<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_29_2133243</id>
	<title>G-WAN, Another Free Web Server</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259490600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>mssmss writes <i>"Has anyone used <a href="http://www.gwan.com/">G-WAN</a> &mdash; a free (as in beer), supposedly fast and scalable Web server? The downside is it supports only C scripts, which the author claims is a plus since most programmers know C anyway. There is currently only a Windows release and no clear answer in <a href="http://www.gwan.com/en\_faqs.html">their FAQs</a> whether there would be Linux/Solaris releases. As an interesting aside, releasing a Web server while at the same time <a href="http://www.twd-industries.com/archives/groupama\_exposed.pdf">fighting a losing battle</a> (PDF) with a large bank over a piracy claim of $200 million (the bank is alleged to have done the piracy) is quite a feat."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>mssmss writes " Has anyone used G-WAN    a free ( as in beer ) , supposedly fast and scalable Web server ?
The downside is it supports only C scripts , which the author claims is a plus since most programmers know C anyway .
There is currently only a Windows release and no clear answer in their FAQs whether there would be Linux/Solaris releases .
As an interesting aside , releasing a Web server while at the same time fighting a losing battle ( PDF ) with a large bank over a piracy claim of $ 200 million ( the bank is alleged to have done the piracy ) is quite a feat .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mssmss writes "Has anyone used G-WAN — a free (as in beer), supposedly fast and scalable Web server?
The downside is it supports only C scripts, which the author claims is a plus since most programmers know C anyway.
There is currently only a Windows release and no clear answer in their FAQs whether there would be Linux/Solaris releases.
As an interesting aside, releasing a Web server while at the same time fighting a losing battle (PDF) with a large bank over a piracy claim of $200 million (the bank is alleged to have done the piracy) is quite a feat.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264324</id>
	<title>Spite?</title>
	<author>innocent\_white\_lamb</author>
	<datestamp>1259494560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It looks like this chap has a grudge against Microsoft (he says his company was "eradicated from the market the usual way", apparently by Microsoft) so he wrote this webserver to hit them "where it hurts".<br>
&nbsp; <br>I don't know if spite is the best motivation to write excellent software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like this chap has a grudge against Microsoft ( he says his company was " eradicated from the market the usual way " , apparently by Microsoft ) so he wrote this webserver to hit them " where it hurts " .
  I do n't know if spite is the best motivation to write excellent software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like this chap has a grudge against Microsoft (he says his company was "eradicated from the market the usual way", apparently by Microsoft) so he wrote this webserver to hit them "where it hurts".
  I don't know if spite is the best motivation to write excellent software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30266772</id>
	<title>The 1990s called</title>
	<author>simoncpu was here</author>
	<datestamp>1259517660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and want their CGI back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and want their CGI back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and want their CGI back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264478</id>
	<title>I dont exactly see the points</title>
	<author>siDDis</author>
	<datestamp>1259495880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People claim Apache is slow, but why not using a reverse proxy like Varnish to "speed it up" and still keep the features. I really see no reason why I should use G-WAN or lighttpd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People claim Apache is slow , but why not using a reverse proxy like Varnish to " speed it up " and still keep the features .
I really see no reason why I should use G-WAN or lighttpd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People claim Apache is slow, but why not using a reverse proxy like Varnish to "speed it up" and still keep the features.
I really see no reason why I should use G-WAN or lighttpd.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300</id>
	<title>Big Plus!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259494440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, writing scripts in C is a great idea.</p><p>That's why <a href="http://www.perl.org/" title="perl.org">no</a> [perl.org] <a href="http://www.php.net/" title="php.net">scripting</a> [php.net] <a href="http://www.python.org/" title="python.org">languages</a> [python.org] were ever invented, and C is the <a href="http://tomcat.apache.org/" title="apache.org">natural</a> [apache.org] <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/NET/" title="microsoft.com">choice</a> [microsoft.com] for any web framework.</p><p>History is on the author's side here. He can't lose!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , writing scripts in C is a great idea.That 's why no [ perl.org ] scripting [ php.net ] languages [ python.org ] were ever invented , and C is the natural [ apache.org ] choice [ microsoft.com ] for any web framework.History is on the author 's side here .
He ca n't lose !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, writing scripts in C is a great idea.That's why no [perl.org] scripting [php.net] languages [python.org] were ever invented, and C is the natural [apache.org] choice [microsoft.com] for any web framework.History is on the author's side here.
He can't lose!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264978</id>
	<title>Re:The real question...</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1259500560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So the guy wants to write a web server to scratch an itch or something.  No big deal there.  The question is WHY THE FUCK DID IT MAKE SLASHDOT?</p></div><p>C'mon. Whenever some new Linux distribution (or variant on an existing distro) is announced, it automatically becomes a Slashdot submission. Why should it be any different with new web servers?</p><p>Of course, whenever we have those HIGYALD (Hey, I've Got Yet Another Linux Distro) stories, there is always at least one post similar to yours, asking why it's news. And there's always at least one response to that post, explaining that alternatives are great - which is true here as well, so the circle is now complete.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the guy wants to write a web server to scratch an itch or something .
No big deal there .
The question is WHY THE FUCK DID IT MAKE SLASHDOT ? C'mon .
Whenever some new Linux distribution ( or variant on an existing distro ) is announced , it automatically becomes a Slashdot submission .
Why should it be any different with new web servers ? Of course , whenever we have those HIGYALD ( Hey , I 've Got Yet Another Linux Distro ) stories , there is always at least one post similar to yours , asking why it 's news .
And there 's always at least one response to that post , explaining that alternatives are great - which is true here as well , so the circle is now complete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the guy wants to write a web server to scratch an itch or something.
No big deal there.
The question is WHY THE FUCK DID IT MAKE SLASHDOT?C'mon.
Whenever some new Linux distribution (or variant on an existing distro) is announced, it automatically becomes a Slashdot submission.
Why should it be any different with new web servers?Of course, whenever we have those HIGYALD (Hey, I've Got Yet Another Linux Distro) stories, there is always at least one post similar to yours, asking why it's news.
And there's always at least one response to that post, explaining that alternatives are great - which is true here as well, so the circle is now complete.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30267110</id>
	<title>Few people can do string processing in C</title>
	<author>Casandro</author>
	<datestamp>1259520540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only very few people can do string processing in C. Actually I believe more people can do string processing in assembler than in C, as with assembler you see where the problems are whereas C makes you believe it has some kind of string support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only very few people can do string processing in C. Actually I believe more people can do string processing in assembler than in C , as with assembler you see where the problems are whereas C makes you believe it has some kind of string support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only very few people can do string processing in C. Actually I believe more people can do string processing in assembler than in C, as with assembler you see where the problems are whereas C makes you believe it has some kind of string support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265244</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out here</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1259503620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would far, far rather have the truly awful Perl and PHP I've been seeing the last few years fail outright to compile, rather than being published over at CPAN and corrupting every downstream project that is automatically built with the latest release of the author's fantasies. Compilation failures, and compilation warnings are helpful to cleaning up code. And taking the directly legible source code away from the programming equivalent of script kiddies and forcing them to read genuine source code helps raise the threshold of them simply cutting and pasting tools instead of using the already existing, well-written ones.</p><p>It's a long-term problem: flushing times that Perl programmers attempt to rewrite the "transcribe text as numbers" printf statement would probably shrink the deployed Perl software of the world by 5\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would far , far rather have the truly awful Perl and PHP I 've been seeing the last few years fail outright to compile , rather than being published over at CPAN and corrupting every downstream project that is automatically built with the latest release of the author 's fantasies .
Compilation failures , and compilation warnings are helpful to cleaning up code .
And taking the directly legible source code away from the programming equivalent of script kiddies and forcing them to read genuine source code helps raise the threshold of them simply cutting and pasting tools instead of using the already existing , well-written ones.It 's a long-term problem : flushing times that Perl programmers attempt to rewrite the " transcribe text as numbers " printf statement would probably shrink the deployed Perl software of the world by 5 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would far, far rather have the truly awful Perl and PHP I've been seeing the last few years fail outright to compile, rather than being published over at CPAN and corrupting every downstream project that is automatically built with the latest release of the author's fantasies.
Compilation failures, and compilation warnings are helpful to cleaning up code.
And taking the directly legible source code away from the programming equivalent of script kiddies and forcing them to read genuine source code helps raise the threshold of them simply cutting and pasting tools instead of using the already existing, well-written ones.It's a long-term problem: flushing times that Perl programmers attempt to rewrite the "transcribe text as numbers" printf statement would probably shrink the deployed Perl software of the world by 5\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30266962</id>
	<title>This seems like an ideal tool...</title>
	<author>jafiwam</author>
	<datestamp>1259519220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This seems like an ideal tool if you want to have a drop-in solution for a zombie network to host illegal or pirated shit all over the internet.</p><p>Runs on cruddy already infected hardware!  Perfect for Grandma Gertrude and Grandpa Horace to have hidden in their computers.</p><p>Feature set of this thing seems like a newer version of that pile of crap ORielly WebSite Pro.</p><p>Stay away...  this dude doesn't want to kill IIS, he wants to kill every windows install anywhere on the planet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems like an ideal tool if you want to have a drop-in solution for a zombie network to host illegal or pirated shit all over the internet.Runs on cruddy already infected hardware !
Perfect for Grandma Gertrude and Grandpa Horace to have hidden in their computers.Feature set of this thing seems like a newer version of that pile of crap ORielly WebSite Pro.Stay away... this dude does n't want to kill IIS , he wants to kill every windows install anywhere on the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems like an ideal tool if you want to have a drop-in solution for a zombie network to host illegal or pirated shit all over the internet.Runs on cruddy already infected hardware!
Perfect for Grandma Gertrude and Grandpa Horace to have hidden in their computers.Feature set of this thing seems like a newer version of that pile of crap ORielly WebSite Pro.Stay away...  this dude doesn't want to kill IIS, he wants to kill every windows install anywhere on the planet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30270442</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out here</title>
	<author>Al Dimond</author>
	<datestamp>1259599680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first thing that came to mind when I thought of C, network-facing services, and security was buffer overruns. They aren't hard to avoid, but they aren't hard to write either. Encouraging programmers to write ad-hoc scripts to process input in C sounds like a remarkably bad idea to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first thing that came to mind when I thought of C , network-facing services , and security was buffer overruns .
They are n't hard to avoid , but they are n't hard to write either .
Encouraging programmers to write ad-hoc scripts to process input in C sounds like a remarkably bad idea to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first thing that came to mind when I thought of C, network-facing services, and security was buffer overruns.
They aren't hard to avoid, but they aren't hard to write either.
Encouraging programmers to write ad-hoc scripts to process input in C sounds like a remarkably bad idea to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30268390</id>
	<title>Re:Spite?</title>
	<author>arethuza</author>
	<datestamp>1259579700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ouch - the design on that site makes my eyes hurt. The content just makes my brain hurt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ouch - the design on that site makes my eyes hurt .
The content just makes my brain hurt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ouch - the design on that site makes my eyes hurt.
The content just makes my brain hurt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264930</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out here</title>
	<author>plasticsquirrel</author>
	<datestamp>1259500080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's still an entire world of people who think in terms of Windows-only and shareware. They're living in a 90's time warp, really. Never mind that C is inherently dangerous to use for scripting (not to mention primitive), or that there are smaller, freer web servers out there.... Some people feel compelled to reinvent the wheel, and then feel like heroes when they only pack in a few advertisements or dial home every once in awhile. People who don't know any better will still use it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's still an entire world of people who think in terms of Windows-only and shareware .
They 're living in a 90 's time warp , really .
Never mind that C is inherently dangerous to use for scripting ( not to mention primitive ) , or that there are smaller , freer web servers out there.... Some people feel compelled to reinvent the wheel , and then feel like heroes when they only pack in a few advertisements or dial home every once in awhile .
People who do n't know any better will still use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's still an entire world of people who think in terms of Windows-only and shareware.
They're living in a 90's time warp, really.
Never mind that C is inherently dangerous to use for scripting (not to mention primitive), or that there are smaller, freer web servers out there.... Some people feel compelled to reinvent the wheel, and then feel like heroes when they only pack in a few advertisements or dial home every once in awhile.
People who don't know any better will still use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264756</id>
	<title>Yes, but...</title>
	<author>EzInKy</author>
	<datestamp>1259498520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the thing about C is that libraries written in it are among the easiest for higher level languages to interface with. It's almost ironic in a way that C gives more freedom to those who refuse to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the thing about C is that libraries written in it are among the easiest for higher level languages to interface with .
It 's almost ironic in a way that C gives more freedom to those who refuse to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the thing about C is that libraries written in it are among the easiest for higher level languages to interface with.
