<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_07_2013246</id>
	<title>How Google Uses Linux</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257583140000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>postfail writes <i>'<a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/KernelSummit2009/">lwn.net coverage of the 2009 Linux Kernel Summit</a> includes a recap of a presentation by Google engineers on <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/357658/">how they use Linux</a>.  According to the article, a team of 30 Google engineers is rebasing to the mainline kernel every 17 months, presently carrying 1208 patches to 2.6.26 and inserting almost 300,000 lines of code; roughly 25\% of those patches are backports of newer features.'</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>postfail writes 'lwn.net coverage of the 2009 Linux Kernel Summit includes a recap of a presentation by Google engineers on how they use Linux .
According to the article , a team of 30 Google engineers is rebasing to the mainline kernel every 17 months , presently carrying 1208 patches to 2.6.26 and inserting almost 300,000 lines of code ; roughly 25 \ % of those patches are backports of newer features .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>postfail writes 'lwn.net coverage of the 2009 Linux Kernel Summit includes a recap of a presentation by Google engineers on how they use Linux.
According to the article, a team of 30 Google engineers is rebasing to the mainline kernel every 17 months, presently carrying 1208 patches to 2.6.26 and inserting almost 300,000 lines of code; roughly 25\% of those patches are backports of newer features.
'</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30028110</id>
	<title>Re:Open source is the coat tails that Google rides</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257695820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you've missed his point - the emphasis is on the 'kissing ass', not the table scraps.</p><p>he's not worried about the table scraps per se, he's worried about the fact that people go apeshit with the whole "google are omfg so awesome holy crap" thing to an extent that they believe (by default) google actually make important oss contributions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you 've missed his point - the emphasis is on the 'kissing ass ' , not the table scraps.he 's not worried about the table scraps per se , he 's worried about the fact that people go apeshit with the whole " google are omfg so awesome holy crap " thing to an extent that they believe ( by default ) google actually make important oss contributions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you've missed his point - the emphasis is on the 'kissing ass', not the table scraps.he's not worried about the table scraps per se, he's worried about the fact that people go apeshit with the whole "google are omfg so awesome holy crap" thing to an extent that they believe (by default) google actually make important oss contributions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019350</id>
	<title>Reminds me of Android</title>
	<author>cycoj</author>
	<datestamp>1257617520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somehow I'm reminded about the whole Android thing. Google really seems to have the urge to only do their own thing. Same thing with android where they have thrown out the whole "Linux" userspace to reinvent the wheel (only not as good, see Harald Welte's Blog for a rant about it). Here it seems the same thing they just do their own thing without merging back and disregarding experiences others might have had.</p><p>On a side note, their problems with the Completely Fair Scheduler should be a good argument for pluggable schedulers. It shows one scheduler can't fit all use cases, but I doubt Linus will listen.<br>C</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow I 'm reminded about the whole Android thing .
Google really seems to have the urge to only do their own thing .
Same thing with android where they have thrown out the whole " Linux " userspace to reinvent the wheel ( only not as good , see Harald Welte 's Blog for a rant about it ) .
Here it seems the same thing they just do their own thing without merging back and disregarding experiences others might have had.On a side note , their problems with the Completely Fair Scheduler should be a good argument for pluggable schedulers .
It shows one scheduler ca n't fit all use cases , but I doubt Linus will listen.C</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow I'm reminded about the whole Android thing.
Google really seems to have the urge to only do their own thing.
Same thing with android where they have thrown out the whole "Linux" userspace to reinvent the wheel (only not as good, see Harald Welte's Blog for a rant about it).
Here it seems the same thing they just do their own thing without merging back and disregarding experiences others might have had.On a side note, their problems with the Completely Fair Scheduler should be a good argument for pluggable schedulers.
It shows one scheduler can't fit all use cases, but I doubt Linus will listen.C</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017000</id>
	<title>Low memory conditions</title>
	<author>jones\_supa</author>
	<datestamp>1257590700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Google makes a lot of use of the out-of-memory (OOM) killer to pare back overloaded systems. That can create trouble, though, when processes holding mutexes encounter the OOM killer. Mike wonders why the kernel tries so hard, rather than just failing allocation requests when memory gets too tight.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is something I have been wondering too. Doesn't it just lead to applications crashing more often than them normally reporting they cannot allocate more memory?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google makes a lot of use of the out-of-memory ( OOM ) killer to pare back overloaded systems .
That can create trouble , though , when processes holding mutexes encounter the OOM killer .
Mike wonders why the kernel tries so hard , rather than just failing allocation requests when memory gets too tight.This is something I have been wondering too .
Does n't it just lead to applications crashing more often than them normally reporting they can not allocate more memory ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google makes a lot of use of the out-of-memory (OOM) killer to pare back overloaded systems.
That can create trouble, though, when processes holding mutexes encounter the OOM killer.
Mike wonders why the kernel tries so hard, rather than just failing allocation requests when memory gets too tight.This is something I have been wondering too.
Doesn't it just lead to applications crashing more often than them normally reporting they cannot allocate more memory?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30018046</id>
	<title>Re:Is it worth it?</title>
	<author>Youngbull</author>
	<datestamp>1257600720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>let's assume that they have about a million servers already, then an improvement in overall load of 0.01\% would then save them from buying 100 machines... makes spending time making the operating system run smoothly a lot more profitable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>let 's assume that they have about a million servers already , then an improvement in overall load of 0.01 \ % would then save them from buying 100 machines... makes spending time making the operating system run smoothly a lot more profitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>let's assume that they have about a million servers already, then an improvement in overall load of 0.01\% would then save them from buying 100 machines... makes spending time making the operating system run smoothly a lot more profitable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017940</id>
	<title>Wow!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257599760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Omgz!  Google AND Linux in a story!!!  Every slashbots wet dream!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Omgz !
Google AND Linux in a story ! ! !
Every slashbots wet dream ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Omgz!
Google AND Linux in a story!!!
Every slashbots wet dream!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30023228</id>
	<title>Re:Low memory conditions</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1257704940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>This is something I have been wondering too. Doesn't it just lead to applications crashing more often than them normally reporting they cannot allocate more memory?</i>
</p><p>It results in (practically speaking) non-deterministic behaviour.  Which is pretty much the worst thing you could have when it comes to system reliability.  The OOM Killer (a solution to a problem that shouldn't even exist) basically kills stuff at random and (at least in my experience) rarely the process that's actually causing the problem in the first place.  It's quite common for the OOM Killer to reduce a system to a state where it's impossible to log in at all.
</p><p>The (default) memory allocation policy in Linux is insane and was only implemented to pander to badly written programs.  Fortunately you can make it behave in a sane manner by fiddling a sysctl, but that can (and does) break the aforementioned badly written code (a common victim is the JVM).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is something I have been wondering too .
Does n't it just lead to applications crashing more often than them normally reporting they can not allocate more memory ?
It results in ( practically speaking ) non-deterministic behaviour .
Which is pretty much the worst thing you could have when it comes to system reliability .
The OOM Killer ( a solution to a problem that should n't even exist ) basically kills stuff at random and ( at least in my experience ) rarely the process that 's actually causing the problem in the first place .
It 's quite common for the OOM Killer to reduce a system to a state where it 's impossible to log in at all .
The ( default ) memory allocation policy in Linux is insane and was only implemented to pander to badly written programs .
Fortunately you can make it behave in a sane manner by fiddling a sysctl , but that can ( and does ) break the aforementioned badly written code ( a common victim is the JVM ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This is something I have been wondering too.
Doesn't it just lead to applications crashing more often than them normally reporting they cannot allocate more memory?
It results in (practically speaking) non-deterministic behaviour.
Which is pretty much the worst thing you could have when it comes to system reliability.
The OOM Killer (a solution to a problem that shouldn't even exist) basically kills stuff at random and (at least in my experience) rarely the process that's actually causing the problem in the first place.
It's quite common for the OOM Killer to reduce a system to a state where it's impossible to log in at all.
The (default) memory allocation policy in Linux is insane and was only implemented to pander to badly written programs.
Fortunately you can make it behave in a sane manner by fiddling a sysctl, but that can (and does) break the aforementioned badly written code (a common victim is the JVM).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30070674</id>
	<title>They don't have to.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1258023660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should really read carefully the licenses of open source software before the foam in your mouth asphyxiates you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should really read carefully the licenses of open source software before the foam in your mouth asphyxiates you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should really read carefully the licenses of open source software before the foam in your mouth asphyxiates you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017272</id>
	<title>Re:Is it worth it?</title>
	<author>Taur0</author>
	<datestamp>1257593400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really hope you're not an engineer, because your solution to a problem should never be:

"Screw the most efficient solution, we'll just go out and buy more and waste more energy!"

These incremental increases in efficiency will drastically change a product overtime, look at cars for example. The countless engineers working at GM, Toyota, Ford, etc. could have easily said: "meh whatever, just make them buy more gas". The modern combustion engine is only about 30\% efficient, but that's far better than when the combustion engine was first thought of, which was somewhere around 0.4\%.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really hope you 're not an engineer , because your solution to a problem should never be : " Screw the most efficient solution , we 'll just go out and buy more and waste more energy !
