<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_03_1415206</id>
	<title>Linux Kernel 2.6.32 Released</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1259852640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>diegocg writes <i>"Linus Torvalds <a href="http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/3/11">has officially released</a> the version 2.6.32 of the Linux kernel. New features include virtualization memory de-duplication, a rewrite of the writeback code faster and more scalable, many important Btrfs improvements and speedups, ATI R600/R700 3D and KMS support and other graphic improvements, a CFQ low latency mode, tracing improvements including a 'perf timechart' tool that tries to be a better bootchart, soft limits in the memory controller, support for the S+Core architecture, support for Intel Moorestown and its new firmware interface, run-time power management support, and many other improvements and new drivers. See the <a href="http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux\_2\_6\_32">full changelog for more details</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>diegocg writes " Linus Torvalds has officially released the version 2.6.32 of the Linux kernel .
New features include virtualization memory de-duplication , a rewrite of the writeback code faster and more scalable , many important Btrfs improvements and speedups , ATI R600/R700 3D and KMS support and other graphic improvements , a CFQ low latency mode , tracing improvements including a 'perf timechart ' tool that tries to be a better bootchart , soft limits in the memory controller , support for the S + Core architecture , support for Intel Moorestown and its new firmware interface , run-time power management support , and many other improvements and new drivers .
See the full changelog for more details .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>diegocg writes "Linus Torvalds has officially released the version 2.6.32 of the Linux kernel.
New features include virtualization memory de-duplication, a rewrite of the writeback code faster and more scalable, many important Btrfs improvements and speedups, ATI R600/R700 3D and KMS support and other graphic improvements, a CFQ low latency mode, tracing improvements including a 'perf timechart' tool that tries to be a better bootchart, soft limits in the memory controller, support for the S+Core architecture, support for Intel Moorestown and its new firmware interface, run-time power management support, and many other improvements and new drivers.
See the full changelog for more details.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30317050</id>
	<title>Re:People work on the "easy" problems</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1259837580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wouldn't mind seeing GnuStep underpinnings with a Mono binding that adds in XAML support.  Seems to me like a decent base platform for higher level abstractions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't mind seeing GnuStep underpinnings with a Mono binding that adds in XAML support .
Seems to me like a decent base platform for higher level abstractions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't mind seeing GnuStep underpinnings with a Mono binding that adds in XAML support.
Seems to me like a decent base platform for higher level abstractions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30316536</id>
	<title>Re:People work on the "easy" problems</title>
	<author>21mhz</author>
	<datestamp>1259836080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm tired of the Linux kernel; it's really not that great. Everyone seems obsessed with C, going as far as to spawn <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GObject" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">these kind of monstrosities</a> [wikipedia.org] just to force modern features into a traditional platform.</p></div><p>What, has GObject made it into the kernel?..</p><p>Ahh, IHBT.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm tired of the Linux kernel ; it 's really not that great .
Everyone seems obsessed with C , going as far as to spawn these kind of monstrosities [ wikipedia.org ] just to force modern features into a traditional platform.What , has GObject made it into the kernel ? ..Ahh , IHBT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm tired of the Linux kernel; it's really not that great.
Everyone seems obsessed with C, going as far as to spawn these kind of monstrosities [wikipedia.org] just to force modern features into a traditional platform.What, has GObject made it into the kernel?..Ahh, IHBT.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30317480</id>
	<title>Re:People work on the "easy" problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259839020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This has a side effect of kernel hacking being better financed than desktop development, as there are more commercial players interested specifically in the kernel, who couldn't care less about KDE or Gnome.</p></div></blockquote><p>Interesting, innit? It's not that you get what you pay for, but even that there's nothing to be gotten when no one pays at all.</p><p>Only paid devs are pros. Fact. Not that hackers in basements suck that much at coding, more that as soon as they get any marketable skills, they get a JOB and stop coding for free. Then one in a billion ends up getting paid to insert useless features in Linux Corporate Editions (AppArmor? Database snapshots?) instead of Flash, mp3/divx codecs, 3D support, and Linuxes for Netbookses that DO wake up the WiFi card when unsuspended.</p><p>Bah, it's not like anyone will ever get Linux pre-installed on everyone's computer. Give me OSX any day...<br>Face it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:You'd have to be very high on very dangerous drugs to even begin to think that any Linux desktop is anywhere near as usable as OSX. That's a fact too. And Apple took a BSD, an even more obscure and arcane Unix than Linux, and turned it into the world's best OS, the one everyone wet-dreams about when they're banging their chairs on their keyboards because of Windows or Linux. Why doesn't Canonical or some such get their heads out their asses and build a dev team that will simply Make It Work Well Together? No, not ever. They couldn't even sell it. "Other means of" getting nothing for your work. Yeah. IBM pays for Apache, Novell for Samba, blah blah blah - no one pays for porting Aqua and Finder or anything as usable. Strange that.</p><p>Using Linux on a desktop is fighting a losing battle from the start. Linux is a great educational project. It certainly can be used in embedded devices, as long as you don't use code that some BigCorp pays for, because those (only those) have Teams Of Lawyers On Salary that will bankrupt you in court before they oblige you to publish the code (so you'll disclose the changes their moron code-pissers couldn't drool by themselves). Great for servers, because if you blow enough cash you can get the nice little labels that say everything is compatible together AND then call the Certified Technician when it doesn't work.</p><p>But for clients? "Oh noes, we'd have to maintain tens of drivers for tens of chip models! Woes!" Tens? Mobo chipsets are not that varied. Intel distributes about four versions of INF update for each Windows from XP to 7, supporting ICH4 to 10 (and if you have a 440BX, it's about time you trash your PII), nvidia has stopped making them, VIA and SIS each have one arch and a couple variations per gen, all driver-compatible in such a majority of specs that only coding the common ones would lose about zero functionality. Anyone else?<br>Oh, yeah, graph cards. Old mantra about protecting patents that might be lurking in the code... not their own IP, blah blah blah... shut up, gimme that NDA *signs* now gimme the specs, now let me torrent them, okay now they're public knowledge and a billion geeks duplicate them. Come protect not-quite-your IP now.</p><p>Lost the point several times. Bah. Linux sucks, buy a mac.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has a side effect of kernel hacking being better financed than desktop development , as there are more commercial players interested specifically in the kernel , who could n't care less about KDE or Gnome.Interesting , innit ?
It 's not that you get what you pay for , but even that there 's nothing to be gotten when no one pays at all.Only paid devs are pros .
Fact. Not that hackers in basements suck that much at coding , more that as soon as they get any marketable skills , they get a JOB and stop coding for free .
Then one in a billion ends up getting paid to insert useless features in Linux Corporate Editions ( AppArmor ?
Database snapshots ?
) instead of Flash , mp3/divx codecs , 3D support , and Linuxes for Netbookses that DO wake up the WiFi card when unsuspended.Bah , it 's not like anyone will ever get Linux pre-installed on everyone 's computer .
Give me OSX any day...Face it : You 'd have to be very high on very dangerous drugs to even begin to think that any Linux desktop is anywhere near as usable as OSX .
That 's a fact too .
And Apple took a BSD , an even more obscure and arcane Unix than Linux , and turned it into the world 's best OS , the one everyone wet-dreams about when they 're banging their chairs on their keyboards because of Windows or Linux .
Why does n't Canonical or some such get their heads out their asses and build a dev team that will simply Make It Work Well Together ?
No , not ever .
They could n't even sell it .
" Other means of " getting nothing for your work .
Yeah. IBM pays for Apache , Novell for Samba , blah blah blah - no one pays for porting Aqua and Finder or anything as usable .
Strange that.Using Linux on a desktop is fighting a losing battle from the start .
Linux is a great educational project .
It certainly can be used in embedded devices , as long as you do n't use code that some BigCorp pays for , because those ( only those ) have Teams Of Lawyers On Salary that will bankrupt you in court before they oblige you to publish the code ( so you 'll disclose the changes their moron code-pissers could n't drool by themselves ) .
Great for servers , because if you blow enough cash you can get the nice little labels that say everything is compatible together AND then call the Certified Technician when it does n't work.But for clients ?
" Oh noes , we 'd have to maintain tens of drivers for tens of chip models !
Woes ! " Tens ?
Mobo chipsets are not that varied .
Intel distributes about four versions of INF update for each Windows from XP to 7 , supporting ICH4 to 10 ( and if you have a 440BX , it 's about time you trash your PII ) , nvidia has stopped making them , VIA and SIS each have one arch and a couple variations per gen , all driver-compatible in such a majority of specs that only coding the common ones would lose about zero functionality .
Anyone else ? Oh , yeah , graph cards .
Old mantra about protecting patents that might be lurking in the code... not their own IP , blah blah blah... shut up , gim me that NDA * signs * now gim me the specs , now let me torrent them , okay now they 're public knowledge and a billion geeks duplicate them .
Come protect not-quite-your IP now.Lost the point several times .
Bah. Linux sucks , buy a mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has a side effect of kernel hacking being better financed than desktop development, as there are more commercial players interested specifically in the kernel, who couldn't care less about KDE or Gnome.Interesting, innit?
It's not that you get what you pay for, but even that there's nothing to be gotten when no one pays at all.Only paid devs are pros.
Fact. Not that hackers in basements suck that much at coding, more that as soon as they get any marketable skills, they get a JOB and stop coding for free.
Then one in a billion ends up getting paid to insert useless features in Linux Corporate Editions (AppArmor?
Database snapshots?
) instead of Flash, mp3/divx codecs, 3D support, and Linuxes for Netbookses that DO wake up the WiFi card when unsuspended.Bah, it's not like anyone will ever get Linux pre-installed on everyone's computer.
Give me OSX any day...Face it :You'd have to be very high on very dangerous drugs to even begin to think that any Linux desktop is anywhere near as usable as OSX.
That's a fact too.
And Apple took a BSD, an even more obscure and arcane Unix than Linux, and turned it into the world's best OS, the one everyone wet-dreams about when they're banging their chairs on their keyboards because of Windows or Linux.
Why doesn't Canonical or some such get their heads out their asses and build a dev team that will simply Make It Work Well Together?
No, not ever.
They couldn't even sell it.
"Other means of" getting nothing for your work.
Yeah. IBM pays for Apache, Novell for Samba, blah blah blah - no one pays for porting Aqua and Finder or anything as usable.
Strange that.Using Linux on a desktop is fighting a losing battle from the start.
Linux is a great educational project.
It certainly can be used in embedded devices, as long as you don't use code that some BigCorp pays for, because those (only those) have Teams Of Lawyers On Salary that will bankrupt you in court before they oblige you to publish the code (so you'll disclose the changes their moron code-pissers couldn't drool by themselves).
Great for servers, because if you blow enough cash you can get the nice little labels that say everything is compatible together AND then call the Certified Technician when it doesn't work.But for clients?
"Oh noes, we'd have to maintain tens of drivers for tens of chip models!
Woes!" Tens?
Mobo chipsets are not that varied.
Intel distributes about four versions of INF update for each Windows from XP to 7, supporting ICH4 to 10 (and if you have a 440BX, it's about time you trash your PII), nvidia has stopped making them, VIA and SIS each have one arch and a couple variations per gen, all driver-compatible in such a majority of specs that only coding the common ones would lose about zero functionality.
Anyone else?Oh, yeah, graph cards.
Old mantra about protecting patents that might be lurking in the code... not their own IP, blah blah blah... shut up, gimme that NDA *signs* now gimme the specs, now let me torrent them, okay now they're public knowledge and a billion geeks duplicate them.
Come protect not-quite-your IP now.Lost the point several times.
Bah. Linux sucks, buy a mac.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312766</id>
	<title>Re:People work on the "easy" problems</title>
	<author>javilon</author>
	<datestamp>1259864820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, GNOME and KDE ( I prefer one of them but it is not relevant to this post ) have done lots for Linux on the desktop. I have been running it for a number of years because I find it more pleasant to use than Windows. And I am not alone.</p><p>And the millions of people using it are doing so against active attacks from a number of organizations. Mainly closed software companies, and also (mainly in the past) political organizations and governments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , GNOME and KDE ( I prefer one of them but it is not relevant to this post ) have done lots for Linux on the desktop .
I have been running it for a number of years because I find it more pleasant to use than Windows .
And I am not alone.And the millions of people using it are doing so against active attacks from a number of organizations .
Mainly closed software companies , and also ( mainly in the past ) political organizations and governments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, GNOME and KDE ( I prefer one of them but it is not relevant to this post ) have done lots for Linux on the desktop.
I have been running it for a number of years because I find it more pleasant to use than Windows.
And I am not alone.And the millions of people using it are doing so against active attacks from a number of organizations.
Mainly closed software companies, and also (mainly in the past) political organizations and governments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30320158</id>
	<title>Re:does KSM mean the death of Xen?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259854560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was gone over above, KSM means the death of you decadent western nerds and you socialist 'FOSS' operating system<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:O</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was gone over above , KSM means the death of you decadent western nerds and you socialist 'FOSS ' operating system : O</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was gone over above, KSM means the death of you decadent western nerds and you socialist 'FOSS' operating system :O</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30314230</id>
	<title>Re:Is this a hoax, or what?</title>
	<author>butalearner</author>
	<datestamp>1259870160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So you didn't de-lace the interace or uncabulate the turboencabulator?</p></div><p>Dude, don't be ridiculous, of course they uncabulated the turboencabulator, how else could they contraplectify the apoplectifier?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you did n't de-lace the interace or uncabulate the turboencabulator ? Dude , do n't be ridiculous , of course they uncabulated the turboencabulator , how else could they contraplectify the apoplectifier ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you didn't de-lace the interace or uncabulate the turboencabulator?Dude, don't be ridiculous, of course they uncabulated the turboencabulator, how else could they contraplectify the apoplectifier?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372</id>
	<title>Does it Fix XKCD 619?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259856780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>All of these features are cool and all, but does it solve the well-known <a href="http://xkcd.com/619/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">XKCD 619</a> [xkcd.com] bug?</htmltext>
<tokenext>All of these features are cool and all , but does it solve the well-known XKCD 619 [ xkcd.com ] bug ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of these features are cool and all, but does it solve the well-known XKCD 619 [xkcd.com] bug?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30317850</id>
	<title>Re:One file system to rule them all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259840400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>On the downside, I'm peeved that Btrfs is GPL licensed, which will prevent it from becoming "the one true filesystem" from here on out.</p></div><p>Well, ZFS itself has a GPL-non-compatible license, but that doesn't prevent it from being usable in Linux as an independent user-space process through FUSE.<br>The same approach could be imagined under non-GPL-compatible OS: have the GPL implementation as a standalone userspace daemon.<br>(Which is not a bad idea - give more freedom to upgrade)</p></div><p>err... What? And you put up with THAT?<br>Do you know how horrible it is that your CPU is doing nothing but manage I/O instead of letting specialized controllers do that? It's like you're back before DMA. When $200 chips were doing IO all day because no one could actually buy SCSI and no corp in the PC industry would dream of building an efficient way to access storage media, since they would sell no more SCSI.<br>And that's not even beginning to talk about the - yes, the performance. You LIKE a filesystem that you need an "helper application" to access... if I was your boss in IT I'd fire you with extreme prejudice. Performance is non-negotiable.</p><p>Seriously, what if I just sent a patch for Linux "fixes bug #666-666-666 : using FS drivers in Userspace is teh evil, because it CRAWLS LIKE DEAD SLUGS" that implements ZFS as a kernel driver? They'd reject it? Over license shit? What if it was NTFS-3G? (btw, for what horrible reason is that not in kernel yet? NIH, or "we love to make our users suffer"?)</p><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Windows users will be stuck with NTFS</p></div><p>No matter what. Even if some kernel guru released a tri licensed LGPL/BSD/Proprietary perfect file system, Microsoft will still be using NTFS and promising WinFS soon for whatever the next version of Windows is.<br>They have a strong case of NIH-Syndrome.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>None of them will be compatible, and FAT32 somehow remains the only viable option for removable media.)</p></div><p>For removable media, UDF could be a good candidate too. It's getting widespread availability, specially since Microsoft added support for writing on Vista and Win7.</p></div><p>Yeah. And Linux has no "I won't let you access your files" bug this time? (NTFS-3G + mount point permissions) This is gonna be SO MUCH FUN in the next five years when I'll still have to repair computers (read : reinstall XP Pirate Ed. and deactivate Windows Update), when I'll have UDF usbkeys and NTFS HDs and incompatible OSes. Glad to leave that world for embedded development.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the downside , I 'm peeved that Btrfs is GPL licensed , which will prevent it from becoming " the one true filesystem " from here on out.Well , ZFS itself has a GPL-non-compatible license , but that does n't prevent it from being usable in Linux as an independent user-space process through FUSE.The same approach could be imagined under non-GPL-compatible OS : have the GPL implementation as a standalone userspace daemon .