It's almost ironic in a way that C gives more freedom to those who refuse to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265024</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out here</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1259501100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C has lousy string support. It's really easy to screw them up, just like most memory allocation-related stuff in C is a big burden. Perl, Python, PHP, and even Fortran handle strings more sensibly, eliminating one of the most common sources of security problems in one go.</p><p>It may be true in theory that compiled languages that enforce discipline (ML, for example) would be better yet for security, particularly when used by people who have a good security model in mind, but Perl, PHP, and Python do well with such a model. In C, even if you have a good security model, every strcpy() or strncpy() is a potential vulnerability.</p><p>It's possible to wrap all the dangerous bits of C up into a programming framework, using functions that handle your mallocs for you, using objects to replace strings, etc. Very few people do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C has lousy string support .
It 's really easy to screw them up , just like most memory allocation-related stuff in C is a big burden .
Perl , Python , PHP , and even Fortran handle strings more sensibly , eliminating one of the most common sources of security problems in one go.It may be true in theory that compiled languages that enforce discipline ( ML , for example ) would be better yet for security , particularly when used by people who have a good security model in mind , but Perl , PHP , and Python do well with such a model .
In C , even if you have a good security model , every strcpy ( ) or strncpy ( ) is a potential vulnerability.It 's possible to wrap all the dangerous bits of C up into a programming framework , using functions that handle your mallocs for you , using objects to replace strings , etc .
Very few people do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C has lousy string support.
It's really easy to screw them up, just like most memory allocation-related stuff in C is a big burden.
Perl, Python, PHP, and even Fortran handle strings more sensibly, eliminating one of the most common sources of security problems in one go.It may be true in theory that compiled languages that enforce discipline (ML, for example) would be better yet for security, particularly when used by people who have a good security model in mind, but Perl, PHP, and Python do well with such a model.
In C, even if you have a good security model, every strcpy() or strncpy() is a potential vulnerability.It's possible to wrap all the dangerous bits of C up into a programming framework, using functions that handle your mallocs for you, using objects to replace strings, etc.
Very few people do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264346</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259494740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wondered the same thing, then I remembered the plethora (yes plethora) of Linux distributions - most of which (for all practical matters) do the same thing (yes, some focus on small size - others focus on usability, some use Debian style packages, some use Red Hat, and Gentoo you compile yourself, some are 'damn small' while others are knoppix, yada yada yada). Yet these seem to flourish and folks seem to have a need for more than one. So maybe there is some need (or at least some desire) to have YAWS (Yet Another Web Server). A bit tongue in cheek - but perhaps there is a reason - or maybe he just wants to start with a smaller project where he can more easily understand all the code?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wondered the same thing , then I remembered the plethora ( yes plethora ) of Linux distributions - most of which ( for all practical matters ) do the same thing ( yes , some focus on small size - others focus on usability , some use Debian style packages , some use Red Hat , and Gentoo you compile yourself , some are 'damn small ' while others are knoppix , yada yada yada ) .
Yet these seem to flourish and folks seem to have a need for more than one .
So maybe there is some need ( or at least some desire ) to have YAWS ( Yet Another Web Server ) .
A bit tongue in cheek - but perhaps there is a reason - or maybe he just wants to start with a smaller project where he can more easily understand all the code ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wondered the same thing, then I remembered the plethora (yes plethora) of Linux distributions - most of which (for all practical matters) do the same thing (yes, some focus on small size - others focus on usability, some use Debian style packages, some use Red Hat, and Gentoo you compile yourself, some are 'damn small' while others are knoppix, yada yada yada).
Yet these seem to flourish and folks seem to have a need for more than one.
So maybe there is some need (or at least some desire) to have YAWS (Yet Another Web Server).
A bit tongue in cheek - but perhaps there is a reason - or maybe he just wants to start with a smaller project where he can more easily understand all the code?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30268962</id>
	<title>Re:Big Plus!</title>
	<author>mustafap</author>
	<datestamp>1259588700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The entire Internet backbone is powered by C. Do you think router software is written in perl? Operating systems? BIOSes? Harddisk firmware? Data encrypters? GPS firmware? Mobile phone firmware?</p><p>Real engineers program mostly in C.</p><p>The higher level stuff is just there to enable non programmers to write banal blogging applications that enable people to publish details of their uninteresting lives.</p><p>When the world fully wakes up to the amount of energy we waste executing inefficient algorithms in inefficient programming languages, we'll see who's smug then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The entire Internet backbone is powered by C. Do you think router software is written in perl ?
Operating systems ?
BIOSes ? Harddisk firmware ?
Data encrypters ?
GPS firmware ?
Mobile phone firmware ? Real engineers program mostly in C.The higher level stuff is just there to enable non programmers to write banal blogging applications that enable people to publish details of their uninteresting lives.When the world fully wakes up to the amount of energy we waste executing inefficient algorithms in inefficient programming languages , we 'll see who 's smug then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entire Internet backbone is powered by C. Do you think router software is written in perl?
Operating systems?
BIOSes? Harddisk firmware?
Data encrypters?
GPS firmware?
Mobile phone firmware?Real engineers program mostly in C.The higher level stuff is just there to enable non programmers to write banal blogging applications that enable people to publish details of their uninteresting lives.When the world fully wakes up to the amount of energy we waste executing inefficient algorithms in inefficient programming languages, we'll see who's smug then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264860</id>
	<title>Re:Big Plus!</title>
	<author>conner\_bw</author>
	<datestamp>1259499420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i JAVA your point</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i JAVA your point</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i JAVA your point</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30266000</id>
	<title>cgicc was here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259510940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meanwhile, people who still have a little bit of sanity left can write FastCGI applications with cgicc and serve them using Cherokee, nginx, Lighttpd or Apache.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile , people who still have a little bit of sanity left can write FastCGI applications with cgicc and serve them using Cherokee , nginx , Lighttpd or Apache .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile, people who still have a little bit of sanity left can write FastCGI applications with cgicc and serve them using Cherokee, nginx, Lighttpd or Apache.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265190</id>
	<title>Re:The real question...</title>
	<author>thoughtsatthemoment</author>
	<datestamp>1259503080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess not everyone noticed this guy's site contains a link to an internal MS document that seems to show how MS was practicing mind control. Perfect for slashdot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess not everyone noticed this guy 's site contains a link to an internal MS document that seems to show how MS was practicing mind control .
Perfect for slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess not everyone noticed this guy's site contains a link to an internal MS document that seems to show how MS was practicing mind control.
Perfect for slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264662</id>
	<title>Re:Big Plus!</title>
	<author>caramelcarrot</author>
	<datestamp>1259497560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He even fucking linked to those two languages.

This has to be a troll.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He even fucking linked to those two languages .
This has to be a troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He even fucking linked to those two languages.
This has to be a troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30268178</id>
	<title>Re:Big Plus!</title>
	<author>Richard W.M. Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1259576520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Yes, writing scripts in C is a great idea.</i> </p><p>
It's certainly not a new idea<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>
<a href="http://annexia.org/freeware/rws" title="annexia.org">Minimal webserver, written in C, supporting C scripts<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</a> [annexia.org] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , writing scripts in C is a great idea .
It 's certainly not a new idea .. . Minimal webserver , written in C , supporting C scripts ... [ annexia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Yes, writing scripts in C is a great idea.
It's certainly not a new idea ...
Minimal webserver, written in C, supporting C scripts ... [annexia.org] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264804</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out here</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1259499000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why does the world need a non-free web server that only runs on Windows when there's already plenty of free (as in speech) ones out there (http://www.apache.org/, <a href="http://www.lighttpd.net/" title="lighttpd.net">http://www.lighttpd.net/</a> [lighttpd.net]) that run everywhere?,</p></div><p>For the same reason there are more than five models of vehicle on the roadways: Different needs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does the world need a non-free web server that only runs on Windows when there 's already plenty of free ( as in speech ) ones out there ( http : //www.apache.org/ , http : //www.lighttpd.net/ [ lighttpd.net ] ) that run everywhere ? ,For the same reason there are more than five models of vehicle on the roadways : Different needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does the world need a non-free web server that only runs on Windows when there's already plenty of free (as in speech) ones out there (http://www.apache.org/, http://www.lighttpd.net/ [lighttpd.net]) that run everywhere?,For the same reason there are more than five models of vehicle on the roadways: Different needs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264878</id>
	<title>Re:Big Plus!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259499660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, your anecdotal evidence clearly suggests that scripting languages have a place as sub-standard languages to design a web-enabled application.  Never mind all the professional Drupal developers. Or people that use Joomla.  Yeah, platforms like those two are total wastes and it would have been infinitely wiser to write it as an Apache module.
<br> <br>
I'm baffled that you point to using C as the root reason that your developers' code had less bugs.  Speed I'll concede, but not bugs.  Give your guys some credit.  I'll bet them using C isn't why they write good code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , your anecdotal evidence clearly suggests that scripting languages have a place as sub-standard languages to design a web-enabled application .
Never mind all the professional Drupal developers .
Or people that use Joomla .
Yeah , platforms like those two are total wastes and it would have been infinitely wiser to write it as an Apache module .
I 'm baffled that you point to using C as the root reason that your developers ' code had less bugs .
Speed I 'll concede , but not bugs .
Give your guys some credit .
I 'll bet them using C is n't why they write good code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, your anecdotal evidence clearly suggests that scripting languages have a place as sub-standard languages to design a web-enabled application.
Never mind all the professional Drupal developers.
Or people that use Joomla.
Yeah, platforms like those two are total wastes and it would have been infinitely wiser to write it as an Apache module.
I'm baffled that you point to using C as the root reason that your developers' code had less bugs.
Speed I'll concede, but not bugs.
Give your guys some credit.
I'll bet them using C isn't why they write good code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264526</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>Jugalator</author>
	<datestamp>1259496300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but I won't run a HTTP server where the author think running native code extensions with no security checks is good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but I wo n't run a HTTP server where the author think running native code extensions with no security checks is good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but I won't run a HTTP server where the author think running native code extensions with no security checks is good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264774</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out here</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1259498700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>how many of todays Perl and PHP website scripting security issues would evaporate if the authors were forced to write in a less flexible language that took a few moments to actually compile before being enabled?</p></div><p>None. Contrary to popular belief, lower-level languages don't make shitty programmers competent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>how many of todays Perl and PHP website scripting security issues would evaporate if the authors were forced to write in a less flexible language that took a few moments to actually compile before being enabled ? None .
Contrary to popular belief , lower-level languages do n't make shitty programmers competent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how many of todays Perl and PHP website scripting security issues would evaporate if the authors were forced to write in a less flexible language that took a few moments to actually compile before being enabled?None.
Contrary to popular belief, lower-level languages don't make shitty programmers competent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264452</id>
	<title>Re:Big Plus!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259495700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Absolutely. What makes me especially excited about trying G-WAN is that whenever it crashes I'll have the extra fun of figuring out whether the reason it crashed was because my own C code crashed, or because the code in his web server crashed. But wait, there's more! Adding to this really enjoyable programming problem will be the extra challenge that comes with the fact that his code is closed source, so if the crash occurs inside his code, I'll be able to get in there with a debugger and spend an afternoon figuring out what happened and whether there's any way to change the data my code gives to his code so that his code won't crash crash. I can see many really enjoyable weekends ahead of me in my parents' basement, with a bowl of nachos and a liter jug of root beer. Good times!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely .
What makes me especially excited about trying G-WAN is that whenever it crashes I 'll have the extra fun of figuring out whether the reason it crashed was because my own C code crashed , or because the code in his web server crashed .
But wait , there 's more !
Adding to this really enjoyable programming problem will be the extra challenge that comes with the fact that his code is closed source , so if the crash occurs inside his code , I 'll be able to get in there with a debugger and spend an afternoon figuring out what happened and whether there 's any way to change the data my code gives to his code so that his code wo n't crash crash .
I can see many really enjoyable weekends ahead of me in my parents ' basement , with a bowl of nachos and a liter jug of root beer .
Good times !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely.
What makes me especially excited about trying G-WAN is that whenever it crashes I'll have the extra fun of figuring out whether the reason it crashed was because my own C code crashed, or because the code in his web server crashed.
But wait, there's more!
Adding to this really enjoyable programming problem will be the extra challenge that comes with the fact that his code is closed source, so if the crash occurs inside his code, I'll be able to get in there with a debugger and spend an afternoon figuring out what happened and whether there's any way to change the data my code gives to his code so that his code won't crash crash.
I can see many really enjoyable weekends ahead of me in my parents' basement, with a bowl of nachos and a liter jug of root beer.
Good times!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264378</id>
	<title>Linux support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259494980000</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_29_2133243.30264578</id>
	<title>Okay, is it just me</title>
	<author>Josh04</author>
	<datestamp>1259496840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or is the guy who wrote this completely and utterly nuts, in every way? I don't even need to cite this, just visit the labyrinth site and wait till your mind melts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or is the guy who wrote this completely and utterly nuts , in every way ?