" These incremental increases in efficiency will drastically change a product overtime , look at cars for example .
The countless engineers working at GM , Toyota , Ford , etc .
could have easily said : " meh whatever , just make them buy more gas " .
The modern combustion engine is only about 30 \ % efficient , but that 's far better than when the combustion engine was first thought of , which was somewhere around 0.4 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really hope you're not an engineer, because your solution to a problem should never be:

"Screw the most efficient solution, we'll just go out and buy more and waste more energy!
"

These incremental increases in efficiency will drastically change a product overtime, look at cars for example.
The countless engineers working at GM, Toyota, Ford, etc.
could have easily said: "meh whatever, just make them buy more gas".
The modern combustion engine is only about 30\% efficient, but that's far better than when the combustion engine was first thought of, which was somewhere around 0.4\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016658</id>
	<title>A New Culture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257587460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmmm... Techno-Amish?  (i.e. "We'll use your roads, but not your damned cars!")</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm... Techno-Amish ? ( i.e .
" We 'll use your roads , but not your damned cars !
" )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm... Techno-Amish?  (i.e.
"We'll use your roads, but not your damned cars!
")</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017824</id>
	<title>Re:Release the patches already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257598680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>U wont get it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>U wont get it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>U wont get it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019146</id>
	<title>Re:Does Google give coade back</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1257614520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can search for Google in <a href="http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.31/" title="linux.no" rel="nofollow">http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.31/</a> [linux.no]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can search for Google in http : //lxr.linux.no/ # linux + v2.6.31/ [ linux.no ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can search for Google in http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.31/ [linux.no]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30018564</id>
	<title>Re:Open source is the coat tails that Google rides</title>
	<author>tyrione</author>
	<datestamp>1257606240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hmm, you realize that Android alone is over 10 million lines of code right? That's a pretty big open source contribution right there. But then there's also over a million lines of code across 100+ smaller projects too. So I am not sure what your definition of "table scraps" is but it's significantly more lines of code than most companies do.</p></div><p>I see millions of lines of Code from the Apache Foundation's various Java projects in Android.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , you realize that Android alone is over 10 million lines of code right ?
That 's a pretty big open source contribution right there .
But then there 's also over a million lines of code across 100 + smaller projects too .
So I am not sure what your definition of " table scraps " is but it 's significantly more lines of code than most companies do.I see millions of lines of Code from the Apache Foundation 's various Java projects in Android .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, you realize that Android alone is over 10 million lines of code right?
That's a pretty big open source contribution right there.
But then there's also over a million lines of code across 100+ smaller projects too.
So I am not sure what your definition of "table scraps" is but it's significantly more lines of code than most companies do.I see millions of lines of Code from the Apache Foundation's various Java projects in Android.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017234</id>
	<title>Re:Does Google give coade back</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257592920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, they do. Since they use older kernels and have... unique... needs, they aren't a huge contributor like RedHat, but they do a lot.</p><p>During 2.6.31, they were responsible for <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/348445/" title="lwn.net">6\%</a> [lwn.net] of the changes to the kernel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , they do .
Since they use older kernels and have... unique... needs , they are n't a huge contributor like RedHat , but they do a lot.During 2.6.31 , they were responsible for 6 \ % [ lwn.net ] of the changes to the kernel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, they do.
Since they use older kernels and have... unique... needs, they aren't a huge contributor like RedHat, but they do a lot.During 2.6.31, they were responsible for 6\% [lwn.net] of the changes to the kernel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30018704</id>
	<title>Re:Open source is the coat tails that Google rides</title>
	<author>nloop</author>
	<datestamp>1257608520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Android is not GPL'd.  Android is released under the Apache license.  As of Android 2.0 Google has opted to <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/android-platform/msg/f9b9c040404e900c" title="google.com">not released the code</a> [google.com] to the Android Open Source Project.  Those 10 million lines of code are for the most part closed.  Sure, they have to release the kernel itself, but "Android" is theirs and they are keeping it.  <br> <br>I'm assuming this is to give Verizon exclusivity with their "droid" phone to be the only one running 2.0.  I don't think they anticipated projects like cyanogenmod taking off quite like they have.  Why buy a droid if your cheap g1 can run the latest software?  <br> <br>Do No Evil?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Android is not GPL 'd .
Android is released under the Apache license .
As of Android 2.0 Google has opted to not released the code [ google.com ] to the Android Open Source Project .
Those 10 million lines of code are for the most part closed .
Sure , they have to release the kernel itself , but " Android " is theirs and they are keeping it .
I 'm assuming this is to give Verizon exclusivity with their " droid " phone to be the only one running 2.0 .
I do n't think they anticipated projects like cyanogenmod taking off quite like they have .
Why buy a droid if your cheap g1 can run the latest software ?
Do No Evil ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Android is not GPL'd.
Android is released under the Apache license.
As of Android 2.0 Google has opted to not released the code [google.com] to the Android Open Source Project.
Those 10 million lines of code are for the most part closed.
Sure, they have to release the kernel itself, but "Android" is theirs and they are keeping it.
I'm assuming this is to give Verizon exclusivity with their "droid" phone to be the only one running 2.0.
I don't think they anticipated projects like cyanogenmod taking off quite like they have.
Why buy a droid if your cheap g1 can run the latest software?
Do No Evil?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017072</id>
	<title>Re:Is it worth it?</title>
	<author>dingen</author>
	<datestamp>1257591420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ooooh... efficiency.. I'm curious what the net savings is.. compared to buying more cheap hardware.</p></div><p>We're talking about Google here. They have dozens of datacenters all over the globe, filled with hundreds of thousands of servers. Some estimate even a million servers or more.</p><p>So lets assume they have indeed a million servers and they need 5\% more efficiency out of their server farms. Following your logic, it would be better to add 50,000 (!) cheap servers which consume space, power and require cooling and maintenance, but I'll bet you paying a handful of engineers to tweak your software is *a lot* cheaper. Especially since Google isn't "a project" or something. They're here for the long run. They're here to stay and in order to make that happen, they need to get the most from their platform as possible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ooooh... efficiency.. I 'm curious what the net savings is.. compared to buying more cheap hardware.We 're talking about Google here .
They have dozens of datacenters all over the globe , filled with hundreds of thousands of servers .
Some estimate even a million servers or more.So lets assume they have indeed a million servers and they need 5 \ % more efficiency out of their server farms .
Following your logic , it would be better to add 50,000 ( !
) cheap servers which consume space , power and require cooling and maintenance , but I 'll bet you paying a handful of engineers to tweak your software is * a lot * cheaper .
Especially since Google is n't " a project " or something .
They 're here for the long run .
They 're here to stay and in order to make that happen , they need to get the most from their platform as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ooooh... efficiency.. I'm curious what the net savings is.. compared to buying more cheap hardware.We're talking about Google here.
They have dozens of datacenters all over the globe, filled with hundreds of thousands of servers.
Some estimate even a million servers or more.So lets assume they have indeed a million servers and they need 5\% more efficiency out of their server farms.
Following your logic, it would be better to add 50,000 (!
) cheap servers which consume space, power and require cooling and maintenance, but I'll bet you paying a handful of engineers to tweak your software is *a lot* cheaper.
Especially since Google isn't "a project" or something.
They're here for the long run.
They're here to stay and in order to make that happen, they need to get the most from their platform as possible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017158</id>
	<title>Re:Open source is the coat tails that Google rides</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257592200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmm, you realize that Android alone is over 10 million lines of code right? That's a pretty big open source contribution right there. But then there's also over a million lines of code across 100+ smaller projects too. So I am not sure what your definition of "table scraps" is but it's significantly more lines of code than most companies do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , you realize that Android alone is over 10 million lines of code right ?
That 's a pretty big open source contribution right there .
But then there 's also over a million lines of code across 100 + smaller projects too .
So I am not sure what your definition of " table scraps " is but it 's significantly more lines of code than most companies do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, you realize that Android alone is over 10 million lines of code right?
That's a pretty big open source contribution right there.
But then there's also over a million lines of code across 100+ smaller projects too.
So I am not sure what your definition of "table scraps" is but it's significantly more lines of code than most companies do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30018576</id>
	<title>So about 1/10th Sun's contribution</title>
	<author>saleenS281</author>
	<datestamp>1257606480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's a drop in the bucket compared to what Sun has contributed to open source.  Of course, slashdot appears to be perversely against Sun for some reason I cannot fathom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a drop in the bucket compared to what Sun has contributed to open source .
Of course , slashdot appears to be perversely against Sun for some reason I can not fathom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a drop in the bucket compared to what Sun has contributed to open source.
Of course, slashdot appears to be perversely against Sun for some reason I cannot fathom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016920</id>
	<title>Open source is the coat tails that Google rides.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257589860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They take and take from open source and throw back a couple of table scraps and you people all kiss their ass for it.<br> <br>Amazingly short sighted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They take and take from open source and throw back a couple of table scraps and you people all kiss their ass for it .
Amazingly short sighted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They take and take from open source and throw back a couple of table scraps and you people all kiss their ass for it.
