<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_12_1422245</id>
	<title>Mozilla Rolls Out Firefox 3.6 RC, Nears Final</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1263310440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"Mozilla <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9143638/Mozilla\_ships\_Firefox\_3.6\_release\_candidate\_nears\_final">has shipped a release candidate build of Firefox 3.6</a> that, barring problems, will become the final, finished version of the upgrade. Firefox 3.6 RC1, which followed a run of betas that started in early November, features nearly 100 bug fixes from the fifth beta that Mozilla issued Dec. 17. The fixes resolved numerous crash bugs, including one that brought down the browser when it was steered to Yahoo's front page. Another fix removed a small amount of code owned by Microsoft from Firefox. The code was pointed out by a Mozilla contributor, and after digging, another developer found the original Microsoft license agreement. 'Amusingly enough, it's actually really permissive. Really the only part that's problematic is the agreement to "include the copyright notice ... on your product label and as a part of the sign-on message for your software product,"' <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=533691#c7">wrote Kyle Huey on Mozilla's Bugzilla</a>. Even so, others working on the bug said the code needed to be replaced with Mozilla's own."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Mozilla has shipped a release candidate build of Firefox 3.6 that , barring problems , will become the final , finished version of the upgrade .
Firefox 3.6 RC1 , which followed a run of betas that started in early November , features nearly 100 bug fixes from the fifth beta that Mozilla issued Dec. 17. The fixes resolved numerous crash bugs , including one that brought down the browser when it was steered to Yahoo 's front page .
Another fix removed a small amount of code owned by Microsoft from Firefox .
The code was pointed out by a Mozilla contributor , and after digging , another developer found the original Microsoft license agreement .
'Amusingly enough , it 's actually really permissive .
Really the only part that 's problematic is the agreement to " include the copyright notice ... on your product label and as a part of the sign-on message for your software product , " ' wrote Kyle Huey on Mozilla 's Bugzilla .
Even so , others working on the bug said the code needed to be replaced with Mozilla 's own .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Mozilla has shipped a release candidate build of Firefox 3.6 that, barring problems, will become the final, finished version of the upgrade.
Firefox 3.6 RC1, which followed a run of betas that started in early November, features nearly 100 bug fixes from the fifth beta that Mozilla issued Dec. 17. The fixes resolved numerous crash bugs, including one that brought down the browser when it was steered to Yahoo's front page.
Another fix removed a small amount of code owned by Microsoft from Firefox.
The code was pointed out by a Mozilla contributor, and after digging, another developer found the original Microsoft license agreement.
'Amusingly enough, it's actually really permissive.
Really the only part that's problematic is the agreement to "include the copyright notice ... on your product label and as a part of the sign-on message for your software product,"' wrote Kyle Huey on Mozilla's Bugzilla.
Even so, others working on the bug said the code needed to be replaced with Mozilla's own.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30742316</id>
	<title>Re:So what was the code from?</title>
	<author>jesser</author>
	<datestamp>1263288600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You push off the updates and say "never" or "ask me later," and you are completely ignored because it starts updating when you restart your browser regardless of what you checked.</p></div></blockquote><p>There are no "never" or "ask me later" buttons on the dialog I think you're talking about.  There's a "Restart Firefox now" button and a "Later" button.  The "Later" button installs the update the next time you start Firefox.</p><blockquote><div><p>Incredibly patronizing.</p></div></blockquote><p>Perhaps, but the alternative is far worse for the vast majority of users.</p><blockquote><div><p>Makes it hard to run an old version.</p></div></blockquote><p>If you want to test multiple versions, or manage Firefox versions for all of an organization's computers, it's best to turn off Firefox's built-in updater.  Then you don't even have to deal with prompts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You push off the updates and say " never " or " ask me later , " and you are completely ignored because it starts updating when you restart your browser regardless of what you checked.There are no " never " or " ask me later " buttons on the dialog I think you 're talking about .
There 's a " Restart Firefox now " button and a " Later " button .
The " Later " button installs the update the next time you start Firefox.Incredibly patronizing.Perhaps , but the alternative is far worse for the vast majority of users.Makes it hard to run an old version.If you want to test multiple versions , or manage Firefox versions for all of an organization 's computers , it 's best to turn off Firefox 's built-in updater .
Then you do n't even have to deal with prompts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You push off the updates and say "never" or "ask me later," and you are completely ignored because it starts updating when you restart your browser regardless of what you checked.There are no "never" or "ask me later" buttons on the dialog I think you're talking about.
There's a "Restart Firefox now" button and a "Later" button.
The "Later" button installs the update the next time you start Firefox.Incredibly patronizing.Perhaps, but the alternative is far worse for the vast majority of users.Makes it hard to run an old version.If you want to test multiple versions, or manage Firefox versions for all of an organization's computers, it's best to turn off Firefox's built-in updater.
