<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_02_1353245</id>
	<title>Skype For Linux To Be Open-Sourced "In the Nearest Future"</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1257172740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>rysiek writes <i>"Seems like there might be a revolution in the works, as far as VoIP software for Linux is concerned. After mailing Skype support about Skype providing Mandriva RPM packages, <a href="http://ofaurax.free.fr/blog/">Olivier Faurax</a> got an answer which suggests that the Linux Skype client <a href="http://ofaurax.free.fr/blog/index.php5/2009-10-31-00h31-0100.xml">will be open-sourced</a>. After asking for verification of whether that was the case, the tech support answer claimed it is going to happen, and that it's supposed to happen 'in the nearest future.' Now, this probably only means the client (the underlying protocol will probably be handled by a binary-only library), but even if that's the case, it seems like there is still reason to celebrate."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>rysiek writes " Seems like there might be a revolution in the works , as far as VoIP software for Linux is concerned .
After mailing Skype support about Skype providing Mandriva RPM packages , Olivier Faurax got an answer which suggests that the Linux Skype client will be open-sourced .
After asking for verification of whether that was the case , the tech support answer claimed it is going to happen , and that it 's supposed to happen 'in the nearest future .
' Now , this probably only means the client ( the underlying protocol will probably be handled by a binary-only library ) , but even if that 's the case , it seems like there is still reason to celebrate .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rysiek writes "Seems like there might be a revolution in the works, as far as VoIP software for Linux is concerned.
After mailing Skype support about Skype providing Mandriva RPM packages, Olivier Faurax got an answer which suggests that the Linux Skype client will be open-sourced.
After asking for verification of whether that was the case, the tech support answer claimed it is going to happen, and that it's supposed to happen 'in the nearest future.
' Now, this probably only means the client (the underlying protocol will probably be handled by a binary-only library), but even if that's the case, it seems like there is still reason to celebrate.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950446</id>
	<title>Abandonware in 3....2....1....</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1257178800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the same old story.  The business doesn't want to support a Linux client so they open the code they have and abandon it.</p><p>I didn't bother reading TFA so maybe someone else can inform us how would one go about acquiring the binary blob in the future?  What distros will the blob track?  What about an ARM build?  Ebay wants to limit their dev hours but abandoning the gui doesn't help them much.</p><p>Which is why I think they'll just abandon the OS altogether sooner rather than later and put a happy face on it with this stunt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the same old story .
The business does n't want to support a Linux client so they open the code they have and abandon it.I did n't bother reading TFA so maybe someone else can inform us how would one go about acquiring the binary blob in the future ?
What distros will the blob track ?
What about an ARM build ?
Ebay wants to limit their dev hours but abandoning the gui does n't help them much.Which is why I think they 'll just abandon the OS altogether sooner rather than later and put a happy face on it with this stunt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the same old story.
The business doesn't want to support a Linux client so they open the code they have and abandon it.I didn't bother reading TFA so maybe someone else can inform us how would one go about acquiring the binary blob in the future?
What distros will the blob track?
What about an ARM build?
Ebay wants to limit their dev hours but abandoning the gui doesn't help them much.Which is why I think they'll just abandon the OS altogether sooner rather than later and put a happy face on it with this stunt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29968754</id>
	<title>compete with google video chat</title>
	<author>rusl</author>
	<datestamp>1257244980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I read this headline my first thought was this is to complete with Google. Google is planning to release google video for linux when they do a netbook OS or something like that. So many netbooks use linux (even though wondows is making inroads). And people buy netbooks for VOIP - I did. Right now Skype on Linux is clunky. It is doable but it is also a pain. Skype is also almost synonymous with VOIP. Few people know what VOIP is but many know what Skype is. Like Kleenex. But Google could disrupt that gravy train because Gmail is so ubiquiotous and it really isn't far away from having the video chat work from "inside" Gmail - if they did it on Linux too for netbooks they could really usurp that title the way Google Usurped Yahoo's king of the search engine title so long ago.</p><p>Just my thoughts. I was pining for the Linux Google Video feature a while ago while I was setting up Skype (and it was a pain) because I thought it might be easier. Also it would be much easier to use with my email addressbook than the few people I have bookmarked in Skype.</p><p>But the problems with Skype in Linux are relatively minor: things you can (and we do) hack around. But this is a big obstacle for many non-techy users like my wife who had to wait for me to do it for her. So if they open up Skype (or just symbolically go through the motions and get more geeky hacking) then may;be they can get over the little bugs like figuring out the quirky microphone settings required for skype to work on my netbook well... such that I don't have to hack it my self and people have no reason to desire a Google replacement.</p><p>Still it will be tough for Skype because Gmail video can really just blow they away if it is done half well - 1 program instead of two - or 0 (browser doesn't count) obstacle to adoption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I read this headline my first thought was this is to complete with Google .
Google is planning to release google video for linux when they do a netbook OS or something like that .
So many netbooks use linux ( even though wondows is making inroads ) .
And people buy netbooks for VOIP - I did .
Right now Skype on Linux is clunky .
It is doable but it is also a pain .
Skype is also almost synonymous with VOIP .
Few people know what VOIP is but many know what Skype is .
Like Kleenex .
But Google could disrupt that gravy train because Gmail is so ubiquiotous and it really is n't far away from having the video chat work from " inside " Gmail - if they did it on Linux too for netbooks they could really usurp that title the way Google Usurped Yahoo 's king of the search engine title so long ago.Just my thoughts .
I was pining for the Linux Google Video feature a while ago while I was setting up Skype ( and it was a pain ) because I thought it might be easier .
Also it would be much easier to use with my email addressbook than the few people I have bookmarked in Skype.But the problems with Skype in Linux are relatively minor : things you can ( and we do ) hack around .
But this is a big obstacle for many non-techy users like my wife who had to wait for me to do it for her .
So if they open up Skype ( or just symbolically go through the motions and get more geeky hacking ) then may ; be they can get over the little bugs like figuring out the quirky microphone settings required for skype to work on my netbook well... such that I do n't have to hack it my self and people have no reason to desire a Google replacement.Still it will be tough for Skype because Gmail video can really just blow they away if it is done half well - 1 program instead of two - or 0 ( browser does n't count ) obstacle to adoption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I read this headline my first thought was this is to complete with Google.
Google is planning to release google video for linux when they do a netbook OS or something like that.
So many netbooks use linux (even though wondows is making inroads).
And people buy netbooks for VOIP - I did.
Right now Skype on Linux is clunky.
It is doable but it is also a pain.
Skype is also almost synonymous with VOIP.
Few people know what VOIP is but many know what Skype is.
Like Kleenex.
But Google could disrupt that gravy train because Gmail is so ubiquiotous and it really isn't far away from having the video chat work from "inside" Gmail - if they did it on Linux too for netbooks they could really usurp that title the way Google Usurped Yahoo's king of the search engine title so long ago.Just my thoughts.
I was pining for the Linux Google Video feature a while ago while I was setting up Skype (and it was a pain) because I thought it might be easier.
Also it would be much easier to use with my email addressbook than the few people I have bookmarked in Skype.But the problems with Skype in Linux are relatively minor: things you can (and we do) hack around.
But this is a big obstacle for many non-techy users like my wife who had to wait for me to do it for her.
So if they open up Skype (or just symbolically go through the motions and get more geeky hacking) then may;be they can get over the little bugs like figuring out the quirky microphone settings required for skype to work on my netbook well... such that I don't have to hack it my self and people have no reason to desire a Google replacement.Still it will be tough for Skype because Gmail video can really just blow they away if it is done half well - 1 program instead of two - or 0 (browser doesn't count) obstacle to adoption.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952374</id>
	<title>Yessssssssss! Not.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257187740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd throw a party for just about anything it seems. Who cares if they threw us a bone (GUI). Unless they free the protocol, stop making fuss for no reason.<br>Free as in binaries included. Pfft.</p><p>PS. No really, what would we be happy about?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd throw a party for just about anything it seems .
Who cares if they threw us a bone ( GUI ) .
Unless they free the protocol , stop making fuss for no reason.Free as in binaries included .
Pfft.PS. No really , what would we be happy about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd throw a party for just about anything it seems.
Who cares if they threw us a bone (GUI).
Unless they free the protocol, stop making fuss for no reason.Free as in binaries included.
Pfft.PS. No really, what would we be happy about?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29955472</id>
	<title>Re:GUI Code Only</title>
	<author>Walzmyn</author>
	<datestamp>1257158640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but maybe somebody will fix the damn bug where my picture disappears when I expand a video chat.<br>
Or the KDE guys could make it mesh so I don't have to disable desktop effects <br>
Or there's the bug that about 1 out of 4 times when I expand the video chat window, the actual image of the other caller stays the same..</p><p>Yeah, the skype people could fix this. But they haven't for a long time and frankly I've got more faith in the FOSS community. They fix everything else that's wrong with my computer pretty quickly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but maybe somebody will fix the damn bug where my picture disappears when I expand a video chat .
Or the KDE guys could make it mesh so I do n't have to disable desktop effects Or there 's the bug that about 1 out of 4 times when I expand the video chat window , the actual image of the other caller stays the same..Yeah , the skype people could fix this .
But they have n't for a long time and frankly I 've got more faith in the FOSS community .
They fix everything else that 's wrong with my computer pretty quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but maybe somebody will fix the damn bug where my picture disappears when I expand a video chat.
Or the KDE guys could make it mesh so I don't have to disable desktop effects 
Or there's the bug that about 1 out of 4 times when I expand the video chat window, the actual image of the other caller stays the same..Yeah, the skype people could fix this.
But they haven't for a long time and frankly I've got more faith in the FOSS community.
They fix everything else that's wrong with my computer pretty quickly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29953722</id>
	<title>Corporate "open source" for...</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1257193980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The corporate meaning of "open source" seems to be, as often as not, "we will not support it any longer, but we want a client on your platform and you can use it". Their support and implementation of the Linux client thus far has been, if anything, sub-par and fairly static in development changes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The corporate meaning of " open source " seems to be , as often as not , " we will not support it any longer , but we want a client on your platform and you can use it " .
Their support and implementation of the Linux client thus far has been , if anything , sub-par and fairly static in development changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The corporate meaning of "open source" seems to be, as often as not, "we will not support it any longer, but we want a client on your platform and you can use it".
Their support and implementation of the Linux client thus far has been, if anything, sub-par and fairly static in development changes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29961608</id>
	<title>Re:GUI Code Only</title>
	<author>Bootarn</author>
	<datestamp>1257248100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not enough. Having a binary library still prevents Skype from running on ARM based netbooks, for example.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Seems like there might be a revolution in the works</p></div><p>I fail to see how open-sourcing a GUI is a revolution of <i>any</i> kind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not enough .
Having a binary library still prevents Skype from running on ARM based netbooks , for example.Seems like there might be a revolution in the worksI fail to see how open-sourcing a GUI is a revolution of any kind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not enough.
Having a binary library still prevents Skype from running on ARM based netbooks, for example.Seems like there might be a revolution in the worksI fail to see how open-sourcing a GUI is a revolution of any kind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951488</id>
	<title>Re:protocol will probably be ... binary-only</title>
	<author>AcidPenguin9873</author>
	<datestamp>1257183540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about integrating the binary-only Skype support into Ekiga or Pidgin or whatever other open-source video/conference/chat programs?  Gets close to using one program for all of your real-time communcation needs, regardless of protocol...Skype was the big missing protocol in most of those programs, IMHO.  Hopefully it wouldn't be too hard to write a wrapper layer around the binary Skype library and make it appear as just another protocol library/plugin to those programs.</p><p>Also as FlyingBishop brought up, it takes the (somewhat buggy) audio/mic/video/webcam support out of their closed code, so hopefully it will get cleaned up or just replaced entirely by Ekiga/Pidgin/etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about integrating the binary-only Skype support into Ekiga or Pidgin or whatever other open-source video/conference/chat programs ?
Gets close to using one program for all of your real-time communcation needs , regardless of protocol...Skype was the big missing protocol in most of those programs , IMHO .
Hopefully it would n't be too hard to write a wrapper layer around the binary Skype library and make it appear as just another protocol library/plugin to those programs.Also as FlyingBishop brought up , it takes the ( somewhat buggy ) audio/mic/video/webcam support out of their closed code , so hopefully it will get cleaned up or just replaced entirely by Ekiga/Pidgin/etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about integrating the binary-only Skype support into Ekiga or Pidgin or whatever other open-source video/conference/chat programs?
Gets close to using one program for all of your real-time communcation needs, regardless of protocol...Skype was the big missing protocol in most of those programs, IMHO.
Hopefully it wouldn't be too hard to write a wrapper layer around the binary Skype library and make it appear as just another protocol library/plugin to those programs.Also as FlyingBishop brought up, it takes the (somewhat buggy) audio/mic/video/webcam support out of their closed code, so hopefully it will get cleaned up or just replaced entirely by Ekiga/Pidgin/etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951002</id>
	<title>Re:Seems largely pointless.</title>
	<author>DdJ</author>
	<datestamp>1257181320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's neither completely perfect nor completely worthless.</p><p>If they're actually putting the protocol implementation out as a binary-only library, and encouraging open source development on <em>top</em> of that, this enables some freedoms without enabling all freedoms.</p><p>For example, this makes it possible for me to write a program that monitors a twitter feed, looks for certain keywords in it, and when it finds them, calls me via Skype and uses my own text-to-speech code to read the message containing the keyword out loud to me.</p><p>In theory, it also lets me implement my own IVR application on top of the protocol.  You know what I mean, "say yes to continue", that kind of crap.  We could build an IVR Wikipedia tool for the blind with this.</p><p>So: <em>some</em> freedoms, yes, but certainly not all the freedoms folks might want.</p><p>If you think about it, it's really a little like using a credit card processing system.  You have hooks to do certain financial transactions, and building that into your applications lets you do valuable things, but you don't have the complete freedom to do whatever you want with the financial protocols.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's neither completely perfect nor completely worthless.If they 're actually putting the protocol implementation out as a binary-only library , and encouraging open source development on top of that , this enables some freedoms without enabling all freedoms.For example , this makes it possible for me to write a program that monitors a twitter feed , looks for certain keywords in it , and when it finds them , calls me via Skype and uses my own text-to-speech code to read the message containing the keyword out loud to me.In theory , it also lets me implement my own IVR application on top of the protocol .
You know what I mean , " say yes to continue " , that kind of crap .
We could build an IVR Wikipedia tool for the blind with this.So : some freedoms , yes , but certainly not all the freedoms folks might want.If you think about it , it 's really a little like using a credit card processing system .