( Which is not a bad idea - give more freedom to upgrade ) err... What ? And you put up with THAT ? Do you know how horrible it is that your CPU is doing nothing but manage I/O instead of letting specialized controllers do that ?
It 's like you 're back before DMA .
When $ 200 chips were doing IO all day because no one could actually buy SCSI and no corp in the PC industry would dream of building an efficient way to access storage media , since they would sell no more SCSI.And that 's not even beginning to talk about the - yes , the performance .
You LIKE a filesystem that you need an " helper application " to access... if I was your boss in IT I 'd fire you with extreme prejudice .
Performance is non-negotiable.Seriously , what if I just sent a patch for Linux " fixes bug # 666-666-666 : using FS drivers in Userspace is teh evil , because it CRAWLS LIKE DEAD SLUGS " that implements ZFS as a kernel driver ?
They 'd reject it ?
Over license shit ?
What if it was NTFS-3G ?
( btw , for what horrible reason is that not in kernel yet ?
NIH , or " we love to make our users suffer " ?
) Windows users will be stuck with NTFSNo matter what .
Even if some kernel guru released a tri licensed LGPL/BSD/Proprietary perfect file system , Microsoft will still be using NTFS and promising WinFS soon for whatever the next version of Windows is.They have a strong case of NIH-Syndrome.None of them will be compatible , and FAT32 somehow remains the only viable option for removable media .
) For removable media , UDF could be a good candidate too .
It 's getting widespread availability , specially since Microsoft added support for writing on Vista and Win7.Yeah .
And Linux has no " I wo n't let you access your files " bug this time ?
( NTFS-3G + mount point permissions ) This is gon na be SO MUCH FUN in the next five years when I 'll still have to repair computers ( read : reinstall XP Pirate Ed .
and deactivate Windows Update ) , when I 'll have UDF usbkeys and NTFS HDs and incompatible OSes .
Glad to leave that world for embedded development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the downside, I'm peeved that Btrfs is GPL licensed, which will prevent it from becoming "the one true filesystem" from here on out.Well, ZFS itself has a GPL-non-compatible license, but that doesn't prevent it from being usable in Linux as an independent user-space process through FUSE.The same approach could be imagined under non-GPL-compatible OS: have the GPL implementation as a standalone userspace daemon.
(Which is not a bad idea - give more freedom to upgrade)err... What? And you put up with THAT?Do you know how horrible it is that your CPU is doing nothing but manage I/O instead of letting specialized controllers do that?
It's like you're back before DMA.
When $200 chips were doing IO all day because no one could actually buy SCSI and no corp in the PC industry would dream of building an efficient way to access storage media, since they would sell no more SCSI.And that's not even beginning to talk about the - yes, the performance.
You LIKE a filesystem that you need an "helper application" to access... if I was your boss in IT I'd fire you with extreme prejudice.
Performance is non-negotiable.Seriously, what if I just sent a patch for Linux "fixes bug #666-666-666 : using FS drivers in Userspace is teh evil, because it CRAWLS LIKE DEAD SLUGS" that implements ZFS as a kernel driver?
They'd reject it?
Over license shit?
What if it was NTFS-3G?
(btw, for what horrible reason is that not in kernel yet?
NIH, or "we love to make our users suffer"?
)Windows users will be stuck with NTFSNo matter what.
Even if some kernel guru released a tri licensed LGPL/BSD/Proprietary perfect file system, Microsoft will still be using NTFS and promising WinFS soon for whatever the next version of Windows is.They have a strong case of NIH-Syndrome.None of them will be compatible, and FAT32 somehow remains the only viable option for removable media.
)For removable media, UDF could be a good candidate too.
It's getting widespread availability, specially since Microsoft added support for writing on Vista and Win7.Yeah.
And Linux has no "I won't let you access your files" bug this time?
(NTFS-3G + mount point permissions) This is gonna be SO MUCH FUN in the next five years when I'll still have to repair computers (read : reinstall XP Pirate Ed.
and deactivate Windows Update), when I'll have UDF usbkeys and NTFS HDs and incompatible OSes.
Glad to leave that world for embedded development.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30318026</id>
	<title>Re:stable?</title>
	<author>Changa\_MC</author>
	<datestamp>1259841180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lots of new features, I thought the 2.X.Y versions where X is an even number are supposed to be "stable."  There isn't even a 2.7 branch.</p></div><p>Future versions of Linux will start with 2.6 --  only a major restructure and rewrite of the entire kernel would change that.  We now denote changes using 2.6.Y.Z<br>This is analogous to the way all versions of MacOS are version 10.x (X.x??) There is no need to say the two point six part -- this is Linux kernel 32.</p><p>There is also no longer such a thing as stable/unstable branches, 2.6.32 is a new feature release, stability testing falls to the distributions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of new features , I thought the 2.X.Y versions where X is an even number are supposed to be " stable .
" There is n't even a 2.7 branch.Future versions of Linux will start with 2.6 -- only a major restructure and rewrite of the entire kernel would change that .
We now denote changes using 2.6.Y.ZThis is analogous to the way all versions of MacOS are version 10.x ( X.x ? ?
) There is no need to say the two point six part -- this is Linux kernel 32.There is also no longer such a thing as stable/unstable branches , 2.6.32 is a new feature release , stability testing falls to the distributions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of new features, I thought the 2.X.Y versions where X is an even number are supposed to be "stable.
"  There isn't even a 2.7 branch.Future versions of Linux will start with 2.6 --  only a major restructure and rewrite of the entire kernel would change that.
We now denote changes using 2.6.Y.ZThis is analogous to the way all versions of MacOS are version 10.x (X.x??
) There is no need to say the two point six part -- this is Linux kernel 32.There is also no longer such a thing as stable/unstable branches, 2.6.32 is a new feature release, stability testing falls to the distributions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310934</id>
	<title>Re:Is this a hoax, or what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259859060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and I'm now about 93.8523\% convinced you're making up statistics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and I 'm now about 93.8523 \ % convinced you 're making up statistics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and I'm now about 93.8523\% convinced you're making up statistics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310484</id>
	<title>Re:ATI chipsets</title>
	<author>Jojoba86</author>
	<datestamp>1259857320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Superb! I've had my laptop for 2 years and now may finally be able to get 3D graphics working without a major headache.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Superb !
I 've had my laptop for 2 years and now may finally be able to get 3D graphics working without a major headache .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Superb!
I've had my laptop for 2 years and now may finally be able to get 3D graphics working without a major headache.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30323062</id>
	<title>Re:Btrfs: kill off ext# please!</title>
	<author>sandGorgons</author>
	<datestamp>1259938200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do check out <a href="http://www.zfs-fuse.net/" title="zfs-fuse.net" rel="nofollow">ZFS-Fuse </a> [zfs-fuse.net]. <a href="http://rainemu.swishparty.co.uk/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=zfs;a=shortlog" title="swishparty.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Development</a> [swishparty.co.uk] has accelerated over the past couple of months and it is very usable with decent performance.
<br> <br>
Atleast one commercial <a href="http://www.cnet.com.au/thecus-n7700-339297469.htm" title="cnet.com.au" rel="nofollow"> offering</a> [cnet.com.au] is using ZFS-FUSE in its products - however, no idea whether it is using a custom non-community build.
<br> <br>
I am using ZFS-Fuse on Ubuntu Hardy with 2 hard disks in a mirrored configuration, serving its files over Samba. We do incremental backups everyday (which the filesystem supports) and are quite happy with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do check out ZFS-Fuse [ zfs-fuse.net ] .
Development [ swishparty.co.uk ] has accelerated over the past couple of months and it is very usable with decent performance .
Atleast one commercial offering [ cnet.com.au ] is using ZFS-FUSE in its products - however , no idea whether it is using a custom non-community build .
I am using ZFS-Fuse on Ubuntu Hardy with 2 hard disks in a mirrored configuration , serving its files over Samba .
We do incremental backups everyday ( which the filesystem supports ) and are quite happy with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do check out ZFS-Fuse  [zfs-fuse.net].
Development [swishparty.co.uk] has accelerated over the past couple of months and it is very usable with decent performance.
Atleast one commercial  offering [cnet.com.au] is using ZFS-FUSE in its products - however, no idea whether it is using a custom non-community build.
I am using ZFS-Fuse on Ubuntu Hardy with 2 hard disks in a mirrored configuration, serving its files over Samba.
We do incremental backups everyday (which the filesystem supports) and are quite happy with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312350</id>
	<title>Re:People work on the "easy" problems</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1259863380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That is, because developing a faster kernel is a much easier problem than developing a fun, usable desktop environment.</p> </div><p>I disagree, it's not an easier problem. It is, however, a much more interesting problem to solve, especially to skilled hackers.</p><p>One other aspect here is that the target audience is bigger for the kernel. Desktop uptake is still very low, but kernel is used by <em>any</em> device that runs Linux, whether it's a router, a smartphone, a server, or a netbook. This has a side effect of kernel hacking being better financed than desktop development, as there are more commercial players interested specifically in the kernel, who couldn't care less about KDE or Gnome.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is , because developing a faster kernel is a much easier problem than developing a fun , usable desktop environment .
I disagree , it 's not an easier problem .
It is , however , a much more interesting problem to solve , especially to skilled hackers.One other aspect here is that the target audience is bigger for the kernel .
Desktop uptake is still very low , but kernel is used by any device that runs Linux , whether it 's a router , a smartphone , a server , or a netbook .
This has a side effect of kernel hacking being better financed than desktop development , as there are more commercial players interested specifically in the kernel , who could n't care less about KDE or Gnome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is, because developing a faster kernel is a much easier problem than developing a fun, usable desktop environment.
I disagree, it's not an easier problem.
It is, however, a much more interesting problem to solve, especially to skilled hackers.One other aspect here is that the target audience is bigger for the kernel.
Desktop uptake is still very low, but kernel is used by any device that runs Linux, whether it's a router, a smartphone, a server, or a netbook.
This has a side effect of kernel hacking being better financed than desktop development, as there are more commercial players interested specifically in the kernel, who couldn't care less about KDE or Gnome.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310984</id>
	<title>Re:Llacking in terminology.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259859240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I claim that Linux people are incompetent idiots. Playing games with VM is bad. memory copies are \_also\_ bad, but quite frankly, memory copies often have \_less\_ downside than VM games, and bigger caches will only continue to drive that point home.</p><p>http://kerneltrap.org/node/6506</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I claim that Linux people are incompetent idiots .
Playing games with VM is bad .
memory copies are \ _also \ _ bad , but quite frankly , memory copies often have \ _less \ _ downside than VM games , and bigger caches will only continue to drive that point home.http : //kerneltrap.org/node/6506</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I claim that Linux people are incompetent idiots.
Playing games with VM is bad.
memory copies are \_also\_ bad, but quite frankly, memory copies often have \_less\_ downside than VM games, and bigger caches will only continue to drive that point home.http://kerneltrap.org/node/6506</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311202</id>
	<title>Re:Btrfs: kill off ext# please!</title>
	<author>von\_rick</author>
	<datestamp>1259859960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since EXT2/3 and recently EXT4 have some level of popularity among users, there are applications in Windows to mount them at startup if you are using a dual boot system. There wasn't anything wrong with ReiserFX or JFS or any other filesystems that I tried - but EXT# was the only one which could be easily used under Windows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since EXT2/3 and recently EXT4 have some level of popularity among users , there are applications in Windows to mount them at startup if you are using a dual boot system .
There was n't anything wrong with ReiserFX or JFS or any other filesystems that I tried - but EXT # was the only one which could be easily used under Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since EXT2/3 and recently EXT4 have some level of popularity among users, there are applications in Windows to mount them at startup if you are using a dual boot system.
There wasn't anything wrong with ReiserFX or JFS or any other filesystems that I tried - but EXT# was the only one which could be easily used under Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311084</id>
	<title>KMS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259859540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kernel Mode Switching is great except for the fact that all 3 major video card vendors decided to nix VGA console support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kernel Mode Switching is great except for the fact that all 3 major video card vendors decided to nix VGA console support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kernel Mode Switching is great except for the fact that all 3 major video card vendors decided to nix VGA console support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310938</id>
	<title>Re:Is this a hoax, or what?</title>
	<author>Abreu</author>
	<datestamp>1259859060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linus reversed the polarity of the electron flow</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linus reversed the polarity of the electron flow</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linus reversed the polarity of the electron flow</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30314172</id>
	<title>Re:People work on the "easy" problems</title>
	<author>bcmm</author>
	<datestamp>1259869980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're missing the bit where Flash is closed-source and the people that want it to work properly can't make it happen, whereas the people who can make it work don't want it to happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're missing the bit where Flash is closed-source and the people that want it to work properly ca n't make it happen , whereas the people who can make it work do n't want it to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're missing the bit where Flash is closed-source and the people that want it to work properly can't make it happen, whereas the people who can make it work don't want it to happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312318</id>
	<title>Re:Btrfs: kill off ext# please!</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1259863320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS will never support a filesystem they don't control unless forced to, and certainly won't make it the default...</p><p>BSD, Solaris and OSX all support UFS, as does Linux.... Linux also supports the hfs+ filesystem currently used by OSX, not sure if bsd/solaris do but there are bsd licensed drivers for it so no reason not to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS will never support a filesystem they do n't control unless forced to , and certainly wo n't make it the default...BSD , Solaris and OSX all support UFS , as does Linux.... Linux also supports the hfs + filesystem currently used by OSX , not sure if bsd/solaris do but there are bsd licensed drivers for it so no reason not to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS will never support a filesystem they don't control unless forced to, and certainly won't make it the default...BSD, Solaris and OSX all support UFS, as does Linux.... Linux also supports the hfs+ filesystem currently used by OSX, not sure if bsd/solaris do but there are bsd licensed drivers for it so no reason not to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312236</id>
	<title>What i've been most curious about...</title>
	<author>pjr.cc</author>
	<datestamp>1259863080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Theres not alot of info around about it, but i'm dying to see the new dm-replicator module. Theres not huge amounts of information available about it and bits and pieces have been floating around for a while... it basically looks like something that could replace drbd as a more sensible mechanism of doing replication...</p><p>Personally I hope they let it do local replication as well cause the one thing i've always wanted is to replicate my laptops hd onto an occasionally-pluged-in usb disk with the ability to snapshot just the usb disk now and then... That would be fantasic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Theres not alot of info around about it , but i 'm dying to see the new dm-replicator module .
Theres not huge amounts of information available about it and bits and pieces have been floating around for a while... it basically looks like something that could replace drbd as a more sensible mechanism of doing replication...Personally I hope they let it do local replication as well cause the one thing i 've always wanted is to replicate my laptops hd onto an occasionally-pluged-in usb disk with the ability to snapshot just the usb disk now and then... That would be fantasic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theres not alot of info around about it, but i'm dying to see the new dm-replicator module.
