<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_23_2344239</id>
	<title>Symbian Microkernel Finally Goes Open Source</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1256321160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ruphus13 writes <i>"Symbian announced over a year ago that they were going to Open Source their code, and the industry has been patiently waiting for that to happen.  Well, it finally has.  According to news on Wednesday, 'Symbian has <a href="http://ostatic.com/blog/symbian-releases-microkernel-as-open-source-finally">released its platform microkernel and software development kit as open source</a> under the Eclipse Public License. The Symbian Foundation claims that it is <a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/10/symbian-foundation-opens-kernel-source-code-under-epl.ars">moving quickly toward an open source model</a>, which is questionable, but the release of the EKA2 kernel is a signal that Symbian still means business about adopting an open source model.  Accenture, ARM, Nokia and Texas Instruments contributed software to the microkernel, Symbian officials said.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ruphus13 writes " Symbian announced over a year ago that they were going to Open Source their code , and the industry has been patiently waiting for that to happen .
Well , it finally has .
According to news on Wednesday , 'Symbian has released its platform microkernel and software development kit as open source under the Eclipse Public License .
The Symbian Foundation claims that it is moving quickly toward an open source model , which is questionable , but the release of the EKA2 kernel is a signal that Symbian still means business about adopting an open source model .
Accenture , ARM , Nokia and Texas Instruments contributed software to the microkernel , Symbian officials said .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ruphus13 writes "Symbian announced over a year ago that they were going to Open Source their code, and the industry has been patiently waiting for that to happen.
Well, it finally has.
According to news on Wednesday, 'Symbian has released its platform microkernel and software development kit as open source under the Eclipse Public License.
The Symbian Foundation claims that it is moving quickly toward an open source model, which is questionable, but the release of the EKA2 kernel is a signal that Symbian still means business about adopting an open source model.
Accenture, ARM, Nokia and Texas Instruments contributed software to the microkernel, Symbian officials said.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854943</id>
	<title>Thank you, Android</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256376360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This issue is clearly being pushed forward by open-source Android. Smarter - and, maybe, weaker- competitors realize they must match Android's flexibility and openness.</p><p>Windows Mobile will either have to offer an extremely compelling experience, Apple-like, or will be FOSSed into oblivion ? I'm taking bets, but only one way ^^</p><p>Dream scenario: Smartphones -&gt; Tablets/ebooks -&gt; Netbooks -&gt; PCs.</p><p>Well, in the long run S60 it probably not the one to do that. But Maemo or Android, in a "bigger" version ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This issue is clearly being pushed forward by open-source Android .
Smarter - and , maybe , weaker- competitors realize they must match Android 's flexibility and openness.Windows Mobile will either have to offer an extremely compelling experience , Apple-like , or will be FOSSed into oblivion ?
I 'm taking bets , but only one way ^ ^ Dream scenario : Smartphones - &gt; Tablets/ebooks - &gt; Netbooks - &gt; PCs.Well , in the long run S60 it probably not the one to do that .
But Maemo or Android , in a " bigger " version ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This issue is clearly being pushed forward by open-source Android.
Smarter - and, maybe, weaker- competitors realize they must match Android's flexibility and openness.Windows Mobile will either have to offer an extremely compelling experience, Apple-like, or will be FOSSed into oblivion ?
I'm taking bets, but only one way ^^Dream scenario: Smartphones -&gt; Tablets/ebooks -&gt; Netbooks -&gt; PCs.Well, in the long run S60 it probably not the one to do that.
But Maemo or Android, in a "bigger" version ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855437</id>
	<title>Re:Symbian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256386440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mach gave microkernels a bad name.  On Mach, all IPC went via Mach Ports.  This included things that, on other platforms, would be system calls (on Mach they were message sends to something like a BSD kernel running as a process).  Unfortunately, Mach checked the port access rights on every message send.  Benchmarks showed that it took around 15 instructions for a system call or 120 instructions for a Mach message.  Effectively, this made system calls an order of magnitude slower.</p><p>
Newer microkernels only check port rights when you create a port.  Something like QNX has a very small message sending function which generates almost no cache churn.  This function runs synchronously (and has about the overhead of a cheap system call) but the message reply is not generated at the same time.  This means that you actually get fewer context switches with the microkernel.  You fire off a load of non-blocking system call requests.  These require a privilege switch (which is cheap) and a function call, but the kernel does no work processing them.  When you come to the point where you need the reply, you then enter a blocking state and a context switch happens.  The other process then runs and handles all of your messages, and then you get back control and carry on.  This involves only one context switch on an asynchronous microkernel, but several on a synchronous monolithic kernel.  When you add another core, you don't even get this context switch, you just get a few cache coherency messages between the cores (or not even that if they are shared cache, for example SMT contexts) for the message sends and the other process keeps running and servicing your requests.  This is increasingly important, as modern ARM SoCs are starting to be multicore.  </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mach gave microkernels a bad name .
On Mach , all IPC went via Mach Ports .
This included things that , on other platforms , would be system calls ( on Mach they were message sends to something like a BSD kernel running as a process ) .
Unfortunately , Mach checked the port access rights on every message send .
Benchmarks showed that it took around 15 instructions for a system call or 120 instructions for a Mach message .
Effectively , this made system calls an order of magnitude slower .
Newer microkernels only check port rights when you create a port .
Something like QNX has a very small message sending function which generates almost no cache churn .
This function runs synchronously ( and has about the overhead of a cheap system call ) but the message reply is not generated at the same time .
This means that you actually get fewer context switches with the microkernel .
You fire off a load of non-blocking system call requests .
These require a privilege switch ( which is cheap ) and a function call , but the kernel does no work processing them .
When you come to the point where you need the reply , you then enter a blocking state and a context switch happens .
The other process then runs and handles all of your messages , and then you get back control and carry on .
This involves only one context switch on an asynchronous microkernel , but several on a synchronous monolithic kernel .
When you add another core , you do n't even get this context switch , you just get a few cache coherency messages between the cores ( or not even that if they are shared cache , for example SMT contexts ) for the message sends and the other process keeps running and servicing your requests .
This is increasingly important , as modern ARM SoCs are starting to be multicore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mach gave microkernels a bad name.
On Mach, all IPC went via Mach Ports.
This included things that, on other platforms, would be system calls (on Mach they were message sends to something like a BSD kernel running as a process).
Unfortunately, Mach checked the port access rights on every message send.
Benchmarks showed that it took around 15 instructions for a system call or 120 instructions for a Mach message.
Effectively, this made system calls an order of magnitude slower.
Newer microkernels only check port rights when you create a port.
Something like QNX has a very small message sending function which generates almost no cache churn.
This function runs synchronously (and has about the overhead of a cheap system call) but the message reply is not generated at the same time.
This means that you actually get fewer context switches with the microkernel.
You fire off a load of non-blocking system call requests.
These require a privilege switch (which is cheap) and a function call, but the kernel does no work processing them.
When you come to the point where you need the reply, you then enter a blocking state and a context switch happens.
The other process then runs and handles all of your messages, and then you get back control and carry on.
This involves only one context switch on an asynchronous microkernel, but several on a synchronous monolithic kernel.
When you add another core, you don't even get this context switch, you just get a few cache coherency messages between the cores (or not even that if they are shared cache, for example SMT contexts) for the message sends and the other process keeps running and servicing your requests.
This is increasingly important, as modern ARM SoCs are starting to be multicore.  </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29857891</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you, Android</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256409540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not true. Maemo was started before Android. And guess what? It was already known there would be free Symbian by then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not true .
Maemo was started before Android .
And guess what ?
It was already known there would be free Symbian by then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not true.
Maemo was started before Android.
And guess what?
It was already known there would be free Symbian by then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854897</id>
	<title>Re:Symbian</title>
	<author>walshy007</author>
	<datestamp>1256374800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>being the owner of a nokia n95 (s60 symbian) I am puzzled at how you can not run your own code.. when running unsigned code it just tells me "warning: blah is not signed" just like ssh warns me when a key is changed or some such. Then I can install it anyway.</p><p>I have not yet found any kind of drm in the phone.. at all. I install what I like from wherever I like and it just works.</p><p>The rest of your post can be summaried as "it's different from unix, so I don't like it" which is your opinion to have, but it is an opinion. I agree having everything be like linux/bsd etc would make life as a developer a lot easier, nothing new to learn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>being the owner of a nokia n95 ( s60 symbian ) I am puzzled at how you can not run your own code.. when running unsigned code it just tells me " warning : blah is not signed " just like ssh warns me when a key is changed or some such .
Then I can install it anyway.I have not yet found any kind of drm in the phone.. at all .
I install what I like from wherever I like and it just works.The rest of your post can be summaried as " it 's different from unix , so I do n't like it " which is your opinion to have , but it is an opinion .
I agree having everything be like linux/bsd etc would make life as a developer a lot easier , nothing new to learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>being the owner of a nokia n95 (s60 symbian) I am puzzled at how you can not run your own code.. when running unsigned code it just tells me "warning: blah is not signed" just like ssh warns me when a key is changed or some such.
Then I can install it anyway.I have not yet found any kind of drm in the phone.. at all.
I install what I like from wherever I like and it just works.The rest of your post can be summaried as "it's different from unix, so I don't like it" which is your opinion to have, but it is an opinion.