I do n't even need to cite this , just visit the labyrinth site and wait till your mind melts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or is the guy who wrote this completely and utterly nuts, in every way?
I don't even need to cite this, just visit the labyrinth site and wait till your mind melts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265060</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out here</title>
	<author>msimm</author>
	<datestamp>1259501460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No kidding. And if you really want to play around with cool web server technologies slightly off the beaten path there are plenty of more interesting options like <a href="http://www.caucho.com/" title="caucho.com">Resin</a> [caucho.com] (open source java/php servlet).<br> <br>
Honestly I've got to question anyone who wants to run Windows server for any kind of performance-oriented or scalable solution, which would make this an ad?</htmltext>
<tokenext>No kidding .
And if you really want to play around with cool web server technologies slightly off the beaten path there are plenty of more interesting options like Resin [ caucho.com ] ( open source java/php servlet ) .
Honestly I 've got to question anyone who wants to run Windows server for any kind of performance-oriented or scalable solution , which would make this an ad ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No kidding.
And if you really want to play around with cool web server technologies slightly off the beaten path there are plenty of more interesting options like Resin [caucho.com] (open source java/php servlet).
Honestly I've got to question anyone who wants to run Windows server for any kind of performance-oriented or scalable solution, which would make this an ad?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264610</id>
	<title>IIS</title>
	<author>KalvinB</author>
	<datestamp>1259497020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're going to be "scripting" in C on Windows you might as well go fully compiled with IIS (free with any Windows OS you'd be running on a server) and C# (Express version also free).  Get MySQL with ODBC and you're all set.</p><p>I use PHP on Apache for flexibility.  If I wanted to use C I'd compile it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're going to be " scripting " in C on Windows you might as well go fully compiled with IIS ( free with any Windows OS you 'd be running on a server ) and C # ( Express version also free ) .
Get MySQL with ODBC and you 're all set.I use PHP on Apache for flexibility .
If I wanted to use C I 'd compile it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're going to be "scripting" in C on Windows you might as well go fully compiled with IIS (free with any Windows OS you'd be running on a server) and C# (Express version also free).
Get MySQL with ODBC and you're all set.I use PHP on Apache for flexibility.
If I wanted to use C I'd compile it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264568</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out here</title>
	<author>kikito</author>
	<datestamp>1259496720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your logic is flawed.</p><p>Language flexibility and application security are not correlated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your logic is flawed.Language flexibility and application security are not correlated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your logic is flawed.Language flexibility and application security are not correlated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30267982</id>
	<title>Re:It can't even talk http properly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259574420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>His server returns 404 for errors:</p><p> <a href="http://www.gwan.com/csp\_crash.html" title="gwan.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.gwan.com/csp\_crash.html</a> [gwan.com] </p><p>That's going to make wirting for this thing really confusing.</p></div><p>That reminds me of users who report every "I couldn't get to my Flash game" error as 404.  "Yeah, that's what you geeks call it, 404, when [it shows a white screen | it says 'The page cannot be displayed' | the browser is minimized | the power is out]!"  Fortunately, those idiot users don't write server software, but this one apparently does.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>His server returns 404 for errors : http : //www.gwan.com/csp \ _crash.html [ gwan.com ] That 's going to make wirting for this thing really confusing.That reminds me of users who report every " I could n't get to my Flash game " error as 404 .
" Yeah , that 's what you geeks call it , 404 , when [ it shows a white screen | it says 'The page can not be displayed ' | the browser is minimized | the power is out ] !
" Fortunately , those idiot users do n't write server software , but this one apparently does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His server returns 404 for errors: http://www.gwan.com/csp\_crash.html [gwan.com] That's going to make wirting for this thing really confusing.That reminds me of users who report every "I couldn't get to my Flash game" error as 404.
"Yeah, that's what you geeks call it, 404, when [it shows a white screen | it says 'The page cannot be displayed' | the browser is minimized | the power is out]!
"  Fortunately, those idiot users don't write server software, but this one apparently does.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30266036</id>
	<title>Re:Big Plus! Christmas sale, free shipping discoun</title>
	<author>coolforsale134</author>
	<datestamp>1259511180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/</a> [coolforsale.com]  Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival. Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services". Your satisfaction is our main pursue. You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs. Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! Thank you! <a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76</a> [coolforsale.com]   (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping Thanks!!! Advance wish you a merry Christmas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.coolforsale.com/ [ coolforsale.com ] Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello , In order to meet Christmas , Site launched Christmas spree , welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises , look forward to your arrival .
Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is " Best quality , Best reputation , Best services " .
Your satisfaction is our main pursue .
You can find the best products from us , meeting your different needs .
Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but do n't miss it.Select your favorite clothing !
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you !
http : //www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp ? id = s76 [ coolforsale.com ] ( Tracksuit w ) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket , Air jordan ( 1-24 ) shoes $ 33 Nike shox ( R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3 ) $ 35 Handbags ( Coach lv fendi d&amp;g ) $ 35 Tshirts ( Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste ) $ 16 free shipping Thanks ! ! !
Advance wish you a merry Christmas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com]  Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival.
Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services".
Your satisfaction is our main pursue.
You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs.
Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing!
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you!
http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76 [coolforsale.com]   (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping Thanks!!!
Advance wish you a merry Christmas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264380</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1259494980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was hoping they were talking about the "box" itself, not software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was hoping they were talking about the " box " itself , not software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was hoping they were talking about the "box" itself, not software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264320</id>
	<title>Value?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259494560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where's the value/point in releasing another limited-utility webserver?</p><p>I see the point in having a few options for a particular category, so that you can choose between different optimizations for things like cost, performance, and compatibility. But why something of limited utility (only runs C scripts) compatibility (only runs on 'doze) AND cost? (not OSS, but it's free!)</p><p>I don't know. Even with a fairly "heavy" web server such as Apache, the performance increases by going with another "lighter" platform seldom represent more than a year or so of hardware advance.</p><p>So.... Why?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's the value/point in releasing another limited-utility webserver ? I see the point in having a few options for a particular category , so that you can choose between different optimizations for things like cost , performance , and compatibility .
But why something of limited utility ( only runs C scripts ) compatibility ( only runs on 'doze ) AND cost ?
( not OSS , but it 's free !
) I do n't know .
Even with a fairly " heavy " web server such as Apache , the performance increases by going with another " lighter " platform seldom represent more than a year or so of hardware advance.So.... Why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's the value/point in releasing another limited-utility webserver?I see the point in having a few options for a particular category, so that you can choose between different optimizations for things like cost, performance, and compatibility.
But why something of limited utility (only runs C scripts) compatibility (only runs on 'doze) AND cost?
(not OSS, but it's free!
)I don't know.
Even with a fairly "heavy" web server such as Apache, the performance increases by going with another "lighter" platform seldom represent more than a year or so of hardware advance.So.... Why?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264524</id>
	<title>Re:Big Plus!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259496300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, look on the bright side: at least you don't have to write your scripts in asm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , look on the bright side : at least you do n't have to write your scripts in asm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, look on the bright side: at least you don't have to write your scripts in asm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264698</id>
	<title>It can't even talk http properly</title>
	<author>RJabelman</author>
	<datestamp>1259497860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His server returns 404 for errors:</p><p><a href="http://www.gwan.com/csp\_crash.html" title="gwan.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.gwan.com/csp\_crash.html</a> [gwan.com]</p><p>That's going to make wirting for this thing really confusing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His server returns 404 for errors : http : //www.gwan.com/csp \ _crash.html [ gwan.com ] That 's going to make wirting for this thing really confusing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His server returns 404 for errors:http://www.gwan.com/csp\_crash.html [gwan.com]That's going to make wirting for this thing really confusing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30266824</id>
	<title>Re:The real question...</title>
	<author>jsled</author>
	<datestamp>1259518080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but the value in sites like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is *EDITING*.  They should filter shit like this so their s/n ratio is high, and thus their feed is valuable.  This will bring subscribers and thus attention and thus ad impressions. At present, slashdot posts 90\% crap found on other sites 4-9 days ago, and 7\% crap like this and 3\% interesting stuff, mostly hard-science stuff I'd find if I was still in school or in a non-CS/Real-Science job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but the value in sites like / .
is * EDITING * .
They should filter shit like this so their s/n ratio is high , and thus their feed is valuable .
This will bring subscribers and thus attention and thus ad impressions .
At present , slashdot posts 90 \ % crap found on other sites 4-9 days ago , and 7 \ % crap like this and 3 \ % interesting stuff , mostly hard-science stuff I 'd find if I was still in school or in a non-CS/Real-Science job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but the value in sites like /.
is *EDITING*.
They should filter shit like this so their s/n ratio is high, and thus their feed is valuable.
This will bring subscribers and thus attention and thus ad impressions.
At present, slashdot posts 90\% crap found on other sites 4-9 days ago, and 7\% crap like this and 3\% interesting stuff, mostly hard-science stuff I'd find if I was still in school or in a non-CS/Real-Science job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265402</id>
	<title>Re:Big Plus!</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1259506020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't read hex core dumps? Sissy.</p><p>P.S. At first I thought "G-Wan? Must be Obi-Wan's brother."<br>Too bad that "Use the source, Luke" doesn't apply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't read hex core dumps ?
Sissy.P.S. At first I thought " G-Wan ?
Must be Obi-Wan 's brother .
" Too bad that " Use the source , Luke " does n't apply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't read hex core dumps?
Sissy.P.S. At first I thought "G-Wan?
Must be Obi-Wan's brother.
"Too bad that "Use the source, Luke" doesn't apply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265538</id>
	<title>Re:The real question...</title>
	<author>dkf</author>
	<datestamp>1259507820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The question is WHY THE FUCK DID IT MAKE SLASHDOT?</p></div><p>Let's see...</p><blockquote><div><p>Posted by <b>kdawson</b> on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div></blockquote><p>Looks like we've got an answer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is WHY THE FUCK DID IT MAKE SLASHDOT ? Let 's see...Posted by kdawson on ...Looks like we 've got an answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is WHY THE FUCK DID IT MAKE SLASHDOT?Let's see...Posted by kdawson on ...Looks like we've got an answer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264998</id>
	<title>Re:The real question...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259500920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the point is actually the piracy suit against some bank. If it weren't for that, this would be the same thing half a dozen people are doing in their mom's basement right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the point is actually the piracy suit against some bank .
If it were n't for that , this would be the same thing half a dozen people are doing in their mom 's basement right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the point is actually the piracy suit against some bank.
If it weren't for that, this would be the same thing half a dozen people are doing in their mom's basement right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30268334</id>
	<title>Looking for source code?</title>
	<author>redblue</author>
	<datestamp>1259578920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A while back I had written a minimal HTTP server to figure out I/O completion ports in Windows over a weekend. You can download it from (BSD license): <a href="http://arunsagar.com/Code/rani.cpp" title="arunsagar.com" rel="nofollow">http://arunsagar.com/Code/rani.cpp</a> [arunsagar.com]<br>Similar throughput specs as the OP's server, and the C++ code can be part of the server itself (great for debugging). Buggy and incomplete, but you can play, fix and extend as you wish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A while back I had written a minimal HTTP server to figure out I/O completion ports in Windows over a weekend .
You can download it from ( BSD license ) : http : //arunsagar.com/Code/rani.cpp [ arunsagar.com ] Similar throughput specs as the OP 's server , and the C + + code can be part of the server itself ( great for debugging ) .
Buggy and incomplete , but you can play , fix and extend as you wish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A while back I had written a minimal HTTP server to figure out I/O completion ports in Windows over a weekend.
You can download it from (BSD license): http://arunsagar.com/Code/rani.cpp [arunsagar.com]Similar throughput specs as the OP's server, and the C++ code can be part of the server itself (great for debugging).
Buggy and incomplete, but you can play, fix and extend as you wish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264750</id>
	<title>Re:Big Plus!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259498460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The G-WAN author is the poster child for "premature optimization". Apparently nobody's told them that it doesn't matter if your site can handle 10000 req/s if it takes 10x longer to develop and has no users...</p><p>His example of how PHP isn't more concise could be equally well entitled, "How to write PHP with as much FAIL/loc as possible". The reimplementing of what should be library functions (atod, uceil) just adds to the heap of FAIL.</p><p>Finally, I particularly enjoyed the bit about how you might not want to trust "third-parties (compilers, operating systems and Certification Authorities)". If you think that the operating system and compiler vendors are out to get you, some serious professional help may be in order... Nevermind that you're also still trusting a hyperparanoid optimization freak from Switzerland who won't even show source code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The G-WAN author is the poster child for " premature optimization " .