Theres not huge amounts of information available about it and bits and pieces have been floating around for a while... it basically looks like something that could replace drbd as a more sensible mechanism of doing replication...Personally I hope they let it do local replication as well cause the one thing i've always wanted is to replicate my laptops hd onto an occasionally-pluged-in usb disk with the ability to snapshot just the usb disk now and then... That would be fantasic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311682</id>
	<title>KSM</title>
	<author>svtdragon</author>
	<datestamp>1259861520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Linux 2.6.32 introduces what is called "KSM"</p></div><p>WHAT!?  I know Linux users are pretty militant (myself among them), but to implement <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid\_Sheikh\_Mohammed" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">terrorism</a> [wikipedia.org] in the <i>kernel</i>?  <br> <br>

Please tell me it's at least built as a *module* by default!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux 2.6.32 introduces what is called " KSM " WHAT ! ?
I know Linux users are pretty militant ( myself among them ) , but to implement terrorism [ wikipedia.org ] in the kernel ?
Please tell me it 's at least built as a * module * by default !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux 2.6.32 introduces what is called "KSM"WHAT!?
I know Linux users are pretty militant (myself among them), but to implement terrorism [wikipedia.org] in the kernel?
Please tell me it's at least built as a *module* by default!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310556</id>
	<title>Re:Btrfs: kill off ext# please!</title>
	<author>gzipped\_tar</author>
	<datestamp>1259857560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fedora 12 already supports btrfs as an experimental feature, but there's still a long way to go in the near future.</p><p>And what about Reiser4?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fedora 12 already supports btrfs as an experimental feature , but there 's still a long way to go in the near future.And what about Reiser4 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fedora 12 already supports btrfs as an experimental feature, but there's still a long way to go in the near future.And what about Reiser4?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30338784</id>
	<title>Re:People work on the "easy" problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260011880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>That is, because developing a faster kernel is a much easier problem than developing a fun, usable desktop environment.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>One other aspect here is that the target audience is bigger for the kernel. Desktop uptake is still very low...</p></div></div><p>BECAUSE THE DESKTOP IS SO BLOODY UNUSABLE!!!</p><p>Jeez.</p><p>Read what you just wrote...talk about not seeing the wood for the bloody trees.</p><p>'Fix' the desktop problem and you will get more adopters..you don't need a fancy-shmancy kernel to browse email, surf the web or even play your flash videos.</p><p>I'm still with the XKCD had it and still has it bang on as far as I am concerned.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is , because developing a faster kernel is a much easier problem than developing a fun , usable desktop environment.One other aspect here is that the target audience is bigger for the kernel .
Desktop uptake is still very low...BECAUSE THE DESKTOP IS SO BLOODY UNUSABLE ! !
! Jeez.Read what you just wrote...talk about not seeing the wood for the bloody trees .
'Fix ' the desktop problem and you will get more adopters..you do n't need a fancy-shmancy kernel to browse email , surf the web or even play your flash videos.I 'm still with the XKCD had it and still has it bang on as far as I am concerned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is, because developing a faster kernel is a much easier problem than developing a fun, usable desktop environment.One other aspect here is that the target audience is bigger for the kernel.
Desktop uptake is still very low...BECAUSE THE DESKTOP IS SO BLOODY UNUSABLE!!
!Jeez.Read what you just wrote...talk about not seeing the wood for the bloody trees.
'Fix' the desktop problem and you will get more adopters..you don't need a fancy-shmancy kernel to browse email, surf the web or even play your flash videos.I'm still with the XKCD had it and still has it bang on as far as I am concerned.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30322854</id>
	<title>Re:stable?</title>
	<author>ConceptJunkie</author>
	<datestamp>1259936280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They stopped doing that a long time ago.  Now it seems that the stable and development versions are the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They stopped doing that a long time ago .
Now it seems that the stable and development versions are the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They stopped doing that a long time ago.
Now it seems that the stable and development versions are the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310578</id>
	<title>Re:Btrfs: kill off ext# please!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does Btrfs compare to ZFS?   I've been using ZFS-on-FUSE, and absolutely love the incredible data integrity and volume management features that it provides.  The new support for deduplication will also be wonderful once implemented.</p><p>Of course, the performance and the idea of trusting my data to FUSE leave much to be desired.</p><p>(On the downside, I'm peeved that Btrfs is GPL licensed, which will prevent it from becoming "the one true filesystem" from here on out.  Windows users will be stuck with NTFS, Linux users will get Btrfs, Mac users will get whatever apple is secretly working on, and the BSD/Solaris camp will get to keep ZFS.  None of them will be compatible, and FAT32 somehow remains the only viable option for removable media.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does Btrfs compare to ZFS ?
I 've been using ZFS-on-FUSE , and absolutely love the incredible data integrity and volume management features that it provides .
The new support for deduplication will also be wonderful once implemented.Of course , the performance and the idea of trusting my data to FUSE leave much to be desired .
( On the downside , I 'm peeved that Btrfs is GPL licensed , which will prevent it from becoming " the one true filesystem " from here on out .
Windows users will be stuck with NTFS , Linux users will get Btrfs , Mac users will get whatever apple is secretly working on , and the BSD/Solaris camp will get to keep ZFS .
None of them will be compatible , and FAT32 somehow remains the only viable option for removable media .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does Btrfs compare to ZFS?
I've been using ZFS-on-FUSE, and absolutely love the incredible data integrity and volume management features that it provides.
The new support for deduplication will also be wonderful once implemented.Of course, the performance and the idea of trusting my data to FUSE leave much to be desired.
(On the downside, I'm peeved that Btrfs is GPL licensed, which will prevent it from becoming "the one true filesystem" from here on out.
Windows users will be stuck with NTFS, Linux users will get Btrfs, Mac users will get whatever apple is secretly working on, and the BSD/Solaris camp will get to keep ZFS.
None of them will be compatible, and FAT32 somehow remains the only viable option for removable media.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310310</id>
	<title>Llacking in terminology.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259856480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not perfectly happy with the term "virtualization memory de-duplication". Linux 2.6.32 introduces what is called "KSM", an acronym that is not to be confused with "KMS (Kernel Mode Setting)" and expands to "Kernel Samepage Merging" (though other possibilities with similar meaning have already emerged). It does not target virtualization or hypervisors in general (and QEMU/KVM in particular) alone. KSM can help save memory for all workloads where many processes share a great lot of data in memory, as with KSM, you can just mark a region of memory as (potentially) shared between processes, and have redundant parts of that region collapse into a single one. KSM automagically branches out a distinct, exclusively modified copy if one of the processes sharing those pages decides to modify a certain part of the data on its own. From what I've seen until now, all that's needed to have an app benefit from KSM is a call to madvise(2) with some special magic, and you're good to go.</p><p>I really like how Linux is evolving in the 2.6 line. Now if LVM snapshot merging really makes it into 2.6.33, I'll be an even more happy gnu-penguin a few months down the road!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not perfectly happy with the term " virtualization memory de-duplication " .
Linux 2.6.32 introduces what is called " KSM " , an acronym that is not to be confused with " KMS ( Kernel Mode Setting ) " and expands to " Kernel Samepage Merging " ( though other possibilities with similar meaning have already emerged ) .
It does not target virtualization or hypervisors in general ( and QEMU/KVM in particular ) alone .
KSM can help save memory for all workloads where many processes share a great lot of data in memory , as with KSM , you can just mark a region of memory as ( potentially ) shared between processes , and have redundant parts of that region collapse into a single one .
KSM automagically branches out a distinct , exclusively modified copy if one of the processes sharing those pages decides to modify a certain part of the data on its own .
From what I 've seen until now , all that 's needed to have an app benefit from KSM is a call to madvise ( 2 ) with some special magic , and you 're good to go.I really like how Linux is evolving in the 2.6 line .
Now if LVM snapshot merging really makes it into 2.6.33 , I 'll be an even more happy gnu-penguin a few months down the road !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not perfectly happy with the term "virtualization memory de-duplication".
Linux 2.6.32 introduces what is called "KSM", an acronym that is not to be confused with "KMS (Kernel Mode Setting)" and expands to "Kernel Samepage Merging" (though other possibilities with similar meaning have already emerged).
It does not target virtualization or hypervisors in general (and QEMU/KVM in particular) alone.
KSM can help save memory for all workloads where many processes share a great lot of data in memory, as with KSM, you can just mark a region of memory as (potentially) shared between processes, and have redundant parts of that region collapse into a single one.
KSM automagically branches out a distinct, exclusively modified copy if one of the processes sharing those pages decides to modify a certain part of the data on its own.
From what I've seen until now, all that's needed to have an app benefit from KSM is a call to madvise(2) with some special magic, and you're good to go.I really like how Linux is evolving in the 2.6 line.
Now if LVM snapshot merging really makes it into 2.6.33, I'll be an even more happy gnu-penguin a few months down the road!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310446</id>
	<title>Is this a hoax, or what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>rewrite of the writeback code</i></p><p>So you didn't de-lace the interace or uncabulate the turboencabulator? I'm now about 85\% convinced that the open source movement is just making shit up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>rewrite of the writeback codeSo you did n't de-lace the interace or uncabulate the turboencabulator ?
I 'm now about 85 \ % convinced that the open source movement is just making shit up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rewrite of the writeback codeSo you didn't de-lace the interace or uncabulate the turboencabulator?
I'm now about 85\% convinced that the open source movement is just making shit up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310482</id>
	<title>Re:Does it Fix XKCD 619?</title>
	<author>Cyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1259857320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, it's fixed.</p><p>See here: <a href="http://imgur.com/73EAu" title="imgur.com">http://imgur.com/73EAu</a> [imgur.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , it 's fixed.See here : http : //imgur.com/73EAu [ imgur.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, it's fixed.See here: http://imgur.com/73EAu [imgur.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310414</id>
	<title>Big speedups for media workstations..</title>
	<author>delire</author>
	<datestamp>1259856960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This 'Per-backing-device writeback' is pretty significant. I'm sure the feature film and database industries will love it especially:<blockquote><div><p>The new system has much better performance in several workloads: A benchmark with two processes doing streaming writes to a 32 GB file to 5 SATA drives pushed into a LVM stripe set, XFS was 40\% faster, and Btrfs 26\% faster. A sample ffsb workload that does random writes to files was found to be about 8\% faster on a simple SATA drive during the benchmark phase. File layout is much smoother on the vmstat stats. A SSD based writeback test on XFS performs over 20\% better as well, with the throughput being very stable around 1GB/sec, where pdflush only manages 750MB/sec and fluctuates wildly while doing so. Random buffered writes to many files behave a lot better as well, as does random mmap'ed writes. A streaming vs random writer benchmark went from a few MB/s to ~120 MB/s. In short, performance improves in many important workloads.</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This 'Per-backing-device writeback ' is pretty significant .
I 'm sure the feature film and database industries will love it especially : The new system has much better performance in several workloads : A benchmark with two processes doing streaming writes to a 32 GB file to 5 SATA drives pushed into a LVM stripe set , XFS was 40 \ % faster , and Btrfs 26 \ % faster .
A sample ffsb workload that does random writes to files was found to be about 8 \ % faster on a simple SATA drive during the benchmark phase .
File layout is much smoother on the vmstat stats .
A SSD based writeback test on XFS performs over 20 \ % better as well , with the throughput being very stable around 1GB/sec , where pdflush only manages 750MB/sec and fluctuates wildly while doing so .
Random buffered writes to many files behave a lot better as well , as does random mmap'ed writes .
A streaming vs random writer benchmark went from a few MB/s to ~ 120 MB/s .
In short , performance improves in many important workloads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This 'Per-backing-device writeback' is pretty significant.
I'm sure the feature film and database industries will love it especially:The new system has much better performance in several workloads: A benchmark with two processes doing streaming writes to a 32 GB file to 5 SATA drives pushed into a LVM stripe set, XFS was 40\% faster, and Btrfs 26\% faster.
A sample ffsb workload that does random writes to files was found to be about 8\% faster on a simple SATA drive during the benchmark phase.
File layout is much smoother on the vmstat stats.
A SSD based writeback test on XFS performs over 20\% better as well, with the throughput being very stable around 1GB/sec, where pdflush only manages 750MB/sec and fluctuates wildly while doing so.
Random buffered writes to many files behave a lot better as well, as does random mmap'ed writes.
A streaming vs random writer benchmark went from a few MB/s to ~120 MB/s.
In short, performance improves in many important workloads.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311200</id>
	<title>One file system to rule them all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259859960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the downside, I'm peeved that Btrfs is GPL licensed, which will prevent it from becoming "the one true filesystem" from here on out.</p></div><p>Well, ZFS itself has a GPL-non-compatible license, but that doesn't prevent it from being usable in Linux as an independent user-space process through FUSE.<br>The same approach could be imagined under non-GPL-compatible OS: have the GPL implementation as a standalone userspace daemon.<br>(Which is not a bad idea - give more freedom to upgrade)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Windows users will be stuck with NTFS</p></div><p>No matter what. Even if some kernel guru released a tri licensed LGPL/BSD/Proprietary perfect file system, Microsoft will still be using NTFS and promising WinFS soon for whatever the next version of Windows is.<br>They have a strong case of NIH-Syndrome.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>None of them will be compatible, and FAT32 somehow remains the only viable option for removable media.)</p></div><p>For removable media, UDF could be a good candidate too. It's getting widespread availability, specially since Microsoft added support for writing on Vista and Win7.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the downside , I 'm peeved that Btrfs is GPL licensed , which will prevent it from becoming " the one true filesystem " from here on out.Well , ZFS itself has a GPL-non-compatible license , but that does n't prevent it from being usable in Linux as an independent user-space process through FUSE.The same approach could be imagined under non-GPL-compatible OS : have the GPL implementation as a standalone userspace daemon .
( Which is not a bad idea - give more freedom to upgrade ) Windows users will be stuck with NTFSNo matter what .
Even if some kernel guru released a tri licensed LGPL/BSD/Proprietary perfect file system , Microsoft will still be using NTFS and promising WinFS soon for whatever the next version of Windows is.They have a strong case of NIH-Syndrome.None of them will be compatible , and FAT32 somehow remains the only viable option for removable media .
) For removable media , UDF could be a good candidate too .
It 's getting widespread availability , specially since Microsoft added support for writing on Vista and Win7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the downside, I'm peeved that Btrfs is GPL licensed, which will prevent it from becoming "the one true filesystem" from here on out.Well, ZFS itself has a GPL-non-compatible license, but that doesn't prevent it from being usable in Linux as an independent user-space process through FUSE.The same approach could be imagined under non-GPL-compatible OS: have the GPL implementation as a standalone userspace daemon.
(Which is not a bad idea - give more freedom to upgrade)Windows users will be stuck with NTFSNo matter what.
Even if some kernel guru released a tri licensed LGPL/BSD/Proprietary perfect file system, Microsoft will still be using NTFS and promising WinFS soon for whatever the next version of Windows is.They have a strong case of NIH-Syndrome.None of them will be compatible, and FAT32 somehow remains the only viable option for removable media.
)For removable media, UDF could be a good candidate too.
It's getting widespread availability, specially since Microsoft added support for writing on Vista and Win7.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312572</id>
	<title>Re:Btrfs: kill off ext# please!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259864160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fedora 12 is not a suitable system for use. I tried it recently, and the installer crashed before even getting to the disk partitioning screen. This was on a 3-year-old system that has been running Slackware and then Ubuntu its entire life, so I'm pretty sure the problem is with Fedora.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fedora 12 is not a suitable system for use .
I tried it recently , and the installer crashed before even getting to the disk partitioning screen .
This was on a 3-year-old system that has been running Slackware and then Ubuntu its entire life , so I 'm pretty sure the problem is with Fedora .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fedora 12 is not a suitable system for use.
I tried it recently, and the installer crashed before even getting to the disk partitioning screen.
