<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_09_2329211</id>
	<title>IBM's Newest Mainframe Is All Linux</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1260368820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>dcblogs writes <i>"IBM has released a new mainframe server that doesn't include its z/OS operating system. This <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142007/IBM\_s\_newest\_mainframe\_is\_all\_Linux\_">Enterprise Linux Server line</a> supports Red Hat or Suse. The system is packaged with mainframe management and virtualization tools. The minimum processor configuration uses two specialty mainframe processors designed for Linux. IBM wants to go after large multicore x86 Linux servers and believes the $212,000 entry price can do it."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>dcblogs writes " IBM has released a new mainframe server that does n't include its z/OS operating system .
This Enterprise Linux Server line supports Red Hat or Suse .
The system is packaged with mainframe management and virtualization tools .
The minimum processor configuration uses two specialty mainframe processors designed for Linux .
IBM wants to go after large multicore x86 Linux servers and believes the $ 212,000 entry price can do it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dcblogs writes "IBM has released a new mainframe server that doesn't include its z/OS operating system.
This Enterprise Linux Server line supports Red Hat or Suse.
The system is packaged with mainframe management and virtualization tools.
The minimum processor configuration uses two specialty mainframe processors designed for Linux.
IBM wants to go after large multicore x86 Linux servers and believes the $212,000 entry price can do it.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384860</id>
	<title>Re:Can't wait to see the support</title>
	<author>p5</author>
	<datestamp>1259601240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We've had about 15+ emails, half the time claiming we haven't responded to them yet and therefore we are the cause of the delay, yet quoting our reply in their message back saying we haven't responded.</p></div><p>You know India has a different timezone than the US right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've had about 15 + emails , half the time claiming we have n't responded to them yet and therefore we are the cause of the delay , yet quoting our reply in their message back saying we have n't responded.You know India has a different timezone than the US right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've had about 15+ emails, half the time claiming we haven't responded to them yet and therefore we are the cause of the delay, yet quoting our reply in their message back saying we haven't responded.You know India has a different timezone than the US right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30401232</id>
	<title>Re:Year 2009 is the year of...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260544560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next we will be running our web-servers from a Commodore 64 <a href="http://www.c64web.com/" title="c64web.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.c64web.com/</a> [c64web.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next we will be running our web-servers from a Commodore 64 http : //www.c64web.com/ [ c64web.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next we will be running our web-servers from a Commodore 64 http://www.c64web.com/ [c64web.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384494</id>
	<title>Screensaver?</title>
	<author>kregg</author>
	<datestamp>1259597100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>What screensavers come with it, can I add my own?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What screensavers come with it , can I add my own ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What screensavers come with it, can I add my own?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384924</id>
	<title>Re:Grammar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259602020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the fuck kind of grammar are that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the fuck kind of grammar are that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the fuck kind of grammar are that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384874</id>
	<title>Re:Can't wait to see the support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259601300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I worked support for IBM, in support you can get away with ignoring a customer as long as you want, if you claim you contacted them.  And you can claim a contact, by sending an email saying you hadn't heard from them.  But if you call and can get to a manager, or go through sales you can usually get things resolved pretty quickly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked support for IBM , in support you can get away with ignoring a customer as long as you want , if you claim you contacted them .
And you can claim a contact , by sending an email saying you had n't heard from them .
But if you call and can get to a manager , or go through sales you can usually get things resolved pretty quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked support for IBM, in support you can get away with ignoring a customer as long as you want, if you claim you contacted them.
And you can claim a contact, by sending an email saying you hadn't heard from them.
But if you call and can get to a manager, or go through sales you can usually get things resolved pretty quickly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386506</id>
	<title>zVM, zOS, TPF/zTPF are better than Linux.</title>
	<author>emes</author>
	<datestamp>1260446820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a number of factors which go into this consideration of Linux on the mainframe. I must admit it was really cool when I first learned of it, having had an MP3000 to myself at an IBM training facilty to learn how to bring up VM/ESA and Linux/390(2001). Then I realized a few things like:</p><p>1. Linux cannot take advantage of the advantages of channel-based disk i/o, because it uses Unix i/o approaches which can never be as efficient as the traditional mainframe-based approaches. No one has shown me any evidence that Linux does anything particularly intelligent in its channel program construction and management. Linux assures that IBM can happily sell lots of IFL or general purpose CPUs which are necessary to compensate for this inefficient use of<br>mainframe resources.</p><p>2. Managing workloads under zVM can be great and is extremely well refined, but this requires zVM-specific skills which supposedly no one wants to pay for.</p><p>3. For transaction-based work, it's hard to beat TPF/zTPF, but unfortunately that requires some real mainframe skill to implement. And regrettably, zTPF requires Linux and zOS because IBM refuses to convert the programs running on zOS to run on Linux instead. Since TPF/zTPF and zOS both involve onerous monthly licensing charges based on capacity, it's no wonder that TPF/zTPF languish in relative obscurity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a number of factors which go into this consideration of Linux on the mainframe .
I must admit it was really cool when I first learned of it , having had an MP3000 to myself at an IBM training facilty to learn how to bring up VM/ESA and Linux/390 ( 2001 ) .
Then I realized a few things like : 1 .
Linux can not take advantage of the advantages of channel-based disk i/o , because it uses Unix i/o approaches which can never be as efficient as the traditional mainframe-based approaches .
No one has shown me any evidence that Linux does anything particularly intelligent in its channel program construction and management .
Linux assures that IBM can happily sell lots of IFL or general purpose CPUs which are necessary to compensate for this inefficient use ofmainframe resources.2 .
Managing workloads under zVM can be great and is extremely well refined , but this requires zVM-specific skills which supposedly no one wants to pay for.3 .
For transaction-based work , it 's hard to beat TPF/zTPF , but unfortunately that requires some real mainframe skill to implement .
And regrettably , zTPF requires Linux and zOS because IBM refuses to convert the programs running on zOS to run on Linux instead .
Since TPF/zTPF and zOS both involve onerous monthly licensing charges based on capacity , it 's no wonder that TPF/zTPF languish in relative obscurity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a number of factors which go into this consideration of Linux on the mainframe.
I must admit it was really cool when I first learned of it, having had an MP3000 to myself at an IBM training facilty to learn how to bring up VM/ESA and Linux/390(2001).
Then I realized a few things like:1.
Linux cannot take advantage of the advantages of channel-based disk i/o, because it uses Unix i/o approaches which can never be as efficient as the traditional mainframe-based approaches.
No one has shown me any evidence that Linux does anything particularly intelligent in its channel program construction and management.
Linux assures that IBM can happily sell lots of IFL or general purpose CPUs which are necessary to compensate for this inefficient use ofmainframe resources.2.
Managing workloads under zVM can be great and is extremely well refined, but this requires zVM-specific skills which supposedly no one wants to pay for.3.
For transaction-based work, it's hard to beat TPF/zTPF, but unfortunately that requires some real mainframe skill to implement.
And regrettably, zTPF requires Linux and zOS because IBM refuses to convert the programs running on zOS to run on Linux instead.
Since TPF/zTPF and zOS both involve onerous monthly licensing charges based on capacity, it's no wonder that TPF/zTPF languish in relative obscurity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385128</id>
	<title>Re:Screensaver?</title>
	<author>kregg</author>
	<datestamp>1259604360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't mind contributing my PC resources to that, RickAstley@Home anyone?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't mind contributing my PC resources to that , RickAstley @ Home anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't mind contributing my PC resources to that, RickAstley@Home anyone?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384850</id>
	<title>Re:I guess...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259601000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Presumably you are talking about OS (later MVS) JCL. As it is an abbreviation for Job Control Language, JCL was not specific to that OS. There was IBM DOS JCL, which was considerably simpler and the JCLs for non-IBM OSes were quite different - and often much easier to program.</p><p>A little history is required here, methinks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Presumably you are talking about OS ( later MVS ) JCL .
As it is an abbreviation for Job Control Language , JCL was not specific to that OS .
There was IBM DOS JCL , which was considerably simpler and the JCLs for non-IBM OSes were quite different - and often much easier to program.A little history is required here , methinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presumably you are talking about OS (later MVS) JCL.
As it is an abbreviation for Job Control Language, JCL was not specific to that OS.
There was IBM DOS JCL, which was considerably simpler and the JCLs for non-IBM OSes were quite different - and often much easier to program.A little history is required here, methinks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384396</id>
	<title>Re:I guess...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259596200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is all okay with me, as long as they don't use JCL.  Ayyy I hated that shit when learning assembler on the 360, but then again they never thought JCL and didn't have any books on it, which is probably why I hated it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all okay with me , as long as they do n't use JCL .
Ayyy I hated that shit when learning assembler on the 360 , but then again they never thought JCL and did n't have any books on it , which is probably why I hated it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all okay with me, as long as they don't use JCL.
Ayyy I hated that shit when learning assembler on the 360, but then again they never thought JCL and didn't have any books on it, which is probably why I hated it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554</id>
	<title>Grammar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259597820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Its minimum processor configuration <b>are</b> two specialty mainframe processors designed for Linux."

</p><p>What the fuck kind of grammar is that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Its minimum processor configuration are two specialty mainframe processors designed for Linux .
" What the fuck kind of grammar is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Its minimum processor configuration are two specialty mainframe processors designed for Linux.
"

What the fuck kind of grammar is that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30387198</id>
	<title>Re:Designed for Linux is just FUD</title>
	<author>ivan\_w</author>
	<datestamp>1260454980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not really FUD - although it's definitely a marketing ploy !</p><p>The only architectural difference between an IFL (Integrated Facility for Linux) and a CP (that's how a CPU that can also run z/OS is called) is how it behaves when the SERVC instruction (0xb220) is issued with the subcode to indicate it wants to determine the hardware configuration (0x00020001))</p><p>On an IFL, issuing this specific instruction with this specific parameter will halt the system (more specifically, the system will enter a 'System Check Stop' state).</p><p>Of course, in linux you can access the same information. So there is a new code to the instruction that allows it to retrieve the *exact* same information without trashing the system - which works only on the IFLs (0x00120001) - but won't trash a CP (SERVC will simply return the usual code you get when you send an unimplemented servc code in that case).</p><p>So the only difference between an IFL and a CP is how it handles that specific instruction - and its ONLY a marketing issue.</p><p>(see drivers/s390/char/sclp\_cmd.c - look for SCLP\_CMDW\_READ\_SCP\_INFO and arch/s390/kernel/sclp.S in the linux source !)</p><p>--Ivan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not really FUD - although it 's definitely a marketing ploy ! The only architectural difference between an IFL ( Integrated Facility for Linux ) and a CP ( that 's how a CPU that can also run z/OS is called ) is how it behaves when the SERVC instruction ( 0xb220 ) is issued with the subcode to indicate it wants to determine the hardware configuration ( 0x00020001 ) ) On an IFL , issuing this specific instruction with this specific parameter will halt the system ( more specifically , the system will enter a 'System Check Stop ' state ) .Of course , in linux you can access the same information .
