated as a troll since this is Slashdot [ ... ] Well... nah , you 're getting moderated as a troll because you 're a troll .
Hope that clears up any confusion !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I will get moderated as a troll since this is Slashdot [...]Well... nah, you're getting moderated as a troll because you're a troll.
Hope that clears up any confusion!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746497</id>
	<title>Re:Now they get it.</title>
	<author>the ReviveR</author>
	<datestamp>1255542540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Too little, too late.

Now with Android showing the way, they realize how closed development put them behind. I enjoyed my Nokia phones, but I got frustrated with the lack of development.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Too little? Too late? <br> <br>

You mean full linux platform where you can simply type "sudo gainroot" to get root access? <br>
Platform to which it will be almost trivial to port a huge library of current linux apps? <br>
<br>
Personally I really don't like Androids "open". The under the hood it's a closed platform that gives you a Java interface that you can use for <b>most</b> things. No easy porting, not even full Java libraries and carriers can prevent tethering etc. While Android is "open", it's not the same thing as real linux platform in your pocket. Maemo in my mind is something completely different. Something the other manufacturers will have to start catching up. <br> <br>

Nokias hardware has always been great quality, the software has just been dragging behind because Symbian platform just plain sucks. Buying QT and going linux seems like a real killer move to me. Now they just need to dump Symbian and really start spending time and money on Maemo. Hopefully rest of the linux community will gain something from Nokias enormous resources too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too little , too late .
Now with Android showing the way , they realize how closed development put them behind .
I enjoyed my Nokia phones , but I got frustrated with the lack of development .
Too little ?
Too late ?
You mean full linux platform where you can simply type " sudo gainroot " to get root access ?
Platform to which it will be almost trivial to port a huge library of current linux apps ?
Personally I really do n't like Androids " open " .
The under the hood it 's a closed platform that gives you a Java interface that you can use for most things .
No easy porting , not even full Java libraries and carriers can prevent tethering etc .
While Android is " open " , it 's not the same thing as real linux platform in your pocket .
Maemo in my mind is something completely different .
Something the other manufacturers will have to start catching up .
Nokias hardware has always been great quality , the software has just been dragging behind because Symbian platform just plain sucks .
Buying QT and going linux seems like a real killer move to me .
Now they just need to dump Symbian and really start spending time and money on Maemo .
Hopefully rest of the linux community will gain something from Nokias enormous resources too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too little, too late.
Now with Android showing the way, they realize how closed development put them behind.
I enjoyed my Nokia phones, but I got frustrated with the lack of development.
Too little?
Too late?
You mean full linux platform where you can simply type "sudo gainroot" to get root access?
Platform to which it will be almost trivial to port a huge library of current linux apps?
Personally I really don't like Androids "open".
The under the hood it's a closed platform that gives you a Java interface that you can use for most things.
No easy porting, not even full Java libraries and carriers can prevent tethering etc.
While Android is "open", it's not the same thing as real linux platform in your pocket.
Maemo in my mind is something completely different.
Something the other manufacturers will have to start catching up.
Nokias hardware has always been great quality, the software has just been dragging behind because Symbian platform just plain sucks.
Buying QT and going linux seems like a real killer move to me.
Now they just need to dump Symbian and really start spending time and money on Maemo.
Hopefully rest of the linux community will gain something from Nokias enormous resources too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747187</id>
	<title>Re:Narrowsighted executives is nothing new.</title>
	<author>DrgnDancer</author>
	<datestamp>1255545660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, Microsoft, Adobe, Autodesk, Blizzard, Bungie... All those guys are the verge of bankruptcy.  No one is willing to pay for software.</p><p>Solutions to many problems are available for free, but those solutions are not always very good.  Even when they are good, they don't usually dominate the market.  Linux, Apache, and Firefox are all great examples of successful Open Source products, and even they are still fighting tooth and nail for market share against very viable closed source competition.  In most markets the competition isn't even close.  Closed source software rules the market with some Open Source competitors of varying quality holding a distant second or third position.</p><p>In some cases it's a real shame, because the Open Source alternative is on par with or better than its closed alternative, but even then the open version rarely dominates the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , Microsoft , Adobe , Autodesk , Blizzard , Bungie... All those guys are the verge of bankruptcy .
No one is willing to pay for software.Solutions to many problems are available for free , but those solutions are not always very good .
Even when they are good , they do n't usually dominate the market .
Linux , Apache , and Firefox are all great examples of successful Open Source products , and even they are still fighting tooth and nail for market share against very viable closed source competition .
In most markets the competition is n't even close .
Closed source software rules the market with some Open Source competitors of varying quality holding a distant second or third position.In some cases it 's a real shame , because the Open Source alternative is on par with or better than its closed alternative , but even then the open version rarely dominates the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, Microsoft, Adobe, Autodesk, Blizzard, Bungie... All those guys are the verge of bankruptcy.
No one is willing to pay for software.Solutions to many problems are available for free, but those solutions are not always very good.
Even when they are good, they don't usually dominate the market.
Linux, Apache, and Firefox are all great examples of successful Open Source products, and even they are still fighting tooth and nail for market share against very viable closed source competition.
In most markets the competition isn't even close.
Closed source software rules the market with some Open Source competitors of varying quality holding a distant second or third position.In some cases it's a real shame, because the Open Source alternative is on par with or better than its closed alternative, but even then the open version rarely dominates the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746895</id>
	<title>Re:Playing to Apple's weakness</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1255544400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why wait for Maemo when you have <a href="http://wiki.opensource.nokia.com/projects/PyS60\_extensions" title="nokia.com">Python for S60</a> [nokia.com], besides a free SDK for C? I already have open-source podcast players running in my phone and mobile Wifi hotspot sharing my 3G connection, without having to jailbreak,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why wait for Maemo when you have Python for S60 [ nokia.com ] , besides a free SDK for C ?
I already have open-source podcast players running in my phone and mobile Wifi hotspot sharing my 3G connection , without having to jailbreak,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why wait for Maemo when you have Python for S60 [nokia.com], besides a free SDK for C?
I already have open-source podcast players running in my phone and mobile Wifi hotspot sharing my 3G connection, without having to jailbreak,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745869</id>
	<title>Openess</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255539720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That idea is also increasingly accepted by hard-headed business people: it's become self-evident that it's a better way.</p></div><p>Of course this doesn't apply everywhere, but with things like Qt (cross-platform application and UI framework) it makes sense that everyone benefits from it. It's large things with thousands of users that do benefit from it, but if you're doing business with the the same product you cant really open it up and except still to get revenue - unless you go for the support route, but it also only works to certain types of products.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That idea is also increasingly accepted by hard-headed business people : it 's become self-evident that it 's a better way.Of course this does n't apply everywhere , but with things like Qt ( cross-platform application and UI framework ) it makes sense that everyone benefits from it .
It 's large things with thousands of users that do benefit from it , but if you 're doing business with the the same product you cant really open it up and except still to get revenue - unless you go for the support route , but it also only works to certain types of products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That idea is also increasingly accepted by hard-headed business people: it's become self-evident that it's a better way.Of course this doesn't apply everywhere, but with things like Qt (cross-platform application and UI framework) it makes sense that everyone benefits from it.
It's large things with thousands of users that do benefit from it, but if you're doing business with the the same product you cant really open it up and except still to get revenue - unless you go for the support route, but it also only works to certain types of products.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747945</id>
	<title>Re:Now they get it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255548960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maemo version 1 was released in 2005 on the Nokia 770.  Before Android, before the iPhone.  Just because Nokia's roadmap was a bit longer doesn't mean they weren't showing the way.</p><p>In six months we'll have all our lightweight desktop apps running on our phones and people will finally realize just how far ahead of everyone else Nokia really is.</p></div><p>Nokia is great at showing the way ahead, they just fail to follow themselves.  Just think: who made mobile phones that could browse the web and send/receive email in 1996? Nokia did. Too bad they never figured out what to do with their abilities.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maemo version 1 was released in 2005 on the Nokia 770 .
Before Android , before the iPhone .
Just because Nokia 's roadmap was a bit longer does n't mean they were n't showing the way.In six months we 'll have all our lightweight desktop apps running on our phones and people will finally realize just how far ahead of everyone else Nokia really is.Nokia is great at showing the way ahead , they just fail to follow themselves .
Just think : who made mobile phones that could browse the web and send/receive email in 1996 ?
Nokia did .
Too bad they never figured out what to do with their abilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maemo version 1 was released in 2005 on the Nokia 770.
Before Android, before the iPhone.
Just because Nokia's roadmap was a bit longer doesn't mean they weren't showing the way.In six months we'll have all our lightweight desktop apps running on our phones and people will finally realize just how far ahead of everyone else Nokia really is.Nokia is great at showing the way ahead, they just fail to follow themselves.
Just think: who made mobile phones that could browse the web and send/receive email in 1996?
Nokia did.
Too bad they never figured out what to do with their abilities.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29750017</id>
	<title>Re:Playing to Apple's weakness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255514820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might make the case that the N900 already has the better hardware when you compare it to the iphone. And for all people dismissing Nokia as just a hardware company, there's tons of non trivial Nokia IPR in the software stack as well (not all OSS admittedly), that provides lots of advantages in the performance or energy efficiency domain; excellent multimedia support (something a lot of smart phones are really bad at), hardware acceleration, etc. Essentially most vendors ship different combinations of chips coming from a very small range of companies so from that point of view it doesn't really matter what you buy. The software on top makes all the difference and the immaturity of newer platforms such as Android can be a real deal breaker when it comes to e.g. battery life, multimedia support, support for peripherals, etc. There's a difference between running linux on a phone and running it well. Nokia has invested heavily in the latter and employs masses of people specialized in tweaking hardware and software to get the most out of the hardware.</p><p>But the real beauty of the N900 for the slashdot crowd is simply the fact that it doesn't require hacks or cracks: Nokia actively supports &amp; encourages hackers with features, open source developer tools, websites, documentation, sponsoring, etc. Google does that to some extent with Android but the OS is off limits for normal users. Apple actively tries to stop people from bypassing the appstore and is pretty hostile to attempts to modify the OS in ways they don't like. Forget about other platforms. Palm technically uses linux but they are still keeping even the javascript + html API they have away from users. It might as well be completely closed source. You wouldn't know the difference.</p><p>On the other hand, the OS on the N900 is Debian. Like on Debian, the package manager is configured in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/sources.list which is used by dpkg and apt-get, which work just as you would expect on any decent Debian distribution. You have root access, therefore you can modify any file, including sources.list. Much of Ubuntu actually compiles with little or no modification and most of the problems you are likely to encounter relate to the small screen size. All it takes to get to that software is pointing your phone at the appropriate repositories. There was at some point a Nokia sponsored Ubuntu port to ARM even, so there is no lack of stuff that you can install. Including stuff that is pretty pointless on a smart phone (like large parts of KDE). But hey, you can do it! Games, productivity tools, you name it and there probably is some geek out there who managed to get it to build for Maemo. If you can write software and package it as a Debian package and can cross compile it to ARM (using the excellent OSS tooling of course), there's a good chance it will just work.</p><p>So, you can modify the device to your liking at a level no other mainstream vendor allows. Having a modifiable Debian linux system with free access to all of the OS on top of what is essentially a very compact touch screen device complete with multiple radios (bluetooth, 3G, wlan), sensors (GPS, motion, light, sound), graphics, dsp, should be enough to make any self respecting geek drool.</p><p>Now with the N900 you get all of that, shipped as a fully functional smart phone with all of the features Nokia phones are popular for such as excellent voice quality and phone features, decent battery life (of course with all the radios turned on and video &amp; audio playing none stop, your mileage may vary), great build quality and form factor, good support for bluetooth and other accessories, etc. It doesn't get more open in the current phone market currently and this is still the largest mobile phone manufacturer in the world.</p><p>In other words, Nokia is sticking out its neck for you by developing and launching this device &amp; platform while proclaiming it to be the future of Nokia smart phones. It's risking a lot here because there are lots of parties in the market that are in the business o</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might make the case that the N900 already has the better hardware when you compare it to the iphone .