This was on a 3-year-old system that has been running Slackware and then Ubuntu its entire life, so I'm pretty sure the problem is with Fedora.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312220</id>
	<title>Re:People work on the "easy" problems</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1259863020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Personally, I think that the best way forward for Linux on the desktop would be to take GNUstep to the next level.<br>[...]<br>After 10 years, I don't think that either KDE or GNOME have really done all that much for Linux on the desktop...</p></div> </blockquote><p>Purely technical solutions to marketing and promotional problems rarely work, so its unsurprising that GNOME and KDE have done much for Linux on the desktop, since their marketing and promotional efforts are pretty minor. Of course, switch <i>technical</i> approaches to focus on GNUstep has the same problem.</p><blockquote><div><p>And, most importantly, the ability of the OpenStep API to produce a world class desktop--best in the world in fact--is proven.</p></div></blockquote><p>That the Mac OS X desktop is "best in the world" is a subjective statement on a matter of taste, not a "fact".</p><p>In terms of facts, on the marketing and promotional end where Linux has been unsuccessful, Mac OS X has been more successful, though far from as successful as Microsoft Windows.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I think that the best way forward for Linux on the desktop would be to take GNUstep to the next level. [ .. .
] After 10 years , I do n't think that either KDE or GNOME have really done all that much for Linux on the desktop... Purely technical solutions to marketing and promotional problems rarely work , so its unsurprising that GNOME and KDE have done much for Linux on the desktop , since their marketing and promotional efforts are pretty minor .
Of course , switch technical approaches to focus on GNUstep has the same problem.And , most importantly , the ability of the OpenStep API to produce a world class desktop--best in the world in fact--is proven.That the Mac OS X desktop is " best in the world " is a subjective statement on a matter of taste , not a " fact " .In terms of facts , on the marketing and promotional end where Linux has been unsuccessful , Mac OS X has been more successful , though far from as successful as Microsoft Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I think that the best way forward for Linux on the desktop would be to take GNUstep to the next level.[...
]After 10 years, I don't think that either KDE or GNOME have really done all that much for Linux on the desktop... Purely technical solutions to marketing and promotional problems rarely work, so its unsurprising that GNOME and KDE have done much for Linux on the desktop, since their marketing and promotional efforts are pretty minor.
Of course, switch technical approaches to focus on GNUstep has the same problem.And, most importantly, the ability of the OpenStep API to produce a world class desktop--best in the world in fact--is proven.That the Mac OS X desktop is "best in the world" is a subjective statement on a matter of taste, not a "fact".In terms of facts, on the marketing and promotional end where Linux has been unsuccessful, Mac OS X has been more successful, though far from as successful as Microsoft Windows.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311340</id>
	<title>ATI support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259860440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Finally?? I mean how long has ATI been open source, and we're just now getting support for the newer R600/R700 devices now??

I hope this kernel release also addresses the issue of the HD audio in the combined A/V R700 chips.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally ? ?
I mean how long has ATI been open source , and we 're just now getting support for the newer R600/R700 devices now ? ?
I hope this kernel release also addresses the issue of the HD audio in the combined A/V R700 chips .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally??
I mean how long has ATI been open source, and we're just now getting support for the newer R600/R700 devices now??
I hope this kernel release also addresses the issue of the HD audio in the combined A/V R700 chips.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30313706</id>
	<title>time saving makefile</title>
	<author>inode\_buddha</author>
	<datestamp>1259868180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm very interested in the new make target. Specifically, "make localmodconfig". It seems that this new target will check your current<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.config, and also check whatever modules are currently loaded. It then creates a new config file which only builds the modules you are currently using. This could be a great time and space saving, as opposed to building everything and the kitchen sink as distros tend to do. It gives you a fairly easy and sane way to truly tweak your kernel to fit your box, or script it to fit a whole bunch of non-similar boxes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm very interested in the new make target .
Specifically , " make localmodconfig " .
It seems that this new target will check your current .config , and also check whatever modules are currently loaded .
It then creates a new config file which only builds the modules you are currently using .
This could be a great time and space saving , as opposed to building everything and the kitchen sink as distros tend to do .
It gives you a fairly easy and sane way to truly tweak your kernel to fit your box , or script it to fit a whole bunch of non-similar boxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm very interested in the new make target.
Specifically, "make localmodconfig".
It seems that this new target will check your current .config, and also check whatever modules are currently loaded.
It then creates a new config file which only builds the modules you are currently using.
This could be a great time and space saving, as opposed to building everything and the kitchen sink as distros tend to do.
It gives you a fairly easy and sane way to truly tweak your kernel to fit your box, or script it to fit a whole bunch of non-similar boxes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30314442</id>
	<title>Re:Does it Fix XKCD 619?</title>
	<author>Ambassador Kosh</author>
	<datestamp>1259871000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is nothing the kernel developers can do about this. On my machine which is a dual 2218 opteron with Dual nvidia 8800gts video cards running 4 monitors just playing flash a single screen will bring one cpu core to its knees. Normal sized flash videos will bring one cpu core to its knees and will sometimes drop frames. The same video if saved to a local file and played with xine/mplayer etc will use up 1-2\% cpu power at the lowest cpu freq (1 ghz).</p><p>Linux is perfectly capable of smooth video playback at low cpu usage. It is flash that is not capable of that and nothing we can do about it. Flash is proprietary and only adobe can really fix it. If they don't choose to fix it then nothing we do is going to make those videos play any better. I am running the latest version of the flash player and it still does not play any better. Flash is a massive cpu hog.</p><p>Kernel developers should work on solving problems they can actually solve. The Xorg and desktop developers should solve problems they can solve. All they can do is try and provide tools that flash can use to play videos better but since those tools already exist I don't see much that can really be done. Even on windows flash is a dog, netflix is a good demonstration of that. I am not like silverlight but it is massively faster at playing and at higher quality then flash is. An older system that could not play flash fullscreened at 800x600 from netflix can stream hd streams at 1600x1200 with no slowdowns at all with the silverlight player and low cpu usage.</p><p>Adobe needs to fix it. Nobody else is to blame for it and nobody else can fix it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is nothing the kernel developers can do about this .
On my machine which is a dual 2218 opteron with Dual nvidia 8800gts video cards running 4 monitors just playing flash a single screen will bring one cpu core to its knees .
Normal sized flash videos will bring one cpu core to its knees and will sometimes drop frames .
The same video if saved to a local file and played with xine/mplayer etc will use up 1-2 \ % cpu power at the lowest cpu freq ( 1 ghz ) .Linux is perfectly capable of smooth video playback at low cpu usage .
It is flash that is not capable of that and nothing we can do about it .
Flash is proprietary and only adobe can really fix it .
If they do n't choose to fix it then nothing we do is going to make those videos play any better .
I am running the latest version of the flash player and it still does not play any better .
Flash is a massive cpu hog.Kernel developers should work on solving problems they can actually solve .
The Xorg and desktop developers should solve problems they can solve .
All they can do is try and provide tools that flash can use to play videos better but since those tools already exist I do n't see much that can really be done .
Even on windows flash is a dog , netflix is a good demonstration of that .
I am not like silverlight but it is massively faster at playing and at higher quality then flash is .
An older system that could not play flash fullscreened at 800x600 from netflix can stream hd streams at 1600x1200 with no slowdowns at all with the silverlight player and low cpu usage.Adobe needs to fix it .
Nobody else is to blame for it and nobody else can fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is nothing the kernel developers can do about this.
On my machine which is a dual 2218 opteron with Dual nvidia 8800gts video cards running 4 monitors just playing flash a single screen will bring one cpu core to its knees.
Normal sized flash videos will bring one cpu core to its knees and will sometimes drop frames.
The same video if saved to a local file and played with xine/mplayer etc will use up 1-2\% cpu power at the lowest cpu freq (1 ghz).Linux is perfectly capable of smooth video playback at low cpu usage.
It is flash that is not capable of that and nothing we can do about it.
Flash is proprietary and only adobe can really fix it.
If they don't choose to fix it then nothing we do is going to make those videos play any better.
I am running the latest version of the flash player and it still does not play any better.
Flash is a massive cpu hog.Kernel developers should work on solving problems they can actually solve.
The Xorg and desktop developers should solve problems they can solve.
All they can do is try and provide tools that flash can use to play videos better but since those tools already exist I don't see much that can really be done.
Even on windows flash is a dog, netflix is a good demonstration of that.
I am not like silverlight but it is massively faster at playing and at higher quality then flash is.
An older system that could not play flash fullscreened at 800x600 from netflix can stream hd streams at 1600x1200 with no slowdowns at all with the silverlight player and low cpu usage.Adobe needs to fix it.
Nobody else is to blame for it and nobody else can fix it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310712</id>
	<title>Re:Btrfs: kill off ext# please!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259858220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll stick with my tried-and-true ext3.  Tried reiserfs several times with lots of problems (unrelated to the creator's other problems).  Tried jfs and had massive corruption and freezes that would lock up most of the kernel.  Never had a problem with ext2 or ext3.  Given the fact that everybody else also seems to think that reiser, jfs, etc. are also great alternatives, it makes me wary of btrfs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll stick with my tried-and-true ext3 .
Tried reiserfs several times with lots of problems ( unrelated to the creator 's other problems ) .
Tried jfs and had massive corruption and freezes that would lock up most of the kernel .
Never had a problem with ext2 or ext3 .
Given the fact that everybody else also seems to think that reiser , jfs , etc .
are also great alternatives , it makes me wary of btrfs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll stick with my tried-and-true ext3.
Tried reiserfs several times with lots of problems (unrelated to the creator's other problems).
Tried jfs and had massive corruption and freezes that would lock up most of the kernel.
Never had a problem with ext2 or ext3.
Given the fact that everybody else also seems to think that reiser, jfs, etc.
are also great alternatives, it makes me wary of btrfs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312516</id>
	<title>Re:Btrfs: kill off ext# please!</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1259863920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>DragonFly BSD has HAMMER.</htmltext>
<tokenext>DragonFly BSD has HAMMER .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DragonFly BSD has HAMMER.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30313574</id>
	<title>Re:Btrfs: kill off ext# please!</title>
	<author>reub2000</author>
	<datestamp>1259867640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I highly doubt we'll be seeing Microsoft make any effort in terms of impliment anything that would make it play nice with Linux or any other operating system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I highly doubt we 'll be seeing Microsoft make any effort in terms of impliment anything that would make it play nice with Linux or any other operating system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I highly doubt we'll be seeing Microsoft make any effort in terms of impliment anything that would make it play nice with Linux or any other operating system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310530</id>
	<title>You Fail I7...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>escape> them by</htmltext>
<tokenext>escape &gt; them by</tokentext>
<sentencetext>escape&gt; them by</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30322988</id>
	<title>Re:People work on the "easy" problems</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1259937600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That is, because developing a faster kernel is a much easier problem than developing a fun, usable desktop environment. It's easier to write, easier to test, and easier to debug.</i></p><p>It's also pure coding - in order to develop an aesthetically pleasing, easy to use desktop environment you'll also need graphic design, usability and information architecture skills. Most programmers don't have much in the way of them, and there are fewer professionals in those fields who are willing to give up their time to work on FOSS projects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is , because developing a faster kernel is a much easier problem than developing a fun , usable desktop environment .
It 's easier to write , easier to test , and easier to debug.It 's also pure coding - in order to develop an aesthetically pleasing , easy to use desktop environment you 'll also need graphic design , usability and information architecture skills .
Most programmers do n't have much in the way of them , and there are fewer professionals in those fields who are willing to give up their time to work on FOSS projects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is, because developing a faster kernel is a much easier problem than developing a fun, usable desktop environment.
It's easier to write, easier to test, and easier to debug.It's also pure coding - in order to develop an aesthetically pleasing, easy to use desktop environment you'll also need graphic design, usability and information architecture skills.
Most programmers don't have much in the way of them, and there are fewer professionals in those fields who are willing to give up their time to work on FOSS projects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30316334</id>
	<title>Re:People work on the "easy" problems</title>
	<author>V!NCENT</author>
	<datestamp>1259835540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I'm tired of the Linux kernel; it's really not that great."<br>Linux has always been more or less the entire FLOSS pool. Nothing in it is meant for one goal. You get all these different goals. Yes it's far from elegant in that respect.</p><p>But... It's an ecosystem where people throw in stuff. It's like evolution. You start with crap. Make countless modifications. The distro's then choose what's important. Everything that sucks dies. Everything is better than the version before sticks.</p><p>Linux was a bunch of crap realy, but it is now starting to realy mature.</p><p>GNU/Linux in itself isn't great but the entire process is.</p><p>It takes a while to go from just one fish in the ocean to a human form (go ahead, make jokes), and then even beyond.</p><p>Linux can run on so much different HW, just because it has no clear goal. No goal... it's a bunch of junk you say? Well it runs great...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm tired of the Linux kernel ; it 's really not that great .
" Linux has always been more or less the entire FLOSS pool .
Nothing in it is meant for one goal .
You get all these different goals .
Yes it 's far from elegant in that respect.But... It 's an ecosystem where people throw in stuff .
It 's like evolution .
You start with crap .
Make countless modifications .
The distro 's then choose what 's important .
Everything that sucks dies .
Everything is better than the version before sticks.Linux was a bunch of crap realy , but it is now starting to realy mature.GNU/Linux in itself is n't great but the entire process is.It takes a while to go from just one fish in the ocean to a human form ( go ahead , make jokes ) , and then even beyond.Linux can run on so much different HW , just because it has no clear goal .
No goal... it 's a bunch of junk you say ?
Well it runs great.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm tired of the Linux kernel; it's really not that great.
"Linux has always been more or less the entire FLOSS pool.
Nothing in it is meant for one goal.
You get all these different goals.
Yes it's far from elegant in that respect.But... It's an ecosystem where people throw in stuff.
It's like evolution.
You start with crap.
Make countless modifications.
The distro's then choose what's important.
Everything that sucks dies.
Everything is better than the version before sticks.Linux was a bunch of crap realy, but it is now starting to realy mature.GNU/Linux in itself isn't great but the entire process is.It takes a while to go from just one fish in the ocean to a human form (go ahead, make jokes), and then even beyond.Linux can run on so much different HW, just because it has no clear goal.
No goal... it's a bunch of junk you say?
Well it runs great...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30316052</id>
	<title>Re:Btrfs: kill off ext# please!</title>
	<author>serviscope\_minor</author>
	<datestamp>1259834400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you look at the filesystem benchmarks, JFS is often not the fastest, but scores best in term of CPU usage. I've found that on a netbook which has a very fast disk (ie flash) and not much CPU, JFS is actually the best option. YMMV of course, and I came to this conclusion before ext4 was released, and I haven't trried the pre-release ones like btrfs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look at the filesystem benchmarks , JFS is often not the fastest , but scores best in term of CPU usage .
I 've found that on a netbook which has a very fast disk ( ie flash ) and not much CPU , JFS is actually the best option .
YMMV of course , and I came to this conclusion before ext4 was released , and I have n't trried the pre-release ones like btrfs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look at the filesystem benchmarks, JFS is often not the fastest, but scores best in term of CPU usage.
I've found that on a netbook which has a very fast disk (ie flash) and not much CPU, JFS is actually the best option.
YMMV of course, and I came to this conclusion before ext4 was released, and I haven't trried the pre-release ones like btrfs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30313554</id>
	<title>Re:Btrfs: kill off ext# please!</title>
	<author>phantomcircuit</author>
	<datestamp>1259867640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've been using ZFS-on-FUSE</p></div><p>Are you insane? You probably just cut the performance of your drives by 90\%.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, the performance and the idea of trusting my data to FUSE leave much to be desired.</p></div><p>Oh sorry you're informed AND insane.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using ZFS-on-FUSEAre you insane ?
You probably just cut the performance of your drives by 90 \ % .Of course , the performance and the idea of trusting my data to FUSE leave much to be desired.Oh sorry you 're informed AND insane .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using ZFS-on-FUSEAre you insane?
You probably just cut the performance of your drives by 90\%.Of course, the performance and the idea of trusting my data to FUSE leave much to be desired.Oh sorry you're informed AND insane.
:P
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30316960</id>
	<title>Re:time saving makefile</title>
	<author>gringer</author>
	<datestamp>1259837340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's also a "make localyesconfig" that will be even more useful for me, particularly for removing the need for initrd. I can now do a "make localyesconfig", and not have to try to guess what particular combination of compiled-in options is required for the computer to start up, then add in the additional things as modules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's also a " make localyesconfig " that will be even more useful for me , particularly for removing the need for initrd .