So there is a new code to the instruction that allows it to retrieve the * exact * same information without trashing the system - which works only on the IFLs ( 0x00120001 ) - but wo n't trash a CP ( SERVC will simply return the usual code you get when you send an unimplemented servc code in that case ) .So the only difference between an IFL and a CP is how it handles that specific instruction - and its ONLY a marketing issue .
( see drivers/s390/char/sclp \ _cmd.c - look for SCLP \ _CMDW \ _READ \ _SCP \ _INFO and arch/s390/kernel/sclp.S in the linux source !
) --Ivan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not really FUD - although it's definitely a marketing ploy !The only architectural difference between an IFL (Integrated Facility for Linux) and a CP (that's how a CPU that can also run z/OS is called) is how it behaves when the SERVC instruction (0xb220) is issued with the subcode to indicate it wants to determine the hardware configuration (0x00020001))On an IFL, issuing this specific instruction with this specific parameter will halt the system (more specifically, the system will enter a 'System Check Stop' state).Of course, in linux you can access the same information.
So there is a new code to the instruction that allows it to retrieve the *exact* same information without trashing the system - which works only on the IFLs (0x00120001) - but won't trash a CP (SERVC will simply return the usual code you get when you send an unimplemented servc code in that case).So the only difference between an IFL and a CP is how it handles that specific instruction - and its ONLY a marketing issue.
(see drivers/s390/char/sclp\_cmd.c - look for SCLP\_CMDW\_READ\_SCP\_INFO and arch/s390/kernel/sclp.S in the linux source !
)--Ivan</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384756</id>
	<title>Re:Grammar</title>
	<author>Alegery</author>
	<datestamp>1259599860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Postfix.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Postfix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Postfix.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385892</id>
	<title>Re: IBM's Newest Mainframe Is All Linux</title>
	<author>dirtyhippie</author>
	<datestamp>1260437940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sir are an idiot. This is IBM we are talking about here. It could be running any number of proprietary IBM OS's such as z/OS, aix, OS/400, z/VM, z/VSE, z/TPF, or MUSIC/SP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sir are an idiot .
This is IBM we are talking about here .
It could be running any number of proprietary IBM OS 's such as z/OS , aix , OS/400 , z/VM , z/VSE , z/TPF , or MUSIC/SP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sir are an idiot.
This is IBM we are talking about here.
It could be running any number of proprietary IBM OS's such as z/OS, aix, OS/400, z/VM, z/VSE, z/TPF, or MUSIC/SP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30387006</id>
	<title>$212,000 entry price</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1260453300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now none of you can complain that Apple is expensive. Linux/IBM has all of you beat!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now none of you can complain that Apple is expensive .
Linux/IBM has all of you beat !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now none of you can complain that Apple is expensive.
Linux/IBM has all of you beat!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384810</id>
	<title>Re:Can't wait to see the support</title>
	<author>Necroman</author>
	<datestamp>1259600580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should get the IBM DS3200, I hear it's way better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should get the IBM DS3200 , I hear it 's way better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should get the IBM DS3200, I hear it's way better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384324</id>
	<title>Nooo!!! We will never have flying cars that way ;(</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1259595540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>( <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrFgRAcr0jg" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrFgRAcr0jg</a> [youtube.com] )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = LrFgRAcr0jg [ youtube.com ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrFgRAcr0jg [youtube.com] )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384746</id>
	<title>Re:Grammar</title>
	<author>Chelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1259599800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you so sure its wrong? It may be slightly ambiguous, but the meaning of the sentence could be that you require both.</p><p>

"For a bike to be a bike, the minimum configuration <strong>is</strong> two wheels". What's wrong with this sentence? Perhaps the mainframe requires both?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you so sure its wrong ?
It may be slightly ambiguous , but the meaning of the sentence could be that you require both .
" For a bike to be a bike , the minimum configuration is two wheels " .
What 's wrong with this sentence ?
Perhaps the mainframe requires both ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you so sure its wrong?
It may be slightly ambiguous, but the meaning of the sentence could be that you require both.
"For a bike to be a bike, the minimum configuration is two wheels".
What's wrong with this sentence?
Perhaps the mainframe requires both?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386474</id>
	<title>So long EBCDIC!</title>
	<author>guysmilee</author>
	<datestamp>1260446160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You be missed!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You be missed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You be missed!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30387682</id>
	<title>Re:Screensaver?</title>
	<author>[ Nighthawk ]</author>
	<datestamp>1260458460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nitpick - Linux on System z runs in ASCII mode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nitpick - Linux on System z runs in ASCII mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nitpick - Linux on System z runs in ASCII mode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384296</id>
	<title>*BSD is Dying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259595300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br> <br> <b>It is now official. Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying</b>  <br> <br>
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD
community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped
yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all
servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which
plainly states that <b>*BSD has lost more market share</b>,
this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD
is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by <a href="http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1148/sam0107a/0107a.htm" title="samag.com" rel="nofollow">failing
dead last</a> [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive
networking test.  <br> <br> You don't need to be the <a href="http://www.amazingkreskin.com/" title="amazingkreskin.com" rel="nofollow"> <b>Amazing Kreskin</b> </a> [amazingkreskin.com] to
predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a
bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because
<b>*BSD is dying</b>. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of
us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows
like a river of blood.  <br> <br> FreeBSD is the most endangered of them
all, having lost 93\% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant
departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith
only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be
any doubt: <b>FreeBSD is dying</b>.  <br> <br> Let's keep to the facts and
look at the numbers.  <br> <br> OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are
7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The
number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5
to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts
on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there
are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80
percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400
FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
<br> <br> Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on,
<b>FreeBSD went out of business</b> and was taken over by BSDI who sell
another troubled OS.  <b>Now BSDI is also dead</b>, its corpse turned
over to yet another charnel house.  <br> <br> All major surveys show that
*BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its
long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all
it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing
short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical
purposes, *BSD is dead.  <br> <br> <b>Fact: *BSD is dying</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is now official .
Netcraft confirms : * BSD is dying One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered * BSD community when IDC confirmed that * BSD market share has dropped yet again , now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers .
Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that * BSD has lost more market share , this news serves to reinforce what we 've known all along .
* BSD is collapsing in complete disarray , as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [ samag.com ] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test .
You do n't need to be the Amazing Kreskin [ amazingkreskin.com ] to predict * BSD 's future .
The hand writing is on the wall : * BSD faces a bleak future .
In fact there wo n't be any future at all for * BSD because * BSD is dying .
Things are looking very bad for * BSD .
As many of us are already aware , * BSD continues to lose market share .
Red ink flows like a river of blood .
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all , having lost 93 \ % of its core developers .
The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly .
There can no longer be any doubt : FreeBSD is dying .
Let 's keep to the facts and look at the numbers .
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD .
How many users of NetBSD are there ?
Let 's see .
The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1 .
Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users .
BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts .
Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS .
A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the * BSD market .
Therefore there are ( 7000 + 1400 + 700 ) * 4 = 36400 FreeBSD users .
This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts .
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek , abysmal sales and so on , FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS .
Now BSDI is also dead , its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house .
All major surveys show that * BSD has steadily declined in market share .
* BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim .
If * BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers .
* BSD continues to decay .
Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time .
For all practical purposes , * BSD is dead .
Fact : * BSD is dying</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  It is now official.
Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying   
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD
community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped
yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all
servers.
Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which
plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share,
this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along.
*BSD
is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing
dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive
networking test.
You don't need to be the  Amazing Kreskin  [amazingkreskin.com] to
predict *BSD's future.
The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a
bleak future.
In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because
*BSD is dying.
Things are looking very bad for *BSD.
As many of
us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share.
Red ink flows
like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them
all, having lost 93\% of its core developers.
The sudden and unpleasant
departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith
only serve to underscore the point more clearly.
There can no longer be
any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and
look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are
7000 users of OpenBSD.
How many users of NetBSD are there?
Let's see.
The
number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5
to 1.
Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users.
BSD/OS posts
on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts.
Therefore there
are about 700 users of BSD/OS.
A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80
percent of the *BSD market.
Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400
FreeBSD users.
This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on,
FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell
another troubled OS.
Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned
over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that
*BSD has steadily declined in market share.
*BSD is very sick and its
long term survival prospects are very dim.
If *BSD is to survive at all
it will be among OS dilettante dabblers.
*BSD continues to decay.
Nothing
short of a miracle could save it at this point in time.
For all practical
purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385040</id>
	<title>Re:Grammar</title>
	<author>SEE</author>
	<datestamp>1259603340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Never mind the grammar (I can hardly believe that I'm saying that), I thought that operating systems were designed to work with the processor(s). When did it get to be the other way around?</p></div><p>Lots of apps for IBM mainframes are per-processor licensed.  This caused a problem for IBM in trying to sell mainframes to run hybrid workloads; the customer would say, "But those extra processors to run Apache on Linux are costing me money in licensing fees on my mainframe apps.  It's cheaper for me to buy a smaller mainframe and a bunch of PCs."</p><p>So IBM put together a bunch of processors, hardware-identical with normal mainframe processors, but including extra microcode that limits them to running Java/XML (z Application Assist Processor) or Linux (the Integrated Facility for Linux).  These units don't count as processors for purposes of licensing mainframe apps, since they can't run mainframe apps.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never mind the grammar ( I can hardly believe that I 'm saying that ) , I thought that operating systems were designed to work with the processor ( s ) .
When did it get to be the other way around ? Lots of apps for IBM mainframes are per-processor licensed .
This caused a problem for IBM in trying to sell mainframes to run hybrid workloads ; the customer would say , " But those extra processors to run Apache on Linux are costing me money in licensing fees on my mainframe apps .