Apparently nobody 's told them that it does n't matter if your site can handle 10000 req/s if it takes 10x longer to develop and has no users...His example of how PHP is n't more concise could be equally well entitled , " How to write PHP with as much FAIL/loc as possible " .
The reimplementing of what should be library functions ( atod , uceil ) just adds to the heap of FAIL.Finally , I particularly enjoyed the bit about how you might not want to trust " third-parties ( compilers , operating systems and Certification Authorities ) " .
If you think that the operating system and compiler vendors are out to get you , some serious professional help may be in order... Nevermind that you 're also still trusting a hyperparanoid optimization freak from Switzerland who wo n't even show source code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The G-WAN author is the poster child for "premature optimization".
Apparently nobody's told them that it doesn't matter if your site can handle 10000 req/s if it takes 10x longer to develop and has no users...His example of how PHP isn't more concise could be equally well entitled, "How to write PHP with as much FAIL/loc as possible".
The reimplementing of what should be library functions (atod, uceil) just adds to the heap of FAIL.Finally, I particularly enjoyed the bit about how you might not want to trust "third-parties (compilers, operating systems and Certification Authorities)".
If you think that the operating system and compiler vendors are out to get you, some serious professional help may be in order... Nevermind that you're also still trusting a hyperparanoid optimization freak from Switzerland who won't even show source code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264596</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out here</title>
	<author>sirlatrom</author>
	<datestamp>1259496900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you take the idea to extremes there, it sounds to me like advocating "security through deterring for seconds or minutes" -- which I would consider even worse than "security through obscurity".</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you take the idea to extremes there , it sounds to me like advocating " security through deterring for seconds or minutes " -- which I would consider even worse than " security through obscurity " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you take the idea to extremes there, it sounds to me like advocating "security through deterring for seconds or minutes" -- which I would consider even worse than "security through obscurity".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264450</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out here</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1259495640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speed and security. The endless permutations and add-ons to Apache do, in fact, cause a significant security and compatibility and performance burden, much as the endless and often poorly written add-ons to Perl create similar issues. The idea can be taken to extremes, but how many of todays Perl and PHP website scripting security issues would evaporate if the authors were forced to write in a less flexible language that took a few moments to actually compile before being enabled?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speed and security .
The endless permutations and add-ons to Apache do , in fact , cause a significant security and compatibility and performance burden , much as the endless and often poorly written add-ons to Perl create similar issues .
The idea can be taken to extremes , but how many of todays Perl and PHP website scripting security issues would evaporate if the authors were forced to write in a less flexible language that took a few moments to actually compile before being enabled ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speed and security.
The endless permutations and add-ons to Apache do, in fact, cause a significant security and compatibility and performance burden, much as the endless and often poorly written add-ons to Perl create similar issues.
The idea can be taken to extremes, but how many of todays Perl and PHP website scripting security issues would evaporate if the authors were forced to write in a less flexible language that took a few moments to actually compile before being enabled?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264586</id>
	<title>Re:Big Plus!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259496840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, no, you're wrong. There's plenty of scripting languages (perl.org php.net and python.org , if you want info on just a few), and even for web frameworks, you've got stuff like apache as an alternative.</p><p>No matter what history says, I don't think there's as much on the author's side as you think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , no , you 're wrong .
There 's plenty of scripting languages ( perl.org php.net and python.org , if you want info on just a few ) , and even for web frameworks , you 've got stuff like apache as an alternative.No matter what history says , I do n't think there 's as much on the author 's side as you think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, no, you're wrong.
There's plenty of scripting languages (perl.org php.net and python.org , if you want info on just a few), and even for web frameworks, you've got stuff like apache as an alternative.No matter what history says, I don't think there's as much on the author's side as you think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30267224</id>
	<title>I sent a message via his error log</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259521620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't tell if sane or not but it certainly sounds like he is putting much effort into some software.<br>So it would help to defuse the impression of insanity that most of the posters here are suggesting. He doesn't sound insane at least not for a French programmer who has left the country due to corruption apparently.</p><p>Personally I would suggest an online explanation in more detail of two points:<br>1) Would he offer source to a company/institution that will sign an NDA? I bet he would sell it to say Facebook if they wanted to compile their own.<br>It isn't a crime to do closed source software although to my mind not offering the source in any way is going to slow adoption.<br>2) I took the time to read the blog and pdfs. His legal problems seems to have started when he caught a bank using his software. See: <a href="http://www.remoteanything.com/archives/GROUPAMA.pdf" title="remoteanything.com">groupama.pdf</a> [remoteanything.com]</p><p>This refers to software he makes (in Switzerland now), <a href="http://www.remote-anything.com/" title="remote-anything.com">Remote Anything</a> [remote-anything.com]</p><p>Okay.  First, the pdf shows they have installed packs of 65535 units of his software. This makes no sense at all and looks like a dumb programming bug. He doesn't show the evidence he has, or how he got the reports. I imagine he has a phone home routine in his program. This is maybe why it gets called a virus too I could imagine, if that is the app he is talking about. The $200M fine he is seeking is therefore either crazy, a lie, or else based on such strong evidence I can't imagine not mentioning it. I think he needs to explain what the evidence is, how he got it, and why the numbers suggest some binary math errors. He has four lines that look like "64 DS + 256 Masters + 65536 Slaves = 34 million euros" and this is totally crazy. He seems to be suggesting they are using 250,000 clients if I am correct. His own site says Fortune 500 companies often buy tens of thousands of licenses. He should explain the discrepancy.</p><p>I think if he does these two things then he could expand his market more. If he doesn't want to go open source fine but comparing it to open source projects then should include this caveat. Maybe he could get a university or famous security company to audit the code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't tell if sane or not but it certainly sounds like he is putting much effort into some software.So it would help to defuse the impression of insanity that most of the posters here are suggesting .
He does n't sound insane at least not for a French programmer who has left the country due to corruption apparently.Personally I would suggest an online explanation in more detail of two points : 1 ) Would he offer source to a company/institution that will sign an NDA ?
I bet he would sell it to say Facebook if they wanted to compile their own.It is n't a crime to do closed source software although to my mind not offering the source in any way is going to slow adoption.2 ) I took the time to read the blog and pdfs .
His legal problems seems to have started when he caught a bank using his software .
See : groupama.pdf [ remoteanything.com ] This refers to software he makes ( in Switzerland now ) , Remote Anything [ remote-anything.com ] Okay .
First , the pdf shows they have installed packs of 65535 units of his software .
This makes no sense at all and looks like a dumb programming bug .
He does n't show the evidence he has , or how he got the reports .
I imagine he has a phone home routine in his program .
This is maybe why it gets called a virus too I could imagine , if that is the app he is talking about .
The $ 200M fine he is seeking is therefore either crazy , a lie , or else based on such strong evidence I ca n't imagine not mentioning it .
I think he needs to explain what the evidence is , how he got it , and why the numbers suggest some binary math errors .
He has four lines that look like " 64 DS + 256 Masters + 65536 Slaves = 34 million euros " and this is totally crazy .
He seems to be suggesting they are using 250,000 clients if I am correct .
His own site says Fortune 500 companies often buy tens of thousands of licenses .
He should explain the discrepancy.I think if he does these two things then he could expand his market more .
If he does n't want to go open source fine but comparing it to open source projects then should include this caveat .
Maybe he could get a university or famous security company to audit the code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't tell if sane or not but it certainly sounds like he is putting much effort into some software.So it would help to defuse the impression of insanity that most of the posters here are suggesting.
He doesn't sound insane at least not for a French programmer who has left the country due to corruption apparently.Personally I would suggest an online explanation in more detail of two points:1) Would he offer source to a company/institution that will sign an NDA?
I bet he would sell it to say Facebook if they wanted to compile their own.It isn't a crime to do closed source software although to my mind not offering the source in any way is going to slow adoption.2) I took the time to read the blog and pdfs.
His legal problems seems to have started when he caught a bank using his software.
See: groupama.pdf [remoteanything.com]This refers to software he makes (in Switzerland now), Remote Anything [remote-anything.com]Okay.
First, the pdf shows they have installed packs of 65535 units of his software.
This makes no sense at all and looks like a dumb programming bug.
He doesn't show the evidence he has, or how he got the reports.
I imagine he has a phone home routine in his program.
This is maybe why it gets called a virus too I could imagine, if that is the app he is talking about.
The $200M fine he is seeking is therefore either crazy, a lie, or else based on such strong evidence I can't imagine not mentioning it.
I think he needs to explain what the evidence is, how he got it, and why the numbers suggest some binary math errors.
He has four lines that look like "64 DS + 256 Masters + 65536 Slaves = 34 million euros" and this is totally crazy.
He seems to be suggesting they are using 250,000 clients if I am correct.
His own site says Fortune 500 companies often buy tens of thousands of licenses.
He should explain the discrepancy.I think if he does these two things then he could expand his market more.
If he doesn't want to go open source fine but comparing it to open source projects then should include this caveat.
Maybe he could get a university or famous security company to audit the code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265458</id>
	<title>Re:Spite?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259506800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I don't know if spite is the best motivation to write excellent software.</i></p><p>Don't knock it until you've tried Spite Server,  it gets much better performance than the Have a Nice Day Server...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if spite is the best motivation to write excellent software.Do n't knock it until you 've tried Spite Server , it gets much better performance than the Have a Nice Day Server.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if spite is the best motivation to write excellent software.Don't knock it until you've tried Spite Server,  it gets much better performance than the Have a Nice Day Server...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265020</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>vivian</author>
	<datestamp>1259501040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This web server apparently has much better performance and scalability - so it can do the same job while using much less power. The article does explain all that pretty well if you care to read it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This web server apparently has much better performance and scalability - so it can do the same job while using much less power .
The article does explain all that pretty well if you care to read it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This web server apparently has much better performance and scalability - so it can do the same job while using much less power.
The article does explain all that pretty well if you care to read it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265170</id>
	<title>Re:Value?</title>
	<author>kjs3</author>
	<datestamp>1259502780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Where's the value/point in releasing another limited-utility webserver?</p><p>Well...that depends I suppose. I don't think G-WAN is worth paying attention to, but Marcus Ranum semi-famously wrote a "limited utility" web server for an porn site that was both very fast and very secure in 1996, and still was a decade later.  I agree with his point that not everything requires Apache level functionality, and all those bells and whistles come at a cost.  Right tool for the job and all that.</p><p><a href="http://www.ranum.com/security/computer\_security/editorials/master-tzu/" title="ranum.com">http://www.ranum.com/security/computer\_security/editorials/master-tzu/</a> [ranum.com] </p><blockquote><div><p>I truly believe that the patching fad in which we are currently living is not going to last much longer. It can't. In another couple years, we'll have one full-time patcher to each system administrator. What's odd is that if companies simply exercised a bit of discipline, it wouldn't be necessary at all. Back in 1996 a buddy of mine and I set up a web server for a high-traffic significant target. It was not the Whitehouse; it was a porn site. We invested 8 hours (of our customer's money) writing a small web server daemon that knew how to serve up files, cache them, and virtualize filenames behind hashes. It ran chrooted on a version of UNIX that was very minimized and had code hacked right into the IP stack to toss traffic that was not TCP aimed at port 80. 10 years later, it's still working, has never been hacked, and has never been patched. If you compute the Return On Investment (Or ROI in the language of Prince Ciao) it's gigantic.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Where 's the value/point in releasing another limited-utility webserver ? Well...that depends I suppose .
I do n't think G-WAN is worth paying attention to , but Marcus Ranum semi-famously wrote a " limited utility " web server for an porn site that was both very fast and very secure in 1996 , and still was a decade later .
I agree with his point that not everything requires Apache level functionality , and all those bells and whistles come at a cost .
Right tool for the job and all that.http : //www.ranum.com/security/computer \ _security/editorials/master-tzu/ [ ranum.com ] I truly believe that the patching fad in which we are currently living is not going to last much longer .
It ca n't .
In another couple years , we 'll have one full-time patcher to each system administrator .
What 's odd is that if companies simply exercised a bit of discipline , it would n't be necessary at all .
Back in 1996 a buddy of mine and I set up a web server for a high-traffic significant target .
It was not the Whitehouse ; it was a porn site .
We invested 8 hours ( of our customer 's money ) writing a small web server daemon that knew how to serve up files , cache them , and virtualize filenames behind hashes .
It ran chrooted on a version of UNIX that was very minimized and had code hacked right into the IP stack to toss traffic that was not TCP aimed at port 80 .
10 years later , it 's still working , has never been hacked , and has never been patched .
If you compute the Return On Investment ( Or ROI in the language of Prince Ciao ) it 's gigantic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Where's the value/point in releasing another limited-utility webserver?Well...that depends I suppose.
I don't think G-WAN is worth paying attention to, but Marcus Ranum semi-famously wrote a "limited utility" web server for an porn site that was both very fast and very secure in 1996, and still was a decade later.