I agree having everything be like linux/bsd etc would make life as a developer a lot easier, nothing new to learn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29857671</id>
	<title>Re:Symbian</title>
	<author>rawtatoor</author>
	<datestamp>1256407800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is it an arbitrary view that UNIX is the one true way?</p><p>Even if everything else you say is technically true, wouldn't<br>this project benefit from using the lingua franca of computing?<br>Or is their a hidden benefit from once again poorly recreating UNIX?<br>Is their a reason I should learn a new interface every time I pick up<br>a new device? Strange = Another waste of my time.</p><p>I find it silly that you talk about engineering design decisions and then<br>put down UNIX, <b>the</b> computer system designed by and for software engineers. I say<br>get a grip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is it an arbitrary view that UNIX is the one true way ? Even if everything else you say is technically true , wouldn'tthis project benefit from using the lingua franca of computing ? Or is their a hidden benefit from once again poorly recreating UNIX ? Is their a reason I should learn a new interface every time I pick upa new device ?
Strange = Another waste of my time.I find it silly that you talk about engineering design decisions and thenput down UNIX , the computer system designed by and for software engineers .
I sayget a grip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is it an arbitrary view that UNIX is the one true way?Even if everything else you say is technically true, wouldn'tthis project benefit from using the lingua franca of computing?Or is their a hidden benefit from once again poorly recreating UNIX?Is their a reason I should learn a new interface every time I pick upa new device?
Strange = Another waste of my time.I find it silly that you talk about engineering design decisions and thenput down UNIX, the computer system designed by and for software engineers.
I sayget a grip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854863</id>
	<title>The first step in the right direction.</title>
	<author>Comp\_Lex86</author>
	<datestamp>1256416980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now people can rewrite the entire OS in "normal" C++ without all the awkward stuff like Active Objects, 10000 kinds of string "descriptors", CleanupStack and the weird API.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now people can rewrite the entire OS in " normal " C + + without all the awkward stuff like Active Objects , 10000 kinds of string " descriptors " , CleanupStack and the weird API .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now people can rewrite the entire OS in "normal" C++ without all the awkward stuff like Active Objects, 10000 kinds of string "descriptors", CleanupStack and the weird API.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854687</id>
	<title>OK.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256326620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's all I really have to say.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all I really have to say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all I really have to say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29858005</id>
	<title>Re:Symbian</title>
	<author>weicco</author>
	<datestamp>1256410200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Symbian exceptions predated the introduction of exceptions to C++.</p></div></blockquote><p>If I recall correctly C++ had some implementations of exception already when Symbian was spawned from the depths of heck. Standard didn't have them yet. So if Symbian would have waited a bit it would have standard exception mechanism. When I was writing stuff for Symbian (2002 - 2004) I recall that the awkward exception paradigm was what I hated the most.</p><p>Other thing was that awful two-state object construction or whatever it was called. I remember that it was because of constructors were forbidden to throw exceptions. I'm not sure what's with that. Throwing exception is a standard way to tell something exceptional happened.</p><p>And so what if Symbian was pioneering? We don't drive T model Fords anymore. Maybe Symbian has nice kernel but writing C++ applications for it is a huge pain in the ass. I mean, it really beats me why the heck you have to have Perl to build C++ applications!?</p><p>Another (horror) story was the API documentation. You really couldn't trust it a bit. It felt like the documentation and header files was constantly out of sync. I finally got so frustrated with it that I learned C# and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, changed employer and haven't regretted a day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Symbian exceptions predated the introduction of exceptions to C + + .If I recall correctly C + + had some implementations of exception already when Symbian was spawned from the depths of heck .
Standard did n't have them yet .
So if Symbian would have waited a bit it would have standard exception mechanism .
When I was writing stuff for Symbian ( 2002 - 2004 ) I recall that the awkward exception paradigm was what I hated the most.Other thing was that awful two-state object construction or whatever it was called .
I remember that it was because of constructors were forbidden to throw exceptions .
I 'm not sure what 's with that .
Throwing exception is a standard way to tell something exceptional happened.And so what if Symbian was pioneering ?
We do n't drive T model Fords anymore .
Maybe Symbian has nice kernel but writing C + + applications for it is a huge pain in the ass .
I mean , it really beats me why the heck you have to have Perl to build C + + applications !
? Another ( horror ) story was the API documentation .
You really could n't trust it a bit .
It felt like the documentation and header files was constantly out of sync .
I finally got so frustrated with it that I learned C # and .NET , changed employer and have n't regretted a day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Symbian exceptions predated the introduction of exceptions to C++.If I recall correctly C++ had some implementations of exception already when Symbian was spawned from the depths of heck.
Standard didn't have them yet.
So if Symbian would have waited a bit it would have standard exception mechanism.
When I was writing stuff for Symbian (2002 - 2004) I recall that the awkward exception paradigm was what I hated the most.Other thing was that awful two-state object construction or whatever it was called.
I remember that it was because of constructors were forbidden to throw exceptions.
I'm not sure what's with that.
Throwing exception is a standard way to tell something exceptional happened.And so what if Symbian was pioneering?
We don't drive T model Fords anymore.
Maybe Symbian has nice kernel but writing C++ applications for it is a huge pain in the ass.
I mean, it really beats me why the heck you have to have Perl to build C++ applications!
?Another (horror) story was the API documentation.
You really couldn't trust it a bit.
It felt like the documentation and header files was constantly out of sync.
I finally got so frustrated with it that I learned C# and .NET, changed employer and haven't regretted a day.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29856223</id>
	<title>Re:Symbian</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1256395560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p># Drive letters. Enough said.</p></div><p>They're quite useful and can be abstracted away by an interface, such as through a "libraries" model (like windows) or through some other means.</p><p><div class="quote"><p># Backslashes as directory separators</p></div><p>Well, you've got me on this one.</p><p><div class="quote"><p># Pervasive DRM, with code signing and a pay-us-to-access-more-OS-features capability model</p></div><p>Here's the kernel! Get crack-a-lackin'.</p><p><div class="quote"><p># Non-POSIX filesystem semantics</p></div><p>Not automatically a bad thing. Does raise the bar for ports though.</p><p><div class="quote"><p># A microkernel architecture for devices least able to afford the overhead</p></div><p>Fail, fail. Amiga had a sub-8-MHz processor and a microkernel architecture and it beat the pants off every PC you could get your hands on for genuinely DOING STUFF and BEING RESPONSIVE. If Symbian blows, it's not because it's microkernel.</p><p><div class="quote"><p># Very strange application deployment consisting of several disparate directories with magical names</p></div><p>Kind of like Unix.</p><p>I have no experience with active objects so I can't speak to whether they necessarily must be used in the worst possible way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext># Drive letters .
Enough said.They 're quite useful and can be abstracted away by an interface , such as through a " libraries " model ( like windows ) or through some other means. # Backslashes as directory separatorsWell , you 've got me on this one. # Pervasive DRM , with code signing and a pay-us-to-access-more-OS-features capability modelHere 's the kernel !
Get crack-a-lackin'. # Non-POSIX filesystem semanticsNot automatically a bad thing .
Does raise the bar for ports though. # A microkernel architecture for devices least able to afford the overheadFail , fail .
Amiga had a sub-8-MHz processor and a microkernel architecture and it beat the pants off every PC you could get your hands on for genuinely DOING STUFF and BEING RESPONSIVE .
If Symbian blows , it 's not because it 's microkernel. # Very strange application deployment consisting of several disparate directories with magical namesKind of like Unix.I have no experience with active objects so I ca n't speak to whether they necessarily must be used in the worst possible way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext># Drive letters.
Enough said.They're quite useful and can be abstracted away by an interface, such as through a "libraries" model (like windows) or through some other means.# Backslashes as directory separatorsWell, you've got me on this one.# Pervasive DRM, with code signing and a pay-us-to-access-more-OS-features capability modelHere's the kernel!
Get crack-a-lackin'.# Non-POSIX filesystem semanticsNot automatically a bad thing.
Does raise the bar for ports though.# A microkernel architecture for devices least able to afford the overheadFail, fail.
Amiga had a sub-8-MHz processor and a microkernel architecture and it beat the pants off every PC you could get your hands on for genuinely DOING STUFF and BEING RESPONSIVE.
If Symbian blows, it's not because it's microkernel.# Very strange application deployment consisting of several disparate directories with magical namesKind of like Unix.I have no experience with active objects so I can't speak to whether they necessarily must be used in the worst possible way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29856975</id>
	<title>Where is the code?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256402340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldn't find it, neither in the linked article, nor on their home page.<br>And since when are we slashdotters TALKING and not HACKING around in the newly released stuff? I haven't seen even a single comment about that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't find it , neither in the linked article , nor on their home page.And since when are we slashdotters TALKING and not HACKING around in the newly released stuff ?
I have n't seen even a single comment about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't find it, neither in the linked article, nor on their home page.And since when are we slashdotters TALKING and not HACKING around in the newly released stuff?
I haven't seen even a single comment about that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855131</id>
	<title>Re:Symbian</title>
	<author>zullnero</author>
	<datestamp>1256381340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I kinda agree.  From an outside perspective, Symbian is conceptually a solid concept...but once you hunker down and try to do something for it, you find yourself pulling your hair out non-stop.  I also have to say, at the time when the Symbian guys came up with them, Active Objects were a pretty cool idea.  No one else was doing stuff like that for mobile devices, and if it had been done less insanely, it really would have been like buffed up widgets.
<br> <br>
Yeah, it has a goofy API.  I totally agree.  But I can work with it, and get stuff done...that's fine.  I don't mind the microkernel...if you write your code reasonably efficiently, you can deal with that.  Memory management, while necessary to make that code efficient, is clumsy and annoying.  I didn't really run into the "pay for more access" nonsense, though I certainly hated that sort of stuff about Brew, too.  But once you've been stuck jumping over all those hurdles, you never want to deal with it again.  A smart company, designing a platform, should put third party developers above everything.  Making your platform easy to develop for should always take precedence over anything else, no matter how much temptation it is to try and nickel and dime developers in order to farm cash flow out of them.  The more hurdles you put up, the less chance your OS will compete in the application market, and that generates the demand that makes the carriers interested in putting your OS on their phones.