It 's cheaper for me to buy a smaller mainframe and a bunch of PCs .
" So IBM put together a bunch of processors , hardware-identical with normal mainframe processors , but including extra microcode that limits them to running Java/XML ( z Application Assist Processor ) or Linux ( the Integrated Facility for Linux ) .
These units do n't count as processors for purposes of licensing mainframe apps , since they ca n't run mainframe apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never mind the grammar (I can hardly believe that I'm saying that), I thought that operating systems were designed to work with the processor(s).
When did it get to be the other way around?Lots of apps for IBM mainframes are per-processor licensed.
This caused a problem for IBM in trying to sell mainframes to run hybrid workloads; the customer would say, "But those extra processors to run Apache on Linux are costing me money in licensing fees on my mainframe apps.
It's cheaper for me to buy a smaller mainframe and a bunch of PCs.
"So IBM put together a bunch of processors, hardware-identical with normal mainframe processors, but including extra microcode that limits them to running Java/XML (z Application Assist Processor) or Linux (the Integrated Facility for Linux).
These units don't count as processors for purposes of licensing mainframe apps, since they can't run mainframe apps.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384974</id>
	<title>Re:Screensaver?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259602620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I was installing SuSE on our new z/OS mainframe (to a virtual machine guest to be specific), and the list of packages being installed was scrolling by: gstreamer.s390</p><p>And I'm thinking to myself "who, on God's Green Earth, had the job of porting <b>audio</b> to an EBCDIC based mainframe?" Talk about bizarro world....</p><p>But then I thought sure, it may not be used much; but when it does, it could launch 3,840 streams at 130 decibel.  It's a Beowulf cluster of Rick Astley in a single box!  And THAT is all worth it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I was installing SuSE on our new z/OS mainframe ( to a virtual machine guest to be specific ) , and the list of packages being installed was scrolling by : gstreamer.s390And I 'm thinking to myself " who , on God 's Green Earth , had the job of porting audio to an EBCDIC based mainframe ?
" Talk about bizarro world....But then I thought sure , it may not be used much ; but when it does , it could launch 3,840 streams at 130 decibel .
It 's a Beowulf cluster of Rick Astley in a single box !
And THAT is all worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I was installing SuSE on our new z/OS mainframe (to a virtual machine guest to be specific), and the list of packages being installed was scrolling by: gstreamer.s390And I'm thinking to myself "who, on God's Green Earth, had the job of porting audio to an EBCDIC based mainframe?
" Talk about bizarro world....But then I thought sure, it may not be used much; but when it does, it could launch 3,840 streams at 130 decibel.
It's a Beowulf cluster of Rick Astley in a single box!
And THAT is all worth it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385952</id>
	<title>Re:I guess...</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1260439020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the alternative to JCL?</p><p>JCL is like a 60 year old prostitute; it may not be pretty, but it gets the job done flawlessly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the alternative to JCL ? JCL is like a 60 year old prostitute ; it may not be pretty , but it gets the job done flawlessly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the alternative to JCL?JCL is like a 60 year old prostitute; it may not be pretty, but it gets the job done flawlessly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384384</id>
	<title>x86 Linux Server...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259596140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$212 sounds like a reasonable price for an x86 Linux server, at least as an entry level.</p><p>Just one question:  What's a "000 entry price"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 212 sounds like a reasonable price for an x86 Linux server , at least as an entry level.Just one question : What 's a " 000 entry price " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$212 sounds like a reasonable price for an x86 Linux server, at least as an entry level.Just one question:  What's a "000 entry price"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384778</id>
	<title>I would want to hack one of those old beats</title>
	<author>bogaboga</author>
	<datestamp>1259600280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Question is: Where can I find them? I wonder how MythTV with trans-coding shows and all the rest would run on them. Any ideas on where to find old p- or z- series mainframes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Question is : Where can I find them ?
I wonder how MythTV with trans-coding shows and all the rest would run on them .
Any ideas on where to find old p- or z- series mainframes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Question is: Where can I find them?
I wonder how MythTV with trans-coding shows and all the rest would run on them.
Any ideas on where to find old p- or z- series mainframes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30389448</id>
	<title>Re:An in-house cloud.</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1260466260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For a lot less money they could do the same thing with open systems hardware and VMWare.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For a lot less money they could do the same thing with open systems hardware and VMWare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a lot less money they could do the same thing with open systems hardware and VMWare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384808</id>
	<title>Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of those?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259600520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It had to be said.</p><p>And yes, I am aware it is an absurd statement about mainframes since they have hardware as well as software virtualization capabilities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It had to be said.And yes , I am aware it is an absurd statement about mainframes since they have hardware as well as software virtualization capabilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It had to be said.And yes, I am aware it is an absurd statement about mainframes since they have hardware as well as software virtualization capabilities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30389538</id>
	<title>Re:I guess...</title>
	<author>Dark\_Gravity</author>
	<datestamp>1260466560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I guess they need a blue penguin.</p></div><p>They have <a href="http://www-03.ibm.com/linux/" title="ibm.com" rel="nofollow">one.</a> [ibm.com] </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess they need a blue penguin.They have one .
[ ibm.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess they need a blue penguin.They have one.
[ibm.com] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384486</id>
	<title>Re:An in-house cloud.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259597040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now maybe all the companies out there who are thinking of wasting money on cloud computing can just buy one of these, and basically have their own in-house cloud.</p></div><p>Private cloud is flavour of the month it seems.  A recent (as in "last month") release from joint venture <a href="http://www.storagenewsletter.com/news/systems/cisco-with-emc-and-vmware-together" title="storagenewsletter.com">ACADIA</a> [storagenewsletter.com] (a Cisco+EMC+VMWare+Intel lash-up) shows that packaged private "Cloud" back end server offerings are at least seen as a way people will go.  </p><p>I think it's smart packaging myself, four-cab VM building block, just add servers and away you go.  And since you're just providing a VM environment, you're not limited in your underlying OS choices.  Linux is a good way to go there.</p><p>~Although the ACADIA system is clearly superior to the IBM offering because (see above link) it can "accelerate customers' ability to increase business agility through greater IT infrastructure flexibility"./~  Gaaaahh!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now maybe all the companies out there who are thinking of wasting money on cloud computing can just buy one of these , and basically have their own in-house cloud.Private cloud is flavour of the month it seems .
A recent ( as in " last month " ) release from joint venture ACADIA [ storagenewsletter.com ] ( a Cisco + EMC + VMWare + Intel lash-up ) shows that packaged private " Cloud " back end server offerings are at least seen as a way people will go .
I think it 's smart packaging myself , four-cab VM building block , just add servers and away you go .
And since you 're just providing a VM environment , you 're not limited in your underlying OS choices .
Linux is a good way to go there. ~ Although the ACADIA system is clearly superior to the IBM offering because ( see above link ) it can " accelerate customers ' ability to increase business agility through greater IT infrastructure flexibility " ./ ~ Gaaaahh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now maybe all the companies out there who are thinking of wasting money on cloud computing can just buy one of these, and basically have their own in-house cloud.Private cloud is flavour of the month it seems.
A recent (as in "last month") release from joint venture ACADIA [storagenewsletter.com] (a Cisco+EMC+VMWare+Intel lash-up) shows that packaged private "Cloud" back end server offerings are at least seen as a way people will go.
I think it's smart packaging myself, four-cab VM building block, just add servers and away you go.
And since you're just providing a VM environment, you're not limited in your underlying OS choices.
Linux is a good way to go there.~Although the ACADIA system is clearly superior to the IBM offering because (see above link) it can "accelerate customers' ability to increase business agility through greater IT infrastructure flexibility"./~  Gaaaahh!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30506394</id>
	<title>Re:Mainframe or Server?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261301820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As you may be already know, p-series and i-series now use the same hardware and called "power systems", so I will try to compare just Power with Mainframe:</p><p>1. Architecture.<br>Power is a good system for CPU-intensive tasks. Last Power6 has 5GHz CPU and it is great. But, when we are looking at I/O level mainframe is much much more better, because it has special engines for I/O tasks (not those two with which you are buying your linux) and overall architecture of machine is focused on balance between memory, CPU and I/O.</p><p>2. Virtualization.<br>Mainframe is virtualizing all resources on hardware level. Mainframe doesn't need any vios for this task. Imagine what you should do on power to share one adapter between LPARs - You need to install and configure VIOS. You need to install another one for redundancy. And you need to support it later - install updates and so on. You don't need all this stuff on mainframe. You just install operating systems in different LPARs and that's all.</p><p>Another difference is number of machines. z/VM on mainframe provides very good way for managing large number of installed operating systems. Power has no second level of virtualization.</p><p>3. Special features.<br>Mainframe has special feature which useful for linux. For example, execute in place technology provides ability not to put copy of binaries several times in memory. Sometimes it is useful.</p><p>Difference between platforms is becoming less and less, we need to look in the future to make a chose now. For example itanium2 will not be supported with Red Hat anymore (starting from 6-th version). What the result? Clients should invest in another hardware platform or OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As you may be already know , p-series and i-series now use the same hardware and called " power systems " , so I will try to compare just Power with Mainframe : 1 .
Architecture.Power is a good system for CPU-intensive tasks .
Last Power6 has 5GHz CPU and it is great .
But , when we are looking at I/O level mainframe is much much more better , because it has special engines for I/O tasks ( not those two with which you are buying your linux ) and overall architecture of machine is focused on balance between memory , CPU and I/O.2 .
Virtualization.Mainframe is virtualizing all resources on hardware level .
Mainframe does n't need any vios for this task .
Imagine what you should do on power to share one adapter between LPARs - You need to install and configure VIOS .
You need to install another one for redundancy .
And you need to support it later - install updates and so on .
You do n't need all this stuff on mainframe .
You just install operating systems in different LPARs and that 's all.Another difference is number of machines .
z/VM on mainframe provides very good way for managing large number of installed operating systems .
Power has no second level of virtualization.3 .
Special features.Mainframe has special feature which useful for linux .
For example , execute in place technology provides ability not to put copy of binaries several times in memory .
Sometimes it is useful.Difference between platforms is becoming less and less , we need to look in the future to make a chose now .
For example itanium2 will not be supported with Red Hat anymore ( starting from 6-th version ) .
What the result ?
Clients should invest in another hardware platform or OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As you may be already know, p-series and i-series now use the same hardware and called "power systems", so I will try to compare just Power with Mainframe:1.