I agree with his point that not everything requires Apache level functionality, and all those bells and whistles come at a cost.
Right tool for the job and all that.http://www.ranum.com/security/computer\_security/editorials/master-tzu/ [ranum.com] I truly believe that the patching fad in which we are currently living is not going to last much longer.
It can't.
In another couple years, we'll have one full-time patcher to each system administrator.
What's odd is that if companies simply exercised a bit of discipline, it wouldn't be necessary at all.
Back in 1996 a buddy of mine and I set up a web server for a high-traffic significant target.
It was not the Whitehouse; it was a porn site.
We invested 8 hours (of our customer's money) writing a small web server daemon that knew how to serve up files, cache them, and virtualize filenames behind hashes.
It ran chrooted on a version of UNIX that was very minimized and had code hacked right into the IP stack to toss traffic that was not TCP aimed at port 80.
10 years later, it's still working, has never been hacked, and has never been patched.
If you compute the Return On Investment (Or ROI in the language of Prince Ciao) it's gigantic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30266902</id>
	<title>Re:The real question...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259518620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because Slashdot was originally *the* place to talk about most things Linux, not most things web servers and such.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Slashdot was originally * the * place to talk about most things Linux , not most things web servers and such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Slashdot was originally *the* place to talk about most things Linux, not most things web servers and such.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30268928</id>
	<title>Re:Big Plus!</title>
	<author>arief.utama</author>
	<datestamp>1259587920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't complain with that. Uhh... the thrill. Excites me just to think about it.

Programming has been so boring with scripting language nowadays. Everything is sooooooo waaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy tooo easy.

They got functions for everything, memory is well managed (actually garbage-managed), no core dumps, no crashes. No pointer bugs.

What's the fun with \_that\_ !</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't complain with that .
Uhh... the thrill .
Excites me just to think about it .
Programming has been so boring with scripting language nowadays .
Everything is sooooooo waaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy tooo easy .
They got functions for everything , memory is well managed ( actually garbage-managed ) , no core dumps , no crashes .
No pointer bugs .
What 's the fun with \ _that \ _ !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't complain with that.
Uhh... the thrill.
Excites me just to think about it.
Programming has been so boring with scripting language nowadays.
Everything is sooooooo waaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy tooo easy.
They got functions for everything, memory is well managed (actually garbage-managed), no core dumps, no crashes.
No pointer bugs.
What's the fun with \_that\_ !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30268086</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out here</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1259575620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe some but C as a text generation and processing language (which is the basic function of CGI) is definitely a very bad choice. C strings are inherently fault-prone.</p><p>In Perl or PHP you do $y<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.= "<b> $x </b>\n"; and it is totally fault-proof. It is easy and straightforward, and totally foolproof. Now write something like that in C. Allocate buffers for x and y, check for overflows, reallocate if buffers are too short, make sure the number of arguments matches the format string, and within maybe 15 lines have the result ready, not nearly as readable, not a shade close to as fault-proof, and 1500\% longer.</p><p>I'm not saying a compiled, secure language would be bad for CGI scripting. I'm just saying C is a horrible choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe some but C as a text generation and processing language ( which is the basic function of CGI ) is definitely a very bad choice .
C strings are inherently fault-prone.In Perl or PHP you do $ y . = " $ x \ n " ; and it is totally fault-proof .
It is easy and straightforward , and totally foolproof .
Now write something like that in C. Allocate buffers for x and y , check for overflows , reallocate if buffers are too short , make sure the number of arguments matches the format string , and within maybe 15 lines have the result ready , not nearly as readable , not a shade close to as fault-proof , and 1500 \ % longer.I 'm not saying a compiled , secure language would be bad for CGI scripting .
I 'm just saying C is a horrible choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe some but C as a text generation and processing language (which is the basic function of CGI) is definitely a very bad choice.
C strings are inherently fault-prone.In Perl or PHP you do $y .= " $x \n"; and it is totally fault-proof.
It is easy and straightforward, and totally foolproof.
Now write something like that in C. Allocate buffers for x and y, check for overflows, reallocate if buffers are too short, make sure the number of arguments matches the format string, and within maybe 15 lines have the result ready, not nearly as readable, not a shade close to as fault-proof, and 1500\% longer.I'm not saying a compiled, secure language would be bad for CGI scripting.
I'm just saying C is a horrible choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30279136</id>
	<title>Re:Big Plus!</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1259600460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>C scripts are not C, it's just a scripting language that looks like C.</p></div><p>You mean PHP?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>C scripts are not C , it 's just a scripting language that looks like C.You mean PHP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C scripts are not C, it's just a scripting language that looks like C.You mean PHP?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264482</id>
	<title>Re:Value?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259495940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only if it does something of value.</p><p>I recall a very lightweight web server that some large outfit uses to serve up images. That's it. only images. Apparently it made things speed up significantly.</p><p>I don't see G-WAN being anything special, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only if it does something of value.I recall a very lightweight web server that some large outfit uses to serve up images .
That 's it .
only images .
Apparently it made things speed up significantly.I do n't see G-WAN being anything special , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only if it does something of value.I recall a very lightweight web server that some large outfit uses to serve up images.
That's it.
only images.
Apparently it made things speed up significantly.I don't see G-WAN being anything special, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265054</id>
	<title>Re:Spite?</title>
	<author>grouchyDude</author>
	<datestamp>1259501400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS has a lot of good developers (whatever you may think or their products or policies). Maybe he figures it will hurt them (aesthetically) to look at something lame?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS has a lot of good developers ( whatever you may think or their products or policies ) .
Maybe he figures it will hurt them ( aesthetically ) to look at something lame ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS has a lot of good developers (whatever you may think or their products or policies).
Maybe he figures it will hurt them (aesthetically) to look at something lame?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30266286</id>
	<title>Has anyone used G-WAN? How to get started?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259513280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess it's OK to speculate on a new widget, like G-WAN, but<br>has there been an Alpha and/or Beta release of G-WAN?</p><p>Has anyone - here or elsewhere - claimed to have used G-WAN?</p><p>(How do we know there's no software bomb in the small ZIP,<br>eg, that could take away our files or screw up Windows?</p><p>OK, that's hardly likely... but it IS a theoretical possibility.)</p><p>Where is the System Requirements list?</p><p>Which version of Windows is it able to run on?</p><p>Are there any problems running it on Win 2000?</p><p>Which C compiler was used to compile &amp; test C-scripts for it?<br>What compiler parameters &amp; configuration are best to use?</p><p>Same question for Linker (if required)?</p><p>Was a free/OSS C language used? / tested? / can it be?<br>Same Q about its compiler parameters &amp; configuration?</p><p>Is it simple<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.COM files that we need or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.EXE's for C-scripts?</p><p>If a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.COM, where to locate the code? etc.</p><p>How to test user-created C-scripts? (So far, we've only<br>had speculation about how to do this.) As we don't have<br>G-WAN's code, how to properly test C-scripts for it?</p><p>(I'm NOT trying to sound sceptical here, I'd just like to know<br>more, before committing resources to digging into G-WAN.)</p><p>Are there some user communities, yet? Where (URL's)?</p><p>And - why not? - Has anybody reverse-engineered G-WAN<br>to have a look at all that's inside the (so far) closed-source<br>box?</p><p>TIA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess it 's OK to speculate on a new widget , like G-WAN , buthas there been an Alpha and/or Beta release of G-WAN ? Has anyone - here or elsewhere - claimed to have used G-WAN ?
( How do we know there 's no software bomb in the small ZIP,eg , that could take away our files or screw up Windows ? OK , that 's hardly likely... but it IS a theoretical possibility .
) Where is the System Requirements list ? Which version of Windows is it able to run on ? Are there any problems running it on Win 2000 ? Which C compiler was used to compile &amp; test C-scripts for it ? What compiler parameters &amp; configuration are best to use ? Same question for Linker ( if required ) ? Was a free/OSS C language used ?
/ tested ?
/ can it be ? Same Q about its compiler parameters &amp; configuration ? Is it simple .COM files that we need or .EXE 's for C-scripts ? If a .COM , where to locate the code ?
etc.How to test user-created C-scripts ?
( So far , we 've onlyhad speculation about how to do this .
) As we do n't haveG-WAN 's code , how to properly test C-scripts for it ?
( I 'm NOT trying to sound sceptical here , I 'd just like to knowmore , before committing resources to digging into G-WAN .
) Are there some user communities , yet ?
Where ( URL 's ) ? And - why not ?
- Has anybody reverse-engineered G-WANto have a look at all that 's inside the ( so far ) closed-sourcebox ? TIA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess it's OK to speculate on a new widget, like G-WAN, buthas there been an Alpha and/or Beta release of G-WAN?Has anyone - here or elsewhere - claimed to have used G-WAN?
(How do we know there's no software bomb in the small ZIP,eg, that could take away our files or screw up Windows?OK, that's hardly likely... but it IS a theoretical possibility.
)Where is the System Requirements list?Which version of Windows is it able to run on?Are there any problems running it on Win 2000?Which C compiler was used to compile &amp; test C-scripts for it?What compiler parameters &amp; configuration are best to use?Same question for Linker (if required)?Was a free/OSS C language used?
/ tested?
/ can it be?Same Q about its compiler parameters &amp; configuration?Is it simple .COM files that we need or .EXE's for C-scripts?If a .COM, where to locate the code?
etc.How to test user-created C-scripts?
(So far, we've onlyhad speculation about how to do this.
) As we don't haveG-WAN's code, how to properly test C-scripts for it?
(I'm NOT trying to sound sceptical here, I'd just like to knowmore, before committing resources to digging into G-WAN.
)Are there some user communities, yet?
Where (URL's)?And - why not?
- Has anybody reverse-engineered G-WANto have a look at all that's inside the (so far) closed-sourcebox?TIA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264594</id>
	<title>Ted.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259496900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Won't you have a cup of tea, father? G-WAN! Oh, G-WAN, won't you have a drop? G-WAN!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't you have a cup of tea , father ?
G-WAN ! Oh , G-WAN , wo n't you have a drop ?
G-WAN !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't you have a cup of tea, father?
G-WAN! Oh, G-WAN, won't you have a drop?
G-WAN!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30271502</id>
	<title>thousand times faster Webserver?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259605260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>from http://www.gwan.com/</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, getrusage() tells that G-WAN uses only ~1\%** of this 4\% CPU load while the kernel uses the other 99\%. If G-WAN was 10x slower, its performances would be identical (it would not be the case for Rock).</p><p>With a 90\% CPU load, Rock takes (90-4)/4=21x more time than the kernel and <b>is therefore thousand times (21x100) slower than G-WAN</b>. Linux only shows a 1.6x difference between G-WAN and Rock because, while Rock is slowing-down the kernel, G-WAN is slowed-down by the kernel.</p></div><p>Can anyone explain these calculations?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>from http : //www.gwan.com/Also , getrusage ( ) tells that G-WAN uses only ~ 1 \ % * * of this 4 \ % CPU load while the kernel uses the other 99 \ % .
If G-WAN was 10x slower , its performances would be identical ( it would not be the case for Rock ) .With a 90 \ % CPU load , Rock takes ( 90-4 ) /4 = 21x more time than the kernel and is therefore thousand times ( 21x100 ) slower than G-WAN .
Linux only shows a 1.6x difference between G-WAN and Rock because , while Rock is slowing-down the kernel , G-WAN is slowed-down by the kernel.Can anyone explain these calculations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from http://www.gwan.com/Also, getrusage() tells that G-WAN uses only ~1\%** of this 4\% CPU load while the kernel uses the other 99\%.
If G-WAN was 10x slower, its performances would be identical (it would not be the case for Rock).With a 90\% CPU load, Rock takes (90-4)/4=21x more time than the kernel and is therefore thousand times (21x100) slower than G-WAN.