<br> <br>
I can think of a number of OS's offhand that greatly outlived their lifetime expectations simply because they're easy to develop for and the toolchain is flexible (and free).  I have Symbian development on my resume...even though it's obviously been 5 years since I did it seriously, I still get headhunters contacting me non-stop from all over the place simply because, and no offense if someone reading this does like Symbian development, it's a big time headache to deal with.
<br> <br>
Making it open source isn't going to save it.  There are too many far better mobile options out there already.  webOS, Android, and Moblin are already built on open source, reasonably standardized platforms.  There are more on the way.  No one is going to want to fight with Symbian weirdness and 1990's style C++ when they could be doing AJAX on webOS or Java on Android.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I kinda agree .
From an outside perspective , Symbian is conceptually a solid concept...but once you hunker down and try to do something for it , you find yourself pulling your hair out non-stop .
I also have to say , at the time when the Symbian guys came up with them , Active Objects were a pretty cool idea .
No one else was doing stuff like that for mobile devices , and if it had been done less insanely , it really would have been like buffed up widgets .
Yeah , it has a goofy API .
I totally agree .
But I can work with it , and get stuff done...that 's fine .
I do n't mind the microkernel...if you write your code reasonably efficiently , you can deal with that .
Memory management , while necessary to make that code efficient , is clumsy and annoying .
I did n't really run into the " pay for more access " nonsense , though I certainly hated that sort of stuff about Brew , too .
But once you 've been stuck jumping over all those hurdles , you never want to deal with it again .
A smart company , designing a platform , should put third party developers above everything .
Making your platform easy to develop for should always take precedence over anything else , no matter how much temptation it is to try and nickel and dime developers in order to farm cash flow out of them .
The more hurdles you put up , the less chance your OS will compete in the application market , and that generates the demand that makes the carriers interested in putting your OS on their phones .
I can think of a number of OS 's offhand that greatly outlived their lifetime expectations simply because they 're easy to develop for and the toolchain is flexible ( and free ) .
I have Symbian development on my resume...even though it 's obviously been 5 years since I did it seriously , I still get headhunters contacting me non-stop from all over the place simply because , and no offense if someone reading this does like Symbian development , it 's a big time headache to deal with .
Making it open source is n't going to save it .
There are too many far better mobile options out there already .
webOS , Android , and Moblin are already built on open source , reasonably standardized platforms .
There are more on the way .
No one is going to want to fight with Symbian weirdness and 1990 's style C + + when they could be doing AJAX on webOS or Java on Android .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I kinda agree.
From an outside perspective, Symbian is conceptually a solid concept...but once you hunker down and try to do something for it, you find yourself pulling your hair out non-stop.
I also have to say, at the time when the Symbian guys came up with them, Active Objects were a pretty cool idea.
No one else was doing stuff like that for mobile devices, and if it had been done less insanely, it really would have been like buffed up widgets.
Yeah, it has a goofy API.
I totally agree.
But I can work with it, and get stuff done...that's fine.
I don't mind the microkernel...if you write your code reasonably efficiently, you can deal with that.
Memory management, while necessary to make that code efficient, is clumsy and annoying.
I didn't really run into the "pay for more access" nonsense, though I certainly hated that sort of stuff about Brew, too.
But once you've been stuck jumping over all those hurdles, you never want to deal with it again.
A smart company, designing a platform, should put third party developers above everything.
Making your platform easy to develop for should always take precedence over anything else, no matter how much temptation it is to try and nickel and dime developers in order to farm cash flow out of them.
The more hurdles you put up, the less chance your OS will compete in the application market, and that generates the demand that makes the carriers interested in putting your OS on their phones.
I can think of a number of OS's offhand that greatly outlived their lifetime expectations simply because they're easy to develop for and the toolchain is flexible (and free).
I have Symbian development on my resume...even though it's obviously been 5 years since I did it seriously, I still get headhunters contacting me non-stop from all over the place simply because, and no offense if someone reading this does like Symbian development, it's a big time headache to deal with.
Making it open source isn't going to save it.
There are too many far better mobile options out there already.
webOS, Android, and Moblin are already built on open source, reasonably standardized platforms.
There are more on the way.
No one is going to want to fight with Symbian weirdness and 1990's style C++ when they could be doing AJAX on webOS or Java on Android.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854881</id>
	<title>Re:Is this in time to actually matter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256417520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Symbian is still the largest deployed mobile OS in the world - and by that I mean that Nokia's sales of smart phone software is greater than all of the other smart providers combined - RIM, Apple etc.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Fixing to eat Symbian's lunch</p></div><p>Yeah right!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Symbian is still the largest deployed mobile OS in the world - and by that I mean that Nokia 's sales of smart phone software is greater than all of the other smart providers combined - RIM , Apple etc.Fixing to eat Symbian 's lunchYeah right !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Symbian is still the largest deployed mobile OS in the world - and by that I mean that Nokia's sales of smart phone software is greater than all of the other smart providers combined - RIM, Apple etc.Fixing to eat Symbian's lunchYeah right!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855547</id>
	<title>Re:Maemo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256388300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Many people don't equate [adventure, new] with [proven, stable].</p></div><p>As the owner of an N73. Allow me to say: HAHA!<br>
&nbsp; <br>Though I see your point and it's very valid, it doesn't really apply to Symbian. I have learned to hate it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many people do n't equate [ adventure , new ] with [ proven , stable ] .As the owner of an N73 .
Allow me to say : HAHA !
  Though I see your point and it 's very valid , it does n't really apply to Symbian .
I have learned to hate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many people don't equate [adventure, new] with [proven, stable].As the owner of an N73.
Allow me to say: HAHA!
  Though I see your point and it's very valid, it doesn't really apply to Symbian.
I have learned to hate it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29875549</id>
	<title>Re:Symbian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256586720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In other words, standard FAT file path conventions. The most used file system in the world. As used by about 90\% of people's desktop computers.</p></div></blockquote><p>That doesn't make it good.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , standard FAT file path conventions .
The most used file system in the world .
As used by about 90 \ % of people 's desktop computers.That does n't make it good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, standard FAT file path conventions.
The most used file system in the world.
As used by about 90\% of people's desktop computers.That doesn't make it good.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854721</id>
	<title>Symbian</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1256327400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever look at a system and think to yourself, "every time the developers had a choice in designing this thing, they chose the wrong option"? I can think of <a href="http://php.net/" title="php.net" rel="nofollow">a couple</a> [php.net]. Symbian is definitely in that class. It has: </p><ul> <li>Drive letters. Enough said.</li><li>Backslashes as directory separators</li><li>Pervasive DRM, with code signing and a pay-us-to-access-more-OS-features capability model</li><li>A bizarre and perplexing C++ API based on manual exception management, with too many kinds of string class to count</li><li>"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active\_object\_(Symbian\_OS)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Active objects</a> [wikipedia.org]"</li><li>Non-POSIX filesystem semantics</li><li>A microkernel architecture for devices least able to afford the overhead</li><li>Very strange application deployment consisting of several disparate directories with magical names</li></ul><p>All in all, the sooner Symbian dies, the better off I am. I might have been slightly kinder if they hadn't tried to prevent my running my own code on my own machine. No, I'm never getting another Symbian device.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever look at a system and think to yourself , " every time the developers had a choice in designing this thing , they chose the wrong option " ?
I can think of a couple [ php.net ] .
Symbian is definitely in that class .
It has : Drive letters .
Enough said.Backslashes as directory separatorsPervasive DRM , with code signing and a pay-us-to-access-more-OS-features capability modelA bizarre and perplexing C + + API based on manual exception management , with too many kinds of string class to count " Active objects [ wikipedia.org ] " Non-POSIX filesystem semanticsA microkernel architecture for devices least able to afford the overheadVery strange application deployment consisting of several disparate directories with magical namesAll in all , the sooner Symbian dies , the better off I am .
I might have been slightly kinder if they had n't tried to prevent my running my own code on my own machine .
No , I 'm never getting another Symbian device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever look at a system and think to yourself, "every time the developers had a choice in designing this thing, they chose the wrong option"?
I can think of a couple [php.net].
Symbian is definitely in that class.
It has:  Drive letters.
Enough said.Backslashes as directory separatorsPervasive DRM, with code signing and a pay-us-to-access-more-OS-features capability modelA bizarre and perplexing C++ API based on manual exception management, with too many kinds of string class to count"Active objects [wikipedia.org]"Non-POSIX filesystem semanticsA microkernel architecture for devices least able to afford the overheadVery strange application deployment consisting of several disparate directories with magical namesAll in all, the sooner Symbian dies, the better off I am.
I might have been slightly kinder if they hadn't tried to prevent my running my own code on my own machine.