You have hooks to do certain financial transactions , and building that into your applications lets you do valuable things , but you do n't have the complete freedom to do whatever you want with the financial protocols .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's neither completely perfect nor completely worthless.If they're actually putting the protocol implementation out as a binary-only library, and encouraging open source development on top of that, this enables some freedoms without enabling all freedoms.For example, this makes it possible for me to write a program that monitors a twitter feed, looks for certain keywords in it, and when it finds them, calls me via Skype and uses my own text-to-speech code to read the message containing the keyword out loud to me.In theory, it also lets me implement my own IVR application on top of the protocol.
You know what I mean, "say yes to continue", that kind of crap.
We could build an IVR Wikipedia tool for the blind with this.So: some freedoms, yes, but certainly not all the freedoms folks might want.If you think about it, it's really a little like using a credit card processing system.
You have hooks to do certain financial transactions, and building that into your applications lets you do valuable things, but you don't have the complete freedom to do whatever you want with the financial protocols.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951586</id>
	<title>Re:GUI Code Only</title>
	<author>buchner.johannes</author>
	<datestamp>1257183960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is already a Skype API for (gui) programs to use. It operates on text commands.<br>For example, you can already integrate Skype into Pidgin: <a href="http://code.google.com/p/skype4pidgin/" title="google.com">http://code.google.com/p/skype4pidgin/</a> [google.com]<br>And with some pidgin plugin for encryption (both on the Windows and Linux side, e.g. OTR or PGP), you can have private (text) conversations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is already a Skype API for ( gui ) programs to use .
It operates on text commands.For example , you can already integrate Skype into Pidgin : http : //code.google.com/p/skype4pidgin/ [ google.com ] And with some pidgin plugin for encryption ( both on the Windows and Linux side , e.g .
OTR or PGP ) , you can have private ( text ) conversations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is already a Skype API for (gui) programs to use.
It operates on text commands.For example, you can already integrate Skype into Pidgin: http://code.google.com/p/skype4pidgin/ [google.com]And with some pidgin plugin for encryption (both on the Windows and Linux side, e.g.
OTR or PGP), you can have private (text) conversations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950298</id>
	<title>Good riddance, crappy ugly Skype client</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257177900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hopefully this means that libpurple, telepathy et al will be able to make Skype calls.</p><p>Once you get users out of a proprietary client, it's that much easier to transition them to a more open equivalent.</p><p>"You mean I just get a SIP account and calls cost less than with Skype?" Sold!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully this means that libpurple , telepathy et al will be able to make Skype calls.Once you get users out of a proprietary client , it 's that much easier to transition them to a more open equivalent .
" You mean I just get a SIP account and calls cost less than with Skype ?
" Sold !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully this means that libpurple, telepathy et al will be able to make Skype calls.Once you get users out of a proprietary client, it's that much easier to transition them to a more open equivalent.
"You mean I just get a SIP account and calls cost less than with Skype?
" Sold!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950196</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is "the nearest future"?</title>
	<author>unts</author>
	<datestamp>1257177180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keep halving it and eventually you'll be in the present.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep halving it and eventually you 'll be in the present .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep halving it and eventually you'll be in the present.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952308</id>
	<title>Re:protocol will probably be ... binary-only</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1257187380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>where the only thing you can change is where the numbers are placed and what the handset looks like. Maybe I'm missing the point, but how does this benefit anyone?</i></p><p>Are you old enough to remember when we had to rent phones from the telephone company?  When you couldn't<br>go to an electronics store and by the phone you want?  Suffice it to say, the Bell phones stunk, if you wanted to do anything but what they expected you to (the quality was great for sitting at a desk and talking).  My childhood friends' mothers all had 50' handset coil cords and these soft plastic cushions glued on the back so they could talk while working in the kitchen.  Today, cordless/headset is a no-brainer.</p><p>Skype's echo cancellation on non-headsets is fantastic.  I can just sit in front of a laptop and talk without any tuning.  Once OSS gets there it will be 'good enough' and disrupt Skype, but until then, better to have the option of using a decent client.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>where the only thing you can change is where the numbers are placed and what the handset looks like .
Maybe I 'm missing the point , but how does this benefit anyone ? Are you old enough to remember when we had to rent phones from the telephone company ?
When you couldn'tgo to an electronics store and by the phone you want ?
Suffice it to say , the Bell phones stunk , if you wanted to do anything but what they expected you to ( the quality was great for sitting at a desk and talking ) .
My childhood friends ' mothers all had 50 ' handset coil cords and these soft plastic cushions glued on the back so they could talk while working in the kitchen .
Today , cordless/headset is a no-brainer.Skype 's echo cancellation on non-headsets is fantastic .
I can just sit in front of a laptop and talk without any tuning .
Once OSS gets there it will be 'good enough ' and disrupt Skype , but until then , better to have the option of using a decent client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>where the only thing you can change is where the numbers are placed and what the handset looks like.
Maybe I'm missing the point, but how does this benefit anyone?Are you old enough to remember when we had to rent phones from the telephone company?
When you couldn'tgo to an electronics store and by the phone you want?
Suffice it to say, the Bell phones stunk, if you wanted to do anything but what they expected you to (the quality was great for sitting at a desk and talking).
My childhood friends' mothers all had 50' handset coil cords and these soft plastic cushions glued on the back so they could talk while working in the kitchen.
Today, cordless/headset is a no-brainer.Skype's echo cancellation on non-headsets is fantastic.
I can just sit in front of a laptop and talk without any tuning.
Once OSS gets there it will be 'good enough' and disrupt Skype, but until then, better to have the option of using a decent client.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950372</id>
	<title>Nope</title>
	<author>ledow</author>
	<datestamp>1257178440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I call bullshit.  I think it's just a tech support guy misunderstanding (and it seems a bi-lingual conversation so the chances of that are even higher).</p><p>Open-sourcing Skype is very different to allowing Mandriva to add a non-trademarked icon to the Skype software (a bit like bundling Firefox - fine so long as you respect the trademark on the name and/or the logo and their requirements), or put a Mandriva icon onto the package etc.  The two are discussed interchangeably and I don't see how they are related.</p><p>I think it's more likely a massive misunderstanding on the basis of zero evidence / poor translation.  At best, I reckon that Skype for Linux will allow itself to be packaged more easily.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I call bullshit .
I think it 's just a tech support guy misunderstanding ( and it seems a bi-lingual conversation so the chances of that are even higher ) .Open-sourcing Skype is very different to allowing Mandriva to add a non-trademarked icon to the Skype software ( a bit like bundling Firefox - fine so long as you respect the trademark on the name and/or the logo and their requirements ) , or put a Mandriva icon onto the package etc .
The two are discussed interchangeably and I do n't see how they are related.I think it 's more likely a massive misunderstanding on the basis of zero evidence / poor translation .
At best , I reckon that Skype for Linux will allow itself to be packaged more easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call bullshit.
I think it's just a tech support guy misunderstanding (and it seems a bi-lingual conversation so the chances of that are even higher).Open-sourcing Skype is very different to allowing Mandriva to add a non-trademarked icon to the Skype software (a bit like bundling Firefox - fine so long as you respect the trademark on the name and/or the logo and their requirements), or put a Mandriva icon onto the package etc.
The two are discussed interchangeably and I don't see how they are related.I think it's more likely a massive misunderstanding on the basis of zero evidence / poor translation.
At best, I reckon that Skype for Linux will allow itself to be packaged more easily.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950340</id>
	<title>protocol will probably be ... binary-only</title>
	<author>TheGreatOrangePeel</author>
	<datestamp>1257178260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, assuming the OP is right, they're basically open-sourcing a telephone where the only thing you can change is where the numbers are placed and what the handset looks like. Maybe I'm missing the point, but how does this benefit anyone?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , assuming the OP is right , they 're basically open-sourcing a telephone where the only thing you can change is where the numbers are placed and what the handset looks like .
Maybe I 'm missing the point , but how does this benefit anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, assuming the OP is right, they're basically open-sourcing a telephone where the only thing you can change is where the numbers are placed and what the handset looks like.
Maybe I'm missing the point, but how does this benefit anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29961284</id>
	<title>Is audio part of the UI?</title>
	<author>kresho</author>
	<datestamp>1257242940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Assuming that the UI includes the part how the audio stream reaches the audio driver, this is great news. Someone could finally fix the audio issues (use ALSA non-exclusively or even make it use PulseAudio). Furthermore, this would make it possible to bridge skype and FreeSwitch or Asterisk. Imagine making skype calls an integrated part of your company's telephone network without resorting to dirty tricks!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming that the UI includes the part how the audio stream reaches the audio driver , this is great news .
Someone could finally fix the audio issues ( use ALSA non-exclusively or even make it use PulseAudio ) .
Furthermore , this would make it possible to bridge skype and FreeSwitch or Asterisk .
Imagine making skype calls an integrated part of your company 's telephone network without resorting to dirty tricks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming that the UI includes the part how the audio stream reaches the audio driver, this is great news.
Someone could finally fix the audio issues (use ALSA non-exclusively or even make it use PulseAudio).
Furthermore, this would make it possible to bridge skype and FreeSwitch or Asterisk.
Imagine making skype calls an integrated part of your company's telephone network without resorting to dirty tricks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29963638</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257264840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is the drive to continue using a proprietary protocol where there is an open, standards-based protocol (SIP) that already has such a wide-spread implementation? The skype "front-end" being open-sourced provides no more benefit to anybody than MS "open-sourcing" a front-end that writes docx files for the sole purpose of ensuring the survival of their proprietary document formats.</p><p>Besides, if the front-end depends on a closed source library to function it absolutely can not be under the GPL. As Stallman states, allowing this would "open up a hole in the GPL big enough to drive a truck through".</p><p>Garbage. And to the concern about "opening ports for sip" this is also irrelevant unless you are hosting your own SIP server instead of using any of the free SIP services / proxies. SIP+RTP would function in the exact same manner as skype in this regard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the drive to continue using a proprietary protocol where there is an open , standards-based protocol ( SIP ) that already has such a wide-spread implementation ?
The skype " front-end " being open-sourced provides no more benefit to anybody than MS " open-sourcing " a front-end that writes docx files for the sole purpose of ensuring the survival of their proprietary document formats.Besides , if the front-end depends on a closed source library to function it absolutely can not be under the GPL .
As Stallman states , allowing this would " open up a hole in the GPL big enough to drive a truck through " .Garbage .
And to the concern about " opening ports for sip " this is also irrelevant unless you are hosting your own SIP server instead of using any of the free SIP services / proxies .
SIP + RTP would function in the exact same manner as skype in this regard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the drive to continue using a proprietary protocol where there is an open, standards-based protocol (SIP) that already has such a wide-spread implementation?
The skype "front-end" being open-sourced provides no more benefit to anybody than MS "open-sourcing" a front-end that writes docx files for the sole purpose of ensuring the survival of their proprietary document formats.Besides, if the front-end depends on a closed source library to function it absolutely can not be under the GPL.
As Stallman states, allowing this would "open up a hole in the GPL big enough to drive a truck through".Garbage.
And to the concern about "opening ports for sip" this is also irrelevant unless you are hosting your own SIP server instead of using any of the free SIP services / proxies.
SIP+RTP would function in the exact same manner as skype in this regard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950988</id>
	<title>Re:Seems largely pointless.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257181260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes you are. If you think like me: Wrap the whole thing in a server. Don't even think about writing a GUI for it. Write a SIP wrapper. Then put that gateway on one single server, and tell Skype to go fuck themselves. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes you are .
If you think like me : Wrap the whole thing in a server .
Do n't even think about writing a GUI for it .
Write a SIP wrapper .
Then put that gateway on one single server , and tell Skype to go fuck themselves .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes you are.
If you think like me: Wrap the whole thing in a server.
Don't even think about writing a GUI for it.
Write a SIP wrapper.
Then put that gateway on one single server, and tell Skype to go fuck themselves.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950092</id>
	<title>WTF is "the nearest future"?</title>
	<author>wcrowe</author>
	<datestamp>1257176700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm trying to grasp what could possibly be the "nearest future"?  A picosecond from now?  But of course, you could have half a picosecond, and half that, and half that, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm trying to grasp what could possibly be the " nearest future " ?
A picosecond from now ?
But of course , you could have half a picosecond , and half that , and half that , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm trying to grasp what could possibly be the "nearest future"?
A picosecond from now?
But of course, you could have half a picosecond, and half that, and half that, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29963340</id>
	<title>Re:Seems largely pointless.</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1257263220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Skype's front end &amp; brand were sold to eBay for a shit ton of money, but the creators held onto the protocol.  Skype's original creators recently threatened suit over the underlying protocol.  An open source Skype could redevelop the underlying protocol.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Skype 's front end &amp; brand were sold to eBay for a shit ton of money , but the creators held onto the protocol .
Skype 's original creators recently threatened suit over the underlying protocol .
An open source Skype could redevelop the underlying protocol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Skype's front end &amp; brand were sold to eBay for a shit ton of money, but the creators held onto the protocol.
Skype's original creators recently threatened suit over the underlying protocol.
An open source Skype could redevelop the underlying protocol.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950082</id>
	<title>Nope, not here yet</title>
	<author>AniVisual</author>
	<datestamp>1257176640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> I must be in one of the wrong <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds\_interpretation" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">futures</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must be in one of the wrong futures [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I must be in one of the wrong futures [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952306</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is "the nearest future"?</title>
	<author>hldn</author>
	<datestamp>1257187380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in the nearest future, future events will affect us all in the nearest future.  future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in the nearest future , future events will affect us all in the nearest future .
future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in the nearest future, future events will affect us all in the nearest future.
future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951874</id>
	<title>having visual hallucinations</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1257185220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>The business doesn't want to support a Linux client so they open the code they have and abandon it</i>"<br> <br>