Linux only shows a 1.6x difference between G-WAN and Rock because, while Rock is slowing-down the kernel, G-WAN is slowed-down by the kernel.Can anyone explain these calculations?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264406</id>
	<title>Linux/Solaris release</title>
	<author>Fwipp</author>
	<datestamp>1259495220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Summary:<p><div class="quote"><p>There is currently only a Windows release and no clear answer in their FAQs whether there would be Linux/Solaris releases.</p></div><p>The main page at gwan.com<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It also means that G-WAN will be (much) faster on Linux and Solaris.</p></div><p>Sounds like the person writing the summary didn't bother to read the pages that they linked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Summary : There is currently only a Windows release and no clear answer in their FAQs whether there would be Linux/Solaris releases.The main page at gwan.com : It also means that G-WAN will be ( much ) faster on Linux and Solaris.Sounds like the person writing the summary did n't bother to read the pages that they linked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Summary:There is currently only a Windows release and no clear answer in their FAQs whether there would be Linux/Solaris releases.The main page at gwan.com :It also means that G-WAN will be (much) faster on Linux and Solaris.Sounds like the person writing the summary didn't bother to read the pages that they linked.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30280122</id>
	<title>Re:On the plus side ...</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1259697900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Finally a platform with built-in buffer overflow support!</p></div></blockquote><p>You should check out this new thing called Windows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally a platform with built-in buffer overflow support ! You should check out this new thing called Windows ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally a platform with built-in buffer overflow support!You should check out this new thing called Windows ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30274766</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out here</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1259575800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The idea can be taken to extremes, but how many of todays Perl and PHP website scripting security issues would evaporate if the authors were forced to write in a less flexible language that took a few moments to actually compile before being enabled?</p></div><p>Not nearly as many security issues as we'd gain from, I don't know, <i>buffer overflows</i> and other <i>whole classes</i> of vulnerabilities which simply don't exist in Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, even Java code.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea can be taken to extremes , but how many of todays Perl and PHP website scripting security issues would evaporate if the authors were forced to write in a less flexible language that took a few moments to actually compile before being enabled ? Not nearly as many security issues as we 'd gain from , I do n't know , buffer overflows and other whole classes of vulnerabilities which simply do n't exist in Perl , PHP , Python , Ruby , even Java code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea can be taken to extremes, but how many of todays Perl and PHP website scripting security issues would evaporate if the authors were forced to write in a less flexible language that took a few moments to actually compile before being enabled?Not nearly as many security issues as we'd gain from, I don't know, buffer overflows and other whole classes of vulnerabilities which simply don't exist in Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, even Java code.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265432</id>
	<title>Re:Big Plus!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259506500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've deployed hand written C web servers, not as an Apache plugin, but as a standalone server so I've seen what kind of performance you can get by cutting out all the bloat you don't need. For example, you can get a huge CPU boost by not fully parsing the headers and picking out only what you need. The server was difficult to debug at times (valgrind helped) but in the end it worked out pretty well because the needs at the time required a centralized solution. We were able to run a fairly high volume website on a single multi-core box. That's unheard of in enterprise level dev shops.</p><p>It worked because the architecture was centralized and the software deployments were super simple. When the requirements need an decentralized architecture that scales with IO or scales to astronomical numbers, it becomes impossible to make that work. It's been my experience that IO is generally the problem, not CPU. There are physical limitations with scaling IO on a single node so you're forced to go with a fleet of nodes. Maintaining C/C++ business code on a fleet is a LOT more difficult than doing the same with platform independent languages.</p><p>Part of the problem is that a C/C++ server is interacting directly with the OS and its libraries so dealing with the slight differences that always come up gets to be a huge time drain. It's a lot easier to develop, test, and deploy with a scripting language. Regardless of the underlying kernel and libraries, you can be reasonably assured your script will "just work" when the kernel and libraries vary. Also, C really is harder to get right the first time. Having built in memory management is a huge time saver because "sloppy but correct" code won't cause downtime. Be sloppy in C, and the website goes down hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've deployed hand written C web servers , not as an Apache plugin , but as a standalone server so I 've seen what kind of performance you can get by cutting out all the bloat you do n't need .
For example , you can get a huge CPU boost by not fully parsing the headers and picking out only what you need .
The server was difficult to debug at times ( valgrind helped ) but in the end it worked out pretty well because the needs at the time required a centralized solution .
We were able to run a fairly high volume website on a single multi-core box .
That 's unheard of in enterprise level dev shops.It worked because the architecture was centralized and the software deployments were super simple .
When the requirements need an decentralized architecture that scales with IO or scales to astronomical numbers , it becomes impossible to make that work .
It 's been my experience that IO is generally the problem , not CPU .
There are physical limitations with scaling IO on a single node so you 're forced to go with a fleet of nodes .
Maintaining C/C + + business code on a fleet is a LOT more difficult than doing the same with platform independent languages.Part of the problem is that a C/C + + server is interacting directly with the OS and its libraries so dealing with the slight differences that always come up gets to be a huge time drain .
It 's a lot easier to develop , test , and deploy with a scripting language .
Regardless of the underlying kernel and libraries , you can be reasonably assured your script will " just work " when the kernel and libraries vary .
Also , C really is harder to get right the first time .
Having built in memory management is a huge time saver because " sloppy but correct " code wo n't cause downtime .
Be sloppy in C , and the website goes down hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've deployed hand written C web servers, not as an Apache plugin, but as a standalone server so I've seen what kind of performance you can get by cutting out all the bloat you don't need.
For example, you can get a huge CPU boost by not fully parsing the headers and picking out only what you need.
The server was difficult to debug at times (valgrind helped) but in the end it worked out pretty well because the needs at the time required a centralized solution.
We were able to run a fairly high volume website on a single multi-core box.
That's unheard of in enterprise level dev shops.It worked because the architecture was centralized and the software deployments were super simple.
When the requirements need an decentralized architecture that scales with IO or scales to astronomical numbers, it becomes impossible to make that work.
It's been my experience that IO is generally the problem, not CPU.
There are physical limitations with scaling IO on a single node so you're forced to go with a fleet of nodes.
Maintaining C/C++ business code on a fleet is a LOT more difficult than doing the same with platform independent languages.Part of the problem is that a C/C++ server is interacting directly with the OS and its libraries so dealing with the slight differences that always come up gets to be a huge time drain.
It's a lot easier to develop, test, and deploy with a scripting language.
Regardless of the underlying kernel and libraries, you can be reasonably assured your script will "just work" when the kernel and libraries vary.
Also, C really is harder to get right the first time.
Having built in memory management is a huge time saver because "sloppy but correct" code won't cause downtime.
Be sloppy in C, and the website goes down hard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264540</id>
	<title>Re:10. subnet?</title>
	<author>Dumnezeu</author>
	<datestamp>1259496480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, the bank clearly said that it did not use 10.249.*.* while he said that at least one ping test replied with one such address. I stopped reading the rest of the PDF after I read that, because I began wondering what does that have to do with advertising the company that writes G-WAN on Slashdot?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... oh, nevermind, I got it now: our web server is free as in "beer" (yet not open-source) and btw, we've got a big trial going on and we're doing pretty good and the company is writing lots of software for lots of countries and we might soon make $200 if the judge buys our story. What do you think of G-WAN now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , the bank clearly said that it did not use 10.249. * .
* while he said that at least one ping test replied with one such address .
I stopped reading the rest of the PDF after I read that , because I began wondering what does that have to do with advertising the company that writes G-WAN on Slashdot ?
... oh , nevermind , I got it now : our web server is free as in " beer " ( yet not open-source ) and btw , we 've got a big trial going on and we 're doing pretty good and the company is writing lots of software for lots of countries and we might soon make $ 200 if the judge buys our story .
What do you think of G-WAN now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, the bank clearly said that it did not use 10.249.*.
* while he said that at least one ping test replied with one such address.
I stopped reading the rest of the PDF after I read that, because I began wondering what does that have to do with advertising the company that writes G-WAN on Slashdot?
... oh, nevermind, I got it now: our web server is free as in "beer" (yet not open-source) and btw, we've got a big trial going on and we're doing pretty good and the company is writing lots of software for lots of countries and we might soon make $200 if the judge buys our story.
What do you think of G-WAN now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30267334</id>
	<title>Re:The real question...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259522640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alternatives are great!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alternatives are great ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alternatives are great!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265270</id>
	<title>On the plus side ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259504220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally a platform with built-in buffer overflow support!</p><p>Let the exploits games begin!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally a platform with built-in buffer overflow support ! Let the exploits games begin !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally a platform with built-in buffer overflow support!Let the exploits games begin!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265520</id>
	<title>Re:Big Plus!</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1259507640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In case anyone missing the above authors obvious sarcasm. I'd like to add, that C is
the natural language for creating buffer overrun errors. Lets Sigfault the webserver
just by putting too long a string into your web form. Overruns or not, strings.h is not want I want
to be using when trying parse text from a web form.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Web\%20Servers/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Web Servers</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In case anyone missing the above authors obvious sarcasm .
I 'd like to add , that C is the natural language for creating buffer overrun errors .
Lets Sigfault the webserver just by putting too long a string into your web form .
Overruns or not , strings.h is not want I want to be using when trying parse text from a web form .
--- Web Servers [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In case anyone missing the above authors obvious sarcasm.
I'd like to add, that C is
the natural language for creating buffer overrun errors.
Lets Sigfault the webserver
just by putting too long a string into your web form.
Overruns or not, strings.h is not want I want
to be using when trying parse text from a web form.
---

Web Servers [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265066</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259501640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't believe anyone in their right mind would claim that lower-level languages have the power to turn shitty programmers into competent programmers. Yet, what has been said for a long time is that the world of interpreted languages is a haven for mindless, incompetent programmers who churn out a lot of shitty, flimsy code that can barely run straight.

You see, interpreted languages are a great tool. They hide a lot of gruesome details through abstraction and they offer vast libraries. Through that it becomes possible to be very productive without having to invest a lot of effort into stuff such as researching the best way to solve a problem, design your application regarding the perceived bottlenecks and even writing dedicated routines to solve specific tasks. Heck, interpreted languages became such great tools that nowadays you can even get an application up and running without even knowing much beyond the very basics of the language you are using. To put it in other words, the tools have come so far that even idiots can use them. And they do use them.

So thanks to interpreted languages we see a lot of idiotic code being churned out without thinking if your code makes sense or even paying the most basic attention to the fundamentals of CS. For an example, I've seen not far ago an application written in Perl that tried to implement for, if I'm not mistaken, a JSON parser. Writing a parser for a data format is terribly simple, specially if it's a very simple, straight forward language such as JSON. But in that application things got very messy. If I recall correctly, the idiot programmer tried to parse JSON documents by throwing a lot of convoluted Perl regex at a text stream. From that, the program built another text document but with simpler tokens which was again "parsed" (let's call it that) with yet another flood of nested Perl regexes, which were nested and could only support documents that presented a nesting level below 7 or 8. If you had to parse a document that went further than that then you got a nice forced exit for your trouble.

And that parser worked. At least at the eyes of the author.

It is also possible to write that kind of crap in "elite" languages such as C and assembly. Yet, as the barrier to entry to those languages is considerably higher than the Visual Basic-ness of interpreted languages, you get to see countless clueless coders getting programs barely up and running and considering their efforts a success.

And that's the reason why interpreted languages are associated with shitty programmers who get lost if they need some feature that isn't supplied in the standard library or have to implement anything that isn't supplied in a code snippet site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe anyone in their right mind would claim that lower-level languages have the power to turn shitty programmers into competent programmers .
Yet , what has been said for a long time is that the world of interpreted languages is a haven for mindless , incompetent programmers who churn out a lot of shitty , flimsy code that can barely run straight .
You see , interpreted languages are a great tool .
They hide a lot of gruesome details through abstraction and they offer vast libraries .
Through that it becomes possible to be very productive without having to invest a lot of effort into stuff such as researching the best way to solve a problem , design your application regarding the perceived bottlenecks and even writing dedicated routines to solve specific tasks .
Heck , interpreted languages became such great tools that nowadays you can even get an application up and running without even knowing much beyond the very basics of the language you are using .
To put it in other words , the tools have come so far that even idiots can use them .
And they do use them .
So thanks to interpreted languages we see a lot of idiotic code being churned out without thinking if your code makes sense or even paying the most basic attention to the fundamentals of CS .
For an example , I 've seen not far ago an application written in Perl that tried to implement for , if I 'm not mistaken , a JSON parser .
Writing a parser for a data format is terribly simple , specially if it 's a very simple , straight forward language such as JSON .
But in that application things got very messy .
If I recall correctly , the idiot programmer tried to parse JSON documents by throwing a lot of convoluted Perl regex at a text stream .
From that , the program built another text document but with simpler tokens which was again " parsed " ( let 's call it that ) with yet another flood of nested Perl regexes , which were nested and could only support documents that presented a nesting level below 7 or 8 .
If you had to parse a document that went further than that then you got a nice forced exit for your trouble .
And that parser worked .
At least at the eyes of the author .
It is also possible to write that kind of crap in " elite " languages such as C and assembly .
Yet , as the barrier to entry to those languages is considerably higher than the Visual Basic-ness of interpreted languages , you get to see countless clueless coders getting programs barely up and running and considering their efforts a success .
And that 's the reason why interpreted languages are associated with shitty programmers who get lost if they need some feature that is n't supplied in the standard library or have to implement anything that is n't supplied in a code snippet site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe anyone in their right mind would claim that lower-level languages have the power to turn shitty programmers into competent programmers.
Yet, what has been said for a long time is that the world of interpreted languages is a haven for mindless, incompetent programmers who churn out a lot of shitty, flimsy code that can barely run straight.