No, I'm never getting another Symbian device.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854685</id>
	<title>Oh, SyMbian...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256326560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn, at first I thought it was the *Sybian* microkernel... now THAT would be a fun kernel to hack...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn , at first I thought it was the * Sybian * microkernel... now THAT would be a fun kernel to hack.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn, at first I thought it was the *Sybian* microkernel... now THAT would be a fun kernel to hack...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855491</id>
	<title>Re:Symbian</title>
	<author>BasilBrush</author>
	<datestamp>1256387580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Drive letters. Enough said.<br>Backslashes as directory separators<br>Non-POSIX filesystem semantics</p></div></blockquote><p>In other words, standard FAT file path conventions. The most used file system in the world. As used by about 90\% of people's desktop computers.</p><blockquote><div><p>Pervasive DRM, with code signing and a pay-us-to-access-more-OS-features capability model</p></div></blockquote><p>Doing what your customers ask and pay you for is never a bad decision for development. SymbianOS customers being handset manufacturers.</p><blockquote><div><p>A bizarre and perplexing C++ API based on manual exception management, with too many kinds of string class to count</p></div></blockquote><p>Symbian exceptions predated the introduction of exceptions to C++. So it wasn;t a choice not to go with the standard, rather that Symbian was a pioneer. Symbian does have several descriptor classes, and that is confusing. But they are there for reasons of memory efficiency on what were devices with tiny memories. Properly written Symbian code will do string storage and manipulation with less memory than any other API I know.</p><blockquote><div><p>"Active objects"</p></div></blockquote><p>Again, pioneering stuff. The responsiveness of multi-threaded applications without the overhead of multi-threading.</p><blockquote><div><p>A microkernel architecture for devices least able to afford the overhead</p></div></blockquote><p>Symbian was originally written for a device with 16Mhz ARM chip. If a microkernal was OK for that, it's OK for the far more beefy specs of today's smartphones. The problem isn't with the reality of Symbian OS, it's with your entirely imagined notion of what the requirements of a microkernel are. It's a microkernel chiefly because embedded devices such as phones have to run reliably for long period of time. That's more important than marginal speed differences.</p><blockquote><div><p>Very strange application deployment consisting of several disparate directories with magical names</p></div></blockquote><p>Strange = different from what you're used to.</p><p>You  complaints are a mixture of not knowing the perfectly sound reasons for engineering design decisions, and your arbitrary view that Unix is the one true way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Drive letters .
Enough said.Backslashes as directory separatorsNon-POSIX filesystem semanticsIn other words , standard FAT file path conventions .
The most used file system in the world .
As used by about 90 \ % of people 's desktop computers.Pervasive DRM , with code signing and a pay-us-to-access-more-OS-features capability modelDoing what your customers ask and pay you for is never a bad decision for development .
SymbianOS customers being handset manufacturers.A bizarre and perplexing C + + API based on manual exception management , with too many kinds of string class to countSymbian exceptions predated the introduction of exceptions to C + + .
So it wasn ; t a choice not to go with the standard , rather that Symbian was a pioneer .
Symbian does have several descriptor classes , and that is confusing .
But they are there for reasons of memory efficiency on what were devices with tiny memories .
Properly written Symbian code will do string storage and manipulation with less memory than any other API I know .
" Active objects " Again , pioneering stuff .
The responsiveness of multi-threaded applications without the overhead of multi-threading.A microkernel architecture for devices least able to afford the overheadSymbian was originally written for a device with 16Mhz ARM chip .
If a microkernal was OK for that , it 's OK for the far more beefy specs of today 's smartphones .
The problem is n't with the reality of Symbian OS , it 's with your entirely imagined notion of what the requirements of a microkernel are .
It 's a microkernel chiefly because embedded devices such as phones have to run reliably for long period of time .
That 's more important than marginal speed differences.Very strange application deployment consisting of several disparate directories with magical namesStrange = different from what you 're used to.You complaints are a mixture of not knowing the perfectly sound reasons for engineering design decisions , and your arbitrary view that Unix is the one true way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Drive letters.
Enough said.Backslashes as directory separatorsNon-POSIX filesystem semanticsIn other words, standard FAT file path conventions.
The most used file system in the world.
As used by about 90\% of people's desktop computers.Pervasive DRM, with code signing and a pay-us-to-access-more-OS-features capability modelDoing what your customers ask and pay you for is never a bad decision for development.
SymbianOS customers being handset manufacturers.A bizarre and perplexing C++ API based on manual exception management, with too many kinds of string class to countSymbian exceptions predated the introduction of exceptions to C++.
So it wasn;t a choice not to go with the standard, rather that Symbian was a pioneer.
Symbian does have several descriptor classes, and that is confusing.
But they are there for reasons of memory efficiency on what were devices with tiny memories.
Properly written Symbian code will do string storage and manipulation with less memory than any other API I know.
"Active objects"Again, pioneering stuff.
The responsiveness of multi-threaded applications without the overhead of multi-threading.A microkernel architecture for devices least able to afford the overheadSymbian was originally written for a device with 16Mhz ARM chip.
If a microkernal was OK for that, it's OK for the far more beefy specs of today's smartphones.
The problem isn't with the reality of Symbian OS, it's with your entirely imagined notion of what the requirements of a microkernel are.
It's a microkernel chiefly because embedded devices such as phones have to run reliably for long period of time.
That's more important than marginal speed differences.Very strange application deployment consisting of several disparate directories with magical namesStrange = different from what you're used to.You  complaints are a mixture of not knowing the perfectly sound reasons for engineering design decisions, and your arbitrary view that Unix is the one true way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29856081</id>
	<title>"dumbphones"</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1256394240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope this gets ported to other dumbphones because some of the OSes out there (looks at sony ericson) really suck, I suppose jailbreaking a dumbphone will be tricky (especially when i could just buy a nokia), but if it means I don't lose all my text messages once a month it'll be worth it (for me)!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope this gets ported to other dumbphones because some of the OSes out there ( looks at sony ericson ) really suck , I suppose jailbreaking a dumbphone will be tricky ( especially when i could just buy a nokia ) , but if it means I do n't lose all my text messages once a month it 'll be worth it ( for me ) !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope this gets ported to other dumbphones because some of the OSes out there (looks at sony ericson) really suck, I suppose jailbreaking a dumbphone will be tricky (especially when i could just buy a nokia), but if it means I don't lose all my text messages once a month it'll be worth it (for me)!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855443</id>
	<title>Re:Is this in time to actually matter?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256386620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Android is currently a bit player.  The market share in the Smartphone market currently looks something like this (figures from a couple of months ago):
<ul>
<li>76\% Symbian.</li>
<li>13\% iPhone.</li>
<li>9\% Whatever Blackberries run.</li>
<li>2\% Everybody else.</li>
</ul><p>
WebOS and Android are in that 2\%.  Symbian only really matters in the smartphone market in the same way that Windows matters in the desktop market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Android is currently a bit player .
The market share in the Smartphone market currently looks something like this ( figures from a couple of months ago ) : 76 \ % Symbian .
13 \ % iPhone .
9 \ % Whatever Blackberries run .
2 \ % Everybody else .
WebOS and Android are in that 2 \ % .
Symbian only really matters in the smartphone market in the same way that Windows matters in the desktop market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Android is currently a bit player.
The market share in the Smartphone market currently looks something like this (figures from a couple of months ago):

76\% Symbian.
13\% iPhone.
9\% Whatever Blackberries run.
2\% Everybody else.
WebOS and Android are in that 2\%.
Symbian only really matters in the smartphone market in the same way that Windows matters in the desktop market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29871387</id>
	<title>Re:Symbian's Kernel has it where it counts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256566380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Symbian's reliable? I find it crashing on my previous phones often.</p><p>On the other hand, I find Android and Apple's iPhone OS to be far more stable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Symbian 's reliable ?
I find it crashing on my previous phones often.On the other hand , I find Android and Apple 's iPhone OS to be far more stable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Symbian's reliable?
I find it crashing on my previous phones often.On the other hand, I find Android and Apple's iPhone OS to be far more stable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855257</id>
	<title>Re:Symbian</title>
	<author>AceJohnny</author>
	<datestamp>1256383380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Drive letters. Enough said.<br>Backslashes as directory separators<br>(...)<br>Non-POSIX filesystem semantics</p></div></blockquote><p>So what you're complaining about is that Symbian is not Unix?</p><blockquote><div><p>Very strange application deployment consisting of several disparate directories with magical names</p></div></blockquote><p>As opposed to Unix?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Drive letters .
Enough said.Backslashes as directory separators ( ... ) Non-POSIX filesystem semanticsSo what you 're complaining about is that Symbian is not Unix ? Very strange application deployment consisting of several disparate directories with magical namesAs opposed to Unix ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Drive letters.
Enough said.Backslashes as directory separators(...)Non-POSIX filesystem semanticsSo what you're complaining about is that Symbian is not Unix?Very strange application deployment consisting of several disparate directories with magical namesAs opposed to Unix?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855373</id>
	<title>mWod 0p</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256385420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">claim that BSD is a Let's keep to blue, ruuber Transfer, Netscape world's Gay Nigger (7000+1400+700)*4 do, and with any documents like a</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>claim that BSD is a Let 's keep to blue , ruuber Transfer , Netscape world 's Gay Nigger ( 7000 + 1400 + 700 ) * 4 do , and with any documents like a [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>claim that BSD is a Let's keep to blue, ruuber Transfer, Netscape world's Gay Nigger (7000+1400+700)*4 do, and with any documents like a [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855327</id>
	<title>blog blog blog</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256384640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One blog that links to another blog and nobody links to code.  Where can I get this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One blog that links to another blog and nobody links to code .
Where can I get this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One blog that links to another blog and nobody links to code.