How do you deduce this from a single blog post<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..<br> <br>

"the Linux Skype version will become <a href="http://ofaurax.free.fr/blog/index.php5/2009-10-31-00h31-0100.xml" title="ofaurax.free.fr">open source</a> [ofaurax.free.fr] in the nearest future"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The business does n't want to support a Linux client so they open the code they have and abandon it " How do you deduce this from a single blog post . . " the Linux Skype version will become open source [ ofaurax.free.fr ] in the nearest future "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The business doesn't want to support a Linux client so they open the code they have and abandon it" 

How do you deduce this from a single blog post .. 

"the Linux Skype version will become open source [ofaurax.free.fr] in the nearest future"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952446</id>
	<title>Official statement from Skype</title>
	<author>Keyper7</author>
	<datestamp>1257188100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://share.skype.com/sites/linux/2009/11/skype\_open\_source.html" title="skype.com">http://share.skype.com/sites/linux/2009/11/skype\_open\_source.html</a> [skype.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //share.skype.com/sites/linux/2009/11/skype \ _open \ _source.html [ skype.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://share.skype.com/sites/linux/2009/11/skype\_open\_source.html [skype.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950188</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is "the nearest future"?</title>
	<author>Galestar</author>
	<datestamp>1257177180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planks\_constant" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planks\_constant</a> [wikipedia.org] for time?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planks \ _constant [ wikipedia.org ] for time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planks\_constant [wikipedia.org] for time?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951986</id>
	<title>Speculations suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257185760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Skype is an evil closed source platform as we speak.</p><p>I believe it once I see it. And "open sourced" can mean anything at all, tell me the license when the deed is done. If it's done!</p><p>In other news Luxemburg <i>might</i> declare war on the US of A...</p><p>We don't need shit like this on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Skype is an evil closed source platform as we speak.I believe it once I see it .
And " open sourced " can mean anything at all , tell me the license when the deed is done .
If it 's done ! In other news Luxemburg might declare war on the US of A...We do n't need shit like this on / .
thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Skype is an evil closed source platform as we speak.I believe it once I see it.
And "open sourced" can mean anything at all, tell me the license when the deed is done.
If it's done!In other news Luxemburg might declare war on the US of A...We don't need shit like this on /.
thank you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29956728</id>
	<title>I wonder if ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257165000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Involvement with Nokia &amp; Maemo has anything to do with this ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Involvement with Nokia &amp; Maemo has anything to do with this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Involvement with Nokia &amp; Maemo has anything to do with this ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950628</id>
	<title>Re:Cautiously Optimistic?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257179700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I had to deal with this with MS Windows - it's one of the many reasons I use Linux.</p></div></blockquote><p>Perhaps you jumped to Linux without considering that it wasn't the end all be all solutions that you were told it was?</p><p>When switching from Windows to Linux you give certain things up, when switching from Windows to MacOS you give certain things up, and indeed when switching from Linux to * you give certain things up.  If you didn't, they would all be equal/the exact same and you'd have no reason to switch at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had to deal with this with MS Windows - it 's one of the many reasons I use Linux.Perhaps you jumped to Linux without considering that it was n't the end all be all solutions that you were told it was ? When switching from Windows to Linux you give certain things up , when switching from Windows to MacOS you give certain things up , and indeed when switching from Linux to * you give certain things up .
If you did n't , they would all be equal/the exact same and you 'd have no reason to switch at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had to deal with this with MS Windows - it's one of the many reasons I use Linux.Perhaps you jumped to Linux without considering that it wasn't the end all be all solutions that you were told it was?When switching from Windows to Linux you give certain things up, when switching from Windows to MacOS you give certain things up, and indeed when switching from Linux to * you give certain things up.
If you didn't, they would all be equal/the exact same and you'd have no reason to switch at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950492</id>
	<title>Re:Seems largely pointless.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257179100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ding ding ding ding ding!!!  You win the prize.  If they're not OS'ing the protocol, this is utterly meaningless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ding ding ding ding ding ! ! !
You win the prize .
If they 're not OS'ing the protocol , this is utterly meaningless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ding ding ding ding ding!!!
You win the prize.
If they're not OS'ing the protocol, this is utterly meaningless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950090</id>
	<title>GUI Code Only</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257176640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>open gui code, but not communicate library.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Not quite open source then, but I guess it's better than the situation right now. Still no way of ensuring there are no backdoors in the encryption though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>open gui code , but not communicate library .
Not quite open source then , but I guess it 's better than the situation right now .
Still no way of ensuring there are no backdoors in the encryption though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>open gui code, but not communicate library.
Not quite open source then, but I guess it's better than the situation right now.
Still no way of ensuring there are no backdoors in the encryption though.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950244</id>
	<title>This could be incredible...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257177540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use a lot of voice software on my laptop, and Skype is one of the few that is fine with my not using a headset.  I'm not certain how it does it, but I assume they're filtering the sound coming out of the speakers against the mic input.  I've always wanted to take Skype's client and plug it into, say, Ventrilo.</p><p>Could this open up that possibility?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use a lot of voice software on my laptop , and Skype is one of the few that is fine with my not using a headset .
I 'm not certain how it does it , but I assume they 're filtering the sound coming out of the speakers against the mic input .
I 've always wanted to take Skype 's client and plug it into , say , Ventrilo.Could this open up that possibility ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use a lot of voice software on my laptop, and Skype is one of the few that is fine with my not using a headset.
I'm not certain how it does it, but I assume they're filtering the sound coming out of the speakers against the mic input.
I've always wanted to take Skype's client and plug it into, say, Ventrilo.Could this open up that possibility?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29953232</id>
	<title>About time...</title>
	<author>MikeUW</author>
	<datestamp>1257192060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember getting reamed-out by a support tech on the Skype forums for even hinting that an open source client might make solving problems alot easier - I hope he enjoys eating his words now.</p><p>Ever since moving to Linux, Skype has been the only thing other than MS Office that doesn't have an equal in terms of both quality and user base (at least, where user base is a factor).  The main problems with Skype on Linux has been its ability to keep the client compatible with the constantly changing landscape in sound systems, from  OSS, to ALSA, to PulseAudio, to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...?  Add to that the multitude of versions/distros, etc.  If the client is open sourced, then you can download the responsibility of porting the application to different environments onto those with the skill/time/inclination to do so.  And if nobody ever does port the client to sound system x on distro y, then at least they would have a valid reason to say there's not enough demand to bother.</p><p>Just my general opinion anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember getting reamed-out by a support tech on the Skype forums for even hinting that an open source client might make solving problems alot easier - I hope he enjoys eating his words now.Ever since moving to Linux , Skype has been the only thing other than MS Office that does n't have an equal in terms of both quality and user base ( at least , where user base is a factor ) .
The main problems with Skype on Linux has been its ability to keep the client compatible with the constantly changing landscape in sound systems , from OSS , to ALSA , to PulseAudio , to ... ?
Add to that the multitude of versions/distros , etc .
If the client is open sourced , then you can download the responsibility of porting the application to different environments onto those with the skill/time/inclination to do so .
And if nobody ever does port the client to sound system x on distro y , then at least they would have a valid reason to say there 's not enough demand to bother.Just my general opinion anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember getting reamed-out by a support tech on the Skype forums for even hinting that an open source client might make solving problems alot easier - I hope he enjoys eating his words now.Ever since moving to Linux, Skype has been the only thing other than MS Office that doesn't have an equal in terms of both quality and user base (at least, where user base is a factor).
The main problems with Skype on Linux has been its ability to keep the client compatible with the constantly changing landscape in sound systems, from  OSS, to ALSA, to PulseAudio, to ...?
Add to that the multitude of versions/distros, etc.
If the client is open sourced, then you can download the responsibility of porting the application to different environments onto those with the skill/time/inclination to do so.
And if nobody ever does port the client to sound system x on distro y, then at least they would have a valid reason to say there's not enough demand to bother.Just my general opinion anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951500</id>
	<title>It is not opensource, until...</title>
	<author>mi</author>
	<datestamp>1257183600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now, this probably only means the client (the underlying protocol will probably be handled by a binary-only library), but even if that's the case, it seems like there is still reason to celebrate</p></div></blockquote><p>The source is not open, until I can build and use it on FreeBSD/amd64 or some other "exotic" platform like that...

</p><p>Interestingly, the oft-criticized Java has always been more "open-sourced" (even before going GPL), than what the excited write-up is preparing to "celebrate"... Must all be about <em>managing expectations</em>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , this probably only means the client ( the underlying protocol will probably be handled by a binary-only library ) , but even if that 's the case , it seems like there is still reason to celebrateThe source is not open , until I can build and use it on FreeBSD/amd64 or some other " exotic " platform like that.. . Interestingly , the oft-criticized Java has always been more " open-sourced " ( even before going GPL ) , than what the excited write-up is preparing to " celebrate " ... Must all be about managing expectations.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, this probably only means the client (the underlying protocol will probably be handled by a binary-only library), but even if that's the case, it seems like there is still reason to celebrateThe source is not open, until I can build and use it on FreeBSD/amd64 or some other "exotic" platform like that...

Interestingly, the oft-criticized Java has always been more "open-sourced" (even before going GPL), than what the excited write-up is preparing to "celebrate"... Must all be about managing expectations...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950258</id>
	<title>Re:GUI Code Only</title>
	<author>asdir</author>
	<datestamp>1257177600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can someone please translate? Does that mean that an open client could be forked that works with skype but is not skype? Like, say, gizmo or ekiga?

Thanks for enlightening a non-techie Linux enthusiast (yes, we exist<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) ).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone please translate ?
Does that mean that an open client could be forked that works with skype but is not skype ?
Like , say , gizmo or ekiga ?
Thanks for enlightening a non-techie Linux enthusiast ( yes , we exist : - ) ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone please translate?
Does that mean that an open client could be forked that works with skype but is not skype?
Like, say, gizmo or ekiga?
Thanks for enlightening a non-techie Linux enthusiast (yes, we exist :-) ).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29961586</id>
	<title>Can customize the GUI...</title>
	<author>js\_sebastian</author>
	<datestamp>1257247920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With something like Skype, pretty much all the stuff of interest is in the protocol(and the weird stuff that it gets up to, burrowing through firewalls and being designed to be heavily resistant to inspection and so forth). The UI isn't ghastly; but it isn't very interesting.