Architecture.Power is a good system for CPU-intensive tasks.
Last Power6 has 5GHz CPU and it is great.
But, when we are looking at I/O level mainframe is much much more better, because it has special engines for I/O tasks (not those two with which you are buying your linux) and overall architecture of machine is focused on balance between memory, CPU and I/O.2.
Virtualization.Mainframe is virtualizing all resources on hardware level.
Mainframe doesn't need any vios for this task.
Imagine what you should do on power to share one adapter between LPARs - You need to install and configure VIOS.
You need to install another one for redundancy.
And you need to support it later - install updates and so on.
You don't need all this stuff on mainframe.
You just install operating systems in different LPARs and that's all.Another difference is number of machines.
z/VM on mainframe provides very good way for managing large number of installed operating systems.
Power has no second level of virtualization.3.
Special features.Mainframe has special feature which useful for linux.
For example, execute in place technology provides ability not to put copy of binaries several times in memory.
Sometimes it is useful.Difference between platforms is becoming less and less, we need to look in the future to make a chose now.
For example itanium2 will not be supported with Red Hat anymore (starting from 6-th version).
What the result?
Clients should invest in another hardware platform or OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384848</id>
	<title>Re:Grammar</title>
	<author>unitron</author>
	<datestamp>1259601000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Never mind the grammar (I can hardly believe that I'm saying that), I thought that operating systems were designed to work with the processor(s).  When did it get to be the other way around?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never mind the grammar ( I can hardly believe that I 'm saying that ) , I thought that operating systems were designed to work with the processor ( s ) .
When did it get to be the other way around ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never mind the grammar (I can hardly believe that I'm saying that), I thought that operating systems were designed to work with the processor(s).
When did it get to be the other way around?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30388086</id>
	<title>Re:Can't wait to see the support</title>
	<author>drachenfyre</author>
	<datestamp>1260460740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.  If they can't support the low end stuff, wouldn't I be insane to plop down a quarter of a million dollars on something from them?<br>2.  As I said, it was a typo.  I'm a human and 3 and 4 are right next to each other on the keyboard.  Deal with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
If they ca n't support the low end stuff , would n't I be insane to plop down a quarter of a million dollars on something from them ? 2 .
As I said , it was a typo .
I 'm a human and 3 and 4 are right next to each other on the keyboard .
Deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
If they can't support the low end stuff, wouldn't I be insane to plop down a quarter of a million dollars on something from them?2.
As I said, it was a typo.
I'm a human and 3 and 4 are right next to each other on the keyboard.
Deal with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385116</id>
	<title>Re:That's cool and all...</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1259604180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>No. Doesn't support enough RAM.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Does n't support enough RAM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
Doesn't support enough RAM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30387514</id>
	<title>Re:Oh Yeah!</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1260457020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I see those Windows commercials, and I just want to say "Well I'm Ken Thompson, and UNIX was my idea."</i></p><p>Now we understand where SCO was coming from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see those Windows commercials , and I just want to say " Well I 'm Ken Thompson , and UNIX was my idea .
" Now we understand where SCO was coming from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see those Windows commercials, and I just want to say "Well I'm Ken Thompson, and UNIX was my idea.
"Now we understand where SCO was coming from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385802</id>
	<title>Re:Screensaver?</title>
	<author>Have Brain Will Rent</author>
	<datestamp>1260436560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And why would EBCDIC make <b>audio</b> any harder to implement than on an ASCII or UNICODE based OS/machine?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And why would EBCDIC make audio any harder to implement than on an ASCII or UNICODE based OS/machine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why would EBCDIC make audio any harder to implement than on an ASCII or UNICODE based OS/machine?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30398346</id>
	<title>Re:I guess...No - not JCL!</title>
	<author>Higgs\_Bozon</author>
	<datestamp>1260465780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>SVC 202. <br>
<br>
<b>CA</b>mbridge.
<br>It's  R13 for you, my friend.  Go drink your Socrates'  Pinoqachole</htmltext>
<tokenext>SVC 202 .
CAmbridge . It 's R13 for you , my friend .
Go drink your Socrates ' Pinoqachole</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SVC 202.
CAmbridge.
It's  R13 for you, my friend.
Go drink your Socrates'  Pinoqachole</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384574</id>
	<title>Penguin computing power at its finest.</title>
	<author>The Altruist</author>
	<datestamp>1259597940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want to see it play Nethack.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to see it play Nethack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to see it play Nethack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384982</id>
	<title>Re:Grammar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259602680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Processor configuration is singular</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Processor configuration is singular</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Processor configuration is singular</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385782</id>
	<title>Re:I guess...</title>
	<author>Have Brain Will Rent</author>
	<datestamp>1260436260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You didn't see the IBM JCL manual????? You poor so and so.... your whole brain must have been all like<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>//SYSIN DD DUMMY</htmltext>
<tokenext>You did n't see the IBM JCL manual ? ? ? ? ?
You poor so and so.... your whole brain must have been all like //SYSIN DD DUMMY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You didn't see the IBM JCL manual?????
You poor so and so.... your whole brain must have been all like  //SYSIN DD DUMMY</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386604</id>
	<title>Re:Can't wait to see the support</title>
	<author>jabuzz</author>
	<datestamp>1260448260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I call bullshit as the DS300 is the old Adaptec storage array that used old fashioned SCSI with EXP400 expansion shelves. No fibre channel in sight. On that vintage of hardware you would have a DS400 which uses the same EXP400 expansion shelves but presents them as fibre chennel out the back. Still Adaptec rebadged storage.</p><p>I would add that we have in general had excellent support from IBM on hardware issues. We where not impressed with the firmware issues surrounding version 7.36.12 and 7.36.15 versions of the firmware for the various DS4000 arrays. I have also noted that they still have not fixed their firmware release processes as they shipped some drive firmware in the ESM 1.64 version that would efficiently brick your drives as it put standard firmware signatures on the drives, so then the arrays refused to talk to them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>However actual bust hardware they are very good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I call bullshit as the DS300 is the old Adaptec storage array that used old fashioned SCSI with EXP400 expansion shelves .
No fibre channel in sight .
On that vintage of hardware you would have a DS400 which uses the same EXP400 expansion shelves but presents them as fibre chennel out the back .
Still Adaptec rebadged storage.I would add that we have in general had excellent support from IBM on hardware issues .
We where not impressed with the firmware issues surrounding version 7.36.12 and 7.36.15 versions of the firmware for the various DS4000 arrays .
I have also noted that they still have not fixed their firmware release processes as they shipped some drive firmware in the ESM 1.64 version that would efficiently brick your drives as it put standard firmware signatures on the drives , so then the arrays refused to talk to them : - ) However actual bust hardware they are very good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call bullshit as the DS300 is the old Adaptec storage array that used old fashioned SCSI with EXP400 expansion shelves.
No fibre channel in sight.
On that vintage of hardware you would have a DS400 which uses the same EXP400 expansion shelves but presents them as fibre chennel out the back.
Still Adaptec rebadged storage.I would add that we have in general had excellent support from IBM on hardware issues.
We where not impressed with the firmware issues surrounding version 7.36.12 and 7.36.15 versions of the firmware for the various DS4000 arrays.
I have also noted that they still have not fixed their firmware release processes as they shipped some drive firmware in the ESM 1.64 version that would efficiently brick your drives as it put standard firmware signatures on the drives, so then the arrays refused to talk to them :-)However actual bust hardware they are very good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30387180</id>
	<title>Well, that is sad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260454800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really sad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really sad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384550</id>
	<title>That's cool and all...</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1259597820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but but but, will it run Windows?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but but but , will it run Windows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but but but, will it run Windows?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385914</id>
	<title>Re:Grammar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260438300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, thanks for the insightful post. That makes things so much clearer, thank you so much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , thanks for the insightful post .
That makes things so much clearer , thank you so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, thanks for the insightful post.
That makes things so much clearer, thank you so much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386328</id>
	<title>Re:I guess...</title>
	<author>mangu</author>
	<datestamp>1260444060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>JCL is like a 60 year old prostitute; it may not be pretty, but it gets the job done flawlessly.</p></div></blockquote><p>Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>JCL is like a 60 year old prostitute ; it may not be pretty , but it gets the job done flawlessly.Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JCL is like a 60 year old prostitute; it may not be pretty, but it gets the job done flawlessly.Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384786</id>
	<title>Re:Grammar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259600340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What the fuck kind of grammar is that?</p></div><p>Geez, it's only a typo, don't have a heart attock.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the fuck kind of grammar is that ? Geez , it 's only a typo , do n't have a heart attock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the fuck kind of grammar is that?Geez, it's only a typo, don't have a heart attock.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30387608</id>
	<title>Re:Screensaver?</title>
	<author>troll8901</author>
	<datestamp>1260457800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you wrote this, for other readers to link to the Gnome-Look story?</p><p>I bow to you, O' Wise and Humorous One!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you wrote this , for other readers to link to the Gnome-Look story ? I bow to you , O ' Wise and Humorous One !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you wrote this, for other readers to link to the Gnome-Look story?I bow to you, O' Wise and Humorous One!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385334</id>
	<title>Re: IBM's Newest Mainframe Is All Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259607600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly... what ELSE should it be running? Windows?</p><p>Slashdot has become retarded...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly... what ELSE should it be running ?
Windows ? Slashdot has become retarded.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly... what ELSE should it be running?
Windows?Slashdot has become retarded...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30393874</id>
	<title>Re:Grammar</title>
	<author>unitron</author>
	<datestamp>1260438360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assuming that "configuration" is the subject of the sentence, it's improper grammar.  If, as has been suggested in reply to another of my posts elsewhere in this thread where I attempt to point out the difference between grammatical errors and typographical errors, the subject is "processors", then it's the right verb but a very convoluted sentence structure.</p><p>However, since someone at Slashdot has since re-written the sentence in question, and shoved the original down the memory hole, the point is now moot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming that " configuration " is the subject of the sentence , it 's improper grammar .
If , as has been suggested in reply to another of my posts elsewhere in this thread where I attempt to point out the difference between grammatical errors and typographical errors , the subject is " processors " , then it 's the right verb but a very convoluted sentence structure.However , since someone at Slashdot has since re-written the sentence in question , and shoved the original down the memory hole , the point is now moot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming that "configuration" is the subject of the sentence, it's improper grammar.