And for all people dismissing Nokia as just a hardware company , there 's tons of non trivial Nokia IPR in the software stack as well ( not all OSS admittedly ) , that provides lots of advantages in the performance or energy efficiency domain ; excellent multimedia support ( something a lot of smart phones are really bad at ) , hardware acceleration , etc .
Essentially most vendors ship different combinations of chips coming from a very small range of companies so from that point of view it does n't really matter what you buy .
The software on top makes all the difference and the immaturity of newer platforms such as Android can be a real deal breaker when it comes to e.g .
battery life , multimedia support , support for peripherals , etc .
There 's a difference between running linux on a phone and running it well .
Nokia has invested heavily in the latter and employs masses of people specialized in tweaking hardware and software to get the most out of the hardware.But the real beauty of the N900 for the slashdot crowd is simply the fact that it does n't require hacks or cracks : Nokia actively supports &amp; encourages hackers with features , open source developer tools , websites , documentation , sponsoring , etc .
Google does that to some extent with Android but the OS is off limits for normal users .
Apple actively tries to stop people from bypassing the appstore and is pretty hostile to attempts to modify the OS in ways they do n't like .
Forget about other platforms .
Palm technically uses linux but they are still keeping even the javascript + html API they have away from users .
It might as well be completely closed source .
You would n't know the difference.On the other hand , the OS on the N900 is Debian .
Like on Debian , the package manager is configured in /etc/sources.list which is used by dpkg and apt-get , which work just as you would expect on any decent Debian distribution .
You have root access , therefore you can modify any file , including sources.list .
Much of Ubuntu actually compiles with little or no modification and most of the problems you are likely to encounter relate to the small screen size .
All it takes to get to that software is pointing your phone at the appropriate repositories .
There was at some point a Nokia sponsored Ubuntu port to ARM even , so there is no lack of stuff that you can install .
Including stuff that is pretty pointless on a smart phone ( like large parts of KDE ) .
But hey , you can do it !
Games , productivity tools , you name it and there probably is some geek out there who managed to get it to build for Maemo .
If you can write software and package it as a Debian package and can cross compile it to ARM ( using the excellent OSS tooling of course ) , there 's a good chance it will just work.So , you can modify the device to your liking at a level no other mainstream vendor allows .
Having a modifiable Debian linux system with free access to all of the OS on top of what is essentially a very compact touch screen device complete with multiple radios ( bluetooth , 3G , wlan ) , sensors ( GPS , motion , light , sound ) , graphics , dsp , should be enough to make any self respecting geek drool.Now with the N900 you get all of that , shipped as a fully functional smart phone with all of the features Nokia phones are popular for such as excellent voice quality and phone features , decent battery life ( of course with all the radios turned on and video &amp; audio playing none stop , your mileage may vary ) , great build quality and form factor , good support for bluetooth and other accessories , etc .
It does n't get more open in the current phone market currently and this is still the largest mobile phone manufacturer in the world.In other words , Nokia is sticking out its neck for you by developing and launching this device &amp; platform while proclaiming it to be the future of Nokia smart phones .
It 's risking a lot here because there are lots of parties in the market that are in the business o</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might make the case that the N900 already has the better hardware when you compare it to the iphone.
And for all people dismissing Nokia as just a hardware company, there's tons of non trivial Nokia IPR in the software stack as well (not all OSS admittedly), that provides lots of advantages in the performance or energy efficiency domain; excellent multimedia support (something a lot of smart phones are really bad at), hardware acceleration, etc.
Essentially most vendors ship different combinations of chips coming from a very small range of companies so from that point of view it doesn't really matter what you buy.
The software on top makes all the difference and the immaturity of newer platforms such as Android can be a real deal breaker when it comes to e.g.
battery life, multimedia support, support for peripherals, etc.
There's a difference between running linux on a phone and running it well.
Nokia has invested heavily in the latter and employs masses of people specialized in tweaking hardware and software to get the most out of the hardware.But the real beauty of the N900 for the slashdot crowd is simply the fact that it doesn't require hacks or cracks: Nokia actively supports &amp; encourages hackers with features, open source developer tools, websites, documentation, sponsoring, etc.
Google does that to some extent with Android but the OS is off limits for normal users.
Apple actively tries to stop people from bypassing the appstore and is pretty hostile to attempts to modify the OS in ways they don't like.
Forget about other platforms.
Palm technically uses linux but they are still keeping even the javascript + html API they have away from users.
It might as well be completely closed source.
You wouldn't know the difference.On the other hand, the OS on the N900 is Debian.
Like on Debian, the package manager is configured in /etc/sources.list which is used by dpkg and apt-get, which work just as you would expect on any decent Debian distribution.
You have root access, therefore you can modify any file, including sources.list.
Much of Ubuntu actually compiles with little or no modification and most of the problems you are likely to encounter relate to the small screen size.
All it takes to get to that software is pointing your phone at the appropriate repositories.
There was at some point a Nokia sponsored Ubuntu port to ARM even, so there is no lack of stuff that you can install.
Including stuff that is pretty pointless on a smart phone (like large parts of KDE).
But hey, you can do it!
Games, productivity tools, you name it and there probably is some geek out there who managed to get it to build for Maemo.
If you can write software and package it as a Debian package and can cross compile it to ARM (using the excellent OSS tooling of course), there's a good chance it will just work.So, you can modify the device to your liking at a level no other mainstream vendor allows.
Having a modifiable Debian linux system with free access to all of the OS on top of what is essentially a very compact touch screen device complete with multiple radios (bluetooth, 3G, wlan), sensors (GPS, motion, light, sound), graphics, dsp, should be enough to make any self respecting geek drool.Now with the N900 you get all of that, shipped as a fully functional smart phone with all of the features Nokia phones are popular for such as excellent voice quality and phone features, decent battery life (of course with all the radios turned on and video &amp; audio playing none stop, your mileage may vary), great build quality and form factor, good support for bluetooth and other accessories, etc.
It doesn't get more open in the current phone market currently and this is still the largest mobile phone manufacturer in the world.In other words, Nokia is sticking out its neck for you by developing and launching this device &amp; platform while proclaiming it to be the future of Nokia smart phones.
It's risking a lot here because there are lots of parties in the market that are in the business o</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746207</id>
	<title>I dunno, don't see a huge benefit...</title>
	<author>HerculesMO</author>
	<datestamp>1255541100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right now Nokia has the biggest share of market for phones because their phones are high quality. This is echoed by results in Japan and Asia where users continually buy Nokia because they can beat the living shit out of the phone and still make a call.</p><p>Symbian is a piece of crap. It always was, and it never really evolved much. It's right down there with Windows Mobile. And the iPhone OSX is probably the best OS out there. Sure, Android is open source -- but how has that benefitted it so far? Look at the quality of the product -- it sucks. It may evolve, but it's not taking on strides like the mention to Firefox in TFA, and there's no reason to assume that Nokia is going to get a huge bump from just the benefit of O/S.</p><p>As I heard many years ago, an O/S project and closed source project can be about the same quality, as long as the number of focused eyes are reviewing the code per iteration. Firefox has a great community behind it which is why the benefit of being O/S helps, but look at Android -- fully open source, still sucks. iPhone's software is the easiest to use and has propogated the most thus far.</p><p>I am not sold on the benefit of open source for a variety of applications, and mobile development is yet another. Firefox has it working because it offers up a better browser with more options than IE ever did -- so the community is great. Android is another "also ran" in the mobile market, and if Nokia put Windows Mobile (yuck) on their phones they'd still be #1 in the world. Goes to show, that open source alone isn't going to make a huge difference.</p><p>It will be nice to take a peek at the underlying structure though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now Nokia has the biggest share of market for phones because their phones are high quality .
This is echoed by results in Japan and Asia where users continually buy Nokia because they can beat the living shit out of the phone and still make a call.Symbian is a piece of crap .
It always was , and it never really evolved much .
It 's right down there with Windows Mobile .
And the iPhone OSX is probably the best OS out there .
Sure , Android is open source -- but how has that benefitted it so far ?
Look at the quality of the product -- it sucks .
It may evolve , but it 's not taking on strides like the mention to Firefox in TFA , and there 's no reason to assume that Nokia is going to get a huge bump from just the benefit of O/S.As I heard many years ago , an O/S project and closed source project can be about the same quality , as long as the number of focused eyes are reviewing the code per iteration .
Firefox has a great community behind it which is why the benefit of being O/S helps , but look at Android -- fully open source , still sucks .
iPhone 's software is the easiest to use and has propogated the most thus far.I am not sold on the benefit of open source for a variety of applications , and mobile development is yet another .
Firefox has it working because it offers up a better browser with more options than IE ever did -- so the community is great .
Android is another " also ran " in the mobile market , and if Nokia put Windows Mobile ( yuck ) on their phones they 'd still be # 1 in the world .
Goes to show , that open source alone is n't going to make a huge difference.It will be nice to take a peek at the underlying structure though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now Nokia has the biggest share of market for phones because their phones are high quality.
This is echoed by results in Japan and Asia where users continually buy Nokia because they can beat the living shit out of the phone and still make a call.Symbian is a piece of crap.
It always was, and it never really evolved much.
It's right down there with Windows Mobile.
And the iPhone OSX is probably the best OS out there.
Sure, Android is open source -- but how has that benefitted it so far?
Look at the quality of the product -- it sucks.
It may evolve, but it's not taking on strides like the mention to Firefox in TFA, and there's no reason to assume that Nokia is going to get a huge bump from just the benefit of O/S.As I heard many years ago, an O/S project and closed source project can be about the same quality, as long as the number of focused eyes are reviewing the code per iteration.
Firefox has a great community behind it which is why the benefit of being O/S helps, but look at Android -- fully open source, still sucks.
iPhone's software is the easiest to use and has propogated the most thus far.I am not sold on the benefit of open source for a variety of applications, and mobile development is yet another.
Firefox has it working because it offers up a better browser with more options than IE ever did -- so the community is great.
Android is another "also ran" in the mobile market, and if Nokia put Windows Mobile (yuck) on their phones they'd still be #1 in the world.
Goes to show, that open source alone isn't going to make a huge difference.It will be nice to take a peek at the underlying structure though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29752037</id>
	<title>Re:Narrowsighted executives is nothing new.</title>
	<author>ldj</author>
	<datestamp>1255528380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In some cases it's a real shame, because the Open Source alternative is on par with or better than its closed alternative, but even then the open version rarely dominates the market.</p></div><p>Sheer market dominance, momentum, and large advertising budgets play big roles in this.  Except in very rare cases, a new and better product will not take over an existing market rapidly.  It takes time.  But I think the trends we're seeing are definitely in Open Sources favor.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In some cases it 's a real shame , because the Open Source alternative is on par with or better than its closed alternative , but even then the open version rarely dominates the market.Sheer market dominance , momentum , and large advertising budgets play big roles in this .
Except in very rare cases , a new and better product will not take over an existing market rapidly .
It takes time .
But I think the trends we 're seeing are definitely in Open Sources favor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In some cases it's a real shame, because the Open Source alternative is on par with or better than its closed alternative, but even then the open version rarely dominates the market.Sheer market dominance, momentum, and large advertising budgets play big roles in this.
Except in very rare cases, a new and better product will not take over an existing market rapidly.
It takes time.
But I think the trends we're seeing are definitely in Open Sources favor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746647</id>
	<title>Re:Narrowsighted executives is nothing new.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255543140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"("who reads the license?")"</p><p>Anyone who wants to distribute software, particularly if they're doing it for money, that's who.</p><p>Otherwise they're no better than the guy selling ripped-off DVDs at the local market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ( " who reads the license ?
" ) " Anyone who wants to distribute software , particularly if they 're doing it for money , that 's who.Otherwise they 're no better than the guy selling ripped-off DVDs at the local market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"("who reads the license?