Amazingly short sighted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017764</id>
	<title>Re:Does Google give coade back</title>
	<author>farnsworth</author>
	<datestamp>1257598260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google is responsible for a tiny part of kernel development last I heard, unfortunately.</p></div><p>
I don't know that much about google's private modifications, but the question of "what to give back" does not always have a clear default answer.  I've modified lots of OSS in the past and not given it back, simply because my best guess was that I am the only person who will ever want feature x.  There's no point in cluttering up mailing lists or documentation with something extremely esoteric.  It's not because I'm lazy or selfish or greedy -- sometimes the right answer is to just keep things to yourself.  (Of course, there are times when I've modified something hackishly, and had been too lazy or embarrassed to send it back upstream<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
</p><p>
Perhaps google answers this question in a different way than others would, but that doesn't necessarily conflict with "the spirit of OSS", whatever that might be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is responsible for a tiny part of kernel development last I heard , unfortunately .
I do n't know that much about google 's private modifications , but the question of " what to give back " does not always have a clear default answer .
I 've modified lots of OSS in the past and not given it back , simply because my best guess was that I am the only person who will ever want feature x. There 's no point in cluttering up mailing lists or documentation with something extremely esoteric .
It 's not because I 'm lazy or selfish or greedy -- sometimes the right answer is to just keep things to yourself .
( Of course , there are times when I 've modified something hackishly , and had been too lazy or embarrassed to send it back upstream : ) Perhaps google answers this question in a different way than others would , but that does n't necessarily conflict with " the spirit of OSS " , whatever that might be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is responsible for a tiny part of kernel development last I heard, unfortunately.
I don't know that much about google's private modifications, but the question of "what to give back" does not always have a clear default answer.
I've modified lots of OSS in the past and not given it back, simply because my best guess was that I am the only person who will ever want feature x.  There's no point in cluttering up mailing lists or documentation with something extremely esoteric.
It's not because I'm lazy or selfish or greedy -- sometimes the right answer is to just keep things to yourself.
(Of course, there are times when I've modified something hackishly, and had been too lazy or embarrassed to send it back upstream :)

Perhaps google answers this question in a different way than others would, but that doesn't necessarily conflict with "the spirit of OSS", whatever that might be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017868</id>
	<title>Re:Is it worth it?</title>
	<author>itzdandy</author>
	<datestamp>1257599100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google has more than 15,000 servers.  A well tuned system can outperform a poorly tuned system 2:1 for very specialized apps like google uses.  you dont think that having 15,000 vs 30,000 servers is worth maybe 2Mil in wages and power bill?  google had a 2Mil power bill per month.  Those developers are starting to look pretty cheap..</p><p>Increasing the efficiency of their code, from memory management and scheduler to proxy servers can save huge amounts of CPU time which in turn lowers electricity requirements and number of servers needed.</p><p>I am not surprised at all by this and wonder when google will look at using small for factor DC power ARM systems.  A fairly recent platform they used ran a custom motherboard and power supply and they started out on some sparc,x86, and an RS/6000 so they are not affraid of some custom hardware.  Cutting that power bill can be a very significate improvement in the cost structure just like improving the performance of the OS.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google\_platform#Server\_types" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google\_platform#Server\_types</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has more than 15,000 servers .
A well tuned system can outperform a poorly tuned system 2 : 1 for very specialized apps like google uses .
you dont think that having 15,000 vs 30,000 servers is worth maybe 2Mil in wages and power bill ?
google had a 2Mil power bill per month .
Those developers are starting to look pretty cheap..Increasing the efficiency of their code , from memory management and scheduler to proxy servers can save huge amounts of CPU time which in turn lowers electricity requirements and number of servers needed.I am not surprised at all by this and wonder when google will look at using small for factor DC power ARM systems .
A fairly recent platform they used ran a custom motherboard and power supply and they started out on some sparc,x86 , and an RS/6000 so they are not affraid of some custom hardware .
Cutting that power bill can be a very significate improvement in the cost structure just like improving the performance of the OS.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google \ _platform # Server \ _types [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has more than 15,000 servers.
A well tuned system can outperform a poorly tuned system 2:1 for very specialized apps like google uses.
you dont think that having 15,000 vs 30,000 servers is worth maybe 2Mil in wages and power bill?
google had a 2Mil power bill per month.
Those developers are starting to look pretty cheap..Increasing the efficiency of their code, from memory management and scheduler to proxy servers can save huge amounts of CPU time which in turn lowers electricity requirements and number of servers needed.I am not surprised at all by this and wonder when google will look at using small for factor DC power ARM systems.
A fairly recent platform they used ran a custom motherboard and power supply and they started out on some sparc,x86, and an RS/6000 so they are not affraid of some custom hardware.
Cutting that power bill can be a very significate improvement in the cost structure just like improving the performance of the OS.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google\_platform#Server\_types [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30020440</id>
	<title>Re:DTrace</title>
	<author>JamesP</author>
	<datestamp>1257682320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought about this too and I guess your example shows why they don't use it...</p><p>All the 'printfs' are a burden, so they probably put the stats in memory and do some other thing with it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought about this too and I guess your example shows why they do n't use it...All the 'printfs ' are a burden , so they probably put the stats in memory and do some other thing with it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought about this too and I guess your example shows why they don't use it...All the 'printfs' are a burden, so they probably put the stats in memory and do some other thing with it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30018008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30022960</id>
	<title>Re:Is it worth it?</title>
	<author>ToasterMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1257703140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You are clearly not an engineer of scientist. Aside from the fact that some people just like to solve technical problems, I am betting google's logic goes something like this:</p></div><p>... because I question your efficiency?   I'm keenly aware of the "just because" excuse, and to hear Google say that would make my day.  They have the resources to do it for sure.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We have a problem that is basically only costing us $0.01*10,000computers/day. While that seems low, we plan on staying in business a long time, we could pay someone to solve the problem. Then there is that X factor, that if you don't do it, if you stop innovating, your competitors will, and they will get more and you will get less from the pool of money that is out there. In addition to that, the CS guy you paid to solve that is now worth more to your company (if you employed him) because [s]he now has a better understanding of a complex bit of code (the linux kernel) that you rely on heavily.</p></div><p>I see many of the things added/backported in Linux by Google are already included in other current operating systems.<br>Google does not sell operating systems.<br>What is the relationship between computing efficiency and advertising revenue?<br>How have these practices affected Google's bottom line?<br>I agree with that last sentence you wrote.</p><p>Call me not an engineer or not a scientist, but Google is a public company.  When you hear "just because", any good engineer, scientist, or investor should start asking questions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are clearly not an engineer of scientist .
Aside from the fact that some people just like to solve technical problems , I am betting google 's logic goes something like this : ... because I question your efficiency ?
I 'm keenly aware of the " just because " excuse , and to hear Google say that would make my day .
They have the resources to do it for sure.We have a problem that is basically only costing us $ 0.01 * 10,000computers/day .
While that seems low , we plan on staying in business a long time , we could pay someone to solve the problem .
Then there is that X factor , that if you do n't do it , if you stop innovating , your competitors will , and they will get more and you will get less from the pool of money that is out there .
In addition to that , the CS guy you paid to solve that is now worth more to your company ( if you employed him ) because [ s ] he now has a better understanding of a complex bit of code ( the linux kernel ) that you rely on heavily.I see many of the things added/backported in Linux by Google are already included in other current operating systems.Google does not sell operating systems.What is the relationship between computing efficiency and advertising revenue ? How have these practices affected Google 's bottom line ? I agree with that last sentence you wrote.Call me not an engineer or not a scientist , but Google is a public company .
When you hear " just because " , any good engineer , scientist , or investor should start asking questions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are clearly not an engineer of scientist.
Aside from the fact that some people just like to solve technical problems, I am betting google's logic goes something like this:... because I question your efficiency?
I'm keenly aware of the "just because" excuse, and to hear Google say that would make my day.
They have the resources to do it for sure.We have a problem that is basically only costing us $0.01*10,000computers/day.
While that seems low, we plan on staying in business a long time, we could pay someone to solve the problem.
Then there is that X factor, that if you don't do it, if you stop innovating, your competitors will, and they will get more and you will get less from the pool of money that is out there.
In addition to that, the CS guy you paid to solve that is now worth more to your company (if you employed him) because [s]he now has a better understanding of a complex bit of code (the linux kernel) that you rely on heavily.I see many of the things added/backported in Linux by Google are already included in other current operating systems.Google does not sell operating systems.What is the relationship between computing efficiency and advertising revenue?How have these practices affected Google's bottom line?I agree with that last sentence you wrote.Call me not an engineer or not a scientist, but Google is a public company.