Where can I get this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854949</id>
	<title>Re:Maemo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256376600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Symbian is neither.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Symbian is neither .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Symbian is neither.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29876507</id>
	<title>Re:Symbian</title>
	<author>spitzak</author>
	<datestamp>1256548140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In other words, standard FAT file path conventions. The most used file system in the world. As used by about 90\% of people's desktop computers.</i></p><p>Um, "FAT file path conventions" means 8.3 filenames and no slashes at all, and restricted to a very small set of ASCII characters. Not even Windows has used this in a long time. I think you are maybe talking about "MSDOS conventions".</p><p>Windows accepts both forward and backward slashes in filenames and treats them equivalently. Backslash is used as an escape character in many programming languages and for this reason alone they have to support an alternative. I'm guessing Symbian does as well but I don't know.</p><p>Drive letters *should* have been eliminated by a similar way backslashes were. My suggestion is that "/A/" should have meant the same as "A:/". Then readdir("/") could have returned all the disks, and we would still have a single interface to list directories even when they added networking, something Unix has had for decades. But Microsoft was too stupid to fix this in MSDOS 2 and later seemed to have turned completely hostile to Unix compatibility even when it was braindead obvious it would improve their platform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , standard FAT file path conventions .
The most used file system in the world .
As used by about 90 \ % of people 's desktop computers.Um , " FAT file path conventions " means 8.3 filenames and no slashes at all , and restricted to a very small set of ASCII characters .
Not even Windows has used this in a long time .
I think you are maybe talking about " MSDOS conventions " .Windows accepts both forward and backward slashes in filenames and treats them equivalently .
Backslash is used as an escape character in many programming languages and for this reason alone they have to support an alternative .
I 'm guessing Symbian does as well but I do n't know.Drive letters * should * have been eliminated by a similar way backslashes were .
My suggestion is that " /A/ " should have meant the same as " A : / " .
Then readdir ( " / " ) could have returned all the disks , and we would still have a single interface to list directories even when they added networking , something Unix has had for decades .
But Microsoft was too stupid to fix this in MSDOS 2 and later seemed to have turned completely hostile to Unix compatibility even when it was braindead obvious it would improve their platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, standard FAT file path conventions.
The most used file system in the world.
As used by about 90\% of people's desktop computers.Um, "FAT file path conventions" means 8.3 filenames and no slashes at all, and restricted to a very small set of ASCII characters.
Not even Windows has used this in a long time.
I think you are maybe talking about "MSDOS conventions".Windows accepts both forward and backward slashes in filenames and treats them equivalently.
Backslash is used as an escape character in many programming languages and for this reason alone they have to support an alternative.
I'm guessing Symbian does as well but I don't know.Drive letters *should* have been eliminated by a similar way backslashes were.
My suggestion is that "/A/" should have meant the same as "A:/".
Then readdir("/") could have returned all the disks, and we would still have a single interface to list directories even when they added networking, something Unix has had for decades.
But Microsoft was too stupid to fix this in MSDOS 2 and later seemed to have turned completely hostile to Unix compatibility even when it was braindead obvious it would improve their platform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854613</id>
	<title>Maemo</title>
	<author>tsa</author>
	<datestamp>1256325660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But why would people want to develop software for Symbian now that there is Maemo? Maemo is much more of an adventure because it's new.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But why would people want to develop software for Symbian now that there is Maemo ?
Maemo is much more of an adventure because it 's new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But why would people want to develop software for Symbian now that there is Maemo?
Maemo is much more of an adventure because it's new.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854761</id>
	<title>Is this in time to actually matter?</title>
	<author>Shag</author>
	<datestamp>1256414400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WebOS, Android and iPhone OS look to be fixin' to eat Symbian's lunch... will open-sourcing things make a difference?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WebOS , Android and iPhone OS look to be fixin ' to eat Symbian 's lunch... will open-sourcing things make a difference ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WebOS, Android and iPhone OS look to be fixin' to eat Symbian's lunch... will open-sourcing things make a difference?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855183</id>
	<title>Re:Symbian</title>
	<author>EvilNTUser</author>
	<datestamp>1256382360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once again, you get what you pay for.  The guy above you probably bought his phone on credit through a network operator, and blames the platform for his own failure to buy an uncrippled device.</p><p>Mind you, I think the security model changed after the N95.  Now you have to self-sign your code, but whatever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again , you get what you pay for .
The guy above you probably bought his phone on credit through a network operator , and blames the platform for his own failure to buy an uncrippled device.Mind you , I think the security model changed after the N95 .
Now you have to self-sign your code , but whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again, you get what you pay for.
The guy above you probably bought his phone on credit through a network operator, and blames the platform for his own failure to buy an uncrippled device.Mind you, I think the security model changed after the N95.
Now you have to self-sign your code, but whatever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854879</id>
	<title>Re:Maemo (QT)</title>
	<author>GNious</author>
	<datestamp>1256417460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I understand correctly, developing for Maemo or Symbian doesn't exclude developing for the other platform - QT should exist on both platforms soon, allowing you to target both fairly trivially.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/G</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I understand correctly , developing for Maemo or Symbian does n't exclude developing for the other platform - QT should exist on both platforms soon , allowing you to target both fairly trivially .
/G</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I understand correctly, developing for Maemo or Symbian doesn't exclude developing for the other platform - QT should exist on both platforms soon, allowing you to target both fairly trivially.
/G</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29857931</id>
	<title>Re:Symbian</title>
	<author>npsimons</author>
	<datestamp>1256409780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>Drive letters. Enough said.<br>Backslashes as directory separators<br>Non-POSIX filesystem semantics</p></div></blockquote><p>In other words, standard FAT file path conventions. The most used file system in the world. As used by about 90\% of people's desktop computers.</p></div></blockquote><p>Damn, I'm out of mod points, otherwise I'd have modded you troll and moved on.  Suffice to say, the idiocy of this first line alone is all I'm willing to deal with, so I will attempt to enlighten you, then move on.</p><p>Do you even know WTF you're talking about?  Have you ever actually *written* any software that opens files?  I mean, yeah, FAT is very widespread, used everywhere.  But last I checked, none of Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, VxWorks or MacOSX (to name just a few OSes that have FATFS support) have drive letters or backslashes as directory separators.  They also all support POSIX file semantics, even on FATFS.  Drive letters, backslashes and non-POSIX filesystem semantics are *NOT* FAT file path conventions.  To anyone who has ever even dabbled in system administration or programming on systems that have these "features" it is obvious what they are: bad design decisions that are only being held onto because of backwards compatibility.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Drive letters .
Enough said.Backslashes as directory separatorsNon-POSIX filesystem semanticsIn other words , standard FAT file path conventions .
The most used file system in the world .
As used by about 90 \ % of people 's desktop computers.Damn , I 'm out of mod points , otherwise I 'd have modded you troll and moved on .
Suffice to say , the idiocy of this first line alone is all I 'm willing to deal with , so I will attempt to enlighten you , then move on.Do you even know WTF you 're talking about ?
Have you ever actually * written * any software that opens files ?
I mean , yeah , FAT is very widespread , used everywhere .
But last I checked , none of Linux , FreeBSD , NetBSD , OpenBSD , VxWorks or MacOSX ( to name just a few OSes that have FATFS support ) have drive letters or backslashes as directory separators .
They also all support POSIX file semantics , even on FATFS .
Drive letters , backslashes and non-POSIX filesystem semantics are * NOT * FAT file path conventions .
To anyone who has ever even dabbled in system administration or programming on systems that have these " features " it is obvious what they are : bad design decisions that are only being held onto because of backwards compatibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Drive letters.
Enough said.Backslashes as directory separatorsNon-POSIX filesystem semanticsIn other words, standard FAT file path conventions.
The most used file system in the world.
As used by about 90\% of people's desktop computers.Damn, I'm out of mod points, otherwise I'd have modded you troll and moved on.
Suffice to say, the idiocy of this first line alone is all I'm willing to deal with, so I will attempt to enlighten you, then move on.Do you even know WTF you're talking about?
Have you ever actually *written* any software that opens files?
I mean, yeah, FAT is very widespread, used everywhere.
But last I checked, none of Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, VxWorks or MacOSX (to name just a few OSes that have FATFS support) have drive letters or backslashes as directory separators.
They also all support POSIX file semantics, even on FATFS.
Drive letters, backslashes and non-POSIX filesystem semantics are *NOT* FAT file path conventions.
To anyone who has ever even dabbled in system administration or programming on systems that have these "features" it is obvious what they are: bad design decisions that are only being held onto because of backwards compatibility.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854891</id>
	<title>Symbian's Kernel has it where it counts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256417940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am biased because I worked for Symbian and now Nokia.  What I say is entirely my personal opinion.</p><p>There's a lot to be dissatisfied with in Symbian but the kernel is good.  It works on a lot of different hardware and is very economical with power.  It's also extremely reliable.  For all that it is a microkernel-based OS, it needs very little in the way of hardware   It isn't like Linux or Darwin because they were originally made under the assumption of all sorts of nice things like having a power socket all the time.  They catch up but they aren't there yet.</p><p>It's also written in pretty simple C++ without  the warts that the user-side APIs.  Since the user-side stuff is being supplanted by QT and the STL I think that there is hope there.  It's also getting some fairly serious SMP support which is well suited to the mobile world (having more less powerful CPUs is good for power consumption if you can switch them on and off).</p><p>I work on another thing that's about to be open sourced and I must be a good boy and wait for the SEE next week (what used to be the Smartphone show) before talking about it.  But  a lot is being done and by people who are just as unhappy or more so about the status quo.</p><p>It will be interesting to see how other OSes fare when they try to tackle the problems associated with scale and numbers of different models.</p><p>BTW, I use Linux on my desktop and I am a big fan of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am biased because I worked for Symbian and now Nokia .
What I say is entirely my personal opinion.There 's a lot to be dissatisfied with in Symbian but the kernel is good .
It works on a lot of different hardware and is very economical with power .
It 's also extremely reliable .
For all that it is a microkernel-based OS , it needs very little in the way of hardware It is n't like Linux or Darwin because they were originally made under the assumption of all sorts of nice things like having a power socket all the time .
They catch up but they are n't there yet.It 's also written in pretty simple C + + without the warts that the user-side APIs .