If, as has been suggested in reply to another of my posts elsewhere in this thread where I attempt to point out the difference between grammatical errors and typographical errors, the subject is "processors", then it's the right verb but a very convoluted sentence structure.However, since someone at Slashdot has since re-written the sentence in question, and shoved the original down the memory hole, the point is now moot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385010</id>
	<title>Re:Can't wait to see the support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259602920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I absolutely loathe IBM as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I absolutely loathe IBM as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I absolutely loathe IBM as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385992</id>
	<title>Re:I would want to hack one of those old beats</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1260439620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They don't, as a rule, become obsoleted very often.  The whole point of a mainframe is it's a machine you can plug in and run for twenty-thirty years, hotswapping components as required.  The last one I worked with had an installed code base going back to 1971 and will have to remain operational for another 80-odd years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't , as a rule , become obsoleted very often .
The whole point of a mainframe is it 's a machine you can plug in and run for twenty-thirty years , hotswapping components as required .
The last one I worked with had an installed code base going back to 1971 and will have to remain operational for another 80-odd years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't, as a rule, become obsoleted very often.
The whole point of a mainframe is it's a machine you can plug in and run for twenty-thirty years, hotswapping components as required.
The last one I worked with had an installed code base going back to 1971 and will have to remain operational for another 80-odd years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384892</id>
	<title>Re:Can't wait to see the support</title>
	<author>cheap.computer</author>
	<datestamp>1259601600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You get what you pay for....</htmltext>
<tokenext>You get what you pay for... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You get what you pay for....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384424</id>
	<title>Mainframe or Server?</title>
	<author>plasticsquirrel</author>
	<datestamp>1259596500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"IBM has released a new mainframe server that doesn't include its z/OS operating system. This Enterprise Linux Server line supports Red Hat or Suse."</p></div></blockquote><p>
There is a big difference between a mainframe and a high-end server. Why would someone buy a mainframe if they didn't need the reliability and special features of a mainframe? Aren't these really the selling points of the Z-series over the P-series, for example? Usually the P-series and I-series systems are also touted for virtualization, and tend to be less expensive. Can someone distinguish the big difference between these lines now? Traditionally, from what I remember, P-series was AIX, I-Series was AS/400, and Z-series was z/OS and other mainframe OS's. Of course, IBM has been offering Linux on all of them for quite awhile now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" IBM has released a new mainframe server that does n't include its z/OS operating system .
This Enterprise Linux Server line supports Red Hat or Suse .
" There is a big difference between a mainframe and a high-end server .
Why would someone buy a mainframe if they did n't need the reliability and special features of a mainframe ?
Are n't these really the selling points of the Z-series over the P-series , for example ?
Usually the P-series and I-series systems are also touted for virtualization , and tend to be less expensive .
Can someone distinguish the big difference between these lines now ?
Traditionally , from what I remember , P-series was AIX , I-Series was AS/400 , and Z-series was z/OS and other mainframe OS 's .
Of course , IBM has been offering Linux on all of them for quite awhile now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"IBM has released a new mainframe server that doesn't include its z/OS operating system.
This Enterprise Linux Server line supports Red Hat or Suse.
"
There is a big difference between a mainframe and a high-end server.
Why would someone buy a mainframe if they didn't need the reliability and special features of a mainframe?
Aren't these really the selling points of the Z-series over the P-series, for example?
Usually the P-series and I-series systems are also touted for virtualization, and tend to be less expensive.
Can someone distinguish the big difference between these lines now?
Traditionally, from what I remember, P-series was AIX, I-Series was AS/400, and Z-series was z/OS and other mainframe OS's.
Of course, IBM has been offering Linux on all of them for quite awhile now.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385024</id>
	<title>Re:An in-house cloud.</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1259603160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder what the people pushing this terminology are smoking to prodcue their own private cloud.<br>Either that or it's well intentioned subversion to get those tricked by the "cloud" salesfolk back on track.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what the people pushing this terminology are smoking to prodcue their own private cloud.Either that or it 's well intentioned subversion to get those tricked by the " cloud " salesfolk back on track .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what the people pushing this terminology are smoking to prodcue their own private cloud.Either that or it's well intentioned subversion to get those tricked by the "cloud" salesfolk back on track.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30397300</id>
	<title>gnu/linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260454140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the mainframe uses just the linux kernel rather than the gnu/linux os??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the mainframe uses just the linux kernel rather than the gnu/linux os ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the mainframe uses just the linux kernel rather than the gnu/linux os?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384438</id>
	<title>Re:I guess...</title>
	<author>goga\_russian</author>
	<datestamp>1259596560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>we in Russia make penguin drink, then it turn blue. then we load Alt Linux on it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>we in Russia make penguin drink , then it turn blue .
then we load Alt Linux on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we in Russia make penguin drink, then it turn blue.
then we load Alt Linux on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30388098</id>
	<title>Re:Grammar</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1260460860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What the fuck kind of grammar is that?</i></p><p>It's a multiprocessing world now.  Try as you might, we'll never go back to monolithic single cores.  Singular verbs have been similarly deprecated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the fuck kind of grammar is that ? It 's a multiprocessing world now .
Try as you might , we 'll never go back to monolithic single cores .
Singular verbs have been similarly deprecated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the fuck kind of grammar is that?It's a multiprocessing world now.
Try as you might, we'll never go back to monolithic single cores.
Singular verbs have been similarly deprecated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384572</id>
	<title>Re:Mainframe or Server?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259597940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No - You can do very large scale virtualization with a zSeries mainframe packed with IFLs and running multiple z/VM LPARs.</p><p>Where you start to run into dead-ends is on-boarding former distributed users to virtualized servers. I have seen the following problems:<br>1) "This is my box and I can do whatever I want with it." The problem is that you are in a shared environment and your weird run-away processes can affect other users.<br>2) Shitty programming that has been solved in the past by throwing cheap distributed hardware at the problem. Often, throwing more hardware at a lousy program is cheaper than hiring a good programmer to plug the holes/re-design. This isn't the case on the mainframe, where hardware costs more than a Manhattan brownstone.<br>3) Mainframe tech staff who think they are doing you a favor by letting you run an application on the mainframe (also closely related the common attitude by "system programmers" (mainframe tech-support) that change is bad). "It's my way or the highway."<br>4) "I want to run KDE because I don't know any bash commands." Sorry, have you ever seen the overhead to have a desktop service idling (or worse).<br>5) No matter how IBM tries to spin it, those z10s will not do that same work that you get on an Intel box (and they sure as hell won't do it for the price).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No - You can do very large scale virtualization with a zSeries mainframe packed with IFLs and running multiple z/VM LPARs.Where you start to run into dead-ends is on-boarding former distributed users to virtualized servers .
I have seen the following problems : 1 ) " This is my box and I can do whatever I want with it .
" The problem is that you are in a shared environment and your weird run-away processes can affect other users.2 ) Shitty programming that has been solved in the past by throwing cheap distributed hardware at the problem .
Often , throwing more hardware at a lousy program is cheaper than hiring a good programmer to plug the holes/re-design .
This is n't the case on the mainframe , where hardware costs more than a Manhattan brownstone.3 ) Mainframe tech staff who think they are doing you a favor by letting you run an application on the mainframe ( also closely related the common attitude by " system programmers " ( mainframe tech-support ) that change is bad ) .
" It 's my way or the highway .
" 4 ) " I want to run KDE because I do n't know any bash commands .
" Sorry , have you ever seen the overhead to have a desktop service idling ( or worse ) .5 ) No matter how IBM tries to spin it , those z10s will not do that same work that you get on an Intel box ( and they sure as hell wo n't do it for the price ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No - You can do very large scale virtualization with a zSeries mainframe packed with IFLs and running multiple z/VM LPARs.Where you start to run into dead-ends is on-boarding former distributed users to virtualized servers.
I have seen the following problems:1) "This is my box and I can do whatever I want with it.
" The problem is that you are in a shared environment and your weird run-away processes can affect other users.2) Shitty programming that has been solved in the past by throwing cheap distributed hardware at the problem.
Often, throwing more hardware at a lousy program is cheaper than hiring a good programmer to plug the holes/re-design.
This isn't the case on the mainframe, where hardware costs more than a Manhattan brownstone.3) Mainframe tech staff who think they are doing you a favor by letting you run an application on the mainframe (also closely related the common attitude by "system programmers" (mainframe tech-support) that change is bad).
"It's my way or the highway.
"4) "I want to run KDE because I don't know any bash commands.
" Sorry, have you ever seen the overhead to have a desktop service idling (or worse).5) No matter how IBM tries to spin it, those z10s will not do that same work that you get on an Intel box (and they sure as hell won't do it for the price).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384626</id>
	<title>Re:I guess...</title>
	<author>ShinmaWa</author>
	<datestamp>1259598420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, IBM has had a blue penguin for a long time.  (Okay, the tux is blue at least)</p><p><a href="http://ifup.org/images/tux-genetic.png" title="ifup.org">http://ifup.org/images/tux-genetic.png</a> [ifup.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , IBM has had a blue penguin for a long time .
( Okay , the tux is blue at least ) http : //ifup.org/images/tux-genetic.png [ ifup.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, IBM has had a blue penguin for a long time.
(Okay, the tux is blue at least)http://ifup.org/images/tux-genetic.png [ifup.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30388074</id>
	<title>Anybody ever use linux on a zSeries (mainframe)</title>
	<author>chasmosis</author>
	<datestamp>1260460620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anybody used linux on a mainframe?  I skimmed the comments but didn't see anyone mention they used one.

I have it works but it has its issues...big issues.

Anybody ever seen prices for memory on a mainframe.  Big bucks.  I'm sure its come down since then but in the last 2 years I heard them talking here at work about $10,000 for 1 Gb and it comes in 8 Gb "books".  Then try to get your mind around z/VM RAM disks for swap (my z/Series guy says this is how you have to do it).

Mainframe dasd (thats disk to the rest of us) is insanely expensive.  Plus at least for us when you convert it in z/VM and present it to linux a mod27 (27 Gb mainframe volume) turns into a little over 23 Gb under LVM.

Add that do all of the prepackaged executables you use have to be packaged for z/series hardware.  Meaning ix/86 executables don't run on linux on Z the same way they won't run on linux on Power (p or i series)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody used linux on a mainframe ?
I skimmed the comments but did n't see anyone mention they used one .
I have it works but it has its issues...big issues .