When you hear "just because", any good engineer, scientist, or investor should start asking questions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019640</id>
	<title>Re:Open source is the coat tails that Google rides</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1257622380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They take and take from open source and throw back a couple of table scraps and you people all kiss their ass for it.</p></div><p>300K lines of code?  Yep, table scraps.</p><p>For people who wonder why I continue to want to see the end of the FSF, the above attitude is the reason why.  Stallman and his organisation are the reason for it.</p><p>Aside from being ugly and spiritually bankrupt, reciprocity paranoia is based on completely erroneous reasoning, as well.  The same people who talk about how music piracy isn't harming anyone, because it doesn't physically take away from a finite supply of copies, are also those who express the above paranoia about people "taking," from FOSS, as if that is somehow a physically finite resource, when music isn't.</p><p>Get rid of your fear.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They take and take from open source and throw back a couple of table scraps and you people all kiss their ass for it.300K lines of code ?
Yep , table scraps.For people who wonder why I continue to want to see the end of the FSF , the above attitude is the reason why .
Stallman and his organisation are the reason for it.Aside from being ugly and spiritually bankrupt , reciprocity paranoia is based on completely erroneous reasoning , as well .
The same people who talk about how music piracy is n't harming anyone , because it does n't physically take away from a finite supply of copies , are also those who express the above paranoia about people " taking , " from FOSS , as if that is somehow a physically finite resource , when music is n't.Get rid of your fear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They take and take from open source and throw back a couple of table scraps and you people all kiss their ass for it.300K lines of code?
Yep, table scraps.For people who wonder why I continue to want to see the end of the FSF, the above attitude is the reason why.
Stallman and his organisation are the reason for it.Aside from being ugly and spiritually bankrupt, reciprocity paranoia is based on completely erroneous reasoning, as well.
The same people who talk about how music piracy isn't harming anyone, because it doesn't physically take away from a finite supply of copies, are also those who express the above paranoia about people "taking," from FOSS, as if that is somehow a physically finite resource, when music isn't.Get rid of your fear.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017330</id>
	<title>Re:Is it worth it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257594120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh really? Running a that big server park of x86 servers would be ridicule slow and resource eating at the best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh really ?
Running a that big server park of x86 servers would be ridicule slow and resource eating at the best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh really?
Running a that big server park of x86 servers would be ridicule slow and resource eating at the best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016768</id>
	<title>Re:Release the patches already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257588420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try iotop.</p><p><a href="http://guichaz.free.fr/iotop/" title="guichaz.free.fr" rel="nofollow">http://guichaz.free.fr/iotop/</a> [guichaz.free.fr]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try iotop.http : //guichaz.free.fr/iotop/ [ guichaz.free.fr ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try iotop.http://guichaz.free.fr/iotop/ [guichaz.free.fr]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019360</id>
	<title>Solaris</title>
	<author>kriston</author>
	<datestamp>1257617640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's amazing how many of these problems, especially with regard to multi-threading issues and multiple cores, have already been solve and implemented in Sun Solaris.  In 1994.  Fifteen years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's amazing how many of these problems , especially with regard to multi-threading issues and multiple cores , have already been solve and implemented in Sun Solaris .
In 1994 .
Fifteen years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's amazing how many of these problems, especially with regard to multi-threading issues and multiple cores, have already been solve and implemented in Sun Solaris.
In 1994.
Fifteen years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30070626</id>
	<title>What an ass.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1258023060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Support of older applications has a great pedigree in the IT industry.</p><p>You will find much more interesting problems from a technical point of view doing that, because you will be basically on your own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Support of older applications has a great pedigree in the IT industry.You will find much more interesting problems from a technical point of view doing that , because you will be basically on your own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Support of older applications has a great pedigree in the IT industry.You will find much more interesting problems from a technical point of view doing that, because you will be basically on your own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30070602</id>
	<title>The above should be so much modded up</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1258022760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People just don't know about the innovation that has being going on in the storage arena by Sun.</p><p>It is funny, but I think what let Sun down was their marketing, not their Engineering.</p><p>You can currently get storage devices that run those diagnostics at the click of a mouse.</p><p>How regrettable that this wonderful technology may be shelved. Tragic really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People just do n't know about the innovation that has being going on in the storage arena by Sun.It is funny , but I think what let Sun down was their marketing , not their Engineering.You can currently get storage devices that run those diagnostics at the click of a mouse.How regrettable that this wonderful technology may be shelved .
Tragic really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People just don't know about the innovation that has being going on in the storage arena by Sun.It is funny, but I think what let Sun down was their marketing, not their Engineering.You can currently get storage devices that run those diagnostics at the click of a mouse.How regrettable that this wonderful technology may be shelved.
Tragic really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30018008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019850</id>
	<title>Re:Is it worth it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257713520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's ok. Some Indian/Chinese will do this dirty work.</p><p>Very soon all of America's codes will be written by Indian/Chinese.</p><p>Owned.</p><p>But it's ok because America will invent the next derivatives and by leveraging that, America enters and endless loop of VALUE CREATION.</p><p>(Oh my God I can't believe I typed that. Forgive me.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's ok. Some Indian/Chinese will do this dirty work.Very soon all of America 's codes will be written by Indian/Chinese.Owned.But it 's ok because America will invent the next derivatives and by leveraging that , America enters and endless loop of VALUE CREATION .
( Oh my God I ca n't believe I typed that .
Forgive me .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's ok. Some Indian/Chinese will do this dirty work.Very soon all of America's codes will be written by Indian/Chinese.Owned.But it's ok because America will invent the next derivatives and by leveraging that, America enters and endless loop of VALUE CREATION.
(Oh my God I can't believe I typed that.
Forgive me.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016850</id>
	<title>Togh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257589140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google does not distribute the binaries, so they are not obliged to publish the source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google does not distribute the binaries , so they are not obliged to publish the source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google does not distribute the binaries, so they are not obliged to publish the source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019252</id>
	<title>Re:So about 1/10th Sun's contribution</title>
	<author>Again</author>
	<datestamp>1257615960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's a drop in the bucket compared to what Sun has contributed to open source.  Of course, slashdot appears to be perversely against Sun for some reason I cannot fathom.</p></div><p>Names are very important.  The name Sun reminds of that place on the other side of the door where if we go, our skin gets red and burns.  Google reminds us of that friendly homepage that would load under 5 seconds on dial-up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a drop in the bucket compared to what Sun has contributed to open source .
Of course , slashdot appears to be perversely against Sun for some reason I can not fathom.Names are very important .
The name Sun reminds of that place on the other side of the door where if we go , our skin gets red and burns .
Google reminds us of that friendly homepage that would load under 5 seconds on dial-up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a drop in the bucket compared to what Sun has contributed to open source.
Of course, slashdot appears to be perversely against Sun for some reason I cannot fathom.Names are very important.
The name Sun reminds of that place on the other side of the door where if we go, our skin gets red and burns.
Google reminds us of that friendly homepage that would load under 5 seconds on dial-up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30018576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30022552</id>
	<title>Re:Is it worth it?</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1257701040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now if only they'd taken Con's pluggable sceheduler patches... tsk tsk tsk...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if only they 'd taken Con 's pluggable sceheduler patches... tsk tsk tsk.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if only they'd taken Con's pluggable sceheduler patches... tsk tsk tsk...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019798</id>
	<title>Re:Open source is the coat tails that Google rides</title>
	<author>LingNoi</author>
	<datestamp>1257712440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could explain what tables scraps is?</p><p>- Their google summer of code program where they have invested millions of dollars into for many years now?<br>- The huge open source android framework you can use on mobile phones?<br>- The numerous number of useful projects they have released including the tools they used to make most of their products?<br>- The free project hosting resources they give open source projects?<br>- The government lobbying they have done to level the playing field for open technologies?</p><blockquote><div><p>Amazingly short sighted.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, you are!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could explain what tables scraps is ? - Their google summer of code program where they have invested millions of dollars into for many years now ? - The huge open source android framework you can use on mobile phones ? - The numerous number of useful projects they have released including the tools they used to make most of their products ? - The free project hosting resources they give open source projects ? - The government lobbying they have done to level the playing field for open technologies ? Amazingly short sighted.Yes , you are !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could explain what tables scraps is?- Their google summer of code program where they have invested millions of dollars into for many years now?- The huge open source android framework you can use on mobile phones?- The numerous number of useful projects they have released including the tools they used to make most of their products?- The free project hosting resources they give open source projects?- The government lobbying they have done to level the playing field for open technologies?Amazingly short sighted.Yes, you are!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976</id>
	<title>Is it worth it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257590280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole article sounds so painful, what do they actually get out of it?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Google started with the 2.4.18 kernel - but they patched over 2000 files, inserting 492,000 lines of code. Among other things, they backported 64-bit support into that kernel. Eventually they moved to 2.6.11, primarily because they needed SATA support. A 2.6.18-based kernel followed, and they are now working on preparing a 2.6.26-based kernel for deployment in the near future. They are currently carrying 1208 patches to 2.6.26, inserting almost 300,000 lines of code. Roughly 25\% of those patches, Mike estimates, are backports of newer features.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>In the area of CPU scheduling, Google found the move to the completely fair scheduler to be painful. In fact, it was such a problem that they finally forward-ported the old O(1) scheduler and can run it in 2.6.26. Changes in the semantics of sched\_yield() created grief, especially with the user-space locking that Google uses. High-priority threads can make a mess of load balancing, even if they run for very short periods of time. And load balancing matters: Google runs something like 5000 threads on systems with 16-32 cores.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Google makes a lot of use of the out-of-memory (OOM) killer to pare back overloaded systems. That can create trouble, though, when processes holding mutexes encounter the OOM killer. Mike wonders why the kernel tries so hard, rather than just failing allocation requests when memory gets too tight.</p></div><p>Ooooh... efficiency..  I'm curious what the net savings is..  compared to buying more cheap hardware.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So what is Google doing with all that code in the kernel? They try very hard to get the most out of every machine they have, so they cram a lot of work onto each.</p></div><p>(30 * kernel engineer salary) / (generic x86 server + cooling + power) = ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole article sounds so painful , what do they actually get out of it ? Google started with the 2.4.18 kernel - but they patched over 2000 files , inserting 492,000 lines of code .