")"Anyone who wants to distribute software, particularly if they're doing it for money, that's who.Otherwise they're no better than the guy selling ripped-off DVDs at the local market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747079</id>
	<title>Re:Now they get it.</title>
	<author>EvilNTUser</author>
	<datestamp>1255545240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maemo version 1 was released in 2005 on the Nokia 770.  Before Android, before the iPhone.  Just because Nokia's roadmap was a bit longer doesn't mean they weren't showing the way.</p><p>In six months we'll have all our lightweight desktop apps running on our phones and people will finally realize just how far ahead of everyone else Nokia really is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maemo version 1 was released in 2005 on the Nokia 770 .
Before Android , before the iPhone .
Just because Nokia 's roadmap was a bit longer does n't mean they were n't showing the way.In six months we 'll have all our lightweight desktop apps running on our phones and people will finally realize just how far ahead of everyone else Nokia really is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maemo version 1 was released in 2005 on the Nokia 770.
Before Android, before the iPhone.
Just because Nokia's roadmap was a bit longer doesn't mean they weren't showing the way.In six months we'll have all our lightweight desktop apps running on our phones and people will finally realize just how far ahead of everyone else Nokia really is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29776595</id>
	<title>Re:That's not a source issue</title>
	<author>True Grit</author>
	<datestamp>1255781340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can do all that on an iPhone too - you just jailbreak it</p></div><p>Thats an answer?  Setting aside the legal (you're breaking the law) and technical (not easy for noobs to do) issues here, in this day and age, why in God's name should anyone have to *crack* their own damn *phone*?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Nokia's attempt to do this is too late</p></div><p>If Nokia was some unknown, or running in a distant third place, then maybe... except they're currently #1 in the market, so given their *current* position, how have you concluded at this early juncture that they're already 'too late'?</p><p>Even if they slip to #2 (or even #3) in the meantime while they get their software up-to-snuff, they've still got plenty of staying power due to their size and diversity.  Geez, its not like they're on the verge of bankruptcy because of being a marginal player in the market or anything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can do all that on an iPhone too - you just jailbreak itThats an answer ?
Setting aside the legal ( you 're breaking the law ) and technical ( not easy for noobs to do ) issues here , in this day and age , why in God 's name should anyone have to * crack * their own damn * phone * ? Nokia 's attempt to do this is too lateIf Nokia was some unknown , or running in a distant third place , then maybe... except they 're currently # 1 in the market , so given their * current * position , how have you concluded at this early juncture that they 're already 'too late ' ? Even if they slip to # 2 ( or even # 3 ) in the meantime while they get their software up-to-snuff , they 've still got plenty of staying power due to their size and diversity .
Geez , its not like they 're on the verge of bankruptcy because of being a marginal player in the market or anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can do all that on an iPhone too - you just jailbreak itThats an answer?
Setting aside the legal (you're breaking the law) and technical (not easy for noobs to do) issues here, in this day and age, why in God's name should anyone have to *crack* their own damn *phone*?Nokia's attempt to do this is too lateIf Nokia was some unknown, or running in a distant third place, then maybe... except they're currently #1 in the market, so given their *current* position, how have you concluded at this early juncture that they're already 'too late'?Even if they slip to #2 (or even #3) in the meantime while they get their software up-to-snuff, they've still got plenty of staying power due to their size and diversity.
Geez, its not like they're on the verge of bankruptcy because of being a marginal player in the market or anything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746249</id>
	<title>FTFY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255541280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>That idea is also increasingly accepted by hard-headed business people: it's become self-evident that it's^H^H^H^H<b>it can be</b> a better way.</i>

</p><p>It <i>can be</i> a better way.  It often *is* a better way.  But it is not automatically a better way.  A lot of it depends on project organization and leadership.  Just like other non-OS projects.

</p><p>Remember the great XFree86 wars and all the infighting?  And the massive Xorg fork that was needed to get past all that?  I'd say that XFree86 is an example of a OS project with serious problems.  Xorg was needed to route around them.

</p><p>So I'd say give OS a chance, but don't expect it to be a magic panacea.  You still need to handle personality conflicts, code conflicts, and you still need someone at the helm that has a good sense of direction and good conflict resolution skills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That idea is also increasingly accepted by hard-headed business people : it 's become self-evident that it 's ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ Hit can be a better way .
It can be a better way .
It often * is * a better way .
But it is not automatically a better way .
A lot of it depends on project organization and leadership .
Just like other non-OS projects .
Remember the great XFree86 wars and all the infighting ?
And the massive Xorg fork that was needed to get past all that ?
I 'd say that XFree86 is an example of a OS project with serious problems .
Xorg was needed to route around them .
So I 'd say give OS a chance , but do n't expect it to be a magic panacea .
You still need to handle personality conflicts , code conflicts , and you still need someone at the helm that has a good sense of direction and good conflict resolution skills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> That idea is also increasingly accepted by hard-headed business people: it's become self-evident that it's^H^H^H^Hit can be a better way.
It can be a better way.
It often *is* a better way.
But it is not automatically a better way.
A lot of it depends on project organization and leadership.
Just like other non-OS projects.
Remember the great XFree86 wars and all the infighting?
And the massive Xorg fork that was needed to get past all that?
I'd say that XFree86 is an example of a OS project with serious problems.
Xorg was needed to route around them.
So I'd say give OS a chance, but don't expect it to be a magic panacea.
You still need to handle personality conflicts, code conflicts, and you still need someone at the helm that has a good sense of direction and good conflict resolution skills.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29749365</id>
	<title>Re:In this case</title>
	<author>binary paladin</author>
	<datestamp>1255511940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing I want to add to all of this is that open != free. There's no reason you can't have open source under a license that does not allow for reselling or whatever.</p><p>There are more choices in licensing than just GNU and BSD.</p><p>I'd be interested in seeing a software company take this route and see if/how well it does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing I want to add to all of this is that open ! = free .
There 's no reason you ca n't have open source under a license that does not allow for reselling or whatever.There are more choices in licensing than just GNU and BSD.I 'd be interested in seeing a software company take this route and see if/how well it does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing I want to add to all of this is that open != free.
There's no reason you can't have open source under a license that does not allow for reselling or whatever.There are more choices in licensing than just GNU and BSD.I'd be interested in seeing a software company take this route and see if/how well it does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747803</id>
	<title>Re:That's not a source issue</title>
	<author>XedLightParticle</author>
	<datestamp>1255548240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, one can jailbreak an iPhone or root an Android, but those are still limited frameworks.<br> <br>
The jailbreak iPhone community wouldn't get to be as big as the community making appstore apps over night.<br> <br>
Android could end up having quite a community, but since android is (mostly) open the huge Linux community can easily keep their systems <a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/05/canonical-developers-aim-to-make-android-apps-run-on-ubuntu.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">Android compatible</a> [arstechnica.com] without locking the rest of the system up so much that they could not benefit from all the other good stuff going on around Linux.<br> <br>
So Nokia not committing to Android is a clever move in my eyes, because it opens up possibilities rather than limiting them.<br> <br>
Just my five cents...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , one can jailbreak an iPhone or root an Android , but those are still limited frameworks .
The jailbreak iPhone community would n't get to be as big as the community making appstore apps over night .
Android could end up having quite a community , but since android is ( mostly ) open the huge Linux community can easily keep their systems Android compatible [ arstechnica.com ] without locking the rest of the system up so much that they could not benefit from all the other good stuff going on around Linux .
So Nokia not committing to Android is a clever move in my eyes , because it opens up possibilities rather than limiting them .
Just my five cents.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, one can jailbreak an iPhone or root an Android, but those are still limited frameworks.
The jailbreak iPhone community wouldn't get to be as big as the community making appstore apps over night.
Android could end up having quite a community, but since android is (mostly) open the huge Linux community can easily keep their systems Android compatible [arstechnica.com] without locking the rest of the system up so much that they could not benefit from all the other good stuff going on around Linux.
So Nokia not committing to Android is a clever move in my eyes, because it opens up possibilities rather than limiting them.
Just my five cents...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746229</id>
	<title>Re:"Openness" is a strategy for failure</title>
	<author>Shikaku</author>
	<datestamp>1255541160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apache, Firefox, 7-zip.</p><p>Oops, I shouldn't feed the troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apache , Firefox , 7-zip.Oops , I should n't feed the troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apache, Firefox, 7-zip.Oops, I shouldn't feed the troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746275</id>
	<title>Re:Narrowsighted executives is nothing new.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255541400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>a bunch of people who want nothing but to destroy them and see them humiliated</p></div><p>Why is this post not modded troll?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a bunch of people who want nothing but to destroy them and see them humiliatedWhy is this post not modded troll ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a bunch of people who want nothing but to destroy them and see them humiliatedWhy is this post not modded troll?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29751147</id>
	<title>Re:Apple contributes a ton to open source.</title>
	<author>Qwavel</author>
	<datestamp>1255521420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Apple is one of the few companies to grasp the benefits of open source early, but the benefits are as much in contribution as they are in use - if you keep improvement's to yourself others cannot improve on them.</p><p>Apple grasped the benefits of using open source early.  They grasped the benefits of contributing to open source when they had no other choice because they were building on open source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Apple is one of the few companies to grasp the benefits of open source early , but the benefits are as much in contribution as they are in use - if you keep improvement 's to yourself others can not improve on them.Apple grasped the benefits of using open source early .
They grasped the benefits of contributing to open source when they had no other choice because they were building on open source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Apple is one of the few companies to grasp the benefits of open source early, but the benefits are as much in contribution as they are in use - if you keep improvement's to yourself others cannot improve on them.Apple grasped the benefits of using open source early.
They grasped the benefits of contributing to open source when they had no other choice because they were building on open source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747723</id>
	<title>Re:Narrowsighted executives is nothing new.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255548000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nokia has decided to only compete on hardware</p></div><p>Are you sure about that? Is Apple only competing on hardware?</p><p>Just a few examples:<br>http://www.nokia.co.uk/apps-and-services/music/nokia-music-store<br>http://www.nokia.co.uk/apps-and-services/ovi-maps/main<br>http://www.nokia.com/about-nokia/new-business/finance/nokia-money</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia has decided to only compete on hardwareAre you sure about that ?
Is Apple only competing on hardware ? Just a few examples : http : //www.nokia.co.uk/apps-and-services/music/nokia-music-storehttp : //www.nokia.co.uk/apps-and-services/ovi-maps/mainhttp : //www.nokia.com/about-nokia/new-business/finance/nokia-money</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia has decided to only compete on hardwareAre you sure about that?
Is Apple only competing on hardware?Just a few examples:http://www.nokia.co.uk/apps-and-services/music/nokia-music-storehttp://www.nokia.co.uk/apps-and-services/ovi-maps/mainhttp://www.nokia.com/about-nokia/new-business/finance/nokia-money
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746451</id>
	<title>Playing to Apple's weakness</title>
	<author>tick-tock-atona</author>
	<datestamp>1255542300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nokia's "open" strategy will pay off big time in the long run. At the moment, their major threat is the iPhone, which inherits all of apple's strengths (<a href="http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/apple-s-reality-distortion-field" title="techeblog.com">RDF</a> [techeblog.com], UI design) as well as it's weaknesses (software/hardware lockdown).
<br> <br>
The <a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/10/next-gen-nokia-linux-devices-will-get-multitouch-and-qt-ui.ars" title="arstechnica.com">next-gen Nokia phone</a> [arstechnica.com] on the other hand (successor to the N900) will get all the hardware features of the iPhone, but with the openness of a linux software stack. Want to make an app that downloads podcasts? Fine! Want to use your phone as a modem? No problem! In fact, no corporation enforcing their moral or business rules on how you use your phone, or <a href="http://www.macworld.com/article/135541/2008/09/appstore\_banning.html" title="macworld.com">alienation of talented developers</a> [macworld.com]!
<br> <br>
Maemo and Qt being open source will ensure that the software features of the Maemo platform quickly eclipse those of the artificially limited iPhone platform. Maemo's based on Debian - so Nokia automatically gets just about every open-source software package in existence available on their platform.
<br> <br>
I think this is the most serious threat that the turtleneck sweater brigade have yet seen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia 's " open " strategy will pay off big time in the long run .