Obviously, this is exactly why Skype would be OSSing the GUI and not the protocol binary blob; but it is also why the news isn't of much interest. As long as basically all the program's important functions depend on a binary blob you can't see what it is doing, you can't port it to other architectures, you are really no better off than if the whole thing were binary.</p></div><p>Well, the OSS frontend will use the binary back-end, implicitly documenting its APIs to some extent. This means that you can write your own frontend with a better GUI than the horrible one provided by skype. Better yet, one could probably write a plugin for chat/voip applications allowing them to use skype as a backend, so you won't even have to run a separate skype application anymore.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With something like Skype , pretty much all the stuff of interest is in the protocol ( and the weird stuff that it gets up to , burrowing through firewalls and being designed to be heavily resistant to inspection and so forth ) .
The UI is n't ghastly ; but it is n't very interesting .
Obviously , this is exactly why Skype would be OSSing the GUI and not the protocol binary blob ; but it is also why the news is n't of much interest .
As long as basically all the program 's important functions depend on a binary blob you ca n't see what it is doing , you ca n't port it to other architectures , you are really no better off than if the whole thing were binary.Well , the OSS frontend will use the binary back-end , implicitly documenting its APIs to some extent .
This means that you can write your own frontend with a better GUI than the horrible one provided by skype .
Better yet , one could probably write a plugin for chat/voip applications allowing them to use skype as a backend , so you wo n't even have to run a separate skype application anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With something like Skype, pretty much all the stuff of interest is in the protocol(and the weird stuff that it gets up to, burrowing through firewalls and being designed to be heavily resistant to inspection and so forth).
The UI isn't ghastly; but it isn't very interesting.
Obviously, this is exactly why Skype would be OSSing the GUI and not the protocol binary blob; but it is also why the news isn't of much interest.
As long as basically all the program's important functions depend on a binary blob you can't see what it is doing, you can't port it to other architectures, you are really no better off than if the whole thing were binary.Well, the OSS frontend will use the binary back-end, implicitly documenting its APIs to some extent.
This means that you can write your own frontend with a better GUI than the horrible one provided by skype.
Better yet, one could probably write a plugin for chat/voip applications allowing them to use skype as a backend, so you won't even have to run a separate skype application anymore.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951732</id>
	<title>Re:Nope</title>
	<author>ofaurax</author>
	<datestamp>1257184560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, I'm not an employee of Mandriva.
I didn't ask for anything other than an official skype RPM for Mandriva, on the skype download page or on the Mandriva repositories (in "non-free").
There's nothing to do with icons or trademark.

As english is not my native language, I asked for clarification when reading "part of the opensource community". The answer is "will become open source in the nearest future."

If you don't trust my language skills, just read the "blockquote tag" answers from the tech support. I only copy/pasted.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , I 'm not an employee of Mandriva .
I did n't ask for anything other than an official skype RPM for Mandriva , on the skype download page or on the Mandriva repositories ( in " non-free " ) .
There 's nothing to do with icons or trademark .
As english is not my native language , I asked for clarification when reading " part of the opensource community " .
The answer is " will become open source in the nearest future .
" If you do n't trust my language skills , just read the " blockquote tag " answers from the tech support .
I only copy/pasted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, I'm not an employee of Mandriva.
I didn't ask for anything other than an official skype RPM for Mandriva, on the skype download page or on the Mandriva repositories (in "non-free").
There's nothing to do with icons or trademark.
As english is not my native language, I asked for clarification when reading "part of the opensource community".
The answer is "will become open source in the nearest future.
"

If you don't trust my language skills, just read the "blockquote tag" answers from the tech support.
I only copy/pasted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952478</id>
	<title>does skype even run on 64-bit machines?</title>
	<author>drfireman</author>
	<datestamp>1257188220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last I checked, a few months ago, there didn't seem to be any simple options for running skype on a 64-bit GNU/Linux machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I checked , a few months ago , there did n't seem to be any simple options for running skype on a 64-bit GNU/Linux machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I checked, a few months ago, there didn't seem to be any simple options for running skype on a 64-bit GNU/Linux machine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950428</id>
	<title>Cautiously Optimistic?</title>
	<author>mrpacmanjel</author>
	<datestamp>1257178740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From a practical perpsective this is good news and a step forward.</p><p>However, if part of this "open source" announcement means a binary-blob needs to be included on an open-source OS (e.g. Linux) should we still be worried?</p><p>Off the top of my head I can think of graphics cards, wireless network adapters, software and scanner-type devices that need binary "blobs" to be usable.</p><p>I am worried because this could be a growing trend of reliance on companies policy of releasing binary only software onto a open-source OS.</p><p>E.g. I have a laptop with an ATI-based graphics card (r200M). I have been using the closed source driver to enable me to enjoy meaningful 3d-accelerated performace on my laptop. Unfortunately the new version of the driver(9.10?) now considers my card "legacy" which means the previous version (9.2) will not compile with the latest Xorg release.</p><p>If the driver was *fully* open source then at least something can be done about it.</p><p>I had to deal with this with MS Windows - it's one of the many reasons I use Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From a practical perpsective this is good news and a step forward.However , if part of this " open source " announcement means a binary-blob needs to be included on an open-source OS ( e.g .
Linux ) should we still be worried ? Off the top of my head I can think of graphics cards , wireless network adapters , software and scanner-type devices that need binary " blobs " to be usable.I am worried because this could be a growing trend of reliance on companies policy of releasing binary only software onto a open-source OS.E.g .
I have a laptop with an ATI-based graphics card ( r200M ) .
I have been using the closed source driver to enable me to enjoy meaningful 3d-accelerated performace on my laptop .
Unfortunately the new version of the driver ( 9.10 ?
) now considers my card " legacy " which means the previous version ( 9.2 ) will not compile with the latest Xorg release.If the driver was * fully * open source then at least something can be done about it.I had to deal with this with MS Windows - it 's one of the many reasons I use Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a practical perpsective this is good news and a step forward.However, if part of this "open source" announcement means a binary-blob needs to be included on an open-source OS (e.g.
Linux) should we still be worried?Off the top of my head I can think of graphics cards, wireless network adapters, software and scanner-type devices that need binary "blobs" to be usable.I am worried because this could be a growing trend of reliance on companies policy of releasing binary only software onto a open-source OS.E.g.
I have a laptop with an ATI-based graphics card (r200M).
I have been using the closed source driver to enable me to enjoy meaningful 3d-accelerated performace on my laptop.
Unfortunately the new version of the driver(9.10?
) now considers my card "legacy" which means the previous version (9.2) will not compile with the latest Xorg release.If the driver was *fully* open source then at least something can be done about it.I had to deal with this with MS Windows - it's one of the many reasons I use Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29953488</id>
	<title>Re:Abandonware in 3....2....1....</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1257193080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is the same old story. The business doesn't want to support a Linux client so they open the code they have and abandon it.</p></div><p>Yes, but doesn't it being open code, mean that you can then host it on Sourceforge etc, and then develop it yourself?  If the company is giving you the source, they don't need to keep doing the development for you; you can take it in the direction you want.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the same old story .
The business does n't want to support a Linux client so they open the code they have and abandon it.Yes , but does n't it being open code , mean that you can then host it on Sourceforge etc , and then develop it yourself ?
If the company is giving you the source , they do n't need to keep doing the development for you ; you can take it in the direction you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the same old story.
The business doesn't want to support a Linux client so they open the code they have and abandon it.Yes, but doesn't it being open code, mean that you can then host it on Sourceforge etc, and then develop it yourself?
If the company is giving you the source, they don't need to keep doing the development for you; you can take it in the direction you want.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950770</id>
	<title>Re:GUI Code Only</title>
	<author>dopeghost</author>
	<datestamp>1257180420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd say no.

Given the likely chance that they will open source only the gui code and not the protocol library, the program might as well be closed source.