Among other things , they backported 64-bit support into that kernel .
Eventually they moved to 2.6.11 , primarily because they needed SATA support .
A 2.6.18-based kernel followed , and they are now working on preparing a 2.6.26-based kernel for deployment in the near future .
They are currently carrying 1208 patches to 2.6.26 , inserting almost 300,000 lines of code .
Roughly 25 \ % of those patches , Mike estimates , are backports of newer features.In the area of CPU scheduling , Google found the move to the completely fair scheduler to be painful .
In fact , it was such a problem that they finally forward-ported the old O ( 1 ) scheduler and can run it in 2.6.26 .
Changes in the semantics of sched \ _yield ( ) created grief , especially with the user-space locking that Google uses .
High-priority threads can make a mess of load balancing , even if they run for very short periods of time .
And load balancing matters : Google runs something like 5000 threads on systems with 16-32 cores.Google makes a lot of use of the out-of-memory ( OOM ) killer to pare back overloaded systems .
That can create trouble , though , when processes holding mutexes encounter the OOM killer .
Mike wonders why the kernel tries so hard , rather than just failing allocation requests when memory gets too tight.Ooooh... efficiency.. I 'm curious what the net savings is.. compared to buying more cheap hardware.So what is Google doing with all that code in the kernel ?
They try very hard to get the most out of every machine they have , so they cram a lot of work onto each .
( 30 * kernel engineer salary ) / ( generic x86 server + cooling + power ) = ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole article sounds so painful, what do they actually get out of it?Google started with the 2.4.18 kernel - but they patched over 2000 files, inserting 492,000 lines of code.
Among other things, they backported 64-bit support into that kernel.
Eventually they moved to 2.6.11, primarily because they needed SATA support.
A 2.6.18-based kernel followed, and they are now working on preparing a 2.6.26-based kernel for deployment in the near future.
They are currently carrying 1208 patches to 2.6.26, inserting almost 300,000 lines of code.
Roughly 25\% of those patches, Mike estimates, are backports of newer features.In the area of CPU scheduling, Google found the move to the completely fair scheduler to be painful.
In fact, it was such a problem that they finally forward-ported the old O(1) scheduler and can run it in 2.6.26.
Changes in the semantics of sched\_yield() created grief, especially with the user-space locking that Google uses.
High-priority threads can make a mess of load balancing, even if they run for very short periods of time.
And load balancing matters: Google runs something like 5000 threads on systems with 16-32 cores.Google makes a lot of use of the out-of-memory (OOM) killer to pare back overloaded systems.
That can create trouble, though, when processes holding mutexes encounter the OOM killer.
Mike wonders why the kernel tries so hard, rather than just failing allocation requests when memory gets too tight.Ooooh... efficiency..  I'm curious what the net savings is..  compared to buying more cheap hardware.So what is Google doing with all that code in the kernel?
They try very hard to get the most out of every machine they have, so they cram a lot of work onto each.
(30 * kernel engineer salary) / (generic x86 server + cooling + power) = ?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30031018</id>
	<title>Well done I say</title>
	<author>Yay Another Nickname</author>
	<datestamp>1257771300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact that Google is talking is all good - sounds like there is not too much secret squirrel stuff going on and everyone wins.

They do very cool stuff with their hardware and software sooo tempting to be lured in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... But I still think Google=Evil (so much data/knowledge + nothing lasts forever).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that Google is talking is all good - sounds like there is not too much secret squirrel stuff going on and everyone wins .
They do very cool stuff with their hardware and software sooo tempting to be lured in ... But I still think Google = Evil ( so much data/knowledge + nothing lasts forever ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that Google is talking is all good - sounds like there is not too much secret squirrel stuff going on and everyone wins.
They do very cool stuff with their hardware and software sooo tempting to be lured in ... But I still think Google=Evil (so much data/knowledge + nothing lasts forever).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017056</id>
	<title>Re:Is it worth it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257591300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Mike wonders why the kernel tries so hard, rather than just failing allocation requests when memory gets too tight.</p></div></blockquote><p>Wait, what? Has Google seriously never heard of <a href="http://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt" title="kernel.org" rel="nofollow">vm.overcommit\_memory</a> [kernel.org]?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mike wonders why the kernel tries so hard , rather than just failing allocation requests when memory gets too tight.Wait , what ?
Has Google seriously never heard of vm.overcommit \ _memory [ kernel.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mike wonders why the kernel tries so hard, rather than just failing allocation requests when memory gets too tight.Wait, what?
Has Google seriously never heard of vm.overcommit\_memory [kernel.org]?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019706</id>
	<title>Odd for Slashdot..</title>
	<author>abbe</author>
	<datestamp>1257623580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The articles cited are like 2 weeks old, Isn't this odd for slashdot to discuss the news that old...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The articles cited are like 2 weeks old , Is n't this odd for slashdot to discuss the news that old.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The articles cited are like 2 weeks old, Isn't this odd for slashdot to discuss the news that old...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30018434</id>
	<title>wtf?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257604680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh sorry...title had me thinking this was penguin porn</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh sorry...title had me thinking this was penguin porn</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh sorry...title had me thinking this was penguin porn</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017020</id>
	<title>kernel development</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257590940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is very interesting, but i have a question. As I understood, google have its own kernel development line?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is very interesting , but i have a question .
As I understood , google have its own kernel development line ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is very interesting, but i have a question.
As I understood, google have its own kernel development line?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30018008</id>
	<title>DTrace</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257600360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>They monitor all disk and network traffic, record it, and use it for analyzing their operations later on. Hooks have been added to let them associate all disk I/O back to applications - including asynchronous writeback I/O.</p></div></blockquote><p>I. Want. This.</p></div><p>DTrace code:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>#pragma D option quiet</p><p>io:::start<br>{<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; @[args[1]-&gt;dev\_statname, execname, pid] = sum(args[0]-&gt;b\_bcount);<br>}</p><p>END<br>{<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; printf("\%10s \%20s \%10s \%15s\n", "DEVICE", "APP", "PID", "BYTES");<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; printa("\%10s \%20s \%10d \%15@d\n", @);<br>}</p></div><p>Output:</p><p><div class="quote"><p># dtrace -s<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./whoio.d<br>^C<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DEVICE                  APP        PID           BYTES<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; cmdk0                   cp        790         1515520<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; sd2                   cp        790         1527808</p></div><p>More examples at:</p><p>http://wikis.sun.com/display/DTrace/io+Provider</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They monitor all disk and network traffic , record it , and use it for analyzing their operations later on .
Hooks have been added to let them associate all disk I/O back to applications - including asynchronous writeback I/O.I .
Want. This.DTrace code : # pragma D option quietio : : : start {                 @ [ args [ 1 ] - &gt; dev \ _statname , execname , pid ] = sum ( args [ 0 ] - &gt; b \ _bcount ) ; } END {                 printf ( " \ % 10s \ % 20s \ % 10s \ % 15s \ n " , " DEVICE " , " APP " , " PID " , " BYTES " ) ;                 printa ( " \ % 10s \ % 20s \ % 10d \ % 15 @ d \ n " , @ ) ; } Output : # dtrace -s ./whoio.d ^ C         DEVICE APP PID BYTES           cmdk0 cp 790 1515520               sd2 cp 790 1527808More examples at : http : //wikis.sun.com/display/DTrace/io + Provider</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They monitor all disk and network traffic, record it, and use it for analyzing their operations later on.
Hooks have been added to let them associate all disk I/O back to applications - including asynchronous writeback I/O.I.
Want. This.DTrace code:#pragma D option quietio:::start{
                @[args[1]-&gt;dev\_statname, execname, pid] = sum(args[0]-&gt;b\_bcount);}END{
                printf("\%10s \%20s \%10s \%15s\n", "DEVICE", "APP", "PID", "BYTES");
                printa("\%10s \%20s \%10d \%15@d\n", @);}Output:# dtrace -s ./whoio.d^C
        DEVICE                  APP        PID           BYTES
          cmdk0                   cp        790         1515520
              sd2                   cp        790         1527808More examples at:http://wikis.sun.com/display/DTrace/io+Provider
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017380</id>
	<title>Re:Does Google give coade back</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257594600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Andrew Morton, Google employee and maintainer of the -mm tree, contributed the vast majority of the changes filed under "Google" (and most of those changes aren't Google-specific - Andrew has been doing this since before he was employed there). If you subtract Andrew, Google is responsible for a <i>tiny</i> part of kernel development last I heard, unfortunately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Andrew Morton , Google employee and maintainer of the -mm tree , contributed the vast majority of the changes filed under " Google " ( and most of those changes are n't Google-specific - Andrew has been doing this since before he was employed there ) .