Anybody ever seen prices for memory on a mainframe .
Big bucks .
I 'm sure its come down since then but in the last 2 years I heard them talking here at work about $ 10,000 for 1 Gb and it comes in 8 Gb " books " .
Then try to get your mind around z/VM RAM disks for swap ( my z/Series guy says this is how you have to do it ) .
Mainframe dasd ( thats disk to the rest of us ) is insanely expensive .
Plus at least for us when you convert it in z/VM and present it to linux a mod27 ( 27 Gb mainframe volume ) turns into a little over 23 Gb under LVM .
Add that do all of the prepackaged executables you use have to be packaged for z/series hardware .
Meaning ix/86 executables do n't run on linux on Z the same way they wo n't run on linux on Power ( p or i series )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody used linux on a mainframe?
I skimmed the comments but didn't see anyone mention they used one.
I have it works but it has its issues...big issues.
Anybody ever seen prices for memory on a mainframe.
Big bucks.
I'm sure its come down since then but in the last 2 years I heard them talking here at work about $10,000 for 1 Gb and it comes in 8 Gb "books".
Then try to get your mind around z/VM RAM disks for swap (my z/Series guy says this is how you have to do it).
Mainframe dasd (thats disk to the rest of us) is insanely expensive.
Plus at least for us when you convert it in z/VM and present it to linux a mod27 (27 Gb mainframe volume) turns into a little over 23 Gb under LVM.
Add that do all of the prepackaged executables you use have to be packaged for z/series hardware.
Meaning ix/86 executables don't run on linux on Z the same way they won't run on linux on Power (p or i series)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386386</id>
	<title>You need documentation</title>
	<author>mangu</author>
	<datestamp>1260444660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I hated that shit when learning assembler on the 360, but then again they never thought JCL and didn't have any books on it, which is probably why I hated it</p></div></blockquote><p>I have <b>all</b> the information I could ever need, <a href="http://i.imgur.com/OUA8g.jpg" title="imgur.com">right on my desktop</a> [imgur.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hated that shit when learning assembler on the 360 , but then again they never thought JCL and did n't have any books on it , which is probably why I hated itI have all the information I could ever need , right on my desktop [ imgur.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hated that shit when learning assembler on the 360, but then again they never thought JCL and didn't have any books on it, which is probably why I hated itI have all the information I could ever need, right on my desktop [imgur.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30389806</id>
	<title>Troll U.R. OFF TOPIC (not English grammar section)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260467280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you cannot derive the meaning of words within the context within which they are used, it's you with the problem (reading comprehension). This forums is not about English grammar or spelling, nor is it anyone's last will and testament (or legal document, or paper for a grade in academia). It's only a forums you nitpicking trollish scumbag. Get over it. By the way, since there is not an "english grammar section" on this forums, why don't you realize you are off-topic and fuck off? Thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can not derive the meaning of words within the context within which they are used , it 's you with the problem ( reading comprehension ) .
This forums is not about English grammar or spelling , nor is it anyone 's last will and testament ( or legal document , or paper for a grade in academia ) .
It 's only a forums you nitpicking trollish scumbag .
Get over it .
By the way , since there is not an " english grammar section " on this forums , why do n't you realize you are off-topic and fuck off ?
Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you cannot derive the meaning of words within the context within which they are used, it's you with the problem (reading comprehension).
This forums is not about English grammar or spelling, nor is it anyone's last will and testament (or legal document, or paper for a grade in academia).
It's only a forums you nitpicking trollish scumbag.
Get over it.
By the way, since there is not an "english grammar section" on this forums, why don't you realize you are off-topic and fuck off?
Thank you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386802</id>
	<title>Designed for Linux is just FUD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260451020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>two specialty mainframe processors <b>designed for Linux</b></p> </div><p>Seriosly?  That's just marketing FUD.  They are not designed for Linux, they just have some features deactivated so that z/OS can't run on them, so that they "could sell them cheaper".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>two specialty mainframe processors designed for Linux Seriosly ?
That 's just marketing FUD .
They are not designed for Linux , they just have some features deactivated so that z/OS ca n't run on them , so that they " could sell them cheaper " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>two specialty mainframe processors designed for Linux Seriosly?
That's just marketing FUD.
They are not designed for Linux, they just have some features deactivated so that z/OS can't run on them, so that they "could sell them cheaper".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386186</id>
	<title>Re:Mainframe or Server?</title>
	<author>dwywit</author>
	<datestamp>1260442200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If that's true, it doesn't make sense to me. OS/400 was written, *THEN* the hardware was designed to run it. There's no point porting *nix to AS400/iSeries hardware. The strength of AS400 + OS400 is all in the operating system, and you've got to experience such a system before you can appreciate the difference between it and any *nix OS.<p>Yes, I was an AS400 programmer/admin, why do you ask?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that 's true , it does n't make sense to me .
OS/400 was written , * THEN * the hardware was designed to run it .
There 's no point porting * nix to AS400/iSeries hardware .
The strength of AS400 + OS400 is all in the operating system , and you 've got to experience such a system before you can appreciate the difference between it and any * nix OS.Yes , I was an AS400 programmer/admin , why do you ask ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that's true, it doesn't make sense to me.
OS/400 was written, *THEN* the hardware was designed to run it.
There's no point porting *nix to AS400/iSeries hardware.
The strength of AS400 + OS400 is all in the operating system, and you've got to experience such a system before you can appreciate the difference between it and any *nix OS.Yes, I was an AS400 programmer/admin, why do you ask?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384418</id>
	<title>Stocking stuffer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259596440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>At $212,000, a great stocking-stuffer for the kernel hacker who has everything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At $ 212,000 , a great stocking-stuffer for the kernel hacker who has everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At $212,000, a great stocking-stuffer for the kernel hacker who has everything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30392988</id>
	<title>Re:Nooo!!! We will never have flying cars that way</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1260478260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So we get Lotus Domino instead?!  Somehow that doesn't seem... right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So we get Lotus Domino instead ? !
Somehow that does n't seem... right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So we get Lotus Domino instead?!
Somehow that doesn't seem... right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384670</id>
	<title>Can't wait to see the support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259598900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got an IBM DS300 Fiber SAN with 4 hour support from IBM.  It's been broken for 5 1/2 months now while we try to get IBM to fix it (Or at this point, we'd just be happy for the maintenance contract fee to be refunded).  We've had about 15+ emails, half the time claiming we haven't responded to them yet and therefore we are the cause of the delay, yet quoting our reply in their message back saying we haven't responded.</p><p>I wouldn't buy another piece of IBM server equipment if you held a gun to my head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got an IBM DS300 Fiber SAN with 4 hour support from IBM .
It 's been broken for 5 1/2 months now while we try to get IBM to fix it ( Or at this point , we 'd just be happy for the maintenance contract fee to be refunded ) .
We 've had about 15 + emails , half the time claiming we have n't responded to them yet and therefore we are the cause of the delay , yet quoting our reply in their message back saying we have n't responded.I would n't buy another piece of IBM server equipment if you held a gun to my head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got an IBM DS300 Fiber SAN with 4 hour support from IBM.
It's been broken for 5 1/2 months now while we try to get IBM to fix it (Or at this point, we'd just be happy for the maintenance contract fee to be refunded).
We've had about 15+ emails, half the time claiming we haven't responded to them yet and therefore we are the cause of the delay, yet quoting our reply in their message back saying we haven't responded.I wouldn't buy another piece of IBM server equipment if you held a gun to my head.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385716</id>
	<title>Re:I guess...</title>
	<author>APL bigot</author>
	<datestamp>1260478620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too bad; I learned on VM/CMS. Can't beat having your own virtual machine.
Didn't have to deal with JCL and the MVS stuff. Only system I liked as much as Amiga OS.
Customers loved VM, so of course the suits tried to kill it and champion MVS. Meh.<br> <br>

Yeah, yeah you responding to this post; get off my lawn!<br> <br>
HCP9010W</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad ; I learned on VM/CMS .
Ca n't beat having your own virtual machine .
Did n't have to deal with JCL and the MVS stuff .
Only system I liked as much as Amiga OS .
Customers loved VM , so of course the suits tried to kill it and champion MVS .
Meh . Yeah , yeah you responding to this post ; get off my lawn !
HCP9010W</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad; I learned on VM/CMS.
Can't beat having your own virtual machine.
Didn't have to deal with JCL and the MVS stuff.
Only system I liked as much as Amiga OS.
Customers loved VM, so of course the suits tried to kill it and champion MVS.
Meh. 

Yeah, yeah you responding to this post; get off my lawn!
HCP9010W</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30387764</id>
	<title>Re:zVM, zOS, TPF/zTPF are better than Linux.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260458880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree here, well stated!!! IBM seems to have a good idea here but, when you start digging deeper it's really an unnatural marrage. Like putting snow tires on a half-track. Seems like it's purely a marketing driven endevour.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree here , well stated ! ! !
IBM seems to have a good idea here but , when you start digging deeper it 's really an unnatural marrage .
Like putting snow tires on a half-track .
Seems like it 's purely a marketing driven endevour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree here, well stated!!!
IBM seems to have a good idea here but, when you start digging deeper it's really an unnatural marrage.
Like putting snow tires on a half-track.
Seems like it's purely a marketing driven endevour.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384950</id>
	<title>Re:Can't wait to see the support</title>
	<author>Burdell</author>
	<datestamp>1259602380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, in 5.5 months, you've had 15 emails?  5.5 months is about 24 weeks or 120 business days; what are you doing only sending email every week and a half?</p><p>I had an open software case with HP on an AlphaServer/TruCluster issue that lasted a little over a year.  I think I sent over 200 email messages about that case (and there were other people involved as well).  We had weekly conference call updates, as well as several meetings with various combinations of HP sales, support, engineers, and managers (many from out of state) in our office.  Yeah, it sucked, but part of my job as system administrator is to stay on top of our vendors to make sure they are holding up their end of our support contracts.  We aren't any big HP or AlphaServer customer (this was a cluster of two ES40s and represented 2/3 of our total installed base of Alphas, and we didn't have any other HP stuff at all), but we kept on them so they knew they had to deliver.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , in 5.5 months , you 've had 15 emails ?
5.5 months is about 24 weeks or 120 business days ; what are you doing only sending email every week and a half ? I had an open software case with HP on an AlphaServer/TruCluster issue that lasted a little over a year .