A program like Pidgin that wanted to include skype support would have to include a pre-compiled 'blackbox' file to actually communicate with anything, and since the source for this was not available, it could no longer be distributed as open source.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say no .
Given the likely chance that they will open source only the gui code and not the protocol library , the program might as well be closed source .
A program like Pidgin that wanted to include skype support would have to include a pre-compiled 'blackbox ' file to actually communicate with anything , and since the source for this was not available , it could no longer be distributed as open source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say no.
Given the likely chance that they will open source only the gui code and not the protocol library, the program might as well be closed source.
A program like Pidgin that wanted to include skype support would have to include a pre-compiled 'blackbox' file to actually communicate with anything, and since the source for this was not available, it could no longer be distributed as open source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29957484</id>
	<title>Re:This could be incredible...</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1257168900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not certain how it does it, but I assume they're filtering the sound coming out of the speakers against the mic input.</p></div><p>Shifting windows. The software waits for a unique and easy to identify sound or frequency to be played, then tries to detect it. It checks how long it took for it to be picked up, then establishes a rough time for when the filtering has to be done, which is usually accurate within 1ms.</p><p>The filtering is beyond me - but I'm surprised programs can get the first bit so wrong. Measuring audio "ping" is easy - and if you don't immediately discard your played back audio from the buffer, surely some smart coder or mathematician can figure out how to filter it out?</p><p>I suppose skype also considers acoustic characteristics like distance from speakers to mic, and records how the frequency is altered when playing/hearing a "control" sound, to make the filtering more effective?</p><p>I knew there was a purpose for the startup sounds programs play!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not certain how it does it , but I assume they 're filtering the sound coming out of the speakers against the mic input.Shifting windows .
The software waits for a unique and easy to identify sound or frequency to be played , then tries to detect it .
It checks how long it took for it to be picked up , then establishes a rough time for when the filtering has to be done , which is usually accurate within 1ms.The filtering is beyond me - but I 'm surprised programs can get the first bit so wrong .
Measuring audio " ping " is easy - and if you do n't immediately discard your played back audio from the buffer , surely some smart coder or mathematician can figure out how to filter it out ? I suppose skype also considers acoustic characteristics like distance from speakers to mic , and records how the frequency is altered when playing/hearing a " control " sound , to make the filtering more effective ? I knew there was a purpose for the startup sounds programs play !
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not certain how it does it, but I assume they're filtering the sound coming out of the speakers against the mic input.Shifting windows.
The software waits for a unique and easy to identify sound or frequency to be played, then tries to detect it.
It checks how long it took for it to be picked up, then establishes a rough time for when the filtering has to be done, which is usually accurate within 1ms.The filtering is beyond me - but I'm surprised programs can get the first bit so wrong.
Measuring audio "ping" is easy - and if you don't immediately discard your played back audio from the buffer, surely some smart coder or mathematician can figure out how to filter it out?I suppose skype also considers acoustic characteristics like distance from speakers to mic, and records how the frequency is altered when playing/hearing a "control" sound, to make the filtering more effective?I knew there was a purpose for the startup sounds programs play!
:P
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951950</id>
	<title>update from linuxcrunch</title>
	<author>itwadi</author>
	<datestamp>1257185520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>After contacting Skype's representative,<a href="http://linuxcrunch.com/content/skype-will-be-open-source" title="linuxcrunch.com" rel="nofollow">Linuxcrunch.com</a> [linuxcrunch.com] got an update for this issue:
"We appreciate our user community's enthusiasm and realize this is something they have been wanting for a while. We realize the potential of the open source community and believe that making Skype for Linux an open source application will help to speed up its development and enhance its compatibility with different versions of Linux. While it is our goal to make Skype for Linux source code available to the community in the nearest future, we are not at a point to disclose an exact release date yet."</htmltext>
<tokenext>After contacting Skype 's representative,Linuxcrunch.com [ linuxcrunch.com ] got an update for this issue : " We appreciate our user community 's enthusiasm and realize this is something they have been wanting for a while .
We realize the potential of the open source community and believe that making Skype for Linux an open source application will help to speed up its development and enhance its compatibility with different versions of Linux .
While it is our goal to make Skype for Linux source code available to the community in the nearest future , we are not at a point to disclose an exact release date yet .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After contacting Skype's representative,Linuxcrunch.com [linuxcrunch.com] got an update for this issue:
"We appreciate our user community's enthusiasm and realize this is something they have been wanting for a while.
We realize the potential of the open source community and believe that making Skype for Linux an open source application will help to speed up its development and enhance its compatibility with different versions of Linux.
While it is our goal to make Skype for Linux source code available to the community in the nearest future, we are not at a point to disclose an exact release date yet.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950356</id>
	<title>Did you RTFM ?</title>
	<author>BESTouff</author>
	<datestamp>1257178320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nowhere in the article (er<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. blog post) it's said that there will be a binary component. It's just a guess from a comment from some random guy.
So no need to ague ad libitum on what will be Free software or not, let's wait.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nowhere in the article ( er .. blog post ) it 's said that there will be a binary component .
It 's just a guess from a comment from some random guy .
So no need to ague ad libitum on what will be Free software or not , let 's wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nowhere in the article (er .. blog post) it's said that there will be a binary component.
It's just a guess from a comment from some random guy.
So no need to ague ad libitum on what will be Free software or not, let's wait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29953858</id>
	<title>Re:GUI Code Only</title>
	<author>jgrahn</author>
	<datestamp>1257194640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Not quite open source then, but I guess it's better than the situation right now.</p></div></blockquote><p>
No, a worse situation. More people will become locked into a proprietary protocol, and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><blockquote><div><p>Still no way of ensuring there are no backdoors in the encryption though.</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and it's also that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite open source then , but I guess it 's better than the situation right now .
No , a worse situation .
More people will become locked into a proprietary protocol , and ...Still no way of ensuring there are no backdoors in the encryption though .
... and it 's also that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite open source then, but I guess it's better than the situation right now.
No, a worse situation.
More people will become locked into a proprietary protocol, and ...Still no way of ensuring there are no backdoors in the encryption though.
... and it's also that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952618</id>
	<title>Re:Abandonware in 3....2....1....</title>
	<author>charlesnw</author>
	<datestamp>1257189000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um.... maybe you didn't notice but Ebay sold skype to a VC firm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um.... maybe you did n't notice but Ebay sold skype to a VC firm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um.... maybe you didn't notice but Ebay sold skype to a VC firm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950868</id>
	<title>Re:Nope</title>
	<author>Mooga</author>
	<datestamp>1257180780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree, I just called Microsoft and they also told me that they would "open source Windows 7 in the nearest future."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , I just called Microsoft and they also told me that they would " open source Windows 7 in the nearest future .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, I just called Microsoft and they also told me that they would "open source Windows 7 in the nearest future.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950980</id>
	<title>Re:Seems largely pointless.</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1257181200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a few other have pointed out, it could lead to a lot more clients supporting the Skype protocol. Integration into the Linux desktops and their messengers/VOIP clients could be a real advantage. I certainly wouldn't mind dropping one extra piece of software in favor of a more integrated approach. It may also provide some useful code for webcam interfaces since they can still be patchy on Linux machines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a few other have pointed out , it could lead to a lot more clients supporting the Skype protocol .
Integration into the Linux desktops and their messengers/VOIP clients could be a real advantage .
I certainly would n't mind dropping one extra piece of software in favor of a more integrated approach .
It may also provide some useful code for webcam interfaces since they can still be patchy on Linux machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a few other have pointed out, it could lead to a lot more clients supporting the Skype protocol.
Integration into the Linux desktops and their messengers/VOIP clients could be a real advantage.
I certainly wouldn't mind dropping one extra piece of software in favor of a more integrated approach.
It may also provide some useful code for webcam interfaces since they can still be patchy on Linux machines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950948</id>
	<title>Re:Yay</title>
	<author>khayman80</author>
	<datestamp>1257181080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why buy new underwear when you can just use <a href="http://lineboil.com/2009/10/billy-mays-hucks-chipotlaway-on-south-park/" title="lineboil.com">Chipotlaway</a> [lineboil.com]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why buy new underwear when you can just use Chipotlaway [ lineboil.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why buy new underwear when you can just use Chipotlaway [lineboil.com]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952242</id>
	<title>Re:Seems largely pointless.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257187020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Almost every complaint I have seen about people using skype on linux are about integration with the OS (particularly sound/video APIs and hardware drivers).  There are plenty of people who don't like the closed nature of the protocol, that's not likely to change and they mostly use other VoIP/IM software.</p><p>Even with a binary blob there is much that can be done to improve the robustness and integration of the software.  It's true that it's not a huge step forward in getting skype support for other architectures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost every complaint I have seen about people using skype on linux are about integration with the OS ( particularly sound/video APIs and hardware drivers ) .
There are plenty of people who do n't like the closed nature of the protocol , that 's not likely to change and they mostly use other VoIP/IM software.Even with a binary blob there is much that can be done to improve the robustness and integration of the software .
It 's true that it 's not a huge step forward in getting skype support for other architectures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost every complaint I have seen about people using skype on linux are about integration with the OS (particularly sound/video APIs and hardware drivers).
There are plenty of people who don't like the closed nature of the protocol, that's not likely to change and they mostly use other VoIP/IM software.Even with a binary blob there is much that can be done to improve the robustness and integration of the software.
It's true that it's not a huge step forward in getting skype support for other architectures.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951076</id>
	<title>Re:Yay</title>
	<author>geordie\_loz</author>
	<datestamp>1257181740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>however.  Having skype integrated into open source PBX as a trunk (using the binary protocal, and the know how of how to use from the skype source) would be pretty good..</htmltext>
<tokenext>however .
Having skype integrated into open source PBX as a trunk ( using the binary protocal , and the know how of how to use from the skype source ) would be pretty good. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>however.
Having skype integrated into open source PBX as a trunk (using the binary protocal, and the know how of how to use from the skype source) would be pretty good..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29953660</id>
	<title>Re:Abandonware in 3....2....1....</title>
	<author>wagnerrp</author>
	<datestamp>1257193740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What distros will the blob track?</p></div><p>What makes you think they will 'track' any distro?  If they're OSing the GUI, the only thing left in the blob is some networking and crypto code.  That can easily be statically linked, and then you just let the distros handle the UI dependencies on their own.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What distros will the blob track ? What makes you think they will 'track ' any distro ?
If they 're OSing the GUI , the only thing left in the blob is some networking and crypto code .
That can easily be statically linked , and then you just let the distros handle the UI dependencies on their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What distros will the blob track?What makes you think they will 'track' any distro?
If they're OSing the GUI, the only thing left in the blob is some networking and crypto code.
That can easily be statically linked, and then you just let the distros handle the UI dependencies on their own.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952442</id>
	<title>This ..</title>
	<author>SlashDev</author>
	<datestamp>1257188040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>.. is not open source. There is no such thing as partial-open source software, if that were the case, I could write software code in Perl that shows an interface, that calls DLL functions and call it open source. Sorry, no reason to celebrate here... Move along..</htmltext>
<tokenext>.. is not open source .
There is no such thing as partial-open source software , if that were the case , I could write software code in Perl that shows an interface , that calls DLL functions and call it open source .
Sorry , no reason to celebrate here... Move along. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. is not open source.
There is no such thing as partial-open source software, if that were the case, I could write software code in Perl that shows an interface, that calls DLL functions and call it open source.
Sorry, no reason to celebrate here... Move along..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951314</id>
	<title>Re:Seems largely pointless.</title>
	<author>Malc</author>
	<datestamp>1257182760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would love a UI that makes sense, on Win32 and Mac OS X.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love a UI that makes sense , on Win32 and Mac OS X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love a UI that makes sense, on Win32 and Mac OS X.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951982</id>
	<title>The audio support is ghastly</title>
	<author>xant</author>