If you subtract Andrew , Google is responsible for a tiny part of kernel development last I heard , unfortunately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Andrew Morton, Google employee and maintainer of the -mm tree, contributed the vast majority of the changes filed under "Google" (and most of those changes aren't Google-specific - Andrew has been doing this since before he was employed there).
If you subtract Andrew, Google is responsible for a tiny part of kernel development last I heard, unfortunately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017010</id>
	<title>Does Google give coade back</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257590820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does Google give any code and patches back to the Linux kernel maintainers? Since they probably only use it internally and never distribute anything they are not required to by the GPL, but it would still be the right thing to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Google give any code and patches back to the Linux kernel maintainers ?
Since they probably only use it internally and never distribute anything they are not required to by the GPL , but it would still be the right thing to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Google give any code and patches back to the Linux kernel maintainers?
Since they probably only use it internally and never distribute anything they are not required to by the GPL, but it would still be the right thing to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019500</id>
	<title>Re:Is it worth it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257619800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ooooh... efficiency.. I'm curious what the net savings is.. compared to buying more cheap hardware.</p></div><p>*chuckle*</p><p>The script kiddies always know how to make me smile.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ooooh... efficiency.. I 'm curious what the net savings is.. compared to buying more cheap hardware .
* chuckle * The script kiddies always know how to make me smile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ooooh... efficiency.. I'm curious what the net savings is.. compared to buying more cheap hardware.
*chuckle*The script kiddies always know how to make me smile.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30018896</id>
	<title>Re:Is it worth it?</title>
	<author>jelle</author>
	<datestamp>1257611460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Mike wonders why the kernel tries so hard, rather than just failing allocation requests when memory gets too tight."</p><p>I realize this is formulated in a negative way, with no prior reservation of resources, but erm, it was fast and easy right now and gave a sufficient response to the thread with the lowest possible latency, and if and when it ever becomes important I'll reformulate it nicely right before it's needed, and until that time those resources stay available for other uses. So be warned, here it comes: Probably that is because Mike doesn't know what lazy allocation means, why it is used, and that that means that there is not an allocation request to fail when the OOM condition happens?</p><p>Hmm, I sound so arrogant in this post that I'm probably wrong... But I can't help but feel that I'm pretty close to being right...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Mike wonders why the kernel tries so hard , rather than just failing allocation requests when memory gets too tight .
" I realize this is formulated in a negative way , with no prior reservation of resources , but erm , it was fast and easy right now and gave a sufficient response to the thread with the lowest possible latency , and if and when it ever becomes important I 'll reformulate it nicely right before it 's needed , and until that time those resources stay available for other uses .
So be warned , here it comes : Probably that is because Mike does n't know what lazy allocation means , why it is used , and that that means that there is not an allocation request to fail when the OOM condition happens ? Hmm , I sound so arrogant in this post that I 'm probably wrong... But I ca n't help but feel that I 'm pretty close to being right.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Mike wonders why the kernel tries so hard, rather than just failing allocation requests when memory gets too tight.
"I realize this is formulated in a negative way, with no prior reservation of resources, but erm, it was fast and easy right now and gave a sufficient response to the thread with the lowest possible latency, and if and when it ever becomes important I'll reformulate it nicely right before it's needed, and until that time those resources stay available for other uses.
So be warned, here it comes: Probably that is because Mike doesn't know what lazy allocation means, why it is used, and that that means that there is not an allocation request to fail when the OOM condition happens?Hmm, I sound so arrogant in this post that I'm probably wrong... But I can't help but feel that I'm pretty close to being right...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017004</id>
	<title>Re:Is it worth it?</title>
	<author>coolsnowmen</author>
	<datestamp>1257590760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are clearly not an engineer of scientist.  Aside from the fact that some people just like to solve technical problems, I am betting google's logic goes something like this:<br>We have a problem that is basically only costing us $0.01*10,000computers/day.  While that seems low, we plan on staying in business a long time, we could pay someone to solve the problem.  Then there is that X factor, that if you don't do it, if you stop innovating, your competitors will, and they will get more and you will get less from the pool of money that is out there. In addition to that, the CS guy you paid to solve that is now worth more to your company (if you employed him) because [s]he now has a better understanding of a complex bit of code (the linux kernel) that you rely on heavily.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are clearly not an engineer of scientist .
Aside from the fact that some people just like to solve technical problems , I am betting google 's logic goes something like this : We have a problem that is basically only costing us $ 0.01 * 10,000computers/day .
While that seems low , we plan on staying in business a long time , we could pay someone to solve the problem .
Then there is that X factor , that if you do n't do it , if you stop innovating , your competitors will , and they will get more and you will get less from the pool of money that is out there .
In addition to that , the CS guy you paid to solve that is now worth more to your company ( if you employed him ) because [ s ] he now has a better understanding of a complex bit of code ( the linux kernel ) that you rely on heavily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are clearly not an engineer of scientist.
Aside from the fact that some people just like to solve technical problems, I am betting google's logic goes something like this:We have a problem that is basically only costing us $0.01*10,000computers/day.
While that seems low, we plan on staying in business a long time, we could pay someone to solve the problem.
Then there is that X factor, that if you don't do it, if you stop innovating, your competitors will, and they will get more and you will get less from the pool of money that is out there.
In addition to that, the CS guy you paid to solve that is now worth more to your company (if you employed him) because [s]he now has a better understanding of a complex bit of code (the linux kernel) that you rely on heavily.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017968</id>
	<title>Are you nuts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257600060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a huge goog fan, I never take their cookies so I don't use anything but search..but JUST search is way more "give back" than table scraps. If they announced tomorrow their search would now cost x-dollars a year, as long as it was somewhat reasonable,like an extra 5 bucks a month on top of my ISP bill, I'd pay for those table scraps. Google search has done more than anything else to make the web actually *useful* since the invention of the hyperlink.</p><p>Sure, there are other search engines, but if you actually learn to *use* the features and filters present wih google's, it just stomps all the others flat.</p><p>Whatever they give back in terms of code is just gravy on top of that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a huge goog fan , I never take their cookies so I do n't use anything but search..but JUST search is way more " give back " than table scraps .
If they announced tomorrow their search would now cost x-dollars a year , as long as it was somewhat reasonable,like an extra 5 bucks a month on top of my ISP bill , I 'd pay for those table scraps .
Google search has done more than anything else to make the web actually * useful * since the invention of the hyperlink.Sure , there are other search engines , but if you actually learn to * use * the features and filters present wih google 's , it just stomps all the others flat.Whatever they give back in terms of code is just gravy on top of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a huge goog fan, I never take their cookies so I don't use anything but search..but JUST search is way more "give back" than table scraps.
If they announced tomorrow their search would now cost x-dollars a year, as long as it was somewhat reasonable,like an extra 5 bucks a month on top of my ISP bill, I'd pay for those table scraps.
Google search has done more than anything else to make the web actually *useful* since the invention of the hyperlink.Sure, there are other search engines, but if you actually learn to *use* the features and filters present wih google's, it just stomps all the others flat.Whatever they give back in terms of code is just gravy on top of that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017328</id>
	<title>Re:Open source is the coat tails that Google rides</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1257594060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is "Amazingly short sighted" your sig, that is a self referential thing you need to tack onto everything you write? Seems very apt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is " Amazingly short sighted " your sig , that is a self referential thing you need to tack onto everything you write ?
Seems very apt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is "Amazingly short sighted" your sig, that is a self referential thing you need to tack onto everything you write?
Seems very apt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30020742</id>
	<title>They should talk to IBM</title>
	<author>synoniem</author>
	<datestamp>1257687180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google and the kernel developers should talk to IBM and ask for publishing the scheduler used in OS/2 v2 and up which in turn was a makeover of a mainframe scheduler. It would certainly solve a large part of their current problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google and the kernel developers should talk to IBM and ask for publishing the scheduler used in OS/2 v2 and up which in turn was a makeover of a mainframe scheduler .
It would certainly solve a large part of their current problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google and the kernel developers should talk to IBM and ask for publishing the scheduler used in OS/2 v2 and up which in turn was a makeover of a mainframe scheduler.
It would certainly solve a large part of their current problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017710</id>
	<title>Re:Does Google give coade back</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257597720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>most of those changes aren't Google-specific</p></div><p>Why would they submit "Google-specific" patches?</p><p>It would make sense for them to only submit those patches that they believed to be of general utility. Other stuff would likely not be accepted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>most of those changes are n't Google-specificWhy would they submit " Google-specific " patches ? It would make sense for them to only submit those patches that they believed to be of general utility .
Other stuff would likely not be accepted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>most of those changes aren't Google-specificWhy would they submit "Google-specific" patches?It would make sense for them to only submit those patches that they believed to be of general utility.