I think I sent over 200 email messages about that case ( and there were other people involved as well ) .
We had weekly conference call updates , as well as several meetings with various combinations of HP sales , support , engineers , and managers ( many from out of state ) in our office .
Yeah , it sucked , but part of my job as system administrator is to stay on top of our vendors to make sure they are holding up their end of our support contracts .
We are n't any big HP or AlphaServer customer ( this was a cluster of two ES40s and represented 2/3 of our total installed base of Alphas , and we did n't have any other HP stuff at all ) , but we kept on them so they knew they had to deliver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, in 5.5 months, you've had 15 emails?
5.5 months is about 24 weeks or 120 business days; what are you doing only sending email every week and a half?I had an open software case with HP on an AlphaServer/TruCluster issue that lasted a little over a year.
I think I sent over 200 email messages about that case (and there were other people involved as well).
We had weekly conference call updates, as well as several meetings with various combinations of HP sales, support, engineers, and managers (many from out of state) in our office.
Yeah, it sucked, but part of my job as system administrator is to stay on top of our vendors to make sure they are holding up their end of our support contracts.
We aren't any big HP or AlphaServer customer (this was a cluster of two ES40s and represented 2/3 of our total installed base of Alphas, and we didn't have any other HP stuff at all), but we kept on them so they knew they had to deliver.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384482</id>
	<title>Re:Mainframe or Server?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259597040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought phasing out the other OSes in favour of Linux was IBM's long term plan? Something about allowing their customers to target a single OS and letting them mix and match (IBM's) hardware.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought phasing out the other OSes in favour of Linux was IBM 's long term plan ?
Something about allowing their customers to target a single OS and letting them mix and match ( IBM 's ) hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought phasing out the other OSes in favour of Linux was IBM's long term plan?
Something about allowing their customers to target a single OS and letting them mix and match (IBM's) hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386590</id>
	<title>Re:Grammar</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1260448020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I thought that operating systems were designed to work with the processor(s). When did it get to be the other way around?</p></div><p>Around 1970.  A lot of minicomputer and mainframe architectures were designed after the initial work was done on the operating system.  The OS was designed, then the requirements for the system architecture were extracted from that.  Operating systems like MULTICS, VM/360, and VMS had architectures designed to support them, rather than the other way around.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought that operating systems were designed to work with the processor ( s ) .
When did it get to be the other way around ? Around 1970 .
A lot of minicomputer and mainframe architectures were designed after the initial work was done on the operating system .
The OS was designed , then the requirements for the system architecture were extracted from that .
Operating systems like MULTICS , VM/360 , and VMS had architectures designed to support them , rather than the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I thought that operating systems were designed to work with the processor(s).
When did it get to be the other way around?Around 1970.
A lot of minicomputer and mainframe architectures were designed after the initial work was done on the operating system.
The OS was designed, then the requirements for the system architecture were extracted from that.
Operating systems like MULTICS, VM/360, and VMS had architectures designed to support them, rather than the other way around.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384278</id>
	<title>I guess...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259595060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess they need a blue penguin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess they need a blue penguin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess they need a blue penguin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386992</id>
	<title>traditional mainframe-based I/O</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260453060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>Linux cannot take advantage of the advantages of channel-based disk i/o, because it uses Unix i/o approaches which can never be as efficient as the traditional mainframe-based approaches</i>"<br> <br>

That's interesting, tell us more about the differences between Unix and 'mainframe-based' disk I/O.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Linux can not take advantage of the advantages of channel-based disk i/o , because it uses Unix i/o approaches which can never be as efficient as the traditional mainframe-based approaches " That 's interesting , tell us more about the differences between Unix and 'mainframe-based ' disk I/O .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Linux cannot take advantage of the advantages of channel-based disk i/o, because it uses Unix i/o approaches which can never be as efficient as the traditional mainframe-based approaches" 

That's interesting, tell us more about the differences between Unix and 'mainframe-based' disk I/O.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385598</id>
	<title>Re:Can't wait to see the support</title>
	<author>terjeber</author>
	<datestamp>1260476400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I call BS. Perhaps incompetence on your part. 15+ emails? In 6 months? Yeah, that is incompetent. A sysadmin who has a serious problem and only sends 15 emails to the supplier in half a year deserves to be on his ass in the street, no severance.</p><p>BTW, the problem with your DS300 Fiber SAN is easy to identify. You are trying to use an iSCSI device as a Fiber SAN device. THAT WON'T WORK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I call BS .
Perhaps incompetence on your part .
15 + emails ?
In 6 months ?
Yeah , that is incompetent .
A sysadmin who has a serious problem and only sends 15 emails to the supplier in half a year deserves to be on his ass in the street , no severance.BTW , the problem with your DS300 Fiber SAN is easy to identify .
You are trying to use an iSCSI device as a Fiber SAN device .
THAT WO N'T WORK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call BS.
Perhaps incompetence on your part.
15+ emails?
In 6 months?
Yeah, that is incompetent.
A sysadmin who has a serious problem and only sends 15 emails to the supplier in half a year deserves to be on his ass in the street, no severance.BTW, the problem with your DS300 Fiber SAN is easy to identify.
You are trying to use an iSCSI device as a Fiber SAN device.
THAT WON'T WORK.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30387420</id>
	<title>Re:I guess...</title>
	<author>baegucb</author>
	<datestamp>1260456480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>JCL is easy. There are only what, 6 possible statements, and variations on them. And Gary Brown's JCL book has been around since at least the mid-70s iirc. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/zOS-JCL-Gary-DeWard-Brown/dp/0471236357" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/zOS-JCL-Gary-DeWard-Brown/dp/0471236357</a> [amazon.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>JCL is easy .
There are only what , 6 possible statements , and variations on them .
And Gary Brown 's JCL book has been around since at least the mid-70s iirc .
http : //www.amazon.com/zOS-JCL-Gary-DeWard-Brown/dp/0471236357 [ amazon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JCL is easy.
There are only what, 6 possible statements, and variations on them.
And Gary Brown's JCL book has been around since at least the mid-70s iirc.
http://www.amazon.com/zOS-JCL-Gary-DeWard-Brown/dp/0471236357 [amazon.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385958</id>
	<title>Re:I guess...</title>
	<author>rdebath</author>
	<datestamp>1260439140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
No need to be sad, here have this nice big blue tie instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No need to be sad , here have this nice big blue tie instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
No need to be sad, here have this nice big blue tie instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384290</id>
	<title>Yes, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259595240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...could you imagine a beowulf cluster of...    </p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<b>bear vaginas?</b> </p><p>Neither could I.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...could you imagine a beowulf cluster of... ...bear vaginas ?
Neither could I .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...could you imagine a beowulf cluster of...     ...bear vaginas?
Neither could I.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385934</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260438840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but does it have a cobol compiler?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but does it have a cobol compiler ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but does it have a cobol compiler?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30393008</id>
	<title>Re:An in-house cloud.</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1260478320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now maybe all the companies out there who are thinking of wasting money on cloud computing can just buy one of these, and basically have their own in-house cloud.</p></div></blockquote><p>$212,000 could buy you a not-insignificant quantity of commodity x86 hardware, and Ubuntu Server (probably not uniquely among server distros) already includes software (in the case of the one with Ubuntu Server, API-compatible with Amazone EC2) to run your own cloud.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now maybe all the companies out there who are thinking of wasting money on cloud computing can just buy one of these , and basically have their own in-house cloud. $ 212,000 could buy you a not-insignificant quantity of commodity x86 hardware , and Ubuntu Server ( probably not uniquely among server distros ) already includes software ( in the case of the one with Ubuntu Server , API-compatible with Amazone EC2 ) to run your own cloud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now maybe all the companies out there who are thinking of wasting money on cloud computing can just buy one of these, and basically have their own in-house cloud.$212,000 could buy you a not-insignificant quantity of commodity x86 hardware, and Ubuntu Server (probably not uniquely among server distros) already includes software (in the case of the one with Ubuntu Server, API-compatible with Amazone EC2) to run your own cloud.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384538</id>
	<title>Kinda like a fart?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259597640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't that basically what it is?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that basically what it is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that basically what it is?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385074</id>
	<title>Re:Can't wait to see the support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259603760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've got an IBM DS300 Fiber SAN with 4 hour support from IBM.  It's been broken for 5 1/2 months now while we try to get IBM to fix it (Or at this point, we'd just be happy for the maintenance contract fee to be refunded).  We've had about 15+ emails, half the time claiming we haven't responded to them yet and therefore we are the cause of the delay, yet quoting our reply in their message back saying we haven't responded.</p><p>I wouldn't buy another piece of IBM server equipment if you held a gun to my head.</p></div><p>Storage May not be IBM's strong point, which may be why they brought in the N series re-branded NetApp hardware/software for their higher end storage.  I'm pretty sure support for their mainframe systems is exceptionally different from their cheap SAN hardware though. Our SystemX servers run great and I have never had a problem with part's replacements on our 4 hour contracts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got an IBM DS300 Fiber SAN with 4 hour support from IBM .
It 's been broken for 5 1/2 months now while we try to get IBM to fix it ( Or at this point , we 'd just be happy for the maintenance contract fee to be refunded ) .
We 've had about 15 + emails , half the time claiming we have n't responded to them yet and therefore we are the cause of the delay , yet quoting our reply in their message back saying we have n't responded.I would n't buy another piece of IBM server equipment if you held a gun to my head.Storage May not be IBM 's strong point , which may be why they brought in the N series re-branded NetApp hardware/software for their higher end storage .
I 'm pretty sure support for their mainframe systems is exceptionally different from their cheap SAN hardware though .
Our SystemX servers run great and I have never had a problem with part 's replacements on our 4 hour contracts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got an IBM DS300 Fiber SAN with 4 hour support from IBM.
It's been broken for 5 1/2 months now while we try to get IBM to fix it (Or at this point, we'd just be happy for the maintenance contract fee to be refunded).
We've had about 15+ emails, half the time claiming we haven't responded to them yet and therefore we are the cause of the delay, yet quoting our reply in their message back saying we haven't responded.I wouldn't buy another piece of IBM server equipment if you held a gun to my head.Storage May not be IBM's strong point, which may be why they brought in the N series re-branded NetApp hardware/software for their higher end storage.
I'm pretty sure support for their mainframe systems is exceptionally different from their cheap SAN hardware though.