	<datestamp>1257185760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Skype is a huge source of pain when people discuss Linux audio.  It's possible to get it working (mainly by pretending pulseaudio doesn't exist), but so many people have so many problems with it that there's still a widespread belief that it's completely broken.  If only the client-facing parts get open sourced, the audio interface ought to be part of that.  The protocol, as far as I can tell, works pretty damn good (despite it occasionally telling me someone's offline when I know they're not).  I'm fine with not having access to that.  But I <i>really</i> want someone to put in decent audio compatibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Skype is a huge source of pain when people discuss Linux audio .
It 's possible to get it working ( mainly by pretending pulseaudio does n't exist ) , but so many people have so many problems with it that there 's still a widespread belief that it 's completely broken .
If only the client-facing parts get open sourced , the audio interface ought to be part of that .
The protocol , as far as I can tell , works pretty damn good ( despite it occasionally telling me someone 's offline when I know they 're not ) .
I 'm fine with not having access to that .
But I really want someone to put in decent audio compatibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Skype is a huge source of pain when people discuss Linux audio.
It's possible to get it working (mainly by pretending pulseaudio doesn't exist), but so many people have so many problems with it that there's still a widespread belief that it's completely broken.
If only the client-facing parts get open sourced, the audio interface ought to be part of that.
The protocol, as far as I can tell, works pretty damn good (despite it occasionally telling me someone's offline when I know they're not).
I'm fine with not having access to that.
But I really want someone to put in decent audio compatibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952232</id>
	<title>The first thing I'll download.</title>
	<author>Ostracus</author>
	<datestamp>1257187020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I'll open-source that too, and will make huge enterprisey pitches for the PHBs, until the closed-source virus that is Skype dies out for all eternity, until the end of all time."</p><p>Much like Apple will die out. Here's a clue, Skype did for VOIP what Apple did for computers. Made it easier for the average person to be a participant.</p><p>Right now getting Skype running is simple download, install, run, create account, enjoy. SIP is a little less Plug and Play.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'll open-source that too , and will make huge enterprisey pitches for the PHBs , until the closed-source virus that is Skype dies out for all eternity , until the end of all time .
" Much like Apple will die out .
Here 's a clue , Skype did for VOIP what Apple did for computers .
Made it easier for the average person to be a participant.Right now getting Skype running is simple download , install , run , create account , enjoy .
SIP is a little less Plug and Play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'll open-source that too, and will make huge enterprisey pitches for the PHBs, until the closed-source virus that is Skype dies out for all eternity, until the end of all time.
"Much like Apple will die out.
Here's a clue, Skype did for VOIP what Apple did for computers.
Made it easier for the average person to be a participant.Right now getting Skype running is simple download, install, run, create account, enjoy.
SIP is a little less Plug and Play.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29959582</id>
	<title>Re:Yay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257181140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you should stop eating burritos if they make you 'poop' your drawers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you should stop eating burritos if they make you 'poop ' your drawers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you should stop eating burritos if they make you 'poop' your drawers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29961292</id>
	<title>Excellent News</title>
	<author>MundoExchange</author>
	<datestamp>1257243180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This will help us out incredibly. As a volunteer organisation helping promote education in Isaan, Thailand this will reduce the potential for costs considerably. We try to use Linux as best we can as we cannot afford to buy expensive operating systems and our computers are getting on a bit and aren't anywhere near as good as modern systems. Our Gap year students, volunteers and founders mostly use Apple + Microsoft to communicate but with Skype being added to Linux we can all keep in touch whilst keeping the costs down. I'm glad Skype have decided to take the road of "multicultural" Open Source developers as the community will drive the project home to a stable finish and ensure that everything is transparent within it. We were thinking of going down the Google Voice route but this has definitely made us change our minds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will help us out incredibly .
As a volunteer organisation helping promote education in Isaan , Thailand this will reduce the potential for costs considerably .
We try to use Linux as best we can as we can not afford to buy expensive operating systems and our computers are getting on a bit and are n't anywhere near as good as modern systems .
Our Gap year students , volunteers and founders mostly use Apple + Microsoft to communicate but with Skype being added to Linux we can all keep in touch whilst keeping the costs down .
I 'm glad Skype have decided to take the road of " multicultural " Open Source developers as the community will drive the project home to a stable finish and ensure that everything is transparent within it .
We were thinking of going down the Google Voice route but this has definitely made us change our minds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will help us out incredibly.
As a volunteer organisation helping promote education in Isaan, Thailand this will reduce the potential for costs considerably.
We try to use Linux as best we can as we cannot afford to buy expensive operating systems and our computers are getting on a bit and aren't anywhere near as good as modern systems.
Our Gap year students, volunteers and founders mostly use Apple + Microsoft to communicate but with Skype being added to Linux we can all keep in touch whilst keeping the costs down.
I'm glad Skype have decided to take the road of "multicultural" Open Source developers as the community will drive the project home to a stable finish and ensure that everything is transparent within it.
We were thinking of going down the Google Voice route but this has definitely made us change our minds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950600</id>
	<title>Re:GUI Code Only</title>
	<author>fearlezz</author>
	<datestamp>1257179580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, it's not really open source. But it does allow a whole range of new applications. For instance: sipskype bridges (for asterisk or any other pbx).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , it 's not really open source .
But it does allow a whole range of new applications .
For instance : sipskype bridges ( for asterisk or any other pbx ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, it's not really open source.
But it does allow a whole range of new applications.
For instance: sipskype bridges (for asterisk or any other pbx).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950536</id>
	<title>Re:Yay</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257179340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can do that without Skype's source code.  There are plenty of SIP clients out there and in fact an entire PBX system for Linux that includes the ability to war dial and use text to speech scripts on calls already.</p><p>I'd almost wager someone has already written an asterisk script to order for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can do that without Skype 's source code .
There are plenty of SIP clients out there and in fact an entire PBX system for Linux that includes the ability to war dial and use text to speech scripts on calls already.I 'd almost wager someone has already written an asterisk script to order for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can do that without Skype's source code.
There are plenty of SIP clients out there and in fact an entire PBX system for Linux that includes the ability to war dial and use text to speech scripts on calls already.I'd almost wager someone has already written an asterisk script to order for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950726</id>
	<title>The first thing I'll build:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257180180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A Skype-SIP gateway server. And then abandon all and everything that is Skype from my systems. (Except for the gateway on one server, of course.)<br>I'll open-source that too, and will make huge enterprisey pitches for the PHBs, until the closed-source virus that is Skype dies out for all eternity, until the end of all time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A Skype-SIP gateway server .
And then abandon all and everything that is Skype from my systems .
( Except for the gateway on one server , of course .
) I 'll open-source that too , and will make huge enterprisey pitches for the PHBs , until the closed-source virus that is Skype dies out for all eternity , until the end of all time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Skype-SIP gateway server.
And then abandon all and everything that is Skype from my systems.
(Except for the gateway on one server, of course.
)I'll open-source that too, and will make huge enterprisey pitches for the PHBs, until the closed-source virus that is Skype dies out for all eternity, until the end of all time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950368</id>
	<title>Re:Seems largely pointless.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257178440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that this isn't news, but I don't think it's pointless.</p><p>With the binary blob being available as library (well, it is speculated anyway), one can VoIP-enable one's own applications (whether it's an IM cilent or tech support tool) with a piece of code that is tested and is known to work well under all kinds of different configurations. A lot of the free VoIP out there isn't quite up to snuff, and requires a lot of end-user mucking around to get to work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that this is n't news , but I do n't think it 's pointless.With the binary blob being available as library ( well , it is speculated anyway ) , one can VoIP-enable one 's own applications ( whether it 's an IM cilent or tech support tool ) with a piece of code that is tested and is known to work well under all kinds of different configurations .
A lot of the free VoIP out there is n't quite up to snuff , and requires a lot of end-user mucking around to get to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that this isn't news, but I don't think it's pointless.With the binary blob being available as library (well, it is speculated anyway), one can VoIP-enable one's own applications (whether it's an IM cilent or tech support tool) with a piece of code that is tested and is known to work well under all kinds of different configurations.
A lot of the free VoIP out there isn't quite up to snuff, and requires a lot of end-user mucking around to get to work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951300</id>
	<title>Re:The first thing I'll build:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257182700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh look! A skype SIP gateway <a href="http://www.skype.com/go/sip/" title="skype.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.skype.com/go/sip/</a> [skype.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh look !
A skype SIP gateway http : //www.skype.com/go/sip/ [ skype.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh look!
A skype SIP gateway http://www.skype.com/go/sip/ [skype.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950516</id>
	<title>Re:protocol will probably be ... binary-only</title>
	<author>jareth-0205</author>
	<datestamp>1257179160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say that having a bit more control of the implementation of sound would lead to less problems in the future (the constantly-moving linux sound architecture has until recently had Skype on a constant catch-up). Also could lead to integration with Pidgin or similar IM-aggregators, which wouldn't be a bad thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say that having a bit more control of the implementation of sound would lead to less problems in the future ( the constantly-moving linux sound architecture has until recently had Skype on a constant catch-up ) .
Also could lead to integration with Pidgin or similar IM-aggregators , which would n't be a bad thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say that having a bit more control of the implementation of sound would lead to less problems in the future (the constantly-moving linux sound architecture has until recently had Skype on a constant catch-up).
Also could lead to integration with Pidgin or similar IM-aggregators, which wouldn't be a bad thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950778</id>
	<title>Re:Seems largely pointless.</title>
	<author>Youngbull</author>
	<datestamp>1257180420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>you could potentially integrate Skype into Empathy or Pidgin if the license is right so I think it's a good thing!</htmltext>
<tokenext>you could potentially integrate Skype into Empathy or Pidgin if the license is right so I think it 's a good thing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you could potentially integrate Skype into Empathy or Pidgin if the license is right so I think it's a good thing!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29954522</id>
	<title>Re:Seems largely pointless.</title>
	<author>Zerimar</author>
	<datestamp>1257154200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>eBay doesn't own the protocol, so you'll have to go to Joltid if you want that portion open sourced.</htmltext>
<tokenext>eBay does n't own the protocol , so you 'll have to go to Joltid if you want that portion open sourced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eBay doesn't own the protocol, so you'll have to go to Joltid if you want that portion open sourced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951228</id>
	<title>Re:protocol will probably be ... binary-only</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1257182340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, you also have control over the cord that connects the handset to the receiver, so you have a lot more control over how the sound gets to you than you would otherwise.</p><p>But I'd rather use Pidgin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you also have control over the cord that connects the handset to the receiver , so you have a lot more control over how the sound gets to you than you would otherwise.But I 'd rather use Pidgin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you also have control over the cord that connects the handset to the receiver, so you have a lot more control over how the sound gets to you than you would otherwise.But I'd rather use Pidgin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29954484</id>
	<title>Re:Yay</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1257154020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I met a guy in an Asterisk training course who was using it for telemarketing, and he told us it's commonly used in the industry<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:( It just seems so wrong...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I met a guy in an Asterisk training course who was using it for telemarketing , and he told us it 's commonly used in the industry : ( It just seems so wrong.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I met a guy in an Asterisk training course who was using it for telemarketing, and he told us it's commonly used in the industry :( It just seems so wrong...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950062</id>
	<title>Yay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257176580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Means I can create a client to automatically order in chinese.. or maybe a chipotle burrito and some fresh underwear</htmltext>
<tokenext>Means I can create a client to automatically order in chinese.. or maybe a chipotle burrito and some fresh underwear</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Means I can create a client to automatically order in chinese.. or maybe a chipotle burrito and some fresh underwear</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262</id>
	<title>Seems largely pointless.</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1257177600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>With something like Skype, pretty much all the stuff of interest is in the protocol(and the weird stuff that it gets up to, burrowing through firewalls and being designed to be heavily resistant to inspection and so forth). The UI isn't ghastly; but it isn't very interesting.<br> <br>