I can now do a " make localyesconfig " , and not have to try to guess what particular combination of compiled-in options is required for the computer to start up , then add in the additional things as modules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's also a "make localyesconfig" that will be even more useful for me, particularly for removing the need for initrd.
I can now do a "make localyesconfig", and not have to try to guess what particular combination of compiled-in options is required for the computer to start up, then add in the additional things as modules.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30313706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310656</id>
	<title>Re:ATI chipsets</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2.6.32's KMS and R600/700 improvements are expected to give a huge 3D performance boost to the open source ATI drivers - can't wait to test this!</p></div><p>This is indeed excellent although it needs to be backed up by support from the X driver. Currently I am running Ubuntu Karmic on a Radeon HD 3600 series card (RV635, which counts as an R600 series - quite confusing) and 3D support sucks. Both the "radeon" and "radeonhd" drivers only have basic support for these chips - desktop effects don't really work.</p><p>I was using the fglrx driver on Jaunty, which worked OK, but it seems to be getting worse with every release. In Karmic it was so broken I just gave up on it. It seems to play a lot better with Compiz/GNOME than with KDE for some reason.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2.6.32 's KMS and R600/700 improvements are expected to give a huge 3D performance boost to the open source ATI drivers - ca n't wait to test this ! This is indeed excellent although it needs to be backed up by support from the X driver .
Currently I am running Ubuntu Karmic on a Radeon HD 3600 series card ( RV635 , which counts as an R600 series - quite confusing ) and 3D support sucks .
Both the " radeon " and " radeonhd " drivers only have basic support for these chips - desktop effects do n't really work.I was using the fglrx driver on Jaunty , which worked OK , but it seems to be getting worse with every release .
In Karmic it was so broken I just gave up on it .
It seems to play a lot better with Compiz/GNOME than with KDE for some reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.6.32's KMS and R600/700 improvements are expected to give a huge 3D performance boost to the open source ATI drivers - can't wait to test this!This is indeed excellent although it needs to be backed up by support from the X driver.
Currently I am running Ubuntu Karmic on a Radeon HD 3600 series card (RV635, which counts as an R600 series - quite confusing) and 3D support sucks.
Both the "radeon" and "radeonhd" drivers only have basic support for these chips - desktop effects don't really work.I was using the fglrx driver on Jaunty, which worked OK, but it seems to be getting worse with every release.
In Karmic it was so broken I just gave up on it.
It seems to play a lot better with Compiz/GNOME than with KDE for some reason.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30322610</id>
	<title>Re:People work on the "easy" problems</title>
	<author>buchner.johannes</author>
	<datestamp>1259933520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I think that the best way forward for Linux on the desktop would be to take GNUstep to the next level.  [...] After 10 years, I don't think that either KDE or GNOME have really done all that much for Linux on the desktop... it's time to try a different approach.</p></div><p>First step: Make GNUstep (1) look nice and (2) take care of usability. That is what you missed about KDE and GNOME: They plan and think about usability, a whole concept of a desktop, and nice look &amp; feel.<br>Otherwise you won't have users and thus no developers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I think that the best way forward for Linux on the desktop would be to take GNUstep to the next level .
[ ... ] After 10 years , I do n't think that either KDE or GNOME have really done all that much for Linux on the desktop... it 's time to try a different approach.First step : Make GNUstep ( 1 ) look nice and ( 2 ) take care of usability .
That is what you missed about KDE and GNOME : They plan and think about usability , a whole concept of a desktop , and nice look &amp; feel.Otherwise you wo n't have users and thus no developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I think that the best way forward for Linux on the desktop would be to take GNUstep to the next level.
[...] After 10 years, I don't think that either KDE or GNOME have really done all that much for Linux on the desktop... it's time to try a different approach.First step: Make GNUstep (1) look nice and (2) take care of usability.
That is what you missed about KDE and GNOME: They plan and think about usability, a whole concept of a desktop, and nice look &amp; feel.Otherwise you won't have users and thus no developers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30313748</id>
	<title>Re:Btrfs: kill off ext# please!</title>
	<author>diegocg</author>
	<datestamp>1259868300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that long, in my opinion. I've been using Btrfs as my root filesystem (except for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/boot and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home, but anyway) since the day after Fedora 12 was released (two weeks). I haven't had any problem at all with it - no hangs, not even a simple printk low-periority warning. It seems to be quite stable - i'm not surprised that they are considering (according to LWN) declaring it "ready for early adopters" in the next kernel release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that long , in my opinion .
I 've been using Btrfs as my root filesystem ( except for /boot and /home , but anyway ) since the day after Fedora 12 was released ( two weeks ) .
I have n't had any problem at all with it - no hangs , not even a simple printk low-periority warning .
It seems to be quite stable - i 'm not surprised that they are considering ( according to LWN ) declaring it " ready for early adopters " in the next kernel release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that long, in my opinion.
I've been using Btrfs as my root filesystem (except for /boot and /home, but anyway) since the day after Fedora 12 was released (two weeks).
I haven't had any problem at all with it - no hangs, not even a simple printk low-periority warning.
It seems to be quite stable - i'm not surprised that they are considering (according to LWN) declaring it "ready for early adopters" in the next kernel release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30315878</id>
	<title>Re:Btrfs: kill off ext# please!</title>
	<author>TeknoHog</author>
	<datestamp>1259833740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's time for the ext-based filesystems to die. They are a technology that was obsolete a decade ago.</p><p>ReiserFS was set to kill them off, but unfortunately found another victim first... JFS and XFS only work well in certain high-end niches.</p> </div><p>
In my experience, JFS offers most of the benefits of ReiserFS, while being lighter on CPU. So it is definitely not just for the high end. It has also turned out more stable than Reiser, though in the recent years this has evened out.
</p><p>
On some of my machines there have been consistent problems with using JFS on the root partition, but this may be due to the init scripts. No data has been lost, though, and on non-root partitions JFS has consistently been rock solid for me. This includes a number of x86, PowerPC and ARM machines.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's time for the ext-based filesystems to die .
They are a technology that was obsolete a decade ago.ReiserFS was set to kill them off , but unfortunately found another victim first... JFS and XFS only work well in certain high-end niches .
In my experience , JFS offers most of the benefits of ReiserFS , while being lighter on CPU .
So it is definitely not just for the high end .
It has also turned out more stable than Reiser , though in the recent years this has evened out .
On some of my machines there have been consistent problems with using JFS on the root partition , but this may be due to the init scripts .
No data has been lost , though , and on non-root partitions JFS has consistently been rock solid for me .
This includes a number of x86 , PowerPC and ARM machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's time for the ext-based filesystems to die.
They are a technology that was obsolete a decade ago.ReiserFS was set to kill them off, but unfortunately found another victim first... JFS and XFS only work well in certain high-end niches.
In my experience, JFS offers most of the benefits of ReiserFS, while being lighter on CPU.
So it is definitely not just for the high end.
It has also turned out more stable than Reiser, though in the recent years this has evened out.
On some of my machines there have been consistent problems with using JFS on the root partition, but this may be due to the init scripts.
No data has been lost, though, and on non-root partitions JFS has consistently been rock solid for me.
This includes a number of x86, PowerPC and ARM machines.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30319276</id>
	<title>Re:People work on the "easy" problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259847600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I think that the best way forward for Linux on the desktop would be to take GNUstep to the next level.</p></div><p>Sounds like <a href="http://etoileos.com/" title="etoileos.com" rel="nofollow">Etoile</a> [etoileos.com]. Not source compatible with OS X, but some of the Apple stuff makes its way over (Clang, LLVM).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I think that the best way forward for Linux on the desktop would be to take GNUstep to the next level.Sounds like Etoile [ etoileos.com ] .
Not source compatible with OS X , but some of the Apple stuff makes its way over ( Clang , LLVM ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I think that the best way forward for Linux on the desktop would be to take GNUstep to the next level.Sounds like Etoile [etoileos.com].
Not source compatible with OS X, but some of the Apple stuff makes its way over (Clang, LLVM).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30322526</id>
	<title>Re:Llacking in terminology.</title>
	<author>buchner.johannes</author>
	<datestamp>1259932080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That sounds interesting. Wouldn't this also resolve the negative effect of static libraries to a large part (having multiple copies of the same code in memory)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That sounds interesting .
Would n't this also resolve the negative effect of static libraries to a large part ( having multiple copies of the same code in memory ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sounds interesting.
Wouldn't this also resolve the negative effect of static libraries to a large part (having multiple copies of the same code in memory)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310470</id>
	<title>does KSM mean the death of Xen?</title>
	<author>trybywrench</author>
	<datestamp>1259857260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If KSM puts the KVM module on par with Xen in terms of performance then I think the writing is on the wall for Xen's demise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If KSM puts the KVM module on par with Xen in terms of performance then I think the writing is on the wall for Xen 's demise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If KSM puts the KVM module on par with Xen in terms of performance then I think the writing is on the wall for Xen's demise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311738</id>
	<title>Re:Btrfs: kill off ext# please!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259861700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  None of them will be compatible, and FAT32 somehow remains the only viable option for removable media.)</p></div><p>So in one of your possible ideal worlds, I would have to use ZFS on a 2GB SD card? Sounds interesting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>None of them will be compatible , and FAT32 somehow remains the only viable option for removable media .
) So in one of your possible ideal worlds , I would have to use ZFS on a 2GB SD card ?
Sounds interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  None of them will be compatible, and FAT32 somehow remains the only viable option for removable media.
)So in one of your possible ideal worlds, I would have to use ZFS on a 2GB SD card?
Sounds interesting.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30316016</id>
	<title>Re:People work on the "easy" problems</title>
	<author>serviscope\_minor</author>
	<datestamp>1259834220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you about the monstrosoties. The kernel is full of classes and virtual functions. C++ provides exactly those features without the syntactic overhead and assosciated bugs. Because they are a built in feature, everyone does them the same way. Not only that but it uses less memory (kinder on the cache) because it stores only one copy of each vtable. It also provides *exactly* the same features as C for when they are really needed.</p><p>But people keep complaining about the "complexity" of C++ while happily implementing 3/4 of the C++ compiler by hand in C every time they want to do something simple like instantiate a class. Not only that but they come up with a vaeiety of strange and perverse arguments as to why C is better. See the infamous LKML C++ threads for some fine examples of straw men, ad homenm and general wrong headedness.</p><p>As for user mode graphics, for many years, X11 provided pretty much pure user mode graphics. The faster 3D accelerated ones tend to be more tied to the kernel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you about the monstrosoties .
The kernel is full of classes and virtual functions .
C + + provides exactly those features without the syntactic overhead and assosciated bugs .
Because they are a built in feature , everyone does them the same way .
Not only that but it uses less memory ( kinder on the cache ) because it stores only one copy of each vtable .
It also provides * exactly * the same features as C for when they are really needed.But people keep complaining about the " complexity " of C + + while happily implementing 3/4 of the C + + compiler by hand in C every time they want to do something simple like instantiate a class .
Not only that but they come up with a vaeiety of strange and perverse arguments as to why C is better .
See the infamous LKML C + + threads for some fine examples of straw men , ad homenm and general wrong headedness.As for user mode graphics , for many years , X11 provided pretty much pure user mode graphics .
The faster 3D accelerated ones tend to be more tied to the kernel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you about the monstrosoties.
The kernel is full of classes and virtual functions.
C++ provides exactly those features without the syntactic overhead and assosciated bugs.
Because they are a built in feature, everyone does them the same way.
Not only that but it uses less memory (kinder on the cache) because it stores only one copy of each vtable.
It also provides *exactly* the same features as C for when they are really needed.But people keep complaining about the "complexity" of C++ while happily implementing 3/4 of the C++ compiler by hand in C every time they want to do something simple like instantiate a class.
Not only that but they come up with a vaeiety of strange and perverse arguments as to why C is better.
See the infamous LKML C++ threads for some fine examples of straw men, ad homenm and general wrong headedness.As for user mode graphics, for many years, X11 provided pretty much pure user mode graphics.
The faster 3D accelerated ones tend to be more tied to the kernel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30321862</id>
	<title>Re:ATI chipsets</title>
	<author>disi</author>
	<datestamp>1259919420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I tested one of the 2.6.32-rc and it actual works, but don't expect much performance<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) Make sure you use &gt;=mesa-7.6 and a decent radeon xorg driver... works also great with xorg-server-1.7 while ati-drivers don't...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tested one of the 2.6.32-rc and it actual works , but do n't expect much performance : ) Make sure you use &gt; = mesa-7.6 and a decent radeon xorg driver... works also great with xorg-server-1.7 while ati-drivers do n't.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tested one of the 2.6.32-rc and it actual works, but don't expect much performance :) Make sure you use &gt;=mesa-7.6 and a decent radeon xorg driver... works also great with xorg-server-1.7 while ati-drivers don't...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30322584</id>
	<title>Re:Llacking in terminology.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259932920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the interwebz. Next time please hyperlink something like <a href="http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man2/madvise.2.html" title="kernel.org" rel="nofollow">madvise(2)</a> [kernel.org] in an informative type post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the interwebz .
Next time please hyperlink something like madvise ( 2 ) [ kernel.org ] in an informative type post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the interwebz.
Next time please hyperlink something like madvise(2) [kernel.org] in an informative type post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311872</id>
	<title>Re:Btrfs: kill off ext# please!</title>
	<author>Urkki</author>
	<datestamp>1259862000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What prevents other, non-GPL operating systems from using Btrfs?</p><p>Writing drivers for a filesystem is not a "derivative work" is it?</p></div><p>How good, accurate and up-to-date is the specification of btrfs?</p><p>If only real, accurate "specification" is the source code, then it's damn hard to create a compatible and reliable new implementation from scratch. File systems are complex, concurrent (meaning many files being accessed simultaneously) and performance-critical as well as reliability-critical. Getting it right is hard, while getting it wrong is bad, so there needs to be really good reasons to even try to do it, instead of using something that already works.</p><p>This is especially true while development is still continuing (as is case with btrfs).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What prevents other , non-GPL operating systems from using Btrfs ? Writing drivers for a filesystem is not a " derivative work " is it ? How good , accurate and up-to-date is the specification of btrfs ? If only real , accurate " specification " is the source code , then it 's damn hard to create a compatible and reliable new implementation from scratch .
File systems are complex , concurrent ( meaning many files being accessed simultaneously ) and performance-critical as well as reliability-critical .
Getting it right is hard , while getting it wrong is bad , so there needs to be really good reasons to even try to do it , instead of using something that already works.This is especially true while development is still continuing ( as is case with btrfs ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What prevents other, non-GPL operating systems from using Btrfs?Writing drivers for a filesystem is not a "derivative work" is it?How good, accurate and up-to-date is the specification of btrfs?If only real, accurate "specification" is the source code, then it's damn hard to create a compatible and reliable new implementation from scratch.
File systems are complex, concurrent (meaning many files being accessed simultaneously) and performance-critical as well as reliability-critical.
Getting it right is hard, while getting it wrong is bad, so there needs to be really good reasons to even try to do it, instead of using something that already works.This is especially true while development is still continuing (as is case with btrfs).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30316552</id>
	<title>Re:Llacking in terminology.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259836140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think that's bad? Take a look at the <a href="http://tiny.cc/lnx2012" title="tiny.cc" rel="nofollow">Linux 2012</a> [tiny.cc] issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think that 's bad ?
Take a look at the Linux 2012 [ tiny.cc ] issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think that's bad?
Take a look at the Linux 2012 [tiny.cc] issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506</id>
	<title>People work on the "easy" problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like the strip, and it raises a valid point.  The  bottom line is that kernel development advances more quickly than user interface and applications for the same reason that physics advanced more quickly than say<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... psychology.  That is, because developing a faster kernel is a much easier problem than developing a fun, usable desktop environment.  It's easier to write, easier to test, and easier to debug.  People tend to gravitate towards problems that they think they can solve--and ignore the problems they don't understand or don't want to deal with.</p><p>Personally, I think that the best way forward for Linux on the desktop would be to take GNUstep to the next level.  There's a LOT of code there already written, and with a bit more work you might be able to have source-level compatibility with Mac OS X--which would give you access to a bunch of commercial apps.  And, most importantly, the ability of the OpenStep API to produce a world class desktop--best in the world in fact--is proven. After 10 years, I don't think that either KDE or GNOME have really done all that much for Linux on the desktop... it's time to try a different approach.</p><p>Of course, I'm just kibbitzing, not bringing code.  So what right do I have to say anything?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the strip , and it raises a valid point .