At the moment , their major threat is the iPhone , which inherits all of apple 's strengths ( RDF [ techeblog.com ] , UI design ) as well as it 's weaknesses ( software/hardware lockdown ) .
The next-gen Nokia phone [ arstechnica.com ] on the other hand ( successor to the N900 ) will get all the hardware features of the iPhone , but with the openness of a linux software stack .
Want to make an app that downloads podcasts ?
Fine ! Want to use your phone as a modem ?
No problem !
In fact , no corporation enforcing their moral or business rules on how you use your phone , or alienation of talented developers [ macworld.com ] !
Maemo and Qt being open source will ensure that the software features of the Maemo platform quickly eclipse those of the artificially limited iPhone platform .
Maemo 's based on Debian - so Nokia automatically gets just about every open-source software package in existence available on their platform .
I think this is the most serious threat that the turtleneck sweater brigade have yet seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia's "open" strategy will pay off big time in the long run.
At the moment, their major threat is the iPhone, which inherits all of apple's strengths (RDF [techeblog.com], UI design) as well as it's weaknesses (software/hardware lockdown).
The next-gen Nokia phone [arstechnica.com] on the other hand (successor to the N900) will get all the hardware features of the iPhone, but with the openness of a linux software stack.
Want to make an app that downloads podcasts?
Fine! Want to use your phone as a modem?
No problem!
In fact, no corporation enforcing their moral or business rules on how you use your phone, or alienation of talented developers [macworld.com]!
Maemo and Qt being open source will ensure that the software features of the Maemo platform quickly eclipse those of the artificially limited iPhone platform.
Maemo's based on Debian - so Nokia automatically gets just about every open-source software package in existence available on their platform.
I think this is the most serious threat that the turtleneck sweater brigade have yet seen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746799</id>
	<title>Re:"Openness" is a strategy for failure</title>
	<author>ZarathustraDK</author>
	<datestamp>1255543860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If anyone disagrees, then name a single piece of open source software that is better than its closed source competition. You cannot, because open source means lower quality due to its inherent lack of focus.</p></div><p>VLC, suck it down troll.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If anyone disagrees , then name a single piece of open source software that is better than its closed source competition .
You can not , because open source means lower quality due to its inherent lack of focus.VLC , suck it down troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anyone disagrees, then name a single piece of open source software that is better than its closed source competition.
You cannot, because open source means lower quality due to its inherent lack of focus.VLC, suck it down troll.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747393</id>
	<title>Re:Openess</title>
	<author>TemporalBeing</author>
	<datestamp>1255546560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Apple looked at the same problem that Nokia is looking at and decided that since they had an operating system in house already, it made more sense to just modify it then modifying someone else's open operating system. It's worked for them and it is not self evident that making a different choice would have worked out better.</p></div></blockquote><p>

But remember, Apple didn't just use their own stuff - they took an open source project (FreeBSD) and built their stuff on top of it; in the process they created two more projects - Darwin and OpenDarwin - to encapsulate the open source nature of the underlying system.
<br> <br>
Why did this work for Apple? B/c it let them build off a base system that worked pretty much everywhere, and focus on the quality and other aspects of the system their users care about instead of having to worry about all the nitty-gritty details of writing and supporting an entire operating system and all the utilities that come with it. They can instead let the community do that and focus on what they do best; providing back when they modify the underlying system.</p><blockquote><div><p>Open source makes less sense when your software is your product. Microsoft is understandably reluctant to release their source code. It is not self evident that Microsoft would benefit from opening up its products. In fact, most would agrue that the opposite is self evident.</p></div></blockquote><p>

It could if they did it right. Apple did it right. Microsoft <i>could</i> follow suit. The likelihood of Microsoft doing so at least anytime in the near future is near zero. Windows built on a Unix/Linux platform could be done very well; and a lot of the little details that keep being problematic for Microsoft would likely go away - e.g. security, firewalls, etc. It would also allow Microsoft, like Apple, to focus on what they do best; though they have likely lost track of what that is.
<br> <br>
If Microsoft focused on the right part of the stack (e.g. understanding business needs, custom software enhancements, adding support to open source projects, and providing support contracts), then they could very well be a strong distribution/competitor in the open source market. But they would have to drastically change their business model and self-perception - and that won't happen until at least Balmer leaves, if not a CEO or two after him.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple looked at the same problem that Nokia is looking at and decided that since they had an operating system in house already , it made more sense to just modify it then modifying someone else 's open operating system .
It 's worked for them and it is not self evident that making a different choice would have worked out better .
But remember , Apple did n't just use their own stuff - they took an open source project ( FreeBSD ) and built their stuff on top of it ; in the process they created two more projects - Darwin and OpenDarwin - to encapsulate the open source nature of the underlying system .
Why did this work for Apple ?
B/c it let them build off a base system that worked pretty much everywhere , and focus on the quality and other aspects of the system their users care about instead of having to worry about all the nitty-gritty details of writing and supporting an entire operating system and all the utilities that come with it .
They can instead let the community do that and focus on what they do best ; providing back when they modify the underlying system.Open source makes less sense when your software is your product .
Microsoft is understandably reluctant to release their source code .
It is not self evident that Microsoft would benefit from opening up its products .
In fact , most would agrue that the opposite is self evident .
It could if they did it right .
Apple did it right .
Microsoft could follow suit .
The likelihood of Microsoft doing so at least anytime in the near future is near zero .
Windows built on a Unix/Linux platform could be done very well ; and a lot of the little details that keep being problematic for Microsoft would likely go away - e.g .
security , firewalls , etc .
It would also allow Microsoft , like Apple , to focus on what they do best ; though they have likely lost track of what that is .
If Microsoft focused on the right part of the stack ( e.g .
understanding business needs , custom software enhancements , adding support to open source projects , and providing support contracts ) , then they could very well be a strong distribution/competitor in the open source market .
But they would have to drastically change their business model and self-perception - and that wo n't happen until at least Balmer leaves , if not a CEO or two after him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple looked at the same problem that Nokia is looking at and decided that since they had an operating system in house already, it made more sense to just modify it then modifying someone else's open operating system.
It's worked for them and it is not self evident that making a different choice would have worked out better.
But remember, Apple didn't just use their own stuff - they took an open source project (FreeBSD) and built their stuff on top of it; in the process they created two more projects - Darwin and OpenDarwin - to encapsulate the open source nature of the underlying system.
Why did this work for Apple?
B/c it let them build off a base system that worked pretty much everywhere, and focus on the quality and other aspects of the system their users care about instead of having to worry about all the nitty-gritty details of writing and supporting an entire operating system and all the utilities that come with it.
They can instead let the community do that and focus on what they do best; providing back when they modify the underlying system.Open source makes less sense when your software is your product.
Microsoft is understandably reluctant to release their source code.
It is not self evident that Microsoft would benefit from opening up its products.
In fact, most would agrue that the opposite is self evident.
It could if they did it right.
Apple did it right.
Microsoft could follow suit.
The likelihood of Microsoft doing so at least anytime in the near future is near zero.
Windows built on a Unix/Linux platform could be done very well; and a lot of the little details that keep being problematic for Microsoft would likely go away - e.g.
security, firewalls, etc.
It would also allow Microsoft, like Apple, to focus on what they do best; though they have likely lost track of what that is.
If Microsoft focused on the right part of the stack (e.g.
understanding business needs, custom software enhancements, adding support to open source projects, and providing support contracts), then they could very well be a strong distribution/competitor in the open source market.
But they would have to drastically change their business model and self-perception - and that won't happen until at least Balmer leaves, if not a CEO or two after him.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746739</id>
	<title>Apple contributes a ton to open source.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255543560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Even they are not CONTRIBUTING to open source, more USING open source..</i></p><p>That is totally false.</p><p>They are a major contributor to webkit (the engine of Safari).  They are a major contributor to GCC in the past, and now the LLVM project.</p><p>They also contribute back for all the other technologies you mentioned, and many more like launchd and now blocks/Grand Central.</p><p>Apple is one of the few companies to grasp the benefits of open source early, but the benefits are as much in contribution as they are in use - if you keep improvement's to yourself others cannot improve on them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even they are not CONTRIBUTING to open source , more USING open source..That is totally false.They are a major contributor to webkit ( the engine of Safari ) .
They are a major contributor to GCC in the past , and now the LLVM project.They also contribute back for all the other technologies you mentioned , and many more like launchd and now blocks/Grand Central.Apple is one of the few companies to grasp the benefits of open source early , but the benefits are as much in contribution as they are in use - if you keep improvement 's to yourself others can not improve on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even they are not CONTRIBUTING to open source, more USING open source..That is totally false.They are a major contributor to webkit (the engine of Safari).
They are a major contributor to GCC in the past, and now the LLVM project.They also contribute back for all the other technologies you mentioned, and many more like launchd and now blocks/Grand Central.Apple is one of the few companies to grasp the benefits of open source early, but the benefits are as much in contribution as they are in use - if you keep improvement's to yourself others cannot improve on them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747267</id>
	<title>Re:"Openness" is a strategy for failure</title>
	<author>pushf popf</author>
	<datestamp>1255545960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>If anyone disagrees, then name a single piece of open source software that is better than its closed source competition. You cannot, because open source means lower quality due to its inherent lack of focus.</strong>
<br> <br>
Postfix.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If anyone disagrees , then name a single piece of open source software that is better than its closed source competition .
You can not , because open source means lower quality due to its inherent lack of focus .
Postfix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anyone disagrees, then name a single piece of open source software that is better than its closed source competition.
You cannot, because open source means lower quality due to its inherent lack of focus.
Postfix.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746693</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255543440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nokia hasn't "learned to love" open source. They bought up Trolltech so that they could get their hands on QT, which they re-licensed more liberally, yes. That doesn't mean that they "love" open source. What they "love" is the fact that their own customers are now their beta testers -- they can spend less money on their own developers because there's plenty of hobbyists out there willing to do the work for them.</p><p>A more appropriate title would be something along the lines of "Nokia has learned to love cheap labour."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia has n't " learned to love " open source .
They bought up Trolltech so that they could get their hands on QT , which they re-licensed more liberally , yes .
That does n't mean that they " love " open source .
What they " love " is the fact that their own customers are now their beta testers -- they can spend less money on their own developers because there 's plenty of hobbyists out there willing to do the work for them.A more appropriate title would be something along the lines of " Nokia has learned to love cheap labour .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia hasn't "learned to love" open source.
They bought up Trolltech so that they could get their hands on QT, which they re-licensed more liberally, yes.
That doesn't mean that they "love" open source.
What they "love" is the fact that their own customers are now their beta testers -- they can spend less money on their own developers because there's plenty of hobbyists out there willing to do the work for them.A more appropriate title would be something along the lines of "Nokia has learned to love cheap labour.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29764653</id>
	<title>Re:Openess</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255613940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a typo in the title. It should be:<br><tt>Dr. Slashdot, or How Nokia Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Openness</tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a typo in the title .
It should be : Dr. Slashdot , or How Nokia Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Openness</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a typo in the title.
It should be:Dr. Slashdot, or How Nokia Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Openness</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746437</id>
	<title>Symbian dev tools</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255542180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now if they could come up with dev tools for linux so that I don't have to run windows to run emulator.  Luckily there is gnupoc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if they could come up with dev tools for linux so that I do n't have to run windows to run emulator .
Luckily there is gnupoc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if they could come up with dev tools for linux so that I don't have to run windows to run emulator.
Luckily there is gnupoc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29748313</id>
	<title>Re:Openess</title>
	<author>mR.bRiGhTsId3</author>
	<datestamp>1255550460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you missed the point. Apple switched to BSD because it gained them something in a reasonable term. From what I remember (I was very young at the time) OS 9 sucked. It didn't even have pre-emptive multitasking. So, Apple swapping things out for BSD on hardware they could control and even then it took a few iterations before OS X didn't suck.