Obviously, this is exactly why Skype would be OSSing the GUI and not the protocol binary blob; but it is also why the news isn't of much interest. As long as basically all the program's important functions depend on a binary blob you can't see what it is doing, you can't port it to other architectures, you are really no better off than if the whole thing were binary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With something like Skype , pretty much all the stuff of interest is in the protocol ( and the weird stuff that it gets up to , burrowing through firewalls and being designed to be heavily resistant to inspection and so forth ) .
The UI is n't ghastly ; but it is n't very interesting .
Obviously , this is exactly why Skype would be OSSing the GUI and not the protocol binary blob ; but it is also why the news is n't of much interest .
As long as basically all the program 's important functions depend on a binary blob you ca n't see what it is doing , you ca n't port it to other architectures , you are really no better off than if the whole thing were binary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With something like Skype, pretty much all the stuff of interest is in the protocol(and the weird stuff that it gets up to, burrowing through firewalls and being designed to be heavily resistant to inspection and so forth).
The UI isn't ghastly; but it isn't very interesting.
Obviously, this is exactly why Skype would be OSSing the GUI and not the protocol binary blob; but it is also why the news isn't of much interest.
As long as basically all the program's important functions depend on a binary blob you can't see what it is doing, you can't port it to other architectures, you are really no better off than if the whole thing were binary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952132</id>
	<title>Re:Good riddance, crappy ugly Skype client</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1257186480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hopefully this means that libpurple, telepathy et al will be able to make Skype calls.</p></div><p>That's pretty much it - this is the only real advantage to be derived from this. Not Skype somehow becoming "open", but that Pidgin, Ekiga etc can all support it as yet another protocol.</p><p>I wonder also... even if they release it as a Linux libskype.so, I can't imagine it being very strongly tied to Linux. I mean, how many system APIs would such a thing really need? Mostly just networking... and otherwise it's just x86 (and hopefully also amd64) code. In that case, it could probably be wrapped into a loader and API shims that would let it be used in Windows as well - it would be tricky, but the makers of a few popular multi-network clients (such as Trillian) might be willing to go to those lengths.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully this means that libpurple , telepathy et al will be able to make Skype calls.That 's pretty much it - this is the only real advantage to be derived from this .
Not Skype somehow becoming " open " , but that Pidgin , Ekiga etc can all support it as yet another protocol.I wonder also... even if they release it as a Linux libskype.so , I ca n't imagine it being very strongly tied to Linux .
I mean , how many system APIs would such a thing really need ?
Mostly just networking... and otherwise it 's just x86 ( and hopefully also amd64 ) code .
In that case , it could probably be wrapped into a loader and API shims that would let it be used in Windows as well - it would be tricky , but the makers of a few popular multi-network clients ( such as Trillian ) might be willing to go to those lengths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully this means that libpurple, telepathy et al will be able to make Skype calls.That's pretty much it - this is the only real advantage to be derived from this.
Not Skype somehow becoming "open", but that Pidgin, Ekiga etc can all support it as yet another protocol.I wonder also... even if they release it as a Linux libskype.so, I can't imagine it being very strongly tied to Linux.
I mean, how many system APIs would such a thing really need?
Mostly just networking... and otherwise it's just x86 (and hopefully also amd64) code.
In that case, it could probably be wrapped into a loader and API shims that would let it be used in Windows as well - it would be tricky, but the makers of a few popular multi-network clients (such as Trillian) might be willing to go to those lengths.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950534</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is "the nearest future"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257179280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In several languages, the superlative (formed in English like "nearest") can also mean something more along the lines of "very near." I imagine this is probably the case in French. It isn't in English, but a non-native speaker might not notice when he goes to translate his superlative expression into English.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In several languages , the superlative ( formed in English like " nearest " ) can also mean something more along the lines of " very near .
" I imagine this is probably the case in French .
It is n't in English , but a non-native speaker might not notice when he goes to translate his superlative expression into English .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In several languages, the superlative (formed in English like "nearest") can also mean something more along the lines of "very near.
" I imagine this is probably the case in French.
It isn't in English, but a non-native speaker might not notice when he goes to translate his superlative expression into English.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29955276</id>
	<title>Bluetooth support finally?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257157680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe some FOSS hackers can finally make bluetooth work on Skype.  (and I don't mean bluetooth libraries from 2002)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe some FOSS hackers can finally make bluetooth work on Skype .
( and I do n't mean bluetooth libraries from 2002 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe some FOSS hackers can finally make bluetooth work on Skype.
(and I don't mean bluetooth libraries from 2002)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951578</id>
	<title>Re:Nope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257183960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Story has been confirmed at the Skype Linux blog:<br>http://share.skype.com/sites/linux/2009/11/skype\_open\_source.html</p><p>They are making an open source UI to allow better integration with distros.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Story has been confirmed at the Skype Linux blog : http : //share.skype.com/sites/linux/2009/11/skype \ _open \ _source.htmlThey are making an open source UI to allow better integration with distros .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Story has been confirmed at the Skype Linux blog:http://share.skype.com/sites/linux/2009/11/skype\_open\_source.htmlThey are making an open source UI to allow better integration with distros.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950252</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is "the nearest future"?</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1257177600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lim future(t)<br>t-&gt;now+</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lim future ( t ) t- &gt; now +</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lim future(t)t-&gt;now+</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950978</id>
	<title>SKYPE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257181200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>U mean the worst VIOP/Teleconference software out there? Who even uses it? They must be on the way out to consider such a move.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>U mean the worst VIOP/Teleconference software out there ?
Who even uses it ?
They must be on the way out to consider such a move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>U mean the worst VIOP/Teleconference software out there?
Who even uses it?
They must be on the way out to consider such a move.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29953470</id>
	<title>Less than ideal, but a huge improvement</title>
	<author>feranick</author>
	<datestamp>1257192960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously the protocol will remain closed source. However everything else, apparently will be open. Basically anybody can build not Skype support into their applications. For example Empathy will have built in support for skype, or even GoogleTalk!