Since the user-side stuff is being supplanted by QT and the STL I think that there is hope there .
It 's also getting some fairly serious SMP support which is well suited to the mobile world ( having more less powerful CPUs is good for power consumption if you can switch them on and off ) .I work on another thing that 's about to be open sourced and I must be a good boy and wait for the SEE next week ( what used to be the Smartphone show ) before talking about it .
But a lot is being done and by people who are just as unhappy or more so about the status quo.It will be interesting to see how other OSes fare when they try to tackle the problems associated with scale and numbers of different models.BTW , I use Linux on my desktop and I am a big fan of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am biased because I worked for Symbian and now Nokia.
What I say is entirely my personal opinion.There's a lot to be dissatisfied with in Symbian but the kernel is good.
It works on a lot of different hardware and is very economical with power.
It's also extremely reliable.
For all that it is a microkernel-based OS, it needs very little in the way of hardware   It isn't like Linux or Darwin because they were originally made under the assumption of all sorts of nice things like having a power socket all the time.
They catch up but they aren't there yet.It's also written in pretty simple C++ without  the warts that the user-side APIs.
Since the user-side stuff is being supplanted by QT and the STL I think that there is hope there.
It's also getting some fairly serious SMP support which is well suited to the mobile world (having more less powerful CPUs is good for power consumption if you can switch them on and off).I work on another thing that's about to be open sourced and I must be a good boy and wait for the SEE next week (what used to be the Smartphone show) before talking about it.
But  a lot is being done and by people who are just as unhappy or more so about the status quo.It will be interesting to see how other OSes fare when they try to tackle the problems associated with scale and numbers of different models.BTW, I use Linux on my desktop and I am a big fan of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29864137</id>
	<title>Re:Symbian</title>
	<author>Calyth</author>
	<datestamp>1256481720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The rest of your reply after 0.25\% doesn't really apply because this is a phone, using an ARM chip that doesn't provide nearly comparable power to a desktop.</p><p>As an previous end user of a Symbian phone, the phone was slow. It started up programs slowly, it handled task switching slowly. That's the part that matters to the end user, not stats and arguments made with the modern desktop hardware in mind.</p><p>And this is part of the reason why I stopped using my Nokia N82. The other part was that it crashed so damn often when I'm using gmail and opera. To add insult to injury, microkernels are suppose to allow more graceful crashes of kernel level components.When gmail / opera crash, it's white screen, and the only input that it would take would be to power off, and then to power on. So where's the microkernel advantage here? Clearly something was wrong with the network code, otherwise it wouldn't have crashed like that. But I don't exactly call a pure white screen with no options but to power-cycle "graceful handling of crashes".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The rest of your reply after 0.25 \ % does n't really apply because this is a phone , using an ARM chip that does n't provide nearly comparable power to a desktop.As an previous end user of a Symbian phone , the phone was slow .
It started up programs slowly , it handled task switching slowly .
That 's the part that matters to the end user , not stats and arguments made with the modern desktop hardware in mind.And this is part of the reason why I stopped using my Nokia N82 .
The other part was that it crashed so damn often when I 'm using gmail and opera .
To add insult to injury , microkernels are suppose to allow more graceful crashes of kernel level components.When gmail / opera crash , it 's white screen , and the only input that it would take would be to power off , and then to power on .
So where 's the microkernel advantage here ?
Clearly something was wrong with the network code , otherwise it would n't have crashed like that .
But I do n't exactly call a pure white screen with no options but to power-cycle " graceful handling of crashes " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rest of your reply after 0.25\% doesn't really apply because this is a phone, using an ARM chip that doesn't provide nearly comparable power to a desktop.As an previous end user of a Symbian phone, the phone was slow.
It started up programs slowly, it handled task switching slowly.
That's the part that matters to the end user, not stats and arguments made with the modern desktop hardware in mind.And this is part of the reason why I stopped using my Nokia N82.
The other part was that it crashed so damn often when I'm using gmail and opera.
To add insult to injury, microkernels are suppose to allow more graceful crashes of kernel level components.When gmail / opera crash, it's white screen, and the only input that it would take would be to power off, and then to power on.
So where's the microkernel advantage here?
Clearly something was wrong with the network code, otherwise it wouldn't have crashed like that.
But I don't exactly call a pure white screen with no options but to power-cycle "graceful handling of crashes".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854911</id>
	<title>Re:Symbian</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1256375040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>``A microkernel architecture for devices least able to afford the overhead''

What overhead? The way I understand it, the overhead typically associated with microkernels comes two sources: overhead incurred when transferring control across process boundaries and inefficiency of the implementation. Inefficiency of the implementation (e.g. using a complex message-passing system that consumes many CPU cycles) is a problem, but it's not intrinsic to microkernels. Overhead incurred when transferring control across process boundaries depends on many factors, such as what your OS's idea of "process" is, how this is mapped to the constructs provided by the hardware, and how efficient the hardware implementation is.

Long story short, implementing processes as tasks on x86 hardware and using the MMU to separate processes' address spaces is very inefficient. An implementation on an MMU-less system with an ARM CPU and all processes in the same address space would not be nearly as inefficient.

In fact, on an ARM CPU, even with an MMU and processes in separate address spaces, one study (<a href="http://www.usenix.org/events/expcs07/papers/3-david.pdf" title="usenix.org">PDF</a> [usenix.org]) has measured the context switching overhead of Linux to be <em>up to</em> 0.25\%. If Linux can do that, a microkernel can, too. Now, I don't know about you, but 0.25\% isn't enough to keep me awake with worry all night.

All in all, I think the reputation that microkernels have for introducing a lot of overhead is simply due to inefficient implementations on inefficient hardware. I also wonder how much kernel efficiency still matters these days; it seems that most programs seem to fall in one of 3 categories: 1) mostly sitting idle waiting for input (user input, disk reads, memory access) 2) bound mostly by the speed of the graphics card 3) spending most of their CPU cycles in their own code or libraries. System call overhead has little impact on these programs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` A microkernel architecture for devices least able to afford the overhead' ' What overhead ?
The way I understand it , the overhead typically associated with microkernels comes two sources : overhead incurred when transferring control across process boundaries and inefficiency of the implementation .
Inefficiency of the implementation ( e.g .
using a complex message-passing system that consumes many CPU cycles ) is a problem , but it 's not intrinsic to microkernels .
Overhead incurred when transferring control across process boundaries depends on many factors , such as what your OS 's idea of " process " is , how this is mapped to the constructs provided by the hardware , and how efficient the hardware implementation is .
Long story short , implementing processes as tasks on x86 hardware and using the MMU to separate processes ' address spaces is very inefficient .
An implementation on an MMU-less system with an ARM CPU and all processes in the same address space would not be nearly as inefficient .
In fact , on an ARM CPU , even with an MMU and processes in separate address spaces , one study ( PDF [ usenix.org ] ) has measured the context switching overhead of Linux to be up to 0.25 \ % .
If Linux can do that , a microkernel can , too .
Now , I do n't know about you , but 0.25 \ % is n't enough to keep me awake with worry all night .
All in all , I think the reputation that microkernels have for introducing a lot of overhead is simply due to inefficient implementations on inefficient hardware .
I also wonder how much kernel efficiency still matters these days ; it seems that most programs seem to fall in one of 3 categories : 1 ) mostly sitting idle waiting for input ( user input , disk reads , memory access ) 2 ) bound mostly by the speed of the graphics card 3 ) spending most of their CPU cycles in their own code or libraries .
System call overhead has little impact on these programs .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``A microkernel architecture for devices least able to afford the overhead''

What overhead?
The way I understand it, the overhead typically associated with microkernels comes two sources: overhead incurred when transferring control across process boundaries and inefficiency of the implementation.
Inefficiency of the implementation (e.g.
using a complex message-passing system that consumes many CPU cycles) is a problem, but it's not intrinsic to microkernels.
Overhead incurred when transferring control across process boundaries depends on many factors, such as what your OS's idea of "process" is, how this is mapped to the constructs provided by the hardware, and how efficient the hardware implementation is.
Long story short, implementing processes as tasks on x86 hardware and using the MMU to separate processes' address spaces is very inefficient.
An implementation on an MMU-less system with an ARM CPU and all processes in the same address space would not be nearly as inefficient.
In fact, on an ARM CPU, even with an MMU and processes in separate address spaces, one study (PDF [usenix.org]) has measured the context switching overhead of Linux to be up to 0.25\%.
If Linux can do that, a microkernel can, too.
Now, I don't know about you, but 0.25\% isn't enough to keep me awake with worry all night.
All in all, I think the reputation that microkernels have for introducing a lot of overhead is simply due to inefficient implementations on inefficient hardware.
I also wonder how much kernel efficiency still matters these days; it seems that most programs seem to fall in one of 3 categories: 1) mostly sitting idle waiting for input (user input, disk reads, memory access) 2) bound mostly by the speed of the graphics card 3) spending most of their CPU cycles in their own code or libraries.
System call overhead has little impact on these programs ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29865911</id>
	<title>Re:SYMBIAN is DYING Open Sores CONFIRMS IT !!</title>
	<author>edivad</author>
	<datestamp>1256497800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed!
Symbian is dying, although Nokia will likely try to extend its life untill they get rid of all the Symbian legacy (people, and technology) they still have inside.
And, the $1500 for the Symbian Foundation membership is not exactly the definition of Open Source.
Bottom line, look elsewhere. iPhone, Android, Linux, WM (yeah, even that), whatever it is, it's smarter than choosing Symbian in 2009.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed !
Symbian is dying , although Nokia will likely try to extend its life untill they get rid of all the Symbian legacy ( people , and technology ) they still have inside .
And , the $ 1500 for the Symbian Foundation membership is not exactly the definition of Open Source .
Bottom line , look elsewhere .
iPhone , Android , Linux , WM ( yeah , even that ) , whatever it is , it 's smarter than choosing Symbian in 2009 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed!
Symbian is dying, although Nokia will likely try to extend its life untill they get rid of all the Symbian legacy (people, and technology) they still have inside.
And, the $1500 for the Symbian Foundation membership is not exactly the definition of Open Source.
Bottom line, look elsewhere.
iPhone, Android, Linux, WM (yeah, even that), whatever it is, it's smarter than choosing Symbian in 2009.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29856291</id>
	<title>Re:Symbian</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1256396040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A smart company, designing a platform, should put third party developers above everything. Making your platform easy to develop for should always take precedence over anything else</p></div><p>Then how do companies like Nintendo get away with <a href="http://www.warioworld.com/apply/" title="warioworld.com">flatly banning people who work from home and people working on their first title from the platform</a> [warioworld.com]?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>No one is going to want to fight with Symbian weirdness and 1990's style C++ when they could be doing AJAX on webOS or Java on Android.</p></div><p>Unless a developer wants to reach the millions of potential customers who already use a Symbian based phone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A smart company , designing a platform , should put third party developers above everything .
Making your platform easy to develop for should always take precedence over anything elseThen how do companies like Nintendo get away with flatly banning people who work from home and people working on their first title from the platform [ warioworld.com ] ? No one is going to want to fight with Symbian weirdness and 1990 's style C + + when they could be doing AJAX on webOS or Java on Android.Unless a developer wants to reach the millions of potential customers who already use a Symbian based phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A smart company, designing a platform, should put third party developers above everything.
Making your platform easy to develop for should always take precedence over anything elseThen how do companies like Nintendo get away with flatly banning people who work from home and people working on their first title from the platform [warioworld.com]?No one is going to want to fight with Symbian weirdness and 1990's style C++ when they could be doing AJAX on webOS or Java on Android.Unless a developer wants to reach the millions of potential customers who already use a Symbian based phone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29858171</id>
	<title>Re:Symbian's Kernel has it where it counts</title>
	<author>bWareiWare.co.uk</author>
	<datestamp>1256411220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How, the Nokia Eclipse/GCC/Perl based toolchain doesn't work on Linux?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How , the Nokia Eclipse/GCC/Perl based toolchain does n't work on Linux ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How, the Nokia Eclipse/GCC/Perl based toolchain doesn't work on Linux?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29857281</id>
	<title>Re:Symbian</title>
	<author>Spy Handler</author>
	<datestamp>1256404860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You complaints are a mixture of not knowing the perfectly sound reasons for engineering design decisions, and your arbitrary view that Unix is the one true way.</p></div><p>In other words, the typical Slashdotter (just replace Unix with Linux)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You complaints are a mixture of not knowing the perfectly sound reasons for engineering design decisions , and your arbitrary view that Unix is the one true way.In other words , the typical Slashdotter ( just replace Unix with Linux )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You complaints are a mixture of not knowing the perfectly sound reasons for engineering design decisions, and your arbitrary view that Unix is the one true way.In other words, the typical Slashdotter (just replace Unix with Linux)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29856353</id>
	<title>Re:Market Share</title>
	<author>hercubus</author>
	<datestamp>1256396460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smartphone\_2009.svg" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">this handy pie chart</a> [wikipedia.org] will enlighten you.

Hint: Maemo is in the grey slice.</p></div><p>
Symbian phones belong in a "Not-that-smart-phone" category separate from the newer platforms.  Sure, it was a great platform and is still useful, but it's legacy.  We all know how newly-minted developers feel about legacy:  junk/cruft/bloat -- throw it all away and build something new!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this handy pie chart [ wikipedia.org ] will enlighten you .
Hint : Maemo is in the grey slice .
Symbian phones belong in a " Not-that-smart-phone " category separate from the newer platforms .
Sure , it was a great platform and is still useful , but it 's legacy .
We all know how newly-minted developers feel about legacy : junk/cruft/bloat -- throw it all away and build something new !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe this handy pie chart [wikipedia.org] will enlighten you.
Hint: Maemo is in the grey slice.
Symbian phones belong in a "Not-that-smart-phone" category separate from the newer platforms.
Sure, it was a great platform and is still useful, but it's legacy.
We all know how newly-minted developers feel about legacy:  junk/cruft/bloat -- throw it all away and build something new!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855181</id>
	<title>Hope it helps Symbian</title>
	<author>CdBee</author>
	<datestamp>1256382300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I recently bought a smartphone after only ever having semi-dumb java Sony Ericsson handsets, and after ages of looking for a relatively open system which supports full Bluetooth and Wifi and has a hardware keypad instead of a touchscreen , i settled on a Nokia N79 running Symbian S60.<br> <br>

The system might be outshadowed in the media by new Android stuff, iPhones and RIM/Blackberry's media presence, but its actually very good..   install apps directly, jump between diffrent connection types, do anything you like cos just about al the expected features are fully supported.... <br> <br>

I might have landed on Symbian by default rather than through choice, but its already impressed me, and another OSS option in the markets never a bad thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently bought a smartphone after only ever having semi-dumb java Sony Ericsson handsets , and after ages of looking for a relatively open system which supports full Bluetooth and Wifi and has a hardware keypad instead of a touchscreen , i settled on a Nokia N79 running Symbian S60 .
The system might be outshadowed in the media by new Android stuff , iPhones and RIM/Blackberry 's media presence , but its actually very good.. install apps directly , jump between diffrent connection types , do anything you like cos just about al the expected features are fully supported... . I might have landed on Symbian by default rather than through choice , but its already impressed me , and another OSS option in the markets never a bad thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently bought a smartphone after only ever having semi-dumb java Sony Ericsson handsets, and after ages of looking for a relatively open system which supports full Bluetooth and Wifi and has a hardware keypad instead of a touchscreen , i settled on a Nokia N79 running Symbian S60.
The system might be outshadowed in the media by new Android stuff, iPhones and RIM/Blackberry's media presence, but its actually very good..   install apps directly, jump between diffrent connection types, do anything you like cos just about al the expected features are fully supported....  

I might have landed on Symbian by default rather than through choice, but its already impressed me, and another OSS option in the markets never a bad thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855333</id>
	<title>Re:Maemo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256384760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But why would people want to develop software for Symbian now that there is Maemo? </p></div><p>Maemo's been out for years (N700, N800, N810, N810WIMAX) and nobody decided to develop anything of worth for it yet, why would they start now?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But why would people want to develop software for Symbian now that there is Maemo ?
Maemo 's been out for years ( N700 , N800 , N810 , N810WIMAX ) and nobody decided to develop anything of worth for it yet , why would they start now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But why would people want to develop software for Symbian now that there is Maemo?
Maemo's been out for years (N700, N800, N810, N810WIMAX) and nobody decided to develop anything of worth for it yet, why would they start now?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854667</id>
	<title>Re:Maemo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256326380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about because the hundred of millions of Symbian (uiq/s60/DoCoMo) devices are not going to disappear? Plus there is always a market for proven robust technologies such as this. Maemo will be important to Nokia but the bulk of sales will still be Symbian powered. There is even the possibility that S40 will be relegated to the rubbish bin and supplanted by whatever the Symbian Foundation releases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about because the hundred of millions of Symbian ( uiq/s60/DoCoMo ) devices are not going to disappear ?
Plus there is always a market for proven robust technologies such as this .
Maemo will be important to Nokia but the bulk of sales will still be Symbian powered .
There is even the possibility that S40 will be relegated to the rubbish bin and supplanted by whatever the Symbian Foundation releases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about because the hundred of millions of Symbian (uiq/s60/DoCoMo) devices are not going to disappear?
Plus there is always a market for proven robust technologies such as this.
Maemo will be important to Nokia but the bulk of sales will still be Symbian powered.
There is even the possibility that S40 will be relegated to the rubbish bin and supplanted by whatever the Symbian Foundation releases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29857137</id>
	<title>Re:Is this in time to actually matter?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1256403480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean, because Symbian is oh such a small player, with over 50\% market share? ^^<br>And because Nokia is not already doing a smooth fading from Symbian to Linux, taking the best of both, and making a mobile OS out of it, that beats everything else?<br>That's the reason they open-source Symbian stuff: So they can e.g. create compatibility layers between Symbian and Linux, while still never getting into trouble with the licenses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean , because Symbian is oh such a small player , with over 50 \ % market share ?
^ ^ And because Nokia is not already doing a smooth fading from Symbian to Linux , taking the best of both , and making a mobile OS out of it , that beats everything else ? That 's the reason they open-source Symbian stuff : So they can e.g .
create compatibility layers between Symbian and Linux , while still never getting into trouble with the licenses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean, because Symbian is oh such a small player, with over 50\% market share?