On the other hand, Microsoft has a huge, widely deployed ecosystem. Sure, they could realease Windows 11/BSD or something in a few years, but that would involve changing all of their drivers (which I'm sure the hw mfrs. would love after the joy that was Vista) as well as delivering a perfect emulation layer or nothing will work. <br>
Apples move made sense, because, in effect, the had hit rock bottom and could only stand to gain from such a move. Microsoft has everything to lose, since if they don't do it perfectly, their competitors can point and say, "Incompatible! You might as well migrate to our platform instead."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you missed the point .
Apple switched to BSD because it gained them something in a reasonable term .
From what I remember ( I was very young at the time ) OS 9 sucked .
It did n't even have pre-emptive multitasking .
So , Apple swapping things out for BSD on hardware they could control and even then it took a few iterations before OS X did n't suck .
On the other hand , Microsoft has a huge , widely deployed ecosystem .
Sure , they could realease Windows 11/BSD or something in a few years , but that would involve changing all of their drivers ( which I 'm sure the hw mfrs .
would love after the joy that was Vista ) as well as delivering a perfect emulation layer or nothing will work .
Apples move made sense , because , in effect , the had hit rock bottom and could only stand to gain from such a move .
Microsoft has everything to lose , since if they do n't do it perfectly , their competitors can point and say , " Incompatible !
You might as well migrate to our platform instead .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you missed the point.
Apple switched to BSD because it gained them something in a reasonable term.
From what I remember (I was very young at the time) OS 9 sucked.
It didn't even have pre-emptive multitasking.
So, Apple swapping things out for BSD on hardware they could control and even then it took a few iterations before OS X didn't suck.
On the other hand, Microsoft has a huge, widely deployed ecosystem.
Sure, they could realease Windows 11/BSD or something in a few years, but that would involve changing all of their drivers (which I'm sure the hw mfrs.
would love after the joy that was Vista) as well as delivering a perfect emulation layer or nothing will work.
Apples move made sense, because, in effect, the had hit rock bottom and could only stand to gain from such a move.
Microsoft has everything to lose, since if they don't do it perfectly, their competitors can point and say, "Incompatible!
You might as well migrate to our platform instead.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29755455</id>
	<title>WHOLESALER AF short women,dunk shoes ,ED Jacket</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255612260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>www.tntshoes.com</p><p>1. Made in top materials<br>2. With advanced technology and exquisite workmanship<br>3. 100\% anthentic and original packaging<br>4. Hundreds and thousands styles<br>5. Price with in shipping fee.<br>6. Shipping time: 5-7 days<br>7. Also accept drop shipping<br>8. Shipping delivery<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:EMS,DHL,TNT<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,and so on ,<br>9. The more you order<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,the more cheaper  price you will get .</p><p>OUR WEBSITE:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; HTTP://www.tntshoes.com<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>www.tntshoes.com1 .
Made in top materials2 .
With advanced technology and exquisite workmanship3 .
100 \ % anthentic and original packaging4 .
Hundreds and thousands styles5 .
Price with in shipping fee.6 .
Shipping time : 5-7 days7 .
Also accept drop shipping8 .
Shipping delivery : EMS,DHL,TNT ,and so on ,9 .
The more you order ,the more cheaper price you will get .OUR WEBSITE :                                                         YAHOO : shoppertrade @ yahoo.com.cn                                                               MSN : shoppertrade @ hotmail.com                                                                     HTTP : //www.tntshoes.com  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>www.tntshoes.com1.
Made in top materials2.
With advanced technology and exquisite workmanship3.
100\% anthentic and original packaging4.
Hundreds and thousands styles5.
Price with in shipping fee.6.
Shipping time: 5-7 days7.
Also accept drop shipping8.
Shipping delivery :EMS,DHL,TNT ,and so on ,9.
The more you order ,the more cheaper  price you will get .OUR WEBSITE:
                                                        YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn
                                                              MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com
                                                                    HTTP://www.tntshoes.com
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746567</id>
	<title>Picking up where Palm left off</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255542780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Palm used to have a pretty neat developer community that would make their stuff do all kinds of wacky things.  I've read a bit about the original creator of the Palm Pilot and how his company would get bought out and all the corporate folks would come in, and then he'd run off and start another company (Handspring) and introduce new ways to expand the device (remember the springboard modules?  I actually had the GSM visorphone module one way back when).  Anyway, I'm pretty distraught that Palm is kinda going the Apple way... they sort of replaced the expansion modules with SDIO, but now in the Palm Pre they got rid of expansion memory entirely (probably to lock you in to installing apps from their online store or via their proprietary conduit).  Anyway, I had been holding out for Palm's Linux-based OS for years, but now that the Pre is here, I'm holding out even longer for Nokia's N900 "pocket debian box".</p><p>I've played with Familiar Linux ( <a href="http://handhelds.org/" title="handhelds.org">http://handhelds.org/</a> [handhelds.org] ) on an old HP iPaq for a while, but the touchscreen gave out just as I had figured out a semi-usable configuration.  Unfortunately, it didn't have much support from HP, so things like suspend or audio never worked completely right.</p><p>So I've been pretty excited about Nokia's whole Maemo effort, and even got the dev emulator running on my box at home.  (Haven't figured out what to do next with it, other than look at the menu system<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P ).  It seems to have an emulator for legacy Palm apps as well, and I've also seen mention of it doing Android apps.  I'd have just been happy with a decent ssh client<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  After having used midpssh on a Blackberry, I'm looking forward to having a keyboard with a ctrl key.</p><p>They have quite a few years of community development effort behind them already with their previous models.  I'm a bit concerned about their upcoming migration from gtk to qt, but applaud Nokia for buying Qt from Trolltech and releasing it under an OSS license, probably single-handedly saving the KDE project from Stallmanist criticism.  I'm not even a big fan of KDE, but there are a few apps in there that are better than their GNOME counterparts.</p><p>Sorry for sounding like a shill, but I've always been pretty happy with Nokia... back in the 90's I bought one of their midrange phones and could actually set up and use a lot of the features like speeddial or voice dialing without having to crack open the manual.  Even today I still have phone (Sony Ericsson, Samsung, etc.) where I have to dig around way too much to figure out how to simply sync my address book with my SIM card.  I've also had good experiences with the hardware... dropped the phones several times without problems, once I managed to repair a corroded battery inside my phone, and recently my wife put her Nokia in the dryer with wet camping equipment for about 20 minutes and it still worked.  The casing melted off, but we bought a new faceplate and still use it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>Anyway, that's all the anecdotes I have on the subject.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Palm used to have a pretty neat developer community that would make their stuff do all kinds of wacky things .
I 've read a bit about the original creator of the Palm Pilot and how his company would get bought out and all the corporate folks would come in , and then he 'd run off and start another company ( Handspring ) and introduce new ways to expand the device ( remember the springboard modules ?
I actually had the GSM visorphone module one way back when ) .
Anyway , I 'm pretty distraught that Palm is kinda going the Apple way... they sort of replaced the expansion modules with SDIO , but now in the Palm Pre they got rid of expansion memory entirely ( probably to lock you in to installing apps from their online store or via their proprietary conduit ) .
Anyway , I had been holding out for Palm 's Linux-based OS for years , but now that the Pre is here , I 'm holding out even longer for Nokia 's N900 " pocket debian box " .I 've played with Familiar Linux ( http : //handhelds.org/ [ handhelds.org ] ) on an old HP iPaq for a while , but the touchscreen gave out just as I had figured out a semi-usable configuration .
Unfortunately , it did n't have much support from HP , so things like suspend or audio never worked completely right.So I 've been pretty excited about Nokia 's whole Maemo effort , and even got the dev emulator running on my box at home .
( Have n't figured out what to do next with it , other than look at the menu system : P ) .
It seems to have an emulator for legacy Palm apps as well , and I 've also seen mention of it doing Android apps .
I 'd have just been happy with a decent ssh client : ) After having used midpssh on a Blackberry , I 'm looking forward to having a keyboard with a ctrl key.They have quite a few years of community development effort behind them already with their previous models .
I 'm a bit concerned about their upcoming migration from gtk to qt , but applaud Nokia for buying Qt from Trolltech and releasing it under an OSS license , probably single-handedly saving the KDE project from Stallmanist criticism .
I 'm not even a big fan of KDE , but there are a few apps in there that are better than their GNOME counterparts.Sorry for sounding like a shill , but I 've always been pretty happy with Nokia... back in the 90 's I bought one of their midrange phones and could actually set up and use a lot of the features like speeddial or voice dialing without having to crack open the manual .
Even today I still have phone ( Sony Ericsson , Samsung , etc .
) where I have to dig around way too much to figure out how to simply sync my address book with my SIM card .
I 've also had good experiences with the hardware... dropped the phones several times without problems , once I managed to repair a corroded battery inside my phone , and recently my wife put her Nokia in the dryer with wet camping equipment for about 20 minutes and it still worked .
The casing melted off , but we bought a new faceplate and still use it : PAnyway , that 's all the anecdotes I have on the subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Palm used to have a pretty neat developer community that would make their stuff do all kinds of wacky things.
I've read a bit about the original creator of the Palm Pilot and how his company would get bought out and all the corporate folks would come in, and then he'd run off and start another company (Handspring) and introduce new ways to expand the device (remember the springboard modules?
I actually had the GSM visorphone module one way back when).
Anyway, I'm pretty distraught that Palm is kinda going the Apple way... they sort of replaced the expansion modules with SDIO, but now in the Palm Pre they got rid of expansion memory entirely (probably to lock you in to installing apps from their online store or via their proprietary conduit).
Anyway, I had been holding out for Palm's Linux-based OS for years, but now that the Pre is here, I'm holding out even longer for Nokia's N900 "pocket debian box".I've played with Familiar Linux ( http://handhelds.org/ [handhelds.org] ) on an old HP iPaq for a while, but the touchscreen gave out just as I had figured out a semi-usable configuration.
Unfortunately, it didn't have much support from HP, so things like suspend or audio never worked completely right.So I've been pretty excited about Nokia's whole Maemo effort, and even got the dev emulator running on my box at home.
(Haven't figured out what to do next with it, other than look at the menu system :P ).
It seems to have an emulator for legacy Palm apps as well, and I've also seen mention of it doing Android apps.
I'd have just been happy with a decent ssh client :)  After having used midpssh on a Blackberry, I'm looking forward to having a keyboard with a ctrl key.They have quite a few years of community development effort behind them already with their previous models.
I'm a bit concerned about their upcoming migration from gtk to qt, but applaud Nokia for buying Qt from Trolltech and releasing it under an OSS license, probably single-handedly saving the KDE project from Stallmanist criticism.
I'm not even a big fan of KDE, but there are a few apps in there that are better than their GNOME counterparts.Sorry for sounding like a shill, but I've always been pretty happy with Nokia... back in the 90's I bought one of their midrange phones and could actually set up and use a lot of the features like speeddial or voice dialing without having to crack open the manual.
Even today I still have phone (Sony Ericsson, Samsung, etc.
) where I have to dig around way too much to figure out how to simply sync my address book with my SIM card.
I've also had good experiences with the hardware... dropped the phones several times without problems, once I managed to repair a corroded battery inside my phone, and recently my wife put her Nokia in the dryer with wet camping equipment for about 20 minutes and it still worked.
The casing melted off, but we bought a new faceplate and still use it :PAnyway, that's all the anecdotes I have on the subject.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29750891</id>
	<title>Re:Narrowsighted executives is nothing new.</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1255519800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Free software projects seem to be much kinder and gentler than proprietary vendors when it comes to infringement. They tend to start by asking nicely in private for the infringer to "make it right" and if they agree, even help them save face by announcing the release as a positive and forward thinking step.</p><p>It's the proprietary vendors that tend to lead with lawsuits demanding zillions in imaginary damages (that the unwitting infringer may or may not have), injunctions against shipping at all until the matter is resolved and press releases about how much cash they seek to recover from the infringer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free software projects seem to be much kinder and gentler than proprietary vendors when it comes to infringement .