The bottom line is that kernel development advances more quickly than user interface and applications for the same reason that physics advanced more quickly than say ... psychology. That is , because developing a faster kernel is a much easier problem than developing a fun , usable desktop environment .
It 's easier to write , easier to test , and easier to debug .
People tend to gravitate towards problems that they think they can solve--and ignore the problems they do n't understand or do n't want to deal with.Personally , I think that the best way forward for Linux on the desktop would be to take GNUstep to the next level .
There 's a LOT of code there already written , and with a bit more work you might be able to have source-level compatibility with Mac OS X--which would give you access to a bunch of commercial apps .
And , most importantly , the ability of the OpenStep API to produce a world class desktop--best in the world in fact--is proven .
After 10 years , I do n't think that either KDE or GNOME have really done all that much for Linux on the desktop... it 's time to try a different approach.Of course , I 'm just kibbitzing , not bringing code .
So what right do I have to say anything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the strip, and it raises a valid point.
The  bottom line is that kernel development advances more quickly than user interface and applications for the same reason that physics advanced more quickly than say ... psychology.  That is, because developing a faster kernel is a much easier problem than developing a fun, usable desktop environment.
It's easier to write, easier to test, and easier to debug.
People tend to gravitate towards problems that they think they can solve--and ignore the problems they don't understand or don't want to deal with.Personally, I think that the best way forward for Linux on the desktop would be to take GNUstep to the next level.
There's a LOT of code there already written, and with a bit more work you might be able to have source-level compatibility with Mac OS X--which would give you access to a bunch of commercial apps.
And, most importantly, the ability of the OpenStep API to produce a world class desktop--best in the world in fact--is proven.
After 10 years, I don't think that either KDE or GNOME have really done all that much for Linux on the desktop... it's time to try a different approach.Of course, I'm just kibbitzing, not bringing code.
So what right do I have to say anything?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312504</id>
	<title>Re:People work on the "easy" problems</title>
	<author>theCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1259863860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...developing a faster kernel is a much easier problem than developing a fun, usable desktop environment.</i></p><p>While I agree with tulcod's response -- kernel development is usually much harder than desktop development.  However, there is one important difference.  A faster kernel is a <b>measurable goal</b>.  While you might be able to make a "fun, usable desktop environment" for a single person, and maybe even for a good percentage of the population, you will never, ever satisfy everybody.  Half the people want more options and more control and half want a simpler, less cluttered interface.  Some people want freedom, others want to lock it down.  Some people want blue, others want brown.  Some people want menus, others want icons.  If you're doing your job well, you can compromise enough to make everyone satisfied, if not completely happy, but that's really hard to do.  A faster kernel seems easy by comparison.</p><p>Personally, I think Gnome is going too far down the simplification road.  Every release it seems they take away more features and options.  This last they struck at GDM (the login screen).  Before that, they nerfed session management.  A few releases earlier they took away screen saver control.  And I'm still annoyed that I can't have different backgrounds on different desktops, and I that's been broken since Gnome 2.0!</p><p><i>Of course, I'm just kibbitzing, not bringing code.</i></p><p>Heh, agreed, same here<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  Maybe one of these days Gnome will push me over the edge and make me write my own WM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...developing a faster kernel is a much easier problem than developing a fun , usable desktop environment.While I agree with tulcod 's response -- kernel development is usually much harder than desktop development .
However , there is one important difference .
A faster kernel is a measurable goal .
While you might be able to make a " fun , usable desktop environment " for a single person , and maybe even for a good percentage of the population , you will never , ever satisfy everybody .
Half the people want more options and more control and half want a simpler , less cluttered interface .
Some people want freedom , others want to lock it down .
Some people want blue , others want brown .
Some people want menus , others want icons .
If you 're doing your job well , you can compromise enough to make everyone satisfied , if not completely happy , but that 's really hard to do .
A faster kernel seems easy by comparison.Personally , I think Gnome is going too far down the simplification road .
Every release it seems they take away more features and options .
This last they struck at GDM ( the login screen ) .
Before that , they nerfed session management .
A few releases earlier they took away screen saver control .
And I 'm still annoyed that I ca n't have different backgrounds on different desktops , and I that 's been broken since Gnome 2.0 ! Of course , I 'm just kibbitzing , not bringing code.Heh , agreed , same here : ) Maybe one of these days Gnome will push me over the edge and make me write my own WM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...developing a faster kernel is a much easier problem than developing a fun, usable desktop environment.While I agree with tulcod's response -- kernel development is usually much harder than desktop development.
However, there is one important difference.
A faster kernel is a measurable goal.
While you might be able to make a "fun, usable desktop environment" for a single person, and maybe even for a good percentage of the population, you will never, ever satisfy everybody.
Half the people want more options and more control and half want a simpler, less cluttered interface.
Some people want freedom, others want to lock it down.
Some people want blue, others want brown.
Some people want menus, others want icons.
If you're doing your job well, you can compromise enough to make everyone satisfied, if not completely happy, but that's really hard to do.
A faster kernel seems easy by comparison.Personally, I think Gnome is going too far down the simplification road.
Every release it seems they take away more features and options.
This last they struck at GDM (the login screen).
Before that, they nerfed session management.
A few releases earlier they took away screen saver control.
And I'm still annoyed that I can't have different backgrounds on different desktops, and I that's been broken since Gnome 2.0!Of course, I'm just kibbitzing, not bringing code.Heh, agreed, same here :)  Maybe one of these days Gnome will push me over the edge and make me write my own WM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311616</id>
	<title>stable?</title>
	<author>burris</author>
	<datestamp>1259861340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lots of new features, I thought the 2.X.Y versions where X is an even number are supposed to be "stable."  There isn't even a 2.7 branch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of new features , I thought the 2.X.Y versions where X is an even number are supposed to be " stable .
" There is n't even a 2.7 branch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of new features, I thought the 2.X.Y versions where X is an even number are supposed to be "stable.
"  There isn't even a 2.7 branch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30315138</id>
	<title>Re:Btrfs: kill off ext# please!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259873880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless there is a really big reason to jump filesystems like there was with ZFS and the added functionality it gave on the LVM layer, I wouldn't just move to a completely new filesystem for production use until it has been around a few years.  A glitch on that level may mean data loss in ways unforseen, especially if backup programs don't detect the changes and assume that a corrupted file is fine.</p><p>ZFS is an exception.  It gives a lot of functionality like snapshots, file migration, RAID-Z, and a slew of other things.  If it wasn't for this fact, I'd wait a year or so for general use, and perhaps 3-5 years for production critical use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless there is a really big reason to jump filesystems like there was with ZFS and the added functionality it gave on the LVM layer , I would n't just move to a completely new filesystem for production use until it has been around a few years .
A glitch on that level may mean data loss in ways unforseen , especially if backup programs do n't detect the changes and assume that a corrupted file is fine.ZFS is an exception .
It gives a lot of functionality like snapshots , file migration , RAID-Z , and a slew of other things .
If it was n't for this fact , I 'd wait a year or so for general use , and perhaps 3-5 years for production critical use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless there is a really big reason to jump filesystems like there was with ZFS and the added functionality it gave on the LVM layer, I wouldn't just move to a completely new filesystem for production use until it has been around a few years.
A glitch on that level may mean data loss in ways unforseen, especially if backup programs don't detect the changes and assume that a corrupted file is fine.ZFS is an exception.
It gives a lot of functionality like snapshots, file migration, RAID-Z, and a slew of other things.
If it wasn't for this fact, I'd wait a year or so for general use, and perhaps 3-5 years for production critical use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30315818</id>
	<title>Re:One file system to rule them all</title>
	<author>Dr.Dubious DDQ</author>
	<datestamp>1259833500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"For removable media, UDF could be a good candidate too. It's getting widespread availability, specially since Microsoft added support for writing on Vista and Win7."</i>
<p>Getting slightly off-topic, but after the FAT patent-trolling recently this interests me.</p><p>I went and dug up the sadly-neglected udftools package and installed it.  Sure enough, the following command (found with a bit of Googling) seems to produce a filesystem on my SD card that can be read from and written to just fine by Linux, Mac OSX (Leopard), and Vista at least:<br>
<tt>mkudffs --media-type=hd --blocksize=512<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/sdc</tt> <br>
(Obviously one should substitute the appropriate device there...)  No partition table needed.  I'm not sure if the "blocksize=512" is necessary, but it appeared that it might be.</p><p>The only real problems I see are the fact that udftools appears to have been abandoned half a decade ago, so there is no fsck tool[1], and that all those elderly Windows XP machines apparently can't write to this format without 3rd-party software.</p><p>Looks promising to me, if development on udftools is picked up by anyone (and in the meantime is definitely usable), so thanks for the tip...</p><p>[1] Well, udftools does include a "udffsck", but it quite literally does nothing - the source code is a stub that consists entirely of a single "void main()" function that returns 0 immediately.  Mac OSX has a newfs\_udf, but also appears to lack a way of repairing/validating the filesystem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" For removable media , UDF could be a good candidate too .
It 's getting widespread availability , specially since Microsoft added support for writing on Vista and Win7 .
" Getting slightly off-topic , but after the FAT patent-trolling recently this interests me.I went and dug up the sadly-neglected udftools package and installed it .
Sure enough , the following command ( found with a bit of Googling ) seems to produce a filesystem on my SD card that can be read from and written to just fine by Linux , Mac OSX ( Leopard ) , and Vista at least : mkudffs --media-type = hd --blocksize = 512 /dev/sdc ( Obviously one should substitute the appropriate device there... ) No partition table needed .
I 'm not sure if the " blocksize = 512 " is necessary , but it appeared that it might be.The only real problems I see are the fact that udftools appears to have been abandoned half a decade ago , so there is no fsck tool [ 1 ] , and that all those elderly Windows XP machines apparently ca n't write to this format without 3rd-party software.Looks promising to me , if development on udftools is picked up by anyone ( and in the meantime is definitely usable ) , so thanks for the tip... [ 1 ] Well , udftools does include a " udffsck " , but it quite literally does nothing - the source code is a stub that consists entirely of a single " void main ( ) " function that returns 0 immediately .
Mac OSX has a newfs \ _udf , but also appears to lack a way of repairing/validating the filesystem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For removable media, UDF could be a good candidate too.
It's getting widespread availability, specially since Microsoft added support for writing on Vista and Win7.
"
Getting slightly off-topic, but after the FAT patent-trolling recently this interests me.I went and dug up the sadly-neglected udftools package and installed it.
Sure enough, the following command (found with a bit of Googling) seems to produce a filesystem on my SD card that can be read from and written to just fine by Linux, Mac OSX (Leopard), and Vista at least:
mkudffs --media-type=hd --blocksize=512 /dev/sdc 
(Obviously one should substitute the appropriate device there...)  No partition table needed.
I'm not sure if the "blocksize=512" is necessary, but it appeared that it might be.The only real problems I see are the fact that udftools appears to have been abandoned half a decade ago, so there is no fsck tool[1], and that all those elderly Windows XP machines apparently can't write to this format without 3rd-party software.Looks promising to me, if development on udftools is picked up by anyone (and in the meantime is definitely usable), so thanks for the tip...[1] Well, udftools does include a "udffsck", but it quite literally does nothing - the source code is a stub that consists entirely of a single "void main()" function that returns 0 immediately.
Mac OSX has a newfs\_udf, but also appears to lack a way of repairing/validating the filesystem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30316772</id>
	<title>Re:Btrfs: kill off ext# please!</title>
	<author>Mad Merlin</author>
	<datestamp>1259836740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>(On the downside, I'm peeved that Btrfs is GPL licensed, which will prevent it from becoming "the one true filesystem" from here on out. Windows users will be stuck with NTFS, Linux users will get Btrfs, Mac users will get whatever apple is secretly working on, and the BSD/Solaris camp will get to keep ZFS. None of them will be compatible, and FAT32 somehow remains the only viable option for removable media.)</p></div></blockquote><p>You may as well stop holding your breath now. Microsoft will never support a general purpose filesystem that they didn't personally develop, and Microsoft will never develop a filesystem that doesn't have draconian licensing. There will never be "one true filesystem" until Microsoft is destroyed. Though it'll probably also be necessary for Apple to disappear as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( On the downside , I 'm peeved that Btrfs is GPL licensed , which will prevent it from becoming " the one true filesystem " from here on out .
Windows users will be stuck with NTFS , Linux users will get Btrfs , Mac users will get whatever apple is secretly working on , and the BSD/Solaris camp will get to keep ZFS .
None of them will be compatible , and FAT32 somehow remains the only viable option for removable media .
) You may as well stop holding your breath now .
Microsoft will never support a general purpose filesystem that they did n't personally develop , and Microsoft will never develop a filesystem that does n't have draconian licensing .
There will never be " one true filesystem " until Microsoft is destroyed .
Though it 'll probably also be necessary for Apple to disappear as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(On the downside, I'm peeved that Btrfs is GPL licensed, which will prevent it from becoming "the one true filesystem" from here on out.
Windows users will be stuck with NTFS, Linux users will get Btrfs, Mac users will get whatever apple is secretly working on, and the BSD/Solaris camp will get to keep ZFS.
None of them will be compatible, and FAT32 somehow remains the only viable option for removable media.
)You may as well stop holding your breath now.
Microsoft will never support a general purpose filesystem that they didn't personally develop, and Microsoft will never develop a filesystem that doesn't have draconian licensing.
There will never be "one true filesystem" until Microsoft is destroyed.
Though it'll probably also be necessary for Apple to disappear as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30423088</id>
	<title>Re:ATI chipsets</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260724920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We had the same problem on Gentoo. ATi is to blame. Because the reason of your problems is, that the driver is not compatible with the newest versions of Xorg (&lt;=1.7).</p><p>We here had to mask xorg-1.7.x and all those packages, and reinstall the latest non-masked ones, to get it to work again:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt;=x11-apps/xinput-1.5.0<br>&gt;=x11-base/xorg-drivers-1.7<br>&gt;=x11-base/xorg-server-1.7.1<br>&gt;=x11-libs/libX11-1.3.2<br>&gt;=x11-libs/libXScrnSaver-1.2.0<br>&gt;=x11-libs/libXext-1.1.1<br>&gt;=x11-libs/libXi-1.3<br>&gt;=x11-libs/libXinerama-1.1<br>&gt;=x11-libs/libXtst-1.1.0<br>&gt;=x11-libs/libXxf86dga-1.1.1<br>&gt;=x11-libs/libXxf86vm-1.1.0<br>&gt;=x11-proto/bigreqsproto-1.1.0<br>&gt;=x11-proto/fixesproto-4.1.1<br>&gt;=x11-proto/inputproto-2.0<br>&gt;=x11-proto/recordproto-1.14<br>&gt;=x11-proto/scrnsaverproto-1.2.0<br>&gt;=x11-proto/xcmiscproto-1.2.0<br>&gt;=x11-proto/xextproto-7.1.1<br>&gt;=x11-proto/xf86bigfontproto-1.2.0<br>&gt;=x11-proto/xf86dgaproto-2.1<br>&gt;=x11-proto/xf86driproto-2.1.0<br>&gt;=x11-proto/xf86vidmodeproto-2.3<br>&gt;=x11-proto/xineramaproto-1.2</p></div><p>Yes, it&rsquo;s a huge nasty messy pile of shit. And I&rsquo;m very happy to dump fglrx forever, as soon as the radeon driver gains full 3D functionality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We had the same problem on Gentoo .
ATi is to blame .