You see, interpreted languages are a great tool.
They hide a lot of gruesome details through abstraction and they offer vast libraries.
Through that it becomes possible to be very productive without having to invest a lot of effort into stuff such as researching the best way to solve a problem, design your application regarding the perceived bottlenecks and even writing dedicated routines to solve specific tasks.
Heck, interpreted languages became such great tools that nowadays you can even get an application up and running without even knowing much beyond the very basics of the language you are using.
To put it in other words, the tools have come so far that even idiots can use them.
And they do use them.
So thanks to interpreted languages we see a lot of idiotic code being churned out without thinking if your code makes sense or even paying the most basic attention to the fundamentals of CS.
For an example, I've seen not far ago an application written in Perl that tried to implement for, if I'm not mistaken, a JSON parser.
Writing a parser for a data format is terribly simple, specially if it's a very simple, straight forward language such as JSON.
But in that application things got very messy.
If I recall correctly, the idiot programmer tried to parse JSON documents by throwing a lot of convoluted Perl regex at a text stream.
From that, the program built another text document but with simpler tokens which was again "parsed" (let's call it that) with yet another flood of nested Perl regexes, which were nested and could only support documents that presented a nesting level below 7 or 8.
If you had to parse a document that went further than that then you got a nice forced exit for your trouble.
And that parser worked.
At least at the eyes of the author.
It is also possible to write that kind of crap in "elite" languages such as C and assembly.
Yet, as the barrier to entry to those languages is considerably higher than the Visual Basic-ness of interpreted languages, you get to see countless clueless coders getting programs barely up and running and considering their efforts a success.
And that's the reason why interpreted languages are associated with shitty programmers who get lost if they need some feature that isn't supplied in the standard library or have to implement anything that isn't supplied in a code snippet site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265570</id>
	<title>Re:The real question...</title>
	<author>ljwest</author>
	<datestamp>1259508120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I heartily concur... and I'd like to ask further:

Why the.. did I have to scroll down this far to see the real question asked?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I heartily concur... and I 'd like to ask further : Why the.. did I have to scroll down this far to see the real question asked ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heartily concur... and I'd like to ask further:

Why the.. did I have to scroll down this far to see the real question asked?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264424</id>
	<title>10. subnet?</title>
	<author>lalena</author>
	<datestamp>1259495400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the PDF (about the bank piracy claim)<p><div class="quote"><p>in its report made on May 26th, 2006 M. MARC MORTIER from BEFTI reckons that
"the 10.249.17.10 network address belongs to the address range of FINAMA bank", and
that his "laptop is using the 10.249.24.60 IP address".</p></div><p>If their claims are based on the assumption that 10.249.*.* is a Finama bank owned IP subnet, then they are in trouble.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the PDF ( about the bank piracy claim ) in its report made on May 26th , 2006 M. MARC MORTIER from BEFTI reckons that " the 10.249.17.10 network address belongs to the address range of FINAMA bank " , and that his " laptop is using the 10.249.24.60 IP address " .If their claims are based on the assumption that 10.249. * .
* is a Finama bank owned IP subnet , then they are in trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the PDF (about the bank piracy claim)in its report made on May 26th, 2006 M. MARC MORTIER from BEFTI reckons that
"the 10.249.17.10 network address belongs to the address range of FINAMA bank", and
that his "laptop is using the 10.249.24.60 IP address".If their claims are based on the assumption that 10.249.*.
* is a Finama bank owned IP subnet, then they are in trouble.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30270386</id>
	<title>Re:The real question...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259599380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>there is always at least one post similar to yours, asking why it's news. And there's always at least one response to that post, explaining that alternatives are great - which is true here as well, so the circle is now complete.</p></div></blockquote><p>s/circle/circle-jerk/</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there is always at least one post similar to yours , asking why it 's news .
And there 's always at least one response to that post , explaining that alternatives are great - which is true here as well , so the circle is now complete.s/circle/circle-jerk/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is always at least one post similar to yours, asking why it's news.
And there's always at least one response to that post, explaining that alternatives are great - which is true here as well, so the circle is now complete.s/circle/circle-jerk/
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265846</id>
	<title>Reasoning for not being open source is astounding</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1259509920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://gwan.com/en\_faqs.html" title="gwan.com" rel="nofollow">FAQ Entry</a> [gwan.com]:<blockquote><div><p> <b>Why isn't it Open-Source?</b> <br>
TrustLeap's technology could be mis-used, diluting or even compromizing it: open-source is now an on-ramp to very profitable closed data services. And if you are not rich enough to prevent others from stealing from you in the first place, then the 'rule of law' just helps the guilty to ruin you.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
And after reading items on this <a href="http://gwan.com/en\_timeline.html#vir" title="gwan.com" rel="nofollow">timeline</a> [gwan.com].
I begin to question the author's sanity...
 </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FAQ Entry [ gwan.com ] : Why is n't it Open-Source ?
TrustLeap 's technology could be mis-used , diluting or even compromizing it : open-source is now an on-ramp to very profitable closed data services .
And if you are not rich enough to prevent others from stealing from you in the first place , then the 'rule of law ' just helps the guilty to ruin you .
And after reading items on this timeline [ gwan.com ] .
I begin to question the author 's sanity.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FAQ Entry [gwan.com]: Why isn't it Open-Source?
TrustLeap's technology could be mis-used, diluting or even compromizing it: open-source is now an on-ramp to very profitable closed data services.
And if you are not rich enough to prevent others from stealing from you in the first place, then the 'rule of law' just helps the guilty to ruin you.
And after reading items on this timeline [gwan.com].
I begin to question the author's sanity...
 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264336</id>
	<title>Help me out here</title>
	<author>TimHunter</author>
	<datestamp>1259494680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does the world need a non-free web server that only runs on Windows when there's already plenty of free (as in speech) ones out there (<a href="http://www.apache.org/" title="apache.org">http://www.apache.org/</a> [apache.org], <a href="http://www.lighttpd.net/" title="lighttpd.net">http://www.lighttpd.net/</a> [lighttpd.net]) that run everywhere?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does the world need a non-free web server that only runs on Windows when there 's already plenty of free ( as in speech ) ones out there ( http : //www.apache.org/ [ apache.org ] , http : //www.lighttpd.net/ [ lighttpd.net ] ) that run everywhere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does the world need a non-free web server that only runs on Windows when there's already plenty of free (as in speech) ones out there (http://www.apache.org/ [apache.org], http://www.lighttpd.net/ [lighttpd.net]) that run everywhere?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264582</id>
	<title>Re:Big Plus!</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1259496840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, atleast for C you can get thousands of open source scripts and internet libraries to set up your website or help hack your own...... yup......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , atleast for C you can get thousands of open source scripts and internet libraries to set up your website or help hack your own...... yup..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, atleast for C you can get thousands of open source scripts and internet libraries to set up your website or help hack your own...... yup......</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265004</id>
	<title>Re:Big Plus!</title>
	<author>Penguinisto</author>
	<datestamp>1259500920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...could be worse - it could've used only the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework</p><p>Oh, wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...could be worse - it could 've used only the .NET frameworkOh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...could be worse - it could've used only the .NET frameworkOh, wait...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30267964</id>
	<title>Re:Big Plus!</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1259574120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A big upside, though, is C's first-class string handling, especially where Unicode is concerned. Scripting languages just aren't in the same league.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A big upside , though , is C 's first-class string handling , especially where Unicode is concerned .
Scripting languages just are n't in the same league .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A big upside, though, is C's first-class string handling, especially where Unicode is concerned.
Scripting languages just aren't in the same league.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265116</id>
	<title>Re:Big Plus!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259502060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>C scripts are not C, it's just a scripting language that looks like C. You can't actually import normal C libraries and if I recall (I've only used C scripts once) you can't do much in terms of memory operations. On top of that they are scripts, so if they screw up the parser will tell you where thing crashed. Please don't be so critical of something you don't understand, scripts with C like context are nothing new and there are a variety of advantages to using the same syntax between your actual code and your scripting language.<br>
<br>
Also, the scripting languages you mentioned are either not easily embeddable or somewhat focused for certain purposes. You should realize simple scripting and embedded scripting can be very different things. Particularly scripting languages like Lua can prove to be quite incredible, offering extremely advanced features (like tables) while still remaining surprisingly quick. Depending on what you are doing Lua can actually allow less capable programmers to write surprisingly complex code to enhance your program - we used it about a half year ago and with our scripts you could get moving objects on the screen in 3 lines, interactivity in 7, and easily an entire interface in less than 100. There are also a variety of scripting languages for actual embedded (as in hardware) applications which focus on being fast and light, but are often equally light on advanced features. I'd like to see you get python running capably on an 8-bit MicroController, or php doing something useful on one....</htmltext>
<tokenext>C scripts are not C , it 's just a scripting language that looks like C. You ca n't actually import normal C libraries and if I recall ( I 've only used C scripts once ) you ca n't do much in terms of memory operations .
On top of that they are scripts , so if they screw up the parser will tell you where thing crashed .
Please do n't be so critical of something you do n't understand , scripts with C like context are nothing new and there are a variety of advantages to using the same syntax between your actual code and your scripting language .
Also , the scripting languages you mentioned are either not easily embeddable or somewhat focused for certain purposes .
You should realize simple scripting and embedded scripting can be very different things .
Particularly scripting languages like Lua can prove to be quite incredible , offering extremely advanced features ( like tables ) while still remaining surprisingly quick .
Depending on what you are doing Lua can actually allow less capable programmers to write surprisingly complex code to enhance your program - we used it about a half year ago and with our scripts you could get moving objects on the screen in 3 lines , interactivity in 7 , and easily an entire interface in less than 100 .
There are also a variety of scripting languages for actual embedded ( as in hardware ) applications which focus on being fast and light , but are often equally light on advanced features .
I 'd like to see you get python running capably on an 8-bit MicroController , or php doing something useful on one... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C scripts are not C, it's just a scripting language that looks like C. You can't actually import normal C libraries and if I recall (I've only used C scripts once) you can't do much in terms of memory operations.
On top of that they are scripts, so if they screw up the parser will tell you where thing crashed.
Please don't be so critical of something you don't understand, scripts with C like context are nothing new and there are a variety of advantages to using the same syntax between your actual code and your scripting language.
Also, the scripting languages you mentioned are either not easily embeddable or somewhat focused for certain purposes.
You should realize simple scripting and embedded scripting can be very different things.
Particularly scripting languages like Lua can prove to be quite incredible, offering extremely advanced features (like tables) while still remaining surprisingly quick.
Depending on what you are doing Lua can actually allow less capable programmers to write surprisingly complex code to enhance your program - we used it about a half year ago and with our scripts you could get moving objects on the screen in 3 lines, interactivity in 7, and easily an entire interface in less than 100.
There are also a variety of scripting languages for actual embedded (as in hardware) applications which focus on being fast and light, but are often equally light on advanced features.
I'd like to see you get python running capably on an 8-bit MicroController, or php doing something useful on one....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30266984</id>
	<title>Is it April 1st?</title>
	<author>Korbeau</author>
	<datestamp>1259519400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it must absolutely be a prank!  The project's website looks like a bad infomercial - the guy's application is like a student project (write a simple web-compliant server that runs CGI scripts) gone totally wild.</p><p>If you need time-critical efficiency in your web app, I suggest you make your front-end in a high-level framework to do the pretty printing and then delegate the CPU-intensive requests to some back-end server written in highly-optimized C.</p><p>The truth is web-servers are usually mostly CPU-idling, the real clog is in the I/O.  There's no "vertical scaling" goal to reach here by making the code more efficient.  You need to buy monster hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean ... it must absolutely be a prank !
The project 's website looks like a bad infomercial - the guy 's application is like a student project ( write a simple web-compliant server that runs CGI scripts ) gone totally wild.If you need time-critical efficiency in your web app , I suggest you make your front-end in a high-level framework to do the pretty printing and then delegate the CPU-intensive requests to some back-end server written in highly-optimized C.The truth is web-servers are usually mostly CPU-idling , the real clog is in the I/O .
There 's no " vertical scaling " goal to reach here by making the code more efficient .
You need to buy monster hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean ... it must absolutely be a prank!
The project's website looks like a bad infomercial - the guy's application is like a student project (write a simple web-compliant server that runs CGI scripts) gone totally wild.If you need time-critical efficiency in your web app, I suggest you make your front-end in a high-level framework to do the pretty printing and then delegate the CPU-intensive requests to some back-end server written in highly-optimized C.The truth is web-servers are usually mostly CPU-idling, the real clog is in the I/O.
There's no "vertical scaling" goal to reach here by making the code more efficient.