They tend to start by asking nicely in private for the infringer to " make it right " and if they agree , even help them save face by announcing the release as a positive and forward thinking step.It 's the proprietary vendors that tend to lead with lawsuits demanding zillions in imaginary damages ( that the unwitting infringer may or may not have ) , injunctions against shipping at all until the matter is resolved and press releases about how much cash they seek to recover from the infringer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free software projects seem to be much kinder and gentler than proprietary vendors when it comes to infringement.
They tend to start by asking nicely in private for the infringer to "make it right" and if they agree, even help them save face by announcing the release as a positive and forward thinking step.It's the proprietary vendors that tend to lead with lawsuits demanding zillions in imaginary damages (that the unwitting infringer may or may not have), injunctions against shipping at all until the matter is resolved and press releases about how much cash they seek to recover from the infringer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747323</id>
	<title>I 7hank you For your time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255546200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Keep, and I won't aarogance was posts. Therefore other members in I'8 sick of it. Love of two is irc network. The already aware, *BSD not going home Move any equipment</htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep , and I wo n't aarogance was posts .
Therefore other members in I'8 sick of it .
Love of two is irc network .
The already aware , * BSD not going home Move any equipment</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep, and I won't aarogance was posts.
Therefore other members in I'8 sick of it.
Love of two is irc network.
The already aware, *BSD not going home Move any equipment</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746797</id>
	<title>Re:Playing to Apple's weakness</title>
	<author>c0d3g33k</author>
	<datestamp>1255543860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think this is the most serious threat that the turtleneck sweater brigade have yet seen.</p></div><p>Except for the inconvenient fact that I can't find a piece of hardware (aka phone) with an open enough software stack on a carrier that provides good coverage where I live.  I can find the former, but only by getting a phone from a carrier that doesn't have coverage at places like, oh, I don't know, MY HOUSE.  The turtleneck sweater brigade have a little bit of breathing room due to the way the market works in the phone industry.  Give me hardware/software uncoupled from carriers, and your statement holds more weight.  Sadly, that's a fantasy world at present.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is the most serious threat that the turtleneck sweater brigade have yet seen.Except for the inconvenient fact that I ca n't find a piece of hardware ( aka phone ) with an open enough software stack on a carrier that provides good coverage where I live .
I can find the former , but only by getting a phone from a carrier that does n't have coverage at places like , oh , I do n't know , MY HOUSE .
The turtleneck sweater brigade have a little bit of breathing room due to the way the market works in the phone industry .
Give me hardware/software uncoupled from carriers , and your statement holds more weight .
Sadly , that 's a fantasy world at present .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is the most serious threat that the turtleneck sweater brigade have yet seen.Except for the inconvenient fact that I can't find a piece of hardware (aka phone) with an open enough software stack on a carrier that provides good coverage where I live.
I can find the former, but only by getting a phone from a carrier that doesn't have coverage at places like, oh, I don't know, MY HOUSE.
The turtleneck sweater brigade have a little bit of breathing room due to the way the market works in the phone industry.
Give me hardware/software uncoupled from carriers, and your statement holds more weight.
Sadly, that's a fantasy world at present.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746245</id>
	<title>Re:Narrowsighted executives is nothing new.</title>
	<author>Tellarin</author>
	<datestamp>1255541220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nokia did not decide to only compete on hardware.</p><p>They decided that their improvements to the base software (open) plus their hardware, will sell more phones than competitors.  And if other people help you maintain the base software, all the better.</p><p>They don't need to open whatever software modules they feel should remain closed for now. Also, if it's your platform, you know it better than outsiders (at least for a while) and can also take advantage of that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia did not decide to only compete on hardware.They decided that their improvements to the base software ( open ) plus their hardware , will sell more phones than competitors .
And if other people help you maintain the base software , all the better.They do n't need to open whatever software modules they feel should remain closed for now .
Also , if it 's your platform , you know it better than outsiders ( at least for a while ) and can also take advantage of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia did not decide to only compete on hardware.They decided that their improvements to the base software (open) plus their hardware, will sell more phones than competitors.
And if other people help you maintain the base software, all the better.They don't need to open whatever software modules they feel should remain closed for now.
Also, if it's your platform, you know it better than outsiders (at least for a while) and can also take advantage of that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29749399</id>
	<title>And hate the bomb</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255512060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>badda boom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>badda boom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>badda boom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29749271</id>
	<title>Re:Openess</title>
	<author>Guy Harris</author>
	<datestamp>1255511460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But remember, Apple didn't just use their own stuff - they took an open source project (FreeBSD) and built their stuff on top of it; in the process they created two more projects - Darwin and OpenDarwin - to encapsulate the open source nature of the underlying system.</p></div><p>Well, to be more a little more precise, Apple bought a company (NeXT) that had taken an open-source project (Mach) and a non-open-source-at-the-time project (BSD - not open source as it included AT&amp;T-licensed code) and built their stuff on top of it, and then took NeXT's stuff, updated it with {Free,Net}BSD code (which, by that time, had become open-source), and continued to develop it (both the open-source stuff and the non-open-source stuff atop it).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But remember , Apple did n't just use their own stuff - they took an open source project ( FreeBSD ) and built their stuff on top of it ; in the process they created two more projects - Darwin and OpenDarwin - to encapsulate the open source nature of the underlying system.Well , to be more a little more precise , Apple bought a company ( NeXT ) that had taken an open-source project ( Mach ) and a non-open-source-at-the-time project ( BSD - not open source as it included AT&amp;T-licensed code ) and built their stuff on top of it , and then took NeXT 's stuff , updated it with { Free,Net } BSD code ( which , by that time , had become open-source ) , and continued to develop it ( both the open-source stuff and the non-open-source stuff atop it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But remember, Apple didn't just use their own stuff - they took an open source project (FreeBSD) and built their stuff on top of it; in the process they created two more projects - Darwin and OpenDarwin - to encapsulate the open source nature of the underlying system.Well, to be more a little more precise, Apple bought a company (NeXT) that had taken an open-source project (Mach) and a non-open-source-at-the-time project (BSD - not open source as it included AT&amp;T-licensed code) and built their stuff on top of it, and then took NeXT's stuff, updated it with {Free,Net}BSD code (which, by that time, had become open-source), and continued to develop it (both the open-source stuff and the non-open-source stuff atop it).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29749935</id>
	<title>Re:Openess</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255514520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I think you missed the point. Apple switched to BSD because it gained them something in a reasonable term.</p></div></blockquote><p>

OS9 was good, but it wasn't going to take them to the future. Fortunately for Apple, Steve Jobs created NeXT and built NextStep after they booted him from Apple. When they brought him back (circa 1996), they did so through buying NeXT. Jobs then threw ought the next version of MacOS that was in the works (big failure project for Apple), and took NeXTStep and renamed it Mac OSX.
<br> <br>
It had nothing to do with convenience for Apple at the time other than they needed a new OS. But it was Job's foresight that brought it to the table.
<br> <br>
Apple also went out of their way to ensure their license (AAPL) was Open Source Compliant, and have done a fine job working with the Open Source Community, including maintaining CUPS and several other projects.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you missed the point .
Apple switched to BSD because it gained them something in a reasonable term .
OS9 was good , but it was n't going to take them to the future .
Fortunately for Apple , Steve Jobs created NeXT and built NextStep after they booted him from Apple .
When they brought him back ( circa 1996 ) , they did so through buying NeXT .
Jobs then threw ought the next version of MacOS that was in the works ( big failure project for Apple ) , and took NeXTStep and renamed it Mac OSX .
It had nothing to do with convenience for Apple at the time other than they needed a new OS .
But it was Job 's foresight that brought it to the table .
Apple also went out of their way to ensure their license ( AAPL ) was Open Source Compliant , and have done a fine job working with the Open Source Community , including maintaining CUPS and several other projects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you missed the point.
Apple switched to BSD because it gained them something in a reasonable term.
OS9 was good, but it wasn't going to take them to the future.
Fortunately for Apple, Steve Jobs created NeXT and built NextStep after they booted him from Apple.
When they brought him back (circa 1996), they did so through buying NeXT.
Jobs then threw ought the next version of MacOS that was in the works (big failure project for Apple), and took NeXTStep and renamed it Mac OSX.
It had nothing to do with convenience for Apple at the time other than they needed a new OS.
But it was Job's foresight that brought it to the table.
Apple also went out of their way to ensure their license (AAPL) was Open Source Compliant, and have done a fine job working with the Open Source Community, including maintaining CUPS and several other projects.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29748313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29749351</id>
	<title>Re:Openess</title>
	<author>Guy Harris</author>
	<datestamp>1255511820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Why did this work for Apple? B/c it let them build off a base system that worked pretty much everywhere, and focus on the quality and other aspects of the system their users care about instead of having to worry about all the nitty-gritty details of writing and supporting an entire operating system and all the utilities that come with it.</p></div><p>Actually, Apple pays a significant number of people to "worry about all the nitty-gritty details of writing and supporting an entire operating system and all the utilities that come with it" - some parts of OS X might not be much modified from the upstream BSD version, but, for example, the kernel has some FreeBSD bits in it but is developed independently, and the same is true of libc (well, libSystem, as it's called).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And...Why did this work for Apple ?
B/c it let them build off a base system that worked pretty much everywhere , and focus on the quality and other aspects of the system their users care about instead of having to worry about all the nitty-gritty details of writing and supporting an entire operating system and all the utilities that come with it.Actually , Apple pays a significant number of people to " worry about all the nitty-gritty details of writing and supporting an entire operating system and all the utilities that come with it " - some parts of OS X might not be much modified from the upstream BSD version , but , for example , the kernel has some FreeBSD bits in it but is developed independently , and the same is true of libc ( well , libSystem , as it 's called ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And...Why did this work for Apple?
B/c it let them build off a base system that worked pretty much everywhere, and focus on the quality and other aspects of the system their users care about instead of having to worry about all the nitty-gritty details of writing and supporting an entire operating system and all the utilities that come with it.Actually, Apple pays a significant number of people to "worry about all the nitty-gritty details of writing and supporting an entire operating system and all the utilities that come with it" - some parts of OS X might not be much modified from the upstream BSD version, but, for example, the kernel has some FreeBSD bits in it but is developed independently, and the same is true of libc (well, libSystem, as it's called).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29751547</id>
	<title>Nokia? Openness? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255524780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then why there are closed components in Maemo? Why DRM is included in the upcoming Maemo 6?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then why there are closed components in Maemo ?
Why DRM is included in the upcoming Maemo 6 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then why there are closed components in Maemo?
Why DRM is included in the upcoming Maemo 6?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746093</id>
	<title>Re:"Openness" is a strategy for failure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255540560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ehh, I assume you're using IE on Windows. Apple's Safari browser, is open source. Apple's Mac OSX is based of an open source operating system that just doesn't have the additional licensing limitation forcing Apple to open source it back. Printing on your Mac uses open source cups<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-o<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. shall I continue?

This is just open source within the company you named is the Anti-open source (though they kind of are). Even they are not CONTRIBUTING to open source, more USING open source... but non-the-less to make a profit -- which you say can't be done. Who know's how far they would be with out open source, having to create an OS and apps completely from scratch.

I don't think you were serious though, but I'm bored at work and its right before my lunch break... so why not feed the trolls.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ehh , I assume you 're using IE on Windows .
Apple 's Safari browser , is open source .
Apple 's Mac OSX is based of an open source operating system that just does n't have the additional licensing limitation forcing Apple to open source it back .
Printing on your Mac uses open source cups : -o .. shall I continue ?
This is just open source within the company you named is the Anti-open source ( though they kind of are ) .
Even they are not CONTRIBUTING to open source , more USING open source... but non-the-less to make a profit -- which you say ca n't be done .
Who know 's how far they would be with out open source , having to create an OS and apps completely from scratch .
I do n't think you were serious though , but I 'm bored at work and its right before my lunch break... so why not feed the trolls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ehh, I assume you're using IE on Windows.
Apple's Safari browser, is open source.
Apple's Mac OSX is based of an open source operating system that just doesn't have the additional licensing limitation forcing Apple to open source it back.
Printing on your Mac uses open source cups :-o .. shall I continue?
This is just open source within the company you named is the Anti-open source (though they kind of are).