Because the reason of your problems is , that the driver is not compatible with the newest versions of Xorg ( We here had to mask xorg-1.7.x and all those packages , and reinstall the latest non-masked ones , to get it to work again : &gt; = x11-apps/xinput-1.5.0 &gt; = x11-base/xorg-drivers-1.7 &gt; = x11-base/xorg-server-1.7.1 &gt; = x11-libs/libX11-1.3.2 &gt; = x11-libs/libXScrnSaver-1.2.0 &gt; = x11-libs/libXext-1.1.1 &gt; = x11-libs/libXi-1.3 &gt; = x11-libs/libXinerama-1.1 &gt; = x11-libs/libXtst-1.1.0 &gt; = x11-libs/libXxf86dga-1.1.1 &gt; = x11-libs/libXxf86vm-1.1.0 &gt; = x11-proto/bigreqsproto-1.1.0 &gt; = x11-proto/fixesproto-4.1.1 &gt; = x11-proto/inputproto-2.0 &gt; = x11-proto/recordproto-1.14 &gt; = x11-proto/scrnsaverproto-1.2.0 &gt; = x11-proto/xcmiscproto-1.2.0 &gt; = x11-proto/xextproto-7.1.1 &gt; = x11-proto/xf86bigfontproto-1.2.0 &gt; = x11-proto/xf86dgaproto-2.1 &gt; = x11-proto/xf86driproto-2.1.0 &gt; = x11-proto/xf86vidmodeproto-2.3 &gt; = x11-proto/xineramaproto-1.2Yes , it    s a huge nasty messy pile of shit .
And I    m very happy to dump fglrx forever , as soon as the radeon driver gains full 3D functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We had the same problem on Gentoo.
ATi is to blame.
Because the reason of your problems is, that the driver is not compatible with the newest versions of Xorg (We here had to mask xorg-1.7.x and all those packages, and reinstall the latest non-masked ones, to get it to work again:&gt;=x11-apps/xinput-1.5.0&gt;=x11-base/xorg-drivers-1.7&gt;=x11-base/xorg-server-1.7.1&gt;=x11-libs/libX11-1.3.2&gt;=x11-libs/libXScrnSaver-1.2.0&gt;=x11-libs/libXext-1.1.1&gt;=x11-libs/libXi-1.3&gt;=x11-libs/libXinerama-1.1&gt;=x11-libs/libXtst-1.1.0&gt;=x11-libs/libXxf86dga-1.1.1&gt;=x11-libs/libXxf86vm-1.1.0&gt;=x11-proto/bigreqsproto-1.1.0&gt;=x11-proto/fixesproto-4.1.1&gt;=x11-proto/inputproto-2.0&gt;=x11-proto/recordproto-1.14&gt;=x11-proto/scrnsaverproto-1.2.0&gt;=x11-proto/xcmiscproto-1.2.0&gt;=x11-proto/xextproto-7.1.1&gt;=x11-proto/xf86bigfontproto-1.2.0&gt;=x11-proto/xf86dgaproto-2.1&gt;=x11-proto/xf86driproto-2.1.0&gt;=x11-proto/xf86vidmodeproto-2.3&gt;=x11-proto/xineramaproto-1.2Yes, it’s a huge nasty messy pile of shit.
And I’m very happy to dump fglrx forever, as soon as the radeon driver gains full 3D functionality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310920</id>
	<title>Re:Btrfs: kill off ext# please!</title>
	<author>Abreu</author>
	<datestamp>1259859000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What prevents other, non-GPL operating systems from using Btrfs?</p><p>Writing drivers for a filesystem is not a "derivative work" is it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What prevents other , non-GPL operating systems from using Btrfs ? Writing drivers for a filesystem is not a " derivative work " is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What prevents other, non-GPL operating systems from using Btrfs?Writing drivers for a filesystem is not a "derivative work" is it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311552</id>
	<title>Yeah, that is fine and all but the big question is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259861100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does it run Linux?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it run Linux ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it run Linux?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30315536</id>
	<title>Re:Llacking in terminology.</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1259832300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>kvm (which includes support for this,</i></p><p>Does each application need to support KSM?  I can't just run two instances of the same arbitrary application and let the kernel figure out what to do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>kvm ( which includes support for this,Does each application need to support KSM ?
I ca n't just run two instances of the same arbitrary application and let the kernel figure out what to do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kvm (which includes support for this,Does each application need to support KSM?
I can't just run two instances of the same arbitrary application and let the kernel figure out what to do?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30314050</id>
	<title>Re:ATI chipsets</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259869500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been using the RCs of this kernel, and the Radeon r600 support is already much faster and more stable than fglrx.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using the RCs of this kernel , and the Radeon r600 support is already much faster and more stable than fglrx .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using the RCs of this kernel, and the Radeon r600 support is already much faster and more stable than fglrx.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312532</id>
	<title>Re:does KSM mean the death of Xen?</title>
	<author>diegocg</author>
	<datestamp>1259863980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note that KSM also works for Xen.</p><p>KVM may not mean the death of XEN, but it has been a long time since it replaced it as the de-facto Linux virtualization system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that KSM also works for Xen.KVM may not mean the death of XEN , but it has been a long time since it replaced it as the de-facto Linux virtualization system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that KSM also works for Xen.KVM may not mean the death of XEN, but it has been a long time since it replaced it as the de-facto Linux virtualization system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312186</id>
	<title>Re:Llacking in terminology.</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1259862960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a system running a 2.6.32-rc6 kernel with KSM and the latest kvm (which includes support for this, but its turned off by default)... Because i run a number of virtual images that boot the same kernel and system libs (different apps ofcourse), it saved me over 1gb of memory on the host.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a system running a 2.6.32-rc6 kernel with KSM and the latest kvm ( which includes support for this , but its turned off by default ) ... Because i run a number of virtual images that boot the same kernel and system libs ( different apps ofcourse ) , it saved me over 1gb of memory on the host .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a system running a 2.6.32-rc6 kernel with KSM and the latest kvm (which includes support for this, but its turned off by default)... Because i run a number of virtual images that boot the same kernel and system libs (different apps ofcourse), it saved me over 1gb of memory on the host.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30314398</id>
	<title>Re:People work on the "easy" problems</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1259870820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Desktop uptake is still very low, but kernel is used by any device that runs Linux, whether it's a router, a smartphone, a server, or a netbook. This has a side effect of kernel hacking being better financed than desktop development, as there are more commercial players interested specifically in the kernel, who couldn't care less about KDE or Gnome.</i></p><p>If I hadn't already replied in this article, I probably would have modded you up. This point is hard for many to understand, but it's quite possible that the total number of Linux kernel installs may already rival the total number of Windows installs, since the types of devices that use Linux are so variable.</p><p>Along with its home turf of Internet servers that are otherwise invisible to the end user, it's commonly used on routers, printers, phones, sensors, calculators, digital cameras and camcorders, DVRs and "media centers", so-called "network-accessible" hard drives, digital picture frames, and too many other fixed-function "embedded" devices to name. The combination of stability, driver availability, consistent programming interface, footprint, and cost (free!) is a 1-2-3-4-5 punch to nearly any industry that relies on information processing.</p><p>Linux is just about *everywhere* but the desktop nowadays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Desktop uptake is still very low , but kernel is used by any device that runs Linux , whether it 's a router , a smartphone , a server , or a netbook .
This has a side effect of kernel hacking being better financed than desktop development , as there are more commercial players interested specifically in the kernel , who could n't care less about KDE or Gnome.If I had n't already replied in this article , I probably would have modded you up .
This point is hard for many to understand , but it 's quite possible that the total number of Linux kernel installs may already rival the total number of Windows installs , since the types of devices that use Linux are so variable.Along with its home turf of Internet servers that are otherwise invisible to the end user , it 's commonly used on routers , printers , phones , sensors , calculators , digital cameras and camcorders , DVRs and " media centers " , so-called " network-accessible " hard drives , digital picture frames , and too many other fixed-function " embedded " devices to name .
The combination of stability , driver availability , consistent programming interface , footprint , and cost ( free !
) is a 1-2-3-4-5 punch to nearly any industry that relies on information processing.Linux is just about * everywhere * but the desktop nowadays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Desktop uptake is still very low, but kernel is used by any device that runs Linux, whether it's a router, a smartphone, a server, or a netbook.
This has a side effect of kernel hacking being better financed than desktop development, as there are more commercial players interested specifically in the kernel, who couldn't care less about KDE or Gnome.If I hadn't already replied in this article, I probably would have modded you up.
This point is hard for many to understand, but it's quite possible that the total number of Linux kernel installs may already rival the total number of Windows installs, since the types of devices that use Linux are so variable.Along with its home turf of Internet servers that are otherwise invisible to the end user, it's commonly used on routers, printers, phones, sensors, calculators, digital cameras and camcorders, DVRs and "media centers", so-called "network-accessible" hard drives, digital picture frames, and too many other fixed-function "embedded" devices to name.
The combination of stability, driver availability, consistent programming interface, footprint, and cost (free!
) is a 1-2-3-4-5 punch to nearly any industry that relies on information processing.Linux is just about *everywhere* but the desktop nowadays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30317124</id>
	<title>Re:One file system to rule them all</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1259837760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really think that MS has gotten a lot better about their NIH approaches.  Though they tend to buy out, and hire in anyone developing cool open-source that happens to work in windows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really think that MS has gotten a lot better about their NIH approaches .
Though they tend to buy out , and hire in anyone developing cool open-source that happens to work in windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really think that MS has gotten a lot better about their NIH approaches.
Though they tend to buy out, and hire in anyone developing cool open-source that happens to work in windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30314210</id>
	<title>Re:KMS</title>
	<author>diegocg</author>
	<datestamp>1259870100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And how is that related to KMS? KMS is about moving mode switching to kernel, which is neccesary even for the most modern 3D cards. And the memory manager that was implemented to make it possible is also neccesary to implement correctly a modern graphic stack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And how is that related to KMS ?
KMS is about moving mode switching to kernel , which is neccesary even for the most modern 3D cards .
And the memory manager that was implemented to make it possible is also neccesary to implement correctly a modern graphic stack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how is that related to KMS?
KMS is about moving mode switching to kernel, which is neccesary even for the most modern 3D cards.
And the memory manager that was implemented to make it possible is also neccesary to implement correctly a modern graphic stack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310844</id>
	<title>Re:Llacking in terminology.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259858700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not perfectly happy with the term "virtualization memory de-duplication".</p></div><p>The term is a little nonspecific. However KSM is truly wonderful and I look forward to saving a ton of physical memory over my KVM machines when the kvm/qemu userland tools catch up.</p><p>This is already in redhat's virtualization stuff.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not perfectly happy with the term " virtualization memory de-duplication " .The term is a little nonspecific .
However KSM is truly wonderful and I look forward to saving a ton of physical memory over my KVM machines when the kvm/qemu userland tools catch up.This is already in redhat 's virtualization stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not perfectly happy with the term "virtualization memory de-duplication".The term is a little nonspecific.
However KSM is truly wonderful and I look forward to saving a ton of physical memory over my KVM machines when the kvm/qemu userland tools catch up.This is already in redhat's virtualization stuff.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312078</id>
	<title>Re:ATI chipsets</title>
	<author>RubberDuckie</author>
	<datestamp>1259862600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Fedora team has backported the KMS and R600/700 improvements to FC12, which I've been running for a few weeks now.  While it's better than nothing, 3d performance still has a way to go.  The performance of my old Heretic II game is still unacceptably slow.</p><p>The ATI drivers usually took the sacrifice of a goat to get them to work, but their performance was far superior.  Too bad ATI won't support recent releases of Fedora.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Fedora team has backported the KMS and R600/700 improvements to FC12 , which I 've been running for a few weeks now .
While it 's better than nothing , 3d performance still has a way to go .
The performance of my old Heretic II game is still unacceptably slow.The ATI drivers usually took the sacrifice of a goat to get them to work , but their performance was far superior .
Too bad ATI wo n't support recent releases of Fedora .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Fedora team has backported the KMS and R600/700 improvements to FC12, which I've been running for a few weeks now.
While it's better than nothing, 3d performance still has a way to go.
The performance of my old Heretic II game is still unacceptably slow.The ATI drivers usually took the sacrifice of a goat to get them to work, but their performance was far superior.
Too bad ATI won't support recent releases of Fedora.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310366</id>
	<title>ATI chipsets</title>
	<author>zoward</author>
	<datestamp>1259856780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2.6.32's KMS and R600/700 improvements are expected to give a huge 3D performance boost to the open source ATI drivers - can't wait to test this!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2.6.32 's KMS and R600/700 improvements are expected to give a huge 3D performance boost to the open source ATI drivers - ca n't wait to test this !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.6.32's KMS and R600/700 improvements are expected to give a huge 3D performance boost to the open source ATI drivers - can't wait to test this!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30324074</id>
	<title>Re:People work on the "easy" problems</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1259944020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, yes. Most people don't wat to solve anything at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , yes .
Most people do n't wat to solve anything at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, yes.
Most people don't wat to solve anything at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312718</id>
	<title>multiplement implementations</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1259864640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Btrfs's design proves to be good, there is not a reason why there can't be both GPL and non-GPL implementations written for it. I think one of the things for universal filesystem to be successful is to have something that has more than one implementation.</p><p>FAT32 will have to die in the market when people get sick of files over 2gb getting truncated. The end is near for FAT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Btrfs 's design proves to be good , there is not a reason why there ca n't be both GPL and non-GPL implementations written for it .
I think one of the things for universal filesystem to be successful is to have something that has more than one implementation.FAT32 will have to die in the market when people get sick of files over 2gb getting truncated .
The end is near for FAT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Btrfs's design proves to be good, there is not a reason why there can't be both GPL and non-GPL implementations written for it.
I think one of the things for universal filesystem to be successful is to have something that has more than one implementation.FAT32 will have to die in the market when people get sick of files over 2gb getting truncated.
The end is near for FAT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30319138</id>
	<title>Re:People work on the "easy" problems</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1259846760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I disagree, it's not an easier problem. It is, however, a much more interesting problem to solve, especially to skilled hackers.</p></div></blockquote><p>Whether or not its an easier problem to <i>solve</i>, overall, its an easier problem for the kind of people who actually write code to <i>define concretely</i>, and <i>validate solutions to</i>, since the skill set needed to do that with that problem is closely related to the skill set of programmers. This is important, because to successfully solve a problem (or, in the case of problems that progres can be made by degrees, to produce a series of improvements in a problem area) requires the ability to concretely define what it means to address the problem, and the ability to validate that something actually meets that definition.</p><p>One of the things about the open source community is that, by its nature, its heavily weighted in favor of coders. Concretely defining requirements for a "fun, usable desktop environment" takes human factors engineering skills that are almost completely orthogonal to programming (and you still need programmers to write the code.) Consequently, I think that the "faster kernel" problem is a lot easier problem <i>for the open source community to solve</i>, even if its not an easier problem in some kind of general sense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree , it 's not an easier problem .
It is , however , a much more interesting problem to solve , especially to skilled hackers.Whether or not its an easier problem to solve , overall , its an easier problem for the kind of people who actually write code to define concretely , and validate solutions to , since the skill set needed to do that with that problem is closely related to the skill set of programmers .
This is important , because to successfully solve a problem ( or , in the case of problems that progres can be made by degrees , to produce a series of improvements in a problem area ) requires the ability to concretely define what it means to address the problem , and the ability to validate that something actually meets that definition.One of the things about the open source community is that , by its nature , its heavily weighted in favor of coders .
Concretely defining requirements for a " fun , usable desktop environment " takes human factors engineering skills that are almost completely orthogonal to programming ( and you still need programmers to write the code .
) Consequently , I think that the " faster kernel " problem is a lot easier problem for the open source community to solve , even if its not an easier problem in some kind of general sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree, it's not an easier problem.
It is, however, a much more interesting problem to solve, especially to skilled hackers.Whether or not its an easier problem to solve, overall, its an easier problem for the kind of people who actually write code to define concretely, and validate solutions to, since the skill set needed to do that with that problem is closely related to the skill set of programmers.