Our SystemX servers run great and I have never had a problem with part's replacements on our 4 hour contracts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384600</id>
	<title>Re:Screensaver?</title>
	<author>ChipMonk</author>
	<datestamp>1259598180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just make sure you don't get them from gnome-look.org. If you do, go over the source with a fine-tooth comb first.<br> <br>

I'd rather run Folding@Home, SETI@Home, and GIMPS in the background.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just make sure you do n't get them from gnome-look.org .
If you do , go over the source with a fine-tooth comb first .
I 'd rather run Folding @ Home , SETI @ Home , and GIMPS in the background .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just make sure you don't get them from gnome-look.org.
If you do, go over the source with a fine-tooth comb first.
I'd rather run Folding@Home, SETI@Home, and GIMPS in the background.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386814</id>
	<title>Re:Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of those?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260451140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you aware of how little intersection there is between virtualization and HPC clustering?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you aware of how little intersection there is between virtualization and HPC clustering ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you aware of how little intersection there is between virtualization and HPC clustering?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385088</id>
	<title>Oh Yeah!</title>
	<author>kabloom</author>
	<datestamp>1259603940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see those Windows commercials, and I just want to say "Well I'm Ken Thompson, and UNIX was my idea."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see those Windows commercials , and I just want to say " Well I 'm Ken Thompson , and UNIX was my idea .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see those Windows commercials, and I just want to say "Well I'm Ken Thompson, and UNIX was my idea.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386104</id>
	<title>Re:Stocking stuffer</title>
	<author>ettlz</author>
	<datestamp>1260441300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The entry-level model has two processors. That's, like, <i>much less</i> than 4096!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The entry-level model has two processors .
That 's , like , much less than 4096 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entry-level model has two processors.
That's, like, much less than 4096!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384304</id>
	<title>Year 2009 is the year of...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259595360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>...Linux on the mainframe!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Linux on the mainframe !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Linux on the mainframe!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30387364</id>
	<title>EBCDIC</title>
	<author>aixylinux</author>
	<datestamp>1260456240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The System z hardware is no more EBCDIC than you are.  z/Linux uses ASCII for messages, commands, and utilities, just as z/OS uses EBCDIC.  The z/Linux choices include ports of RedHat and Suse.  The port does not include translating these to EBCDIC.</p><p>Now, the old native Unix for z/OS, Unix System Services, *was* an EBCDIC Unix.  Nothing ever said Unix had to be based on ASCII.  Porting programs to USS was a challenge because too many programs made assumptions about the binary value of characters.  Usually the fixes were simple, but sometimes the defects were hard to find.  But if an assumption was made about the collating sequence, the problem was harder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The System z hardware is no more EBCDIC than you are .
z/Linux uses ASCII for messages , commands , and utilities , just as z/OS uses EBCDIC .
The z/Linux choices include ports of RedHat and Suse .
The port does not include translating these to EBCDIC.Now , the old native Unix for z/OS , Unix System Services , * was * an EBCDIC Unix .
Nothing ever said Unix had to be based on ASCII .
Porting programs to USS was a challenge because too many programs made assumptions about the binary value of characters .
Usually the fixes were simple , but sometimes the defects were hard to find .
But if an assumption was made about the collating sequence , the problem was harder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The System z hardware is no more EBCDIC than you are.
z/Linux uses ASCII for messages, commands, and utilities, just as z/OS uses EBCDIC.
The z/Linux choices include ports of RedHat and Suse.
The port does not include translating these to EBCDIC.Now, the old native Unix for z/OS, Unix System Services, *was* an EBCDIC Unix.
Nothing ever said Unix had to be based on ASCII.
Porting programs to USS was a challenge because too many programs made assumptions about the binary value of characters.
Usually the fixes were simple, but sometimes the defects were hard to find.
But if an assumption was made about the collating sequence, the problem was harder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385044</id>
	<title>Re:I guess...</title>
	<author>TempestRose</author>
	<datestamp>1259603460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmm, IBM Publication GX20-1850-7 would help a little for the 370. ( Or the latest revision.... )
There must be a similar reference for the 360, no?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , IBM Publication GX20-1850-7 would help a little for the 370 .
( Or the latest revision.... ) There must be a similar reference for the 360 , no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, IBM Publication GX20-1850-7 would help a little for the 370.
( Or the latest revision.... )
There must be a similar reference for the 360, no?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385142</id>
	<title>Re:Can't wait to see the support</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1259604480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I claim BS.</p><p>1.  You're claiming you wouldn't buy another piece of "IBM server equipment" yet you're complaining about the lowest end disk drive array (really just a shelf) they make.<br>2.  You have no idea what a DS300 is.  You claim it's a Fibre SAN device. However, the DS300 is an iSCSI device with RJ45 GigE ports.  The DS400 is fibrechannel attached.</p><p>You could have had that shelf RMA'd 10x by now.  How about picking up the phone?  You do have one of those don't you?</p><p>Try calling 1-800-IBM-FAST next time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I claim BS.1 .
You 're claiming you would n't buy another piece of " IBM server equipment " yet you 're complaining about the lowest end disk drive array ( really just a shelf ) they make.2 .
You have no idea what a DS300 is .
You claim it 's a Fibre SAN device .
However , the DS300 is an iSCSI device with RJ45 GigE ports .
The DS400 is fibrechannel attached.You could have had that shelf RMA 'd 10x by now .
How about picking up the phone ?
You do have one of those do n't you ? Try calling 1-800-IBM-FAST next time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I claim BS.1.
You're claiming you wouldn't buy another piece of "IBM server equipment" yet you're complaining about the lowest end disk drive array (really just a shelf) they make.2.
You have no idea what a DS300 is.
You claim it's a Fibre SAN device.
However, the DS300 is an iSCSI device with RJ45 GigE ports.
The DS400 is fibrechannel attached.You could have had that shelf RMA'd 10x by now.
How about picking up the phone?
You do have one of those don't you?Try calling 1-800-IBM-FAST next time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384398</id>
	<title>At least we don't have to</title>
	<author>bsharp8256</author>
	<datestamp>1259596260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least we don't have to ask if it runs Linux.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least we do n't have to ask if it runs Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least we don't have to ask if it runs Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30398198</id>
	<title>Re:Screensaver?</title>
	<author>phsiii</author>
	<datestamp>1260463740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No you weren't. Nobody who's ever touched one would call it a "z/OS mainframe" in the same sentence as "to a virtual machine guest". And Linux won't run under z/OS (which, by the way, had the first POSIX-certified UNIX environment, in the 1990s).

But it was funny. Ten years ago, when the joke was first made.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No you were n't .
Nobody who 's ever touched one would call it a " z/OS mainframe " in the same sentence as " to a virtual machine guest " .
And Linux wo n't run under z/OS ( which , by the way , had the first POSIX-certified UNIX environment , in the 1990s ) .
But it was funny .
Ten years ago , when the joke was first made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No you weren't.
Nobody who's ever touched one would call it a "z/OS mainframe" in the same sentence as "to a virtual machine guest".
And Linux won't run under z/OS (which, by the way, had the first POSIX-certified UNIX environment, in the 1990s).
But it was funny.
Ten years ago, when the joke was first made.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385092</id>
	<title>Yeah, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259604000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but does it run Solaris?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but does it run Solaris ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but does it run Solaris?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384706</id>
	<title>Re:Grammar</title>
	<author>evanbd</author>
	<datestamp>1259599260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The kind slashdot editors like?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The kind slashdot editors like ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The kind slashdot editors like?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384656</id>
	<title>Re:I guess...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259598660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a PC, and Fedora 12 was my idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a PC , and Fedora 12 was my idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a PC, and Fedora 12 was my idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385192</id>
	<title>USS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259605320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldn't you get the same thing by running USS (Unix System Services) under Z/OS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't you get the same thing by running USS ( Unix System Services ) under Z/OS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't you get the same thing by running USS (Unix System Services) under Z/OS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386346</id>
	<title>Probably yes</title>
	<author>Henriok</author>
	<datestamp>1260444300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It probably will, since OpenSolaris is ported to System z. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSolaris\_for\_System\_z" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSolaris\_for\_System\_z</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It probably will , since OpenSolaris is ported to System z. http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSolaris \ _for \ _System \ _z [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It probably will, since OpenSolaris is ported to System z. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSolaris\_for\_System\_z [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384336</id>
	<title>An in-house cloud.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259595720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now maybe all the companies out there who are thinking of wasting money on cloud computing can just buy one of these, and basically have their own in-house cloud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now maybe all the companies out there who are thinking of wasting money on cloud computing can just buy one of these , and basically have their own in-house cloud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now maybe all the companies out there who are thinking of wasting money on cloud computing can just buy one of these, and basically have their own in-house cloud.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30388056</id>
	<title>Re:zVM, zOS, TPF/zTPF are better than Linux.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260460560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are comparing some work you did with it 8 years ago, then your input is quite possibly worthless. Look at any technology 8 years ago, cars from 8 years ago, appliances 8 years ago. Many things have improved in the last 8 years including Linux. 2 years ago with Linux makes a difference. I would suggest a revisit is needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are comparing some work you did with it 8 years ago , then your input is quite possibly worthless .
Look at any technology 8 years ago , cars from 8 years ago , appliances 8 years ago .
Many things have improved in the last 8 years including Linux .
2 years ago with Linux makes a difference .
I would suggest a revisit is needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are comparing some work you did with it 8 years ago, then your input is quite possibly worthless.
Look at any technology 8 years ago, cars from 8 years ago, appliances 8 years ago.
Many things have improved in the last 8 years including Linux.
2 years ago with Linux makes a difference.
I would suggest a revisit is needed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386506</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30393008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30398198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30388098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30401232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30389538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30506394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30387608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30387364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30387682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30387514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30398346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30388056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30387198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30387420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30393874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30389448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30387764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30392988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30389806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_2329211_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30388086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2329211.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2329211.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30388086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2329211.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385088
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30387514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385952
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30398346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30387420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30389538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2329211.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2329211.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30389448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30393008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2329211.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2329211.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2329211.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30387608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30398198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385802
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30387364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30387682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2329211.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2329211.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2329211.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2329211.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30387198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2329211.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30387764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30388056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2329211.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30392988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2329211.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2329211.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2329211.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30401232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2329211.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30506394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_2329211.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30393874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30388098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30389806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30384848
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30385040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_2329211.30386590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