Even they are not CONTRIBUTING to open source, more USING open source... but non-the-less to make a profit -- which you say can't be done.
Who know's how far they would be with out open source, having to create an OS and apps completely from scratch.
I don't think you were serious though, but I'm bored at work and its right before my lunch break... so why not feed the trolls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745949</id>
	<title>"Openness" is a strategy for failure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255540080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nokia should be emulating Apple here.   The key to success is to LIMIT access to the device, and to clamp down on what developers and users can and cannot do with it.  By allowing the device to be "open" they succumb to the same kind of temptation that has caused Linux (and every other piece of open source software) to be such a collosal failure.  I know I will get moderated as a troll since this is Slashdot, but there is absolutely no proof that openness, or open source, contributes to a products success.  If anyone disagrees, then name a single piece of open source software that is better than its closed source competition.  You cannot, because open source means lower quality due to its inherent lack of focus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia should be emulating Apple here .
The key to success is to LIMIT access to the device , and to clamp down on what developers and users can and can not do with it .
By allowing the device to be " open " they succumb to the same kind of temptation that has caused Linux ( and every other piece of open source software ) to be such a collosal failure .
I know I will get moderated as a troll since this is Slashdot , but there is absolutely no proof that openness , or open source , contributes to a products success .
If anyone disagrees , then name a single piece of open source software that is better than its closed source competition .
You can not , because open source means lower quality due to its inherent lack of focus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia should be emulating Apple here.
The key to success is to LIMIT access to the device, and to clamp down on what developers and users can and cannot do with it.
By allowing the device to be "open" they succumb to the same kind of temptation that has caused Linux (and every other piece of open source software) to be such a collosal failure.
I know I will get moderated as a troll since this is Slashdot, but there is absolutely no proof that openness, or open source, contributes to a products success.
If anyone disagrees, then name a single piece of open source software that is better than its closed source competition.
You cannot, because open source means lower quality due to its inherent lack of focus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747171</id>
	<title>Re:Openess</title>
	<author>replicant108</author>
	<datestamp>1255545600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple looked at the same problem that Nokia is looking at and decided that since they had an operating system in house already, it made more sense to just modify it then modifying  someone else's open operating system.</p></div><p>Except that Apple's operating system <b>is</b> based on modifying 'someone else's open operating system'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple looked at the same problem that Nokia is looking at and decided that since they had an operating system in house already , it made more sense to just modify it then modifying someone else 's open operating system.Except that Apple 's operating system is based on modifying 'someone else 's open operating system' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple looked at the same problem that Nokia is looking at and decided that since they had an operating system in house already, it made more sense to just modify it then modifying  someone else's open operating system.Except that Apple's operating system is based on modifying 'someone else's open operating system'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746215</id>
	<title>Re:Narrowsighted executives is nothing new.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255541100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Nokia has decided to only compete on hardware</p></div></blockquote><p>You'll find out how wrong you are soon enough... Linux and open source are just new methods of keeping the lead they have.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia has decided to only compete on hardwareYou 'll find out how wrong you are soon enough... Linux and open source are just new methods of keeping the lead they have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia has decided to only compete on hardwareYou'll find out how wrong you are soon enough... Linux and open source are just new methods of keeping the lead they have.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29749073</id>
	<title>Re:That's not a source issue</title>
	<author>turbidostato</author>
	<datestamp>1255553640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You can do all that on an iPhone too - you just jailbreak it"</p><p>Only there's no "just" on jailbreaking the iPhone but a really big deterrent.</p><p>How many people do you think you can get to jailbreak their phone even in your wetest dreams?  One in ten thousands?  Just for a comparation, how many people do you think that unlock their phones after their subsidizing contracts, a perfectly legal and safe practice only a bit obscured by the providers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You can do all that on an iPhone too - you just jailbreak it " Only there 's no " just " on jailbreaking the iPhone but a really big deterrent.How many people do you think you can get to jailbreak their phone even in your wetest dreams ?
One in ten thousands ?
Just for a comparation , how many people do you think that unlock their phones after their subsidizing contracts , a perfectly legal and safe practice only a bit obscured by the providers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You can do all that on an iPhone too - you just jailbreak it"Only there's no "just" on jailbreaking the iPhone but a really big deterrent.How many people do you think you can get to jailbreak their phone even in your wetest dreams?
One in ten thousands?
Just for a comparation, how many people do you think that unlock their phones after their subsidizing contracts, a perfectly legal and safe practice only a bit obscured by the providers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746641</id>
	<title>That's not a source issue</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1255543140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Want to make an app that downloads podcasts? Fine! Want to use your phone as a modem? No problem!</i></p><p>You can do all that on an iPhone too - you just jailbreak it (and even some podcasting apps are in the app store).</p><p>The issue blocking that is not open source, it's carriers (and Apple to some extent).  Android on T-Mobile has some issues with what they will allow as well (and rooting is not really much different from jailbreaking in terms of user ease).</p><p>As another person noted, Nokia's attempt to do this is too late with Android on the rise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Want to make an app that downloads podcasts ?
Fine ! Want to use your phone as a modem ?
No problem ! You can do all that on an iPhone too - you just jailbreak it ( and even some podcasting apps are in the app store ) .The issue blocking that is not open source , it 's carriers ( and Apple to some extent ) .
Android on T-Mobile has some issues with what they will allow as well ( and rooting is not really much different from jailbreaking in terms of user ease ) .As another person noted , Nokia 's attempt to do this is too late with Android on the rise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Want to make an app that downloads podcasts?
Fine! Want to use your phone as a modem?
No problem!You can do all that on an iPhone too - you just jailbreak it (and even some podcasting apps are in the app store).The issue blocking that is not open source, it's carriers (and Apple to some extent).
Android on T-Mobile has some issues with what they will allow as well (and rooting is not really much different from jailbreaking in terms of user ease).As another person noted, Nokia's attempt to do this is too late with Android on the rise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29754979</id>
	<title>Re:Now they get it.</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1255606800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for the info - this is the kind of thing I'd really be interested in seeing. A geek site giving us cutting edge news - instead it's just "Apple Apple Apple now you can get Iphone 3G, and look at a website!", telling us news about the Iphone, 3 years or so after almost every phone on the market has adopted it.</p><p><i>In six months we'll have all our lightweight desktop apps running on our phones and people will finally realize just how far ahead of everyone else Nokia really is.</i></p><p>I hope so. Although I fear it will continue that the media, Slashdot, and many Slashdot readers, will still have this distorted view that the mobile market consists of Apple being number 1, with only Android and maybe Blackberry as some minor competiton. That way some people are talking, it would surprise me if in a few years people claim the mobile phone as an "Apple first" (already I've heard people claim that Apple "popularised" the smartphones - despite the fact that at least two billion non-Apple smartphones are around).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the info - this is the kind of thing I 'd really be interested in seeing .
A geek site giving us cutting edge news - instead it 's just " Apple Apple Apple now you can get Iphone 3G , and look at a website !
" , telling us news about the Iphone , 3 years or so after almost every phone on the market has adopted it.In six months we 'll have all our lightweight desktop apps running on our phones and people will finally realize just how far ahead of everyone else Nokia really is.I hope so .
Although I fear it will continue that the media , Slashdot , and many Slashdot readers , will still have this distorted view that the mobile market consists of Apple being number 1 , with only Android and maybe Blackberry as some minor competiton .
That way some people are talking , it would surprise me if in a few years people claim the mobile phone as an " Apple first " ( already I 've heard people claim that Apple " popularised " the smartphones - despite the fact that at least two billion non-Apple smartphones are around ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the info - this is the kind of thing I'd really be interested in seeing.
A geek site giving us cutting edge news - instead it's just "Apple Apple Apple now you can get Iphone 3G, and look at a website!
", telling us news about the Iphone, 3 years or so after almost every phone on the market has adopted it.In six months we'll have all our lightweight desktop apps running on our phones and people will finally realize just how far ahead of everyone else Nokia really is.I hope so.
Although I fear it will continue that the media, Slashdot, and many Slashdot readers, will still have this distorted view that the mobile market consists of Apple being number 1, with only Android and maybe Blackberry as some minor competiton.
That way some people are talking, it would surprise me if in a few years people claim the mobile phone as an "Apple first" (already I've heard people claim that Apple "popularised" the smartphones - despite the fact that at least two billion non-Apple smartphones are around).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746541</id>
	<title>Re:Narrowsighted executives is nothing new.</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1255542660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>accidentally infringe, and therefore have to try to reach some agreement with a bunch of people who want nothing but to destroy them and see them humiliated</i></p><p>Who said anything about the BSA?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>accidentally infringe , and therefore have to try to reach some agreement with a bunch of people who want nothing but to destroy them and see them humiliatedWho said anything about the BSA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>accidentally infringe, and therefore have to try to reach some agreement with a bunch of people who want nothing but to destroy them and see them humiliatedWho said anything about the BSA?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746899</id>
	<title>sure</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1255544400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>That idea is also increasingly accepted by hard-headed business people: it's become self-evident that it's a better way.</i>
<br>
<br>
And let's just ignore the fact that some of the most profitable corporations on the planet have made their money from selling proprietary software, while the vast majority of companies founded to develop open source have failed?<br>
<br>
Most companies, very logically, would rather make money than develop software "for the good of all."</htmltext>
<tokenext>That idea is also increasingly accepted by hard-headed business people : it 's become self-evident that it 's a better way .
And let 's just ignore the fact that some of the most profitable corporations on the planet have made their money from selling proprietary software , while the vast majority of companies founded to develop open source have failed ?
Most companies , very logically , would rather make money than develop software " for the good of all .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That idea is also increasingly accepted by hard-headed business people: it's become self-evident that it's a better way.
And let's just ignore the fact that some of the most profitable corporations on the planet have made their money from selling proprietary software, while the vast majority of companies founded to develop open source have failed?
Most companies, very logically, would rather make money than develop software "for the good of all.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746121</id>
	<title>Now they get it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255540740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too little, too late.<br><br>Now with Android showing the way, they realize how closed development put them behind. I enjoyed my Nokia phones, but I got frustrated with the lack of development.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too little , too late.Now with Android showing the way , they realize how closed development put them behind .
I enjoyed my Nokia phones , but I got frustrated with the lack of development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too little, too late.Now with Android showing the way, they realize how closed development put them behind.
I enjoyed my Nokia phones, but I got frustrated with the lack of development.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747985</id>
	<title>Re:Openess</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1255549080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, I agree that open source may not be superior in every possible situation, but I lack counter-examples and yours isn't really obvious. Would the clients of Microsoft be better or worse if they colaboratively developed the software they buy? Would it be cheaper or more expensive? Would it have lower or highter quality? In short is Microsoft a leacher or a constructive member of society*?</p><p>* Specificaly for Microsoft, the answer is quite easy, but it doesn't extend to other software dealers on any obvious way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I agree that open source may not be superior in every possible situation , but I lack counter-examples and yours is n't really obvious .
Would the clients of Microsoft be better or worse if they colaboratively developed the software they buy ?
Would it be cheaper or more expensive ?
Would it have lower or highter quality ?
In short is Microsoft a leacher or a constructive member of society * ?
* Specificaly for Microsoft , the answer is quite easy , but it does n't extend to other software dealers on any obvious way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I agree that open source may not be superior in every possible situation, but I lack counter-examples and yours isn't really obvious.
Would the clients of Microsoft be better or worse if they colaboratively developed the software they buy?
Would it be cheaper or more expensive?
Would it have lower or highter quality?
In short is Microsoft a leacher or a constructive member of society*?
* Specificaly for Microsoft, the answer is quite easy, but it doesn't extend to other software dealers on any obvious way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29749635</id>
	<title>Re:Now they get it.</title>
	<author>CortoMaltese</author>
	<datestamp>1255513140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In six months we'll have all our lightweight desktop apps running on our phones and people will finally realize just how far ahead of everyone else Nokia really is.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiF60oWAsJI" title="youtube.com">Some</a> [youtube.com] <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHSZfhY25Jc" title="youtube.com">heavyweight</a> [youtube.com] as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In six months we 'll have all our lightweight desktop apps running on our phones and people will finally realize just how far ahead of everyone else Nokia really is .