This is important, because to successfully solve a problem (or, in the case of problems that progres can be made by degrees, to produce a series of improvements in a problem area) requires the ability to concretely define what it means to address the problem, and the ability to validate that something actually meets that definition.One of the things about the open source community is that, by its nature, its heavily weighted in favor of coders.
Concretely defining requirements for a "fun, usable desktop environment" takes human factors engineering skills that are almost completely orthogonal to programming (and you still need programmers to write the code.
) Consequently, I think that the "faster kernel" problem is a lot easier problem for the open source community to solve, even if its not an easier problem in some kind of general sense.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30313794</id>
	<title>Re:People work on the "easy" problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259868420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The bottom line is that kernel development advances more quickly than user interface and applications for the same reason that physics advanced more quickly than say<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... psychology."</p><p>Wow!! I guess, kernel development has nothing to do with UI in same way as physics have nothing to do with psychology. So I guess that analogy, being a double negative, is correct. Just wow.</p><p>The only thing in common between psychology and physics is you can call both science if you stretch the definition of science. In same way, kernel and UI are as similar since they both generally run on a given computer system.</p><p>"source-level compatibility with Mac OS X - which would give you access to a bunch of commercial apps"</p><p>No it would not. You are looking for ABI compatible, not source-level compatible (or even API compatible). And who the hell would want to duplicate the nightmare in OS X programming where Apple couldn't even decide if they were going to go with Carbon or Cacoa for 6t4-bit? Then of course, they axed one in-spite of what they were saying previously.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; http://labs.trolltech.com/blogs/2008/03/03/qtmac-cocoa-port-alpha-released/</p><p>"After 10 years, I don't think that either KDE or GNOME have really done all that much for Linux on the desktop... it's time to try a different approach."</p><p>Please, entertain us. Go on, what new UI paradigm have you managed to come up with and why haven't I heard of it? Or is it Microsoft's fault?</p><p>"Of course, I'm just kibbitzing, not bringing code. So what right do I have to say anything?"</p><p>Exactly. It's just more whine from people that do nothing. Have you ever thought that people run windows is because that's all they know and because 3rd party apps come for Windows? And 3rd party apps don't come for Linux because there isn't enough market share. And there isn't enough market share because there is no 3rd party apps for Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The bottom line is that kernel development advances more quickly than user interface and applications for the same reason that physics advanced more quickly than say .. .
psychology. " Wow ! ! I guess , kernel development has nothing to do with UI in same way as physics have nothing to do with psychology .
So I guess that analogy , being a double negative , is correct .
Just wow.The only thing in common between psychology and physics is you can call both science if you stretch the definition of science .
In same way , kernel and UI are as similar since they both generally run on a given computer system .
" source-level compatibility with Mac OS X - which would give you access to a bunch of commercial apps " No it would not .
You are looking for ABI compatible , not source-level compatible ( or even API compatible ) .
And who the hell would want to duplicate the nightmare in OS X programming where Apple could n't even decide if they were going to go with Carbon or Cacoa for 6t4-bit ?
Then of course , they axed one in-spite of what they were saying previously .
    http : //labs.trolltech.com/blogs/2008/03/03/qtmac-cocoa-port-alpha-released/ " After 10 years , I do n't think that either KDE or GNOME have really done all that much for Linux on the desktop... it 's time to try a different approach .
" Please , entertain us .
Go on , what new UI paradigm have you managed to come up with and why have n't I heard of it ?
Or is it Microsoft 's fault ?
" Of course , I 'm just kibbitzing , not bringing code .
So what right do I have to say anything ? " Exactly .
It 's just more whine from people that do nothing .
Have you ever thought that people run windows is because that 's all they know and because 3rd party apps come for Windows ?
And 3rd party apps do n't come for Linux because there is n't enough market share .
And there is n't enough market share because there is no 3rd party apps for Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The bottom line is that kernel development advances more quickly than user interface and applications for the same reason that physics advanced more quickly than say ...
psychology."Wow!! I guess, kernel development has nothing to do with UI in same way as physics have nothing to do with psychology.
So I guess that analogy, being a double negative, is correct.
Just wow.The only thing in common between psychology and physics is you can call both science if you stretch the definition of science.
In same way, kernel and UI are as similar since they both generally run on a given computer system.
"source-level compatibility with Mac OS X - which would give you access to a bunch of commercial apps"No it would not.
You are looking for ABI compatible, not source-level compatible (or even API compatible).
And who the hell would want to duplicate the nightmare in OS X programming where Apple couldn't even decide if they were going to go with Carbon or Cacoa for 6t4-bit?
Then of course, they axed one in-spite of what they were saying previously.
    http://labs.trolltech.com/blogs/2008/03/03/qtmac-cocoa-port-alpha-released/"After 10 years, I don't think that either KDE or GNOME have really done all that much for Linux on the desktop... it's time to try a different approach.
"Please, entertain us.
Go on, what new UI paradigm have you managed to come up with and why haven't I heard of it?
Or is it Microsoft's fault?
"Of course, I'm just kibbitzing, not bringing code.
So what right do I have to say anything?"Exactly.
It's just more whine from people that do nothing.
Have you ever thought that people run windows is because that's all they know and because 3rd party apps come for Windows?
And 3rd party apps don't come for Linux because there isn't enough market share.
And there isn't enough market share because there is no 3rd party apps for Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30313980</id>
	<title>Re:ATI support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259869140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The developers are also rolling out modernized code for all the radeon chips. So there was more than a little catching up to do. I bet R800 is supported even more quickly. This is on top of releasing a closed source driver.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The developers are also rolling out modernized code for all the radeon chips .
So there was more than a little catching up to do .
I bet R800 is supported even more quickly .
This is on top of releasing a closed source driver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The developers are also rolling out modernized code for all the radeon chips.
So there was more than a little catching up to do.
I bet R800 is supported even more quickly.
This is on top of releasing a closed source driver.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312132</id>
	<title>Re:People work on the "easy" problems</title>
	<author>suggsjc</author>
	<datestamp>1259862780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People tend to gravitate towards problems that they think they can solve--and ignore the problems they don't understand or don't want to deal with.</p></div><p>I think that should have read</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Engineers</b> tend to gravitate towards problems that they think they can solve--and ignore the problems they don't understand or don't want to deal with.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People tend to gravitate towards problems that they think they can solve--and ignore the problems they do n't understand or do n't want to deal with.I think that should have read Engineers tend to gravitate towards problems that they think they can solve--and ignore the problems they do n't understand or do n't want to deal with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People tend to gravitate towards problems that they think they can solve--and ignore the problems they don't understand or don't want to deal with.I think that should have read Engineers tend to gravitate towards problems that they think they can solve--and ignore the problems they don't understand or don't want to deal with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30318284</id>
	<title>Re:ATI chipsets</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259842380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;This is indeed excellent although it needs to be backed up by support from the X driver. Currently I am running Ubuntu Karmic on a Radeon HD 3600 series card (RV635, which counts as an R600 series - quite confusing) and 3D support sucks. Both the "radeon" and "radeonhd" drivers only have basic support for these chips - desktop effects don't really work.</p><p>Ubuntu Karmic doesn't have kernel 2.6.32, and hence doesn't have support for R600/R700 3D in any driver.</p><p>As far as I can tell, not even a rolling release like Arch has yet updated the kernel and X packages to the new versions which support R600/R700 3D graphics acceleration. It shouldn't be long now, though, for rolloing release distributions to incorporate this code.</p><p>Patience, young padawan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; This is indeed excellent although it needs to be backed up by support from the X driver .
Currently I am running Ubuntu Karmic on a Radeon HD 3600 series card ( RV635 , which counts as an R600 series - quite confusing ) and 3D support sucks .
Both the " radeon " and " radeonhd " drivers only have basic support for these chips - desktop effects do n't really work.Ubuntu Karmic does n't have kernel 2.6.32 , and hence does n't have support for R600/R700 3D in any driver.As far as I can tell , not even a rolling release like Arch has yet updated the kernel and X packages to the new versions which support R600/R700 3D graphics acceleration .
It should n't be long now , though , for rolloing release distributions to incorporate this code.Patience , young padawan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;This is indeed excellent although it needs to be backed up by support from the X driver.
Currently I am running Ubuntu Karmic on a Radeon HD 3600 series card (RV635, which counts as an R600 series - quite confusing) and 3D support sucks.
Both the "radeon" and "radeonhd" drivers only have basic support for these chips - desktop effects don't really work.Ubuntu Karmic doesn't have kernel 2.6.32, and hence doesn't have support for R600/R700 3D in any driver.As far as I can tell, not even a rolling release like Arch has yet updated the kernel and X packages to the new versions which support R600/R700 3D graphics acceleration.
It shouldn't be long now, though, for rolloing release distributions to incorporate this code.Patience, young padawan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30315968</id>
	<title>Re:ATI chipsets</title>
	<author>fritsd</author>
	<datestamp>1259833980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's very nice but rough around the edges, i.e. not fully OpenGL 2 yet. Openarena plays well but Nexuiz is ah.. extra challenging at the moment<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's very nice but rough around the edges , i.e .
not fully OpenGL 2 yet .
Openarena plays well but Nexuiz is ah.. extra challenging at the moment : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's very nice but rough around the edges, i.e.
not fully OpenGL 2 yet.
Openarena plays well but Nexuiz is ah.. extra challenging at the moment :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374</id>
	<title>Btrfs: kill off ext# please!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259856780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm glad to see Btrfs improving so rapidly. I hope popular distros start including support for it, but more importantly, start using it as the default filesystem.</p><p>It's time for the ext-based filesystems to die. They are a technology that was obsolete a decade ago.</p><p>ReiserFS was set to kill them off, but unfortunately found another victim first... JFS and XFS only work well in certain high-end niches. But Btrfs is much better as an all-around filesystem, which is why it has a chance to finally put an end to ext-based filesystems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad to see Btrfs improving so rapidly .
I hope popular distros start including support for it , but more importantly , start using it as the default filesystem.It 's time for the ext-based filesystems to die .
They are a technology that was obsolete a decade ago.ReiserFS was set to kill them off , but unfortunately found another victim first... JFS and XFS only work well in certain high-end niches .
But Btrfs is much better as an all-around filesystem , which is why it has a chance to finally put an end to ext-based filesystems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad to see Btrfs improving so rapidly.
I hope popular distros start including support for it, but more importantly, start using it as the default filesystem.It's time for the ext-based filesystems to die.
They are a technology that was obsolete a decade ago.ReiserFS was set to kill them off, but unfortunately found another victim first... JFS and XFS only work well in certain high-end niches.
But Btrfs is much better as an all-around filesystem, which is why it has a chance to finally put an end to ext-based filesystems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311214</id>
	<title>kvm and ksm</title>
	<author>xming</author>
	<datestamp>1259860020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>kvm (with a little patch) supports it, running it right now with 5 guests and have 53K pages which are shared.

# cat<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sys/kernel/mm/ksm/pages\_sharing
53714

That's ~200MB for about 1,5GB memory used on the host.

Now I can't figured out how many times those pages are shared, so I can't calculated the actual memory saved (it's between 200MB and 4x200MB).</htmltext>
<tokenext>kvm ( with a little patch ) supports it , running it right now with 5 guests and have 53K pages which are shared .
# cat /sys/kernel/mm/ksm/pages \ _sharing 53714 That 's ~ 200MB for about 1,5GB memory used on the host .
Now I ca n't figured out how many times those pages are shared , so I ca n't calculated the actual memory saved ( it 's between 200MB and 4x200MB ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kvm (with a little patch) supports it, running it right now with 5 guests and have 53K pages which are shared.
# cat /sys/kernel/mm/ksm/pages\_sharing
53714

That's ~200MB for about 1,5GB memory used on the host.
Now I can't figured out how many times those pages are shared, so I can't calculated the actual memory saved (it's between 200MB and 4x200MB).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312202</id>
	<title>Re:People work on the "easy" problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259862960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yesterday I started xmoto while a video was playing and my system slowed to a crawl. I could move the mouse at a frame every few seconds, but nothing else responded, even trying to change to a virtual console and zapping X.</p><p>I don't know who's to blame but I do know that this wouldn't happen to a Haiku or SkyOS user. I'm tired of the Linux kernel; it's really not that great. Everyone seems obsessed with C, going as far as to spawn <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GObject" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">these kind of monstrosities</a> [wikipedia.org] just to force modern features into a traditional platform. Give me a stable microkernel with user-mode graphics so the above bug can never happen. Don't break it every few months and fix it later like Linux.</p><p>Maybe we just need a systems technology reboot. So much of GNU/Linux is just horribly broken and needs a sanity check, particularly desktop environment stuff. We can probably do a much better job if we start over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yesterday I started xmoto while a video was playing and my system slowed to a crawl .
I could move the mouse at a frame every few seconds , but nothing else responded , even trying to change to a virtual console and zapping X.I do n't know who 's to blame but I do know that this would n't happen to a Haiku or SkyOS user .
I 'm tired of the Linux kernel ; it 's really not that great .
Everyone seems obsessed with C , going as far as to spawn these kind of monstrosities [ wikipedia.org ] just to force modern features into a traditional platform .
Give me a stable microkernel with user-mode graphics so the above bug can never happen .
Do n't break it every few months and fix it later like Linux.Maybe we just need a systems technology reboot .
So much of GNU/Linux is just horribly broken and needs a sanity check , particularly desktop environment stuff .
We can probably do a much better job if we start over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yesterday I started xmoto while a video was playing and my system slowed to a crawl.
I could move the mouse at a frame every few seconds, but nothing else responded, even trying to change to a virtual console and zapping X.I don't know who's to blame but I do know that this wouldn't happen to a Haiku or SkyOS user.
I'm tired of the Linux kernel; it's really not that great.
Everyone seems obsessed with C, going as far as to spawn these kind of monstrosities [wikipedia.org] just to force modern features into a traditional platform.
Give me a stable microkernel with user-mode graphics so the above bug can never happen.
Don't break it every few months and fix it later like Linux.Maybe we just need a systems technology reboot.
So much of GNU/Linux is just horribly broken and needs a sanity check, particularly desktop environment stuff.
We can probably do a much better job if we start over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312776</id>
	<title>Re:ATI support</title>
	<author>PeterKraus</author>
	<datestamp>1259864820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ATI R600/R700 have had 2D FOSS drivers since may, or so. 3D is partially working as well (well enough to let me run Avogadro on my HD4200, but no games). It's just KMS for R600/R700 being pushed into the kernel now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ATI R600/R700 have had 2D FOSS drivers since may , or so .
3D is partially working as well ( well enough to let me run Avogadro on my HD4200 , but no games ) .
It 's just KMS for R600/R700 being pushed into the kernel now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ATI R600/R700 have had 2D FOSS drivers since may, or so.
3D is partially working as well (well enough to let me run Avogadro on my HD4200, but no games).
It's just KMS for R600/R700 being pushed into the kernel now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311340</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30315968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30313794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30316960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30313706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30322988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30313748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30321862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30324074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30338784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30317480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30323062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30314230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30319276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30316772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30316334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30318284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30318026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30315818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30314210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30317050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30313554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30316016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30316052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30315536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30316536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30317850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30314398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30314442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30315878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30319138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30320158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30322526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30314172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30423088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30317124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30313574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30315138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30322610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30322854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30313980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30314050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30316552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1415206_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30322584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1415206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30322854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30318026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1415206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310844
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312186
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30315536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30322584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30322526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30316552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1415206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312202
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30316016
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30316334
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30316536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30314172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30317050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30319276
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30313794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30322988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312350
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30338784
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30314398
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30317480
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30319138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312504
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312132
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30324074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30322610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30314442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1415206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30313980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1415206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30321862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30314050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30318284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30423088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30315968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1415206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30313706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30316960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1415206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30314230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1415206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30314210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1415206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30315878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310578
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30316772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311200
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30315818
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30317124
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30317850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30313574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310920
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30313554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30316052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30323062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30315138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30313748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30311202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1415206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30310470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30320158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1415206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1415206.30312236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