Other stuff would likely not be accepted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30053034</id>
	<title>Re:Google is not givin back a shit</title>
	<author>Fastolfe</author>
	<datestamp>1257854340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to <a href="http://code.google.com/opensource/" title="google.com">http://code.google.com/opensource/</a> [google.com], Google has released 1M lines of source code across 100 projects.  Are you disappointed in the volume of contributions, or because they aren't releasing software that you're interested in?  Sure, Google could open source their entire search product, but that's kind of a critical part of their revenue stream, yeah?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to http : //code.google.com/opensource/ [ google.com ] , Google has released 1M lines of source code across 100 projects .
Are you disappointed in the volume of contributions , or because they are n't releasing software that you 're interested in ?
Sure , Google could open source their entire search product , but that 's kind of a critical part of their revenue stream , yeah ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to http://code.google.com/opensource/ [google.com], Google has released 1M lines of source code across 100 projects.
Are you disappointed in the volume of contributions, or because they aren't releasing software that you're interested in?
Sure, Google could open source their entire search product, but that's kind of a critical part of their revenue stream, yeah?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30020362</id>
	<title>Re:Open source is the coat tails that Google rides</title>
	<author>jgrahn</author>
	<datestamp>1257680700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>They take and take from open source and throw back a couple of table scraps and you people all kiss their ass for it.</p></div></blockquote><p>
300K lines of code? Yep, table scraps.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Who said they were throwing those lines back?
They don't have to, and a short look at TFA didn't make it look as if they did.
(Not that I mind -- I myself maintain such kernel code at work.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They take and take from open source and throw back a couple of table scraps and you people all kiss their ass for it .
300K lines of code ?
Yep , table scraps .
Who said they were throwing those lines back ?
They do n't have to , and a short look at TFA did n't make it look as if they did .
( Not that I mind -- I myself maintain such kernel code at work .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They take and take from open source and throw back a couple of table scraps and you people all kiss their ass for it.
300K lines of code?
Yep, table scraps.
Who said they were throwing those lines back?
They don't have to, and a short look at TFA didn't make it look as if they did.
(Not that I mind -- I myself maintain such kernel code at work.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30034088</id>
	<title>Re:Is it worth it?</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1257787380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>please read that 25\% line one more time.</p><p>now remember that comes after 20\% free time.</p><p>so that's 1 day backporting and 1 day free time per week. doesn't sound bad to me.</p><p>now... last time google offered me a job I took it, so maybe that the difference between us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>please read that 25 \ % line one more time.now remember that comes after 20 \ % free time.so that 's 1 day backporting and 1 day free time per week .
does n't sound bad to me.now... last time google offered me a job I took it , so maybe that the difference between us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>please read that 25\% line one more time.now remember that comes after 20\% free time.so that's 1 day backporting and 1 day free time per week.
doesn't sound bad to me.now... last time google offered me a job I took it, so maybe that the difference between us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017434</id>
	<title>Re:Is it worth it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257595260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In essence, Google is doing exactly what they have always done to make their money: steal someone else's work and tweak it at very little cost and then rebrand it. Oh poor Open Source. Open Source code used by Google to make MONEY! And here I thought M$ft was the bad guy. Could I be wrong???? But, if I were, then I would not be reading<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. would I?Or do I read<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. to see how much MSFT haters are lulled by Google, Apple and anything else which is not MSFT. Remember: It is ALL about business and making money. Including usin Open Source code for you own profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In essence , Google is doing exactly what they have always done to make their money : steal someone else 's work and tweak it at very little cost and then rebrand it .
Oh poor Open Source .
Open Source code used by Google to make MONEY !
And here I thought M $ ft was the bad guy .
Could I be wrong ? ? ? ?
But , if I were , then I would not be reading / .
would I ? Or do I read / .
to see how much MSFT haters are lulled by Google , Apple and anything else which is not MSFT .
Remember : It is ALL about business and making money .
Including usin Open Source code for you own profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In essence, Google is doing exactly what they have always done to make their money: steal someone else's work and tweak it at very little cost and then rebrand it.
Oh poor Open Source.
Open Source code used by Google to make MONEY!
And here I thought M$ft was the bad guy.
Could I be wrong????
But, if I were, then I would not be reading /.
would I?Or do I read /.
to see how much MSFT haters are lulled by Google, Apple and anything else which is not MSFT.
Remember: It is ALL about business and making money.
Including usin Open Source code for you own profit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30020632</id>
	<title>Re:Are you nuts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257684960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would not pay $60/year to use google for search. yahoo/msft/whatever might be shithouse, but not $2500 over my lifetime shithouse</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would not pay $ 60/year to use google for search .
yahoo/msft/whatever might be shithouse , but not $ 2500 over my lifetime shithouse</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would not pay $60/year to use google for search.
yahoo/msft/whatever might be shithouse, but not $2500 over my lifetime shithouse</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017214</id>
	<title>Re:Is it worth it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257592740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Porting patches from one kernel version to another is not innovation.
<br> <br>
A while back I got an invitation to work for Google as a kernel developer.  I declined to interview, because I already had a job doing just that.  This article makes me glad I never accepted that offer.  I feel sorry for those kernel developers at Google.  Porting all that code back-and-forth over and over again.  Now *that's* a crappy job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Porting patches from one kernel version to another is not innovation .
A while back I got an invitation to work for Google as a kernel developer .
I declined to interview , because I already had a job doing just that .
This article makes me glad I never accepted that offer .
I feel sorry for those kernel developers at Google .
Porting all that code back-and-forth over and over again .
Now * that 's * a crappy job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Porting patches from one kernel version to another is not innovation.
A while back I got an invitation to work for Google as a kernel developer.
I declined to interview, because I already had a job doing just that.
This article makes me glad I never accepted that offer.
I feel sorry for those kernel developers at Google.
Porting all that code back-and-forth over and over again.
Now *that's* a crappy job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017414</id>
	<title>Re:Is it worth it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257595080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say more like $0.10*1,000,000 servers / 1 day. 36.5 million is chicken feed, but, it doesn't cost 1.2 million a year to pay an engineer. Or I'm in the wrong profession.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say more like $ 0.10 * 1,000,000 servers / 1 day .
36.5 million is chicken feed , but , it does n't cost 1.2 million a year to pay an engineer .
Or I 'm in the wrong profession .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say more like $0.10*1,000,000 servers / 1 day.
36.5 million is chicken feed, but, it doesn't cost 1.2 million a year to pay an engineer.
Or I'm in the wrong profession.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019294</id>
	<title>Re:Is it worth it?</title>
	<author>Tharald</author>
	<datestamp>1257616680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry to burst your bubble, but the combustion engine still only has about 20\% efficiency.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal\_combustion\_engine" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow"> ICE</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to burst your bubble , but the combustion engine still only has about 20 \ % efficiency .
ICE [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to burst your bubble, but the combustion engine still only has about 20\% efficiency.
ICE [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017280</id>
	<title>Expected</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257593520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am with Linus on this one<br>Linus is right<br>The man makes sense<br>He is absolutely correct on this one</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am with Linus on this oneLinus is rightThe man makes senseHe is absolutely correct on this one</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am with Linus on this oneLinus is rightThe man makes senseHe is absolutely correct on this one</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016618</id>
	<title>Frosty Piss!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257586920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's the difference between the guy who mods this down and a bucket of shit?  The bucket!</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the difference between the guy who mods this down and a bucket of shit ?
The bucket !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the difference between the guy who mods this down and a bucket of shit?
The bucket!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017002</id>
	<title>Re:Is it worth it?</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1257590760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are already running absolutely absurd amounts of cheap hardware.  "Just buying more" is something that I'm sure they are already doing all the time but clearly that only goes so far.</p><blockquote><div><p>(30 * kernel engineer salary) / (generic x86 server<b>s</b> + cooling + power) = ?</p></div></blockquote><p>I suspect the answer to that is a <i>very very</i> small number.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are already running absolutely absurd amounts of cheap hardware .
" Just buying more " is something that I 'm sure they are already doing all the time but clearly that only goes so far .
( 30 * kernel engineer salary ) / ( generic x86 servers + cooling + power ) = ? I suspect the answer to that is a very very small number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are already running absolutely absurd amounts of cheap hardware.
"Just buying more" is something that I'm sure they are already doing all the time but clearly that only goes so far.
(30 * kernel engineer salary) / (generic x86 servers + cooling + power) = ?I suspect the answer to that is a very very small number.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017060</id>
	<title>The Win32 Way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257591300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Under Windows, if you commit memory, it's yours and it will be there. If the system can't make that promise, it will fail to commit the memory and return an error.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Under Windows , if you commit memory , it 's yours and it will be there .
If the system ca n't make that promise , it will fail to commit the memory and return an error .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Under Windows, if you commit memory, it's yours and it will be there.
If the system can't make that promise, it will fail to commit the memory and return an error.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30021066</id>
	<title>Re:Google is not givin back a shit</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1257691320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what about android? or chrome?<br>both quite respectable projects, I would say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what about android ?
or chrome ? both quite respectable projects , I would say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what about android?
or chrome?both quite respectable projects, I would say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016662</id>
	<title>Release the patches already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257587520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They monitor all disk and network traffic, record it, and use it for analyzing their operations later on. Hooks have been added to let them associate all disk I/O back to applications - including asynchronous writeback I/O.</p></div></blockquote><p>I. Want. This.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They monitor all disk and network traffic , record it , and use it for analyzing their operations later on .