^^And because Nokia is not already doing a smooth fading from Symbian to Linux, taking the best of both, and making a mobile OS out of it, that beats everything else?That's the reason they open-source Symbian stuff: So they can e.g.
create compatibility layers between Symbian and Linux, while still never getting into trouble with the licenses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29869967</id>
	<title>Re:Market Share</title>
	<author>LostMyBeaver</author>
	<datestamp>1256547900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Symbian has a clear market domination in this chart, but it is important to also point out that of those 50\%, the percentage of people who ever even heard of Symbian is small, the percentage of those people who know what Symbian is, is even smaller. The percentage of people who feel comfortable purchasing anything through Ovi is tiny. The percentage of people who would buy a Symbian app vs. a Java one is minuscule.<br><br>On the other hand, Maemo suffers an entirely different problem and much of that is that the users are more likely to try to get their hands on open source or free apps made for the devices.<br><br>iPhone is the market most dominated by people willing to spend money on apps since Apple has done a fantastic job convincing everyone that everyone else is doing it and loving it.<br><br>Here's the BIGGEST reason by Symbian app development is nearly a waste of time. Too many phone models. Too many processors that may or may not be fast enough. Too many RAM configurations, Symbian phones often come with 4 megs or less RAM. Too many screen sizes. Too many input methods. Too many windowing toolkits that are incompatible since Symbian never really solidified the GUI ABI.<br><br>In short, iPhone which is one model a year and is more or less backwards compatible is a MUCH better solutions for app developers. Palm is likely to be the same. Don't know much about Blackberry. Don't think I've ever seen one. But I don't recall seeing too many different models.<br><br>Android on the other hand is an enigma since it suffers many of the same problems as Symbian and Windows Mobile, but there's hacker momentum behind it.<br><br>Nokia is a telephone platform for old ladies, and yes, Series 60 has pretty much replaced everything else at Nokia, so the old ladies are in fact buying "Smart Phones" without even knowing it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Symbian has a clear market domination in this chart , but it is important to also point out that of those 50 \ % , the percentage of people who ever even heard of Symbian is small , the percentage of those people who know what Symbian is , is even smaller .
The percentage of people who feel comfortable purchasing anything through Ovi is tiny .
The percentage of people who would buy a Symbian app vs. a Java one is minuscule.On the other hand , Maemo suffers an entirely different problem and much of that is that the users are more likely to try to get their hands on open source or free apps made for the devices.iPhone is the market most dominated by people willing to spend money on apps since Apple has done a fantastic job convincing everyone that everyone else is doing it and loving it.Here 's the BIGGEST reason by Symbian app development is nearly a waste of time .
Too many phone models .
Too many processors that may or may not be fast enough .
Too many RAM configurations , Symbian phones often come with 4 megs or less RAM .
Too many screen sizes .
Too many input methods .
Too many windowing toolkits that are incompatible since Symbian never really solidified the GUI ABI.In short , iPhone which is one model a year and is more or less backwards compatible is a MUCH better solutions for app developers .
Palm is likely to be the same .
Do n't know much about Blackberry .
Do n't think I 've ever seen one .
But I do n't recall seeing too many different models.Android on the other hand is an enigma since it suffers many of the same problems as Symbian and Windows Mobile , but there 's hacker momentum behind it.Nokia is a telephone platform for old ladies , and yes , Series 60 has pretty much replaced everything else at Nokia , so the old ladies are in fact buying " Smart Phones " without even knowing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Symbian has a clear market domination in this chart, but it is important to also point out that of those 50\%, the percentage of people who ever even heard of Symbian is small, the percentage of those people who know what Symbian is, is even smaller.
The percentage of people who feel comfortable purchasing anything through Ovi is tiny.
The percentage of people who would buy a Symbian app vs. a Java one is minuscule.On the other hand, Maemo suffers an entirely different problem and much of that is that the users are more likely to try to get their hands on open source or free apps made for the devices.iPhone is the market most dominated by people willing to spend money on apps since Apple has done a fantastic job convincing everyone that everyone else is doing it and loving it.Here's the BIGGEST reason by Symbian app development is nearly a waste of time.
Too many phone models.
Too many processors that may or may not be fast enough.
Too many RAM configurations, Symbian phones often come with 4 megs or less RAM.
Too many screen sizes.
Too many input methods.
Too many windowing toolkits that are incompatible since Symbian never really solidified the GUI ABI.In short, iPhone which is one model a year and is more or less backwards compatible is a MUCH better solutions for app developers.
Palm is likely to be the same.
Don't know much about Blackberry.
Don't think I've ever seen one.
But I don't recall seeing too many different models.Android on the other hand is an enigma since it suffers many of the same problems as Symbian and Windows Mobile, but there's hacker momentum behind it.Nokia is a telephone platform for old ladies, and yes, Series 60 has pretty much replaced everything else at Nokia, so the old ladies are in fact buying "Smart Phones" without even knowing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854657</id>
	<title>Re:Maemo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256326260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many people don't equate [adventure, new] with [proven, stable].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many people do n't equate [ adventure , new ] with [ proven , stable ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many people don't equate [adventure, new] with [proven, stable].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854931</id>
	<title>Re:Symbian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256375940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is any of your complaints more than cosmetic ? Hate backslashes, do you ? forward slashes are sooooo much trendier ^^</p><p>I'll give you the weird API, though QT should abstract most of that.Active Objects doesn't sound bad, on the contrary ? Did you confuse them with ActiveX, maybe ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is any of your complaints more than cosmetic ?
Hate backslashes , do you ?
forward slashes are sooooo much trendier ^ ^ I 'll give you the weird API , though QT should abstract most of that.Active Objects does n't sound bad , on the contrary ?
Did you confuse them with ActiveX , maybe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is any of your complaints more than cosmetic ?
Hate backslashes, do you ?
forward slashes are sooooo much trendier ^^I'll give you the weird API, though QT should abstract most of that.Active Objects doesn't sound bad, on the contrary ?
Did you confuse them with ActiveX, maybe ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29856933</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you, Android</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1256401980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Windows Mobile will either have to offer an extremely compelling experience, Apple-like, or will be FOSSed into oblivion ? I'm taking bets, but only one way ^^</p></div><p>Since you use the phrase "FOSSed into oblivion", I guessed which way. Do you also take bets on year of the Linux desktop? I smell easy money...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows Mobile will either have to offer an extremely compelling experience , Apple-like , or will be FOSSed into oblivion ?
I 'm taking bets , but only one way ^ ^ Since you use the phrase " FOSSed into oblivion " , I guessed which way .
Do you also take bets on year of the Linux desktop ?
I smell easy money.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows Mobile will either have to offer an extremely compelling experience, Apple-like, or will be FOSSed into oblivion ?
I'm taking bets, but only one way ^^Since you use the phrase "FOSSed into oblivion", I guessed which way.
Do you also take bets on year of the Linux desktop?
I smell easy money...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855715</id>
	<title>Market Share</title>
	<author>SpooForBrains</author>
	<datestamp>1256390460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smartphone\_2009.svg" title="wikipedia.org">this handy pie chart</a> [wikipedia.org] will enlighten you.

Hint: Maemo is in the grey slice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this handy pie chart [ wikipedia.org ] will enlighten you .
Hint : Maemo is in the grey slice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe this handy pie chart [wikipedia.org] will enlighten you.
Hint: Maemo is in the grey slice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854919</id>
	<title>Re:Maemo</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1256375580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nokia ships multiple lines of products, perhaps also that's why it is by far the largest phone manufacturer in the world.</p><p>They currently have S30/S40, Symbian S60v3, S60v5 and Maemo. In that order from cheapest to most expensive devices. In that order from most to least popular. And I'm not even sure whether or not phones like Nokia 1100 (the most popular single model of consumer electronic device in history; more than families of other "most popular" products) fall even under S30...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia ships multiple lines of products , perhaps also that 's why it is by far the largest phone manufacturer in the world.They currently have S30/S40 , Symbian S60v3 , S60v5 and Maemo .
In that order from cheapest to most expensive devices .
In that order from most to least popular .
And I 'm not even sure whether or not phones like Nokia 1100 ( the most popular single model of consumer electronic device in history ; more than families of other " most popular " products ) fall even under S30.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia ships multiple lines of products, perhaps also that's why it is by far the largest phone manufacturer in the world.They currently have S30/S40, Symbian S60v3, S60v5 and Maemo.
In that order from cheapest to most expensive devices.
In that order from most to least popular.
And I'm not even sure whether or not phones like Nokia 1100 (the most popular single model of consumer electronic device in history; more than families of other "most popular" products) fall even under S30...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855819</id>
	<title>Re:Symbian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256391540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Inefficiency of the implementation (e.g. using a complex message-passing system that consumes many CPU cycles) is a problem, but it's not intrinsic to microkernels.</p></div><p>It's intrinsic to *extant* microkernels, which is close enough.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Inefficiency of the implementation ( e.g .
using a complex message-passing system that consumes many CPU cycles ) is a problem , but it 's not intrinsic to microkernels.It 's intrinsic to * extant * microkernels , which is close enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Inefficiency of the implementation (e.g.
using a complex message-passing system that consumes many CPU cycles) is a problem, but it's not intrinsic to microkernels.It's intrinsic to *extant* microkernels, which is close enough.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854629</id>
	<title>SYMBIAN is DYING  Open Sores CONFIRMS IT !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256326020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do desperate things when things get desperate.</p><p>Watch out for those flying chairs as Nokia !!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do desperate things when things get desperate.Watch out for those flying chairs as Nokia !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do desperate things when things get desperate.Watch out for those flying chairs as Nokia !
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29857931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29858171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29865911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29857891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29856933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29857281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29856353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29856223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29871387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29864137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29857137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29856291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29876507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29875549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29857671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29858005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2344239_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29869967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2344239.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854863
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2344239.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854657
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854949
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855715
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29856353
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29869967
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2344239.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29856975
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2344239.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29858171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29871387
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2344239.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29857137
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2344239.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29856933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29857891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2344239.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854685
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2344239.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854911
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855819
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855437
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29864137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855131
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29856291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29856223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855491
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29876507
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29875549
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29858005
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29857281
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29857671
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29857931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854897
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29855257
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2344239.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29854629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2344239.29865911
</commentlist>
</conversation>