You need to buy monster hardware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30267168</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259521080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's also <a href="http://aolserver.com/" title="aolserver.com" rel="nofollow">AOLserver</a> [aolserver.com], which runs on multiple platforms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's also AOLserver [ aolserver.com ] , which runs on multiple platforms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's also AOLserver [aolserver.com], which runs on multiple platforms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265888</id>
	<title>Re:Big Plus!</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1259510160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It never crashes or has a bug.</p><p>
  If it seems to have a bug, then it must be that big companies <a href="http://gwan.com/en\_timeline.html#DNS" title="gwan.com" rel="nofollow">Poisoned</a> [gwan.com] DNS servers!
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It never crashes or has a bug .
If it seems to have a bug , then it must be that big companies Poisoned [ gwan.com ] DNS servers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It never crashes or has a bug.
If it seems to have a bug, then it must be that big companies Poisoned [gwan.com] DNS servers!
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264456</id>
	<title>Re:Value?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259495700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Security.</p><p>As long as there are no gaping holes, the probability that anyone will bother to work out an exploit for this is pretty much nil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Security.As long as there are no gaping holes , the probability that anyone will bother to work out an exploit for this is pretty much nil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security.As long as there are no gaping holes, the probability that anyone will bother to work out an exploit for this is pretty much nil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264492</id>
	<title>Re:Big Plus!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259496120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of the most reliable and, surprisingly, cleanest web apps that I've worked with were written in pure C, as Apache modules. But this insurance company did have the money to hire real programmers, not just scripters and web designers.</p><p>Using C helped force the developers to avoid the extreme overarchitecturing that basically every Java- or ASP.NET-based web app suffers from. The code was simple, right to the point, and left very little room for bugs to creep in.</p><p>The system was also very fast, requiring just a single web/application server to support several thousand simultaneous users. The only reason multiple web servers were used was for failover purposes.</p><p>When I first joined them, after a number of years of using Java and Perl, I thought they were fucking nuts. But after working with them for a few years, I saw first-hand that they took the correct approach. Their web apps contained significantly fewer bugs than I would've expected from a similar-sized and similar-complexity web app written in Perl or Java. They also produced code far faster than would be expected, because they didn't get bogged down in design patterns and excessive architecture and all the crap like that we see from too many Java developers. Their web apps were damn fast, even without them bothering to tune them.</p><p>There's a place for using PHP, Perl, Python, Java, Ruby and C# for web development. It's when you want to throw some shitty web sites together really quickly, without much concern about maintainability or user experience, using the shittiest and cheapest Indian outsourcing firm you can find. Otherwise, it's a better idea to use a few talented programmers and C.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of the most reliable and , surprisingly , cleanest web apps that I 've worked with were written in pure C , as Apache modules .
But this insurance company did have the money to hire real programmers , not just scripters and web designers.Using C helped force the developers to avoid the extreme overarchitecturing that basically every Java- or ASP.NET-based web app suffers from .
The code was simple , right to the point , and left very little room for bugs to creep in.The system was also very fast , requiring just a single web/application server to support several thousand simultaneous users .
The only reason multiple web servers were used was for failover purposes.When I first joined them , after a number of years of using Java and Perl , I thought they were fucking nuts .
But after working with them for a few years , I saw first-hand that they took the correct approach .
Their web apps contained significantly fewer bugs than I would 've expected from a similar-sized and similar-complexity web app written in Perl or Java .
They also produced code far faster than would be expected , because they did n't get bogged down in design patterns and excessive architecture and all the crap like that we see from too many Java developers .
Their web apps were damn fast , even without them bothering to tune them.There 's a place for using PHP , Perl , Python , Java , Ruby and C # for web development .
It 's when you want to throw some shitty web sites together really quickly , without much concern about maintainability or user experience , using the shittiest and cheapest Indian outsourcing firm you can find .
Otherwise , it 's a better idea to use a few talented programmers and C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of the most reliable and, surprisingly, cleanest web apps that I've worked with were written in pure C, as Apache modules.
But this insurance company did have the money to hire real programmers, not just scripters and web designers.Using C helped force the developers to avoid the extreme overarchitecturing that basically every Java- or ASP.NET-based web app suffers from.
The code was simple, right to the point, and left very little room for bugs to creep in.The system was also very fast, requiring just a single web/application server to support several thousand simultaneous users.
The only reason multiple web servers were used was for failover purposes.When I first joined them, after a number of years of using Java and Perl, I thought they were fucking nuts.
But after working with them for a few years, I saw first-hand that they took the correct approach.
Their web apps contained significantly fewer bugs than I would've expected from a similar-sized and similar-complexity web app written in Perl or Java.
They also produced code far faster than would be expected, because they didn't get bogged down in design patterns and excessive architecture and all the crap like that we see from too many Java developers.
Their web apps were damn fast, even without them bothering to tune them.There's a place for using PHP, Perl, Python, Java, Ruby and C# for web development.
It's when you want to throw some shitty web sites together really quickly, without much concern about maintainability or user experience, using the shittiest and cheapest Indian outsourcing firm you can find.
Otherwise, it's a better idea to use a few talented programmers and C.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264306</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259494440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would you need this web server?  What niche does it fill that Apache cannot?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you need this web server ?
What niche does it fill that Apache can not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you need this web server?
What niche does it fill that Apache cannot?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264932</id>
	<title>Re:The real question...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259500080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The question is WHY THE FUCK DID IT MAKE SLASHDOT?</p></div><p>Numerous people on this site have loudly proclaimed "Alternatives are great!!!" and have had their comments modded up for it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is WHY THE FUCK DID IT MAKE SLASHDOT ? Numerous people on this site have loudly proclaimed " Alternatives are great ! ! !
" and have had their comments modded up for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is WHY THE FUCK DID IT MAKE SLASHDOT?Numerous people on this site have loudly proclaimed "Alternatives are great!!!
" and have had their comments modded up for it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264614</id>
	<title>The real question...</title>
	<author>amirulbahr</author>
	<datestamp>1259497020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the guy wants to write a web server to scratch an itch or something.  No big deal there.  The question is WHY THE FUCK DID IT MAKE SLASHDOT?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the guy wants to write a web server to scratch an itch or something .
No big deal there .
The question is WHY THE FUCK DID IT MAKE SLASHDOT ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the guy wants to write a web server to scratch an itch or something.
No big deal there.
The question is WHY THE FUCK DID IT MAKE SLASHDOT?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30268006</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out here</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1259574720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have already heard of JSP, right? And CGI has been around for ages.<br>
<br>
I can tell you from experience that writing in a compiled language does not force one to write cleaner code. It just forces one to click "Build" and deploy the new version before the changes go live. In fact, most sloppy coders would generate significantly <em>less</em> secure websites if they were forced to write in C. With PHP, being sloppy means that an attacker could download files they're not supposed to or inject SQL statements. With C, being sloppy means that an attacker could execute arbitrary code on the server.<br>
<br>
No, thanks. I like my server not getting rooted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have already heard of JSP , right ?
And CGI has been around for ages .
I can tell you from experience that writing in a compiled language does not force one to write cleaner code .
It just forces one to click " Build " and deploy the new version before the changes go live .
In fact , most sloppy coders would generate significantly less secure websites if they were forced to write in C. With PHP , being sloppy means that an attacker could download files they 're not supposed to or inject SQL statements .
With C , being sloppy means that an attacker could execute arbitrary code on the server .
No , thanks .
I like my server not getting rooted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have already heard of JSP, right?
And CGI has been around for ages.
I can tell you from experience that writing in a compiled language does not force one to write cleaner code.
It just forces one to click "Build" and deploy the new version before the changes go live.
In fact, most sloppy coders would generate significantly less secure websites if they were forced to write in C. With PHP, being sloppy means that an attacker could download files they're not supposed to or inject SQL statements.
With C, being sloppy means that an attacker could execute arbitrary code on the server.
No, thanks.
I like my server not getting rooted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264862</id>
	<title>Re:Spite?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259499420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not just against Microsoft, this guy just seems to be full of piss and vinegar in general. <a href="http://www.gwan.com/en\_timeline.html" title="gwan.com">Every entry in his blog</a> [gwan.com] is a rant against something, whether it's Microsoft, the world economy, the Western Hemisphere, or those stealthy, mysterious corporate hacker ninjas who spend every waking hour trying to take down his ironclad website due to the obvious danger he poses to The Man.</p><p>Even the <a href="http://www.gwan.com/en\_faqs.html" title="gwan.com">software's FAQ</a> [gwan.com] takes cheap shots at the objects of his vast paranoia. Stay far, far away from anyone with that big a chip on their shoulder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not just against Microsoft , this guy just seems to be full of piss and vinegar in general .
Every entry in his blog [ gwan.com ] is a rant against something , whether it 's Microsoft , the world economy , the Western Hemisphere , or those stealthy , mysterious corporate hacker ninjas who spend every waking hour trying to take down his ironclad website due to the obvious danger he poses to The Man.Even the software 's FAQ [ gwan.com ] takes cheap shots at the objects of his vast paranoia .
Stay far , far away from anyone with that big a chip on their shoulder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not just against Microsoft, this guy just seems to be full of piss and vinegar in general.
Every entry in his blog [gwan.com] is a rant against something, whether it's Microsoft, the world economy, the Western Hemisphere, or those stealthy, mysterious corporate hacker ninjas who spend every waking hour trying to take down his ironclad website due to the obvious danger he poses to The Man.Even the software's FAQ [gwan.com] takes cheap shots at the objects of his vast paranoia.
Stay far, far away from anyone with that big a chip on their shoulder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264510</id>
	<title>I'm just not seeing use for it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259496180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I were to put up a webserver a production, supported Windows server, I'd just click the box to install the IIS component.  This Windows only server has no commercial value for corporations, unless they want to run some features on a client version of Windows that are not included with the client version of the web server... and nobody but the smallest SOHOs would gamble their business on doing that.</p><p>If I wanted a "lightweight" Web server on Windows, I'd use something that has been around a bit and has the bugs stomped out.  lihttpd has been around for about six years, and there is a less of a chance of a new show stopper bug or security hole popping up with that as opposed to a version 1.0 utility.  Also, IIS isn't a hog.  The difference in performance between a "lightweight" server versus Apache or IIS most likely would not be worth such a change in the stack.  Instead, the time and effort that would be spent getting a new Web platform out there would be better spent deploying more Web hardware, or adding SSL acceleration.</p><p>So, other than a toy to play with, I don't see any real need for this program.  Its niche is far more covered by more capable utilities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were to put up a webserver a production , supported Windows server , I 'd just click the box to install the IIS component .
This Windows only server has no commercial value for corporations , unless they want to run some features on a client version of Windows that are not included with the client version of the web server... and nobody but the smallest SOHOs would gamble their business on doing that.If I wanted a " lightweight " Web server on Windows , I 'd use something that has been around a bit and has the bugs stomped out .
lihttpd has been around for about six years , and there is a less of a chance of a new show stopper bug or security hole popping up with that as opposed to a version 1.0 utility .
Also , IIS is n't a hog .
The difference in performance between a " lightweight " server versus Apache or IIS most likely would not be worth such a change in the stack .
Instead , the time and effort that would be spent getting a new Web platform out there would be better spent deploying more Web hardware , or adding SSL acceleration.So , other than a toy to play with , I do n't see any real need for this program .
Its niche is far more covered by more capable utilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were to put up a webserver a production, supported Windows server, I'd just click the box to install the IIS component.
This Windows only server has no commercial value for corporations, unless they want to run some features on a client version of Windows that are not included with the client version of the web server... and nobody but the smallest SOHOs would gamble their business on doing that.If I wanted a "lightweight" Web server on Windows, I'd use something that has been around a bit and has the bugs stomped out.
lihttpd has been around for about six years, and there is a less of a chance of a new show stopper bug or security hole popping up with that as opposed to a version 1.0 utility.
Also, IIS isn't a hog.
The difference in performance between a "lightweight" server versus Apache or IIS most likely would not be worth such a change in the stack.
Instead, the time and effort that would be spent getting a new Web platform out there would be better spent deploying more Web hardware, or adding SSL acceleration.So, other than a toy to play with, I don't see any real need for this program.
Its niche is far more covered by more capable utilities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30266824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30274766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30267168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30266902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30268086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30279136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30268928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30280122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30270386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30270442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30267964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30268962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30266036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30268390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30268178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30268006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30267334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30267982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_2133243_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_2133243.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_2133243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30268334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_2133243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30266984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_2133243.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30266036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30268962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30268928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265270
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30280122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30267964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30279136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30268178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_2133243.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264932
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30267334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265538
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264978
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30266902
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30266824
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30270386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_2133243.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264406
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_2133243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_2133243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30267982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_2133243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_2133243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30266962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_2133243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_2133243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30267168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264450
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30270442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30268086
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30268006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30274766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264774
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265066
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_2133243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_2133243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30264862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30268390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30265054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_2133243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_2133243.30267224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