Some [ youtube.com ] heavyweight [ youtube.com ] as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In six months we'll have all our lightweight desktop apps running on our phones and people will finally realize just how far ahead of everyone else Nokia really is.
Some [youtube.com] heavyweight [youtube.com] as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29750065</id>
	<title>Re:Now they get it.</title>
	<author>tpwch</author>
	<datestamp>1255515060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right, because android existed back in 2005 when nokia released the nokia 770, their first linux-based device, and the first in the series of what is now the N900. They would never have tried that if it wasn't for android.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , because android existed back in 2005 when nokia released the nokia 770 , their first linux-based device , and the first in the series of what is now the N900 .
They would never have tried that if it was n't for android .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, because android existed back in 2005 when nokia released the nokia 770, their first linux-based device, and the first in the series of what is now the N900.
They would never have tried that if it wasn't for android.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29748679</id>
	<title>Janis Joplin said it best...</title>
	<author>geoffrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1255552080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746597</id>
	<title>Re:Now they get it.</title>
	<author>Skuld-Chan</author>
	<datestamp>1255542960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is it late? Symbian was opensourced in 2008.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is it late ?
Symbian was opensourced in 2008 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is it late?
Symbian was opensourced in 2008.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29794271</id>
	<title>Bape Air Shoes, etc commodity in China Exporter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255967580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Welcome to our website:   Http://www.tntshoes.com</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; basketball shoes,men's shoes,sport shoes,air shoe,force shoe,shox shoe,max shoe,JD shoes and other fusion shoes<br>1)Small order and dropshipping avaliable<br>2) Various styles and color on our website<br>3)Our shoes are all coming with original boxes, tags and cards<br>4)The more you order, the lower price you will get<br>5)You can mix any items from our store together<br>6)shippment: (5-7 business days)</p><p>Our company have many other brand products,if you are interested in our products<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.contact me directly</p><p>OUR WEBSITE:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Http://www.tntshoes.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    Welcome to our website : Http : //www.tntshoes.com     basketball shoes,men 's shoes,sport shoes,air shoe,force shoe,shox shoe,max shoe,JD shoes and other fusion shoes1 ) Small order and dropshipping avaliable2 ) Various styles and color on our website3 ) Our shoes are all coming with original boxes , tags and cards4 ) The more you order , the lower price you will get5 ) You can mix any items from our store together6 ) shippment : ( 5-7 business days ) Our company have many other brand products,if you are interested in our products .contact me directlyOUR WEBSITE :                                                         YAHOO : shoppertrade @ yahoo.com.cn                                                                 MSN : shoppertrade @ hotmail.com                                                                   Http : //www.tntshoes.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    Welcome to our website:   Http://www.tntshoes.com
    basketball shoes,men's shoes,sport shoes,air shoe,force shoe,shox shoe,max shoe,JD shoes and other fusion shoes1)Small order and dropshipping avaliable2) Various styles and color on our website3)Our shoes are all coming with original boxes, tags and cards4)The more you order, the lower price you will get5)You can mix any items from our store together6)shippment: (5-7 business days)Our company have many other brand products,if you are interested in our products .contact me directlyOUR WEBSITE:
                                                        YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn
                                                                MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com
                                                                  Http://www.tntshoes.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29760881</id>
	<title>Tested in court?</title>
	<author>Brandybuck</author>
	<datestamp>1255637040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The GPL has been tested in court? I must have missed this one. I know of disputes that were settled out of court, but I am not aware of any court directly ruling on the GPL. Has the GPL been tested **IN** court? Please provide some references.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The GPL has been tested in court ?
I must have missed this one .
I know of disputes that were settled out of court , but I am not aware of any court directly ruling on the GPL .
Has the GPL been tested * * IN * * court ?
Please provide some references .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GPL has been tested in court?
I must have missed this one.
I know of disputes that were settled out of court, but I am not aware of any court directly ruling on the GPL.
Has the GPL been tested **IN** court?
Please provide some references.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746817</id>
	<title>Better title:</title>
	<author>caladine</author>
	<datestamp>1255543920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nokia or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Open Source<br>

Tell me I'm not the only one who thought of Dr. Strangelove when seeing the original title...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia or : How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Open Source Tell me I 'm not the only one who thought of Dr. Strangelove when seeing the original title.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Open Source

Tell me I'm not the only one who thought of Dr. Strangelove when seeing the original title...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747403</id>
	<title>Re:"Openness" is a strategy for failure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255546680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Safari is not open source, dumbass.  And by pointing out how much better Apple's closed source version of BSD is, you are making my point for me.   Sure Apple used some open source to build upon (thanks for all the free work, chumps), but they added the key missing bits I mentioned before: focus and control.</p><p>And as a response to the other people who replied with examples like VLC, Firefox, Apache and PostgresQL, I guess we will just have to disagree about what "better" means. You folks seem to hold your software to a pretty low standard of quality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Safari is not open source , dumbass .
And by pointing out how much better Apple 's closed source version of BSD is , you are making my point for me .
Sure Apple used some open source to build upon ( thanks for all the free work , chumps ) , but they added the key missing bits I mentioned before : focus and control.And as a response to the other people who replied with examples like VLC , Firefox , Apache and PostgresQL , I guess we will just have to disagree about what " better " means .
You folks seem to hold your software to a pretty low standard of quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Safari is not open source, dumbass.
And by pointing out how much better Apple's closed source version of BSD is, you are making my point for me.
Sure Apple used some open source to build upon (thanks for all the free work, chumps), but they added the key missing bits I mentioned before: focus and control.And as a response to the other people who replied with examples like VLC, Firefox, Apache and PostgresQL, I guess we will just have to disagree about what "better" means.
You folks seem to hold your software to a pretty low standard of quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29751979</id>
	<title>Re:I dunno, don't see a huge benefit...</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1255527960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll bite - what can "Iphone OS" do that no other phone can do?</p><p>(I can certainly think of things that the Iphone lacks, that even dirt cheap 4 year old phones can do, but I'm curious in your answer.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll bite - what can " Iphone OS " do that no other phone can do ?
( I can certainly think of things that the Iphone lacks , that even dirt cheap 4 year old phones can do , but I 'm curious in your answer .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll bite - what can "Iphone OS" do that no other phone can do?
(I can certainly think of things that the Iphone lacks, that even dirt cheap 4 year old phones can do, but I'm curious in your answer.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746563</id>
	<title>Re:FTFY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255542720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Soooo... because of the infighting within XFree86, which eventually got resolved by the fork, closed source where no such forks can take place to get out of a stagnating or even decaying situation is... better? Or what's your "point"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Soooo... because of the infighting within XFree86 , which eventually got resolved by the fork , closed source where no such forks can take place to get out of a stagnating or even decaying situation is... better ? Or what 's your " point " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soooo... because of the infighting within XFree86, which eventually got resolved by the fork, closed source where no such forks can take place to get out of a stagnating or even decaying situation is... better? Or what's your "point"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747343</id>
	<title>Re:I dunno, don't see a huge benefit...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255546320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Symbian is a piece of crap. It always was, and it never really evolved much.</p></div><p>Whoa, where'd you get that from? Symbian is a slim embedded OS, and it has evolved massively over the years. The present UIs are a bit outdated, but that's being worked on. It kicks Android and WM to the curb on low end hardware, and the developer community is there!</p><p>Go check out http://developer.symbian.org. It's a nice place to be, and things are only getting better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Symbian is a piece of crap .
It always was , and it never really evolved much.Whoa , where 'd you get that from ?
Symbian is a slim embedded OS , and it has evolved massively over the years .
The present UIs are a bit outdated , but that 's being worked on .
It kicks Android and WM to the curb on low end hardware , and the developer community is there ! Go check out http : //developer.symbian.org .
It 's a nice place to be , and things are only getting better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Symbian is a piece of crap.
It always was, and it never really evolved much.Whoa, where'd you get that from?
Symbian is a slim embedded OS, and it has evolved massively over the years.
The present UIs are a bit outdated, but that's being worked on.
It kicks Android and WM to the curb on low end hardware, and the developer community is there!Go check out http://developer.symbian.org.
It's a nice place to be, and things are only getting better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745857</id>
	<title>dasdas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255539660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>dsadsa</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>dsadsa</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dsadsa</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745893</id>
	<title>Narrowsighted executives is nothing new.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255539780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If those business people are happy to only compete on hardware, then yes.</p><p>If those business people also want to compete on software, OR, they don't read the license ("who reads the license?") and accidentally infringe, and therefore have to try to reach some agreement with a bunch of people who want nothing but to destroy them and see them humiliated, they might become less happy.</p><p>Nokia has decided to only compete on hardware, so no problem for them. Others who want to compete on software might disagree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If those business people are happy to only compete on hardware , then yes.If those business people also want to compete on software , OR , they do n't read the license ( " who reads the license ?
" ) and accidentally infringe , and therefore have to try to reach some agreement with a bunch of people who want nothing but to destroy them and see them humiliated , they might become less happy.Nokia has decided to only compete on hardware , so no problem for them .
Others who want to compete on software might disagree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If those business people are happy to only compete on hardware, then yes.If those business people also want to compete on software, OR, they don't read the license ("who reads the license?
") and accidentally infringe, and therefore have to try to reach some agreement with a bunch of people who want nothing but to destroy them and see them humiliated, they might become less happy.Nokia has decided to only compete on hardware, so no problem for them.
Others who want to compete on software might disagree.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746063</id>
	<title>In this case</title>
	<author>kdawgud</author>
	<datestamp>1255540500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, in this case it may have made sense for Nokia.  They are a hardware company, so giving away the software for free would not directly harm their income.  Other industries won't be convinced so easily (i.e. companies that make money off of selling software to the masses).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , in this case it may have made sense for Nokia .
They are a hardware company , so giving away the software for free would not directly harm their income .
Other industries wo n't be convinced so easily ( i.e .
companies that make money off of selling software to the masses ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, in this case it may have made sense for Nokia.
They are a hardware company, so giving away the software for free would not directly harm their income.
Other industries won't be convinced so easily (i.e.
companies that make money off of selling software to the masses).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29756927</id>
	<title>Re:Playing to Apple's weakness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255620000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe, while both are Cortex A8 arch, the Samsung chip in the 3GS lacks a DSP which the OMAP3 incorporates, giving a good performance advantage to the n900 in multimedia.  The web browser and multimedia capabilities are what's bridging the gap between smartphones like the n900 and netbooks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct me if I 'm wrong , but I believe , while both are Cortex A8 arch , the Samsung chip in the 3GS lacks a DSP which the OMAP3 incorporates , giving a good performance advantage to the n900 in multimedia .
The web browser and multimedia capabilities are what 's bridging the gap between smartphones like the n900 and netbooks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe, while both are Cortex A8 arch, the Samsung chip in the 3GS lacks a DSP which the OMAP3 incorporates, giving a good performance advantage to the n900 in multimedia.
The web browser and multimedia capabilities are what's bridging the gap between smartphones like the n900 and netbooks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29750017</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29749935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29748313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29756927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29750017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29754265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29751979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29764653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29749073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29749351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29749635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29751147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29752037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29749271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29754979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29750891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29749365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29750065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1544205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29776595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1544205.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29751979
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1544205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29749365
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1544205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746093
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746739
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29751147
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747403
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1544205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746567
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1544205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746193
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747171
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747985
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747393
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29749271
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29749351
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29748313
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29749935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29764653
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1544205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29748679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1544205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746283
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1544205.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746563
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29754265
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1544205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746899
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1544205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746817
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1544205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29745893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746541
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29750891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746115
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747187
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29752037
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746815
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1544205.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29749399
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1544205.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29760881
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1544205.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29750017
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29756927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746641
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747803
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29749073
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29776595
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1544205.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29750065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747079
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29747945
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29754979
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29749635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1544205.29746497
</commentlist>
</conversation>