Hooks have been added to let them associate all disk I/O back to applications - including asynchronous writeback I/O.I .
Want. This .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They monitor all disk and network traffic, record it, and use it for analyzing their operations later on.
Hooks have been added to let them associate all disk I/O back to applications - including asynchronous writeback I/O.I.
Want. This.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017114</id>
	<title>Re:Open source is the coat tails that Google rides</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257591720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For Free Software, 'take' is fine. 'Provide but restrict' is not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For Free Software , 'take ' is fine .
'Provide but restrict ' is not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For Free Software, 'take' is fine.
'Provide but restrict' is not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30020898</id>
	<title>Re:Is it worth it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257689520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>actually they did just that for a time, then the gas got expensive<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>actually they did just that for a time , then the gas got expensive .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>actually they did just that for a time, then the gas got expensive ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017578</id>
	<title>Re:The Win32 Way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257596400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
In Unix if malloc returns null then the memory allocation failed and you don't have the memory. A well written program should check that. Overcommitting memory can have efficiency advantages, but things can also turn out badly. Linux has heuristics to determine how much to overcommit the memory, or it can be disabled entirely.
</p><p>
<a href="http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/unix/MemoryOvercommit" title="utoronto.ca" rel="nofollow">http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/unix/MemoryOvercommit</a> [utoronto.ca]
</p><p>
<a href="http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/linux/LinuxVMOvercommit" title="utoronto.ca" rel="nofollow">http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/linux/LinuxVMOvercommit</a> [utoronto.ca]
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Unix if malloc returns null then the memory allocation failed and you do n't have the memory .
A well written program should check that .
Overcommitting memory can have efficiency advantages , but things can also turn out badly .
Linux has heuristics to determine how much to overcommit the memory , or it can be disabled entirely .
http : //utcc.utoronto.ca/ ~ cks/space/blog/unix/MemoryOvercommit [ utoronto.ca ] http : //utcc.utoronto.ca/ ~ cks/space/blog/linux/LinuxVMOvercommit [ utoronto.ca ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
In Unix if malloc returns null then the memory allocation failed and you don't have the memory.
A well written program should check that.
Overcommitting memory can have efficiency advantages, but things can also turn out badly.
Linux has heuristics to determine how much to overcommit the memory, or it can be disabled entirely.
http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/unix/MemoryOvercommit [utoronto.ca]

http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/linux/LinuxVMOvercommit [utoronto.ca]
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019978</id>
	<title>Google is not givin back a shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257673200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is using extensively open source, but is not giving back any significant technology to the open source world.</p><p>
No efficient search technology.<br>
No decent OCR software (ocropus + tesseract are still years behind what you get for free with any multifunction HP printer on the windows world)
No GIS technology
No JSP cooperation, Minimal kernel patches, etc, etc

</p><p>Google could be a major open/free source contributor, they have the money and the skills, but they have no will to do-it. In fact, Google is behaving like any other big greedy corporation, they only do what they see fit for his own interest. The bleeding point is that Google exist THANKS TO open/free programming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is using extensively open source , but is not giving back any significant technology to the open source world .
No efficient search technology .
No decent OCR software ( ocropus + tesseract are still years behind what you get for free with any multifunction HP printer on the windows world ) No GIS technology No JSP cooperation , Minimal kernel patches , etc , etc Google could be a major open/free source contributor , they have the money and the skills , but they have no will to do-it .
In fact , Google is behaving like any other big greedy corporation , they only do what they see fit for his own interest .
The bleeding point is that Google exist THANKS TO open/free programming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is using extensively open source, but is not giving back any significant technology to the open source world.
No efficient search technology.
No decent OCR software (ocropus + tesseract are still years behind what you get for free with any multifunction HP printer on the windows world)
No GIS technology
No JSP cooperation, Minimal kernel patches, etc, etc

Google could be a major open/free source contributor, they have the money and the skills, but they have no will to do-it.
In fact, Google is behaving like any other big greedy corporation, they only do what they see fit for his own interest.
The bleeding point is that Google exist THANKS TO open/free programming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017890</id>
	<title>Re:Does Google give coade back</title>
	<author>itzdandy</author>
	<datestamp>1257599280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you subtract search engines google is responsible for a a tiny portion of the internet.  Andrew gets benies from google so I suppose they do get some credit for the quantity of his work as he needs to eat and pay rent so that he can code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you subtract search engines google is responsible for a a tiny portion of the internet .
Andrew gets benies from google so I suppose they do get some credit for the quantity of his work as he needs to eat and pay rent so that he can code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you subtract search engines google is responsible for a a tiny portion of the internet.
Andrew gets benies from google so I suppose they do get some credit for the quantity of his work as he needs to eat and pay rent so that he can code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30070590</id>
	<title>Use Solaris then.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1258022520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or buy one of their  Solaris/ZFS/Dtrace based storage devices, you can do what you ask with a few clicks of the mouse...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or buy one of their Solaris/ZFS/Dtrace based storage devices , you can do what you ask with a few clicks of the mouse.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or buy one of their  Solaris/ZFS/Dtrace based storage devices, you can do what you ask with a few clicks of the mouse...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019000</id>
	<title>Re:Does Google give coade back</title>
	<author>jelle</author>
	<datestamp>1257612540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"simply because my best guess was that I am the only person who will ever want feature x"</p><p>You may have been underestimating 'the others'... "Release early, release often" means release it, even if you think it's (still) useless junk. Just label it as that, and perhaps others will find it better than useless junk, or if needed maybe clean it up and turn it into something you never even thought it could be.</p><p>At least send a message 'listen guys, this is what I threw together for myself and here is why', or put up a webpage on a blog or wiki somewhere with your patches and mention the site once on the mailing list.</p><p>Do it for the others, whom may surprise you.</p><p>A lot of programmers with good intentions end up never releasing what they've made, and what could have turned into something great, just because they want to 'clean it up first', or because they think 'nobody would want it' (they wanted it, so somebody did, making it less than unlikely that somebody else wants it too). Release it, just be honest and say that even you the creator thinks it's dirty and useless. Perhaps others disagree about the 'useless', or are better/faster than you in cleaning it up, or maybe it inspires others to make something similar, or more advanced, in 'the right way'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" simply because my best guess was that I am the only person who will ever want feature x " You may have been underestimating 'the others'... " Release early , release often " means release it , even if you think it 's ( still ) useless junk .
Just label it as that , and perhaps others will find it better than useless junk , or if needed maybe clean it up and turn it into something you never even thought it could be.At least send a message 'listen guys , this is what I threw together for myself and here is why ' , or put up a webpage on a blog or wiki somewhere with your patches and mention the site once on the mailing list.Do it for the others , whom may surprise you.A lot of programmers with good intentions end up never releasing what they 've made , and what could have turned into something great , just because they want to 'clean it up first ' , or because they think 'nobody would want it ' ( they wanted it , so somebody did , making it less than unlikely that somebody else wants it too ) .
Release it , just be honest and say that even you the creator thinks it 's dirty and useless .
Perhaps others disagree about the 'useless ' , or are better/faster than you in cleaning it up , or maybe it inspires others to make something similar , or more advanced , in 'the right way' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"simply because my best guess was that I am the only person who will ever want feature x"You may have been underestimating 'the others'... "Release early, release often" means release it, even if you think it's (still) useless junk.
Just label it as that, and perhaps others will find it better than useless junk, or if needed maybe clean it up and turn it into something you never even thought it could be.At least send a message 'listen guys, this is what I threw together for myself and here is why', or put up a webpage on a blog or wiki somewhere with your patches and mention the site once on the mailing list.Do it for the others, whom may surprise you.A lot of programmers with good intentions end up never releasing what they've made, and what could have turned into something great, just because they want to 'clean it up first', or because they think 'nobody would want it' (they wanted it, so somebody did, making it less than unlikely that somebody else wants it too).
Release it, just be honest and say that even you the creator thinks it's dirty and useless.
Perhaps others disagree about the 'useless', or are better/faster than you in cleaning it up, or maybe it inspires others to make something similar, or more advanced, in 'the right way'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017764</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30018046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30034088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30018564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30023228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30053034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30020632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30021066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30022960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30070590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30018704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30070674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30070626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30022552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30028110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30018576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30018896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30020440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30018008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30020898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30020362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30070602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30018008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_2013246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_2013246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_2013246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30021066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30053034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30070674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_2013246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30028110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30020362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017968
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30020632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30018564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30018704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30018576
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_2013246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30018008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30020440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30070602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30070590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_2013246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_2013246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019360
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_2013246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_2013246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017234
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017380
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017890
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017710
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017764
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_2013246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_2013246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30016976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017214
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019850
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30034088
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30070626
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30022960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30022552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30018046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017272
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30019294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30020898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30018896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_2013246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30017578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_2013246.30023228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