Now this is less than ideal. But given that the main problem in the current client is the mess in which it has to operate (PulseAudio support, mainly), and the painfully slow development cycle, this can only be good news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously the protocol will remain closed source .
However everything else , apparently will be open .
Basically anybody can build not Skype support into their applications .
For example Empathy will have built in support for skype , or even GoogleTalk !
Now this is less than ideal .
But given that the main problem in the current client is the mess in which it has to operate ( PulseAudio support , mainly ) , and the painfully slow development cycle , this can only be good news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously the protocol will remain closed source.
However everything else, apparently will be open.
Basically anybody can build not Skype support into their applications.
For example Empathy will have built in support for skype, or even GoogleTalk!
Now this is less than ideal.
But given that the main problem in the current client is the mess in which it has to operate (PulseAudio support, mainly), and the painfully slow development cycle, this can only be good news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29963340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29954484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29953858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29961608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29961586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29953488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29957484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29959582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29953660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29955472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29954522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_1353245_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1353245.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29957484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1353245.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1353245.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1353245.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1353245.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1353245.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1353245.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29953488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29953660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1353245.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1353245.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1353245.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29954522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29963340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29961586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1353245.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29953858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29961608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950258
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29955472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1353245.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1353245.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29952308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1353245.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29959582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29950536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29954484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29951076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_1353245.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_1353245.29953470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