Then you don't even have to deal with prompts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738320</id>
	<title>Re:So what was the code from?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263316440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was MSDN sample code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was MSDN sample code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was MSDN sample code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30742442</id>
	<title>Re:Memeory Leaks</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1263289380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Besides that, web browsers have a lot of useful RAM caching they can do (your history, uncompressed images etc) - it hardly makes sense to keep browser usage below 174MB when even netbooks come with 1-2GB and that RAM can be used effectively to speed up the browser.</p></div> </blockquote><p>You know those awful Office/Java/whatever preloaders? Those things that load the program in question when the computer starts, so that when you attempt to start the program, the already-running instance just opens a new window? The ones that end up increasing the start time to minutes when they're all fighting over RAM, and make the computer swap constantly even when there's seemingly just one lousy text editor running?</p><p>Those preloaders were thought up by someone who had your attitude.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides that , web browsers have a lot of useful RAM caching they can do ( your history , uncompressed images etc ) - it hardly makes sense to keep browser usage below 174MB when even netbooks come with 1-2GB and that RAM can be used effectively to speed up the browser .
You know those awful Office/Java/whatever preloaders ?
Those things that load the program in question when the computer starts , so that when you attempt to start the program , the already-running instance just opens a new window ?
The ones that end up increasing the start time to minutes when they 're all fighting over RAM , and make the computer swap constantly even when there 's seemingly just one lousy text editor running ? Those preloaders were thought up by someone who had your attitude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides that, web browsers have a lot of useful RAM caching they can do (your history, uncompressed images etc) - it hardly makes sense to keep browser usage below 174MB when even netbooks come with 1-2GB and that RAM can be used effectively to speed up the browser.
You know those awful Office/Java/whatever preloaders?
Those things that load the program in question when the computer starts, so that when you attempt to start the program, the already-running instance just opens a new window?
The ones that end up increasing the start time to minutes when they're all fighting over RAM, and make the computer swap constantly even when there's seemingly just one lousy text editor running?Those preloaders were thought up by someone who had your attitude.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738404</id>
	<title>Performance issues off flash drives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263316740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After 3.0, I've had severe performance issues with firefox off of a flash drive.</p><p>Did I miss a switch somewhere?  It has to be related to some new performance feature because the flash drive continuously flashes with 3.1+ and doesn't flash at all with 3.0.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After 3.0 , I 've had severe performance issues with firefox off of a flash drive.Did I miss a switch somewhere ?
It has to be related to some new performance feature because the flash drive continuously flashes with 3.1 + and does n't flash at all with 3.0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After 3.0, I've had severe performance issues with firefox off of a flash drive.Did I miss a switch somewhere?
It has to be related to some new performance feature because the flash drive continuously flashes with 3.1+ and doesn't flash at all with 3.0.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738094</id>
	<title>Thanks /.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263315660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I needed a good orgasm.<br>
My legs are still shaking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I needed a good orgasm .
My legs are still shaking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I needed a good orgasm.
My legs are still shaking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738226</id>
	<title>Useless Summary</title>
	<author>Necroman</author>
	<datestamp>1263316080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary rambled on about bug fixes and other things that tend not to matter to the end product of FF3.6.  Most of the people that read slashdot understand the release process for software.  You releases a beta/RC, fix some bugs, release the pre-release.  If all is good, you release the final product.</p><p>It would have been more useful to cover new features and things that would interest the end-user.  At least that's my point of view on the topic...</p><p>Useful info from the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Among the new features in Firefox 3.6 are built-in support for the scaled-down browser skins dubbed "Personas;" warnings of out-of-date plug-ins; support for new CSS, DOM and HTML 5 technologies; support for full-screen video embedded with the video HTML tag; and support for the Web Open Font Format (WOFF).</p><p>TraceMonkey has also been refreshed to boost JavaScript performance, something Mike Shaver, Mozilla's chief engineer, bragged about last week on Twitter. "I am excited about upcoming JS [JavaScript] engine work, and I don't care who knows it," Shaver tweeted.</p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary rambled on about bug fixes and other things that tend not to matter to the end product of FF3.6 .
Most of the people that read slashdot understand the release process for software .
You releases a beta/RC , fix some bugs , release the pre-release .
If all is good , you release the final product.It would have been more useful to cover new features and things that would interest the end-user .
At least that 's my point of view on the topic...Useful info from the article : Among the new features in Firefox 3.6 are built-in support for the scaled-down browser skins dubbed " Personas ; " warnings of out-of-date plug-ins ; support for new CSS , DOM and HTML 5 technologies ; support for full-screen video embedded with the video HTML tag ; and support for the Web Open Font Format ( WOFF ) .TraceMonkey has also been refreshed to boost JavaScript performance , something Mike Shaver , Mozilla 's chief engineer , bragged about last week on Twitter .
" I am excited about upcoming JS [ JavaScript ] engine work , and I do n't care who knows it , " Shaver tweeted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary rambled on about bug fixes and other things that tend not to matter to the end product of FF3.6.
Most of the people that read slashdot understand the release process for software.
You releases a beta/RC, fix some bugs, release the pre-release.
If all is good, you release the final product.It would have been more useful to cover new features and things that would interest the end-user.
At least that's my point of view on the topic...Useful info from the article:Among the new features in Firefox 3.6 are built-in support for the scaled-down browser skins dubbed "Personas;" warnings of out-of-date plug-ins; support for new CSS, DOM and HTML 5 technologies; support for full-screen video embedded with the video HTML tag; and support for the Web Open Font Format (WOFF).TraceMonkey has also been refreshed to boost JavaScript performance, something Mike Shaver, Mozilla's chief engineer, bragged about last week on Twitter.
"I am excited about upcoming JS [JavaScript] engine work, and I don't care who knows it," Shaver tweeted. 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739660</id>
	<title>Re:So what was the code from?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263321000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don&rsquo;t know, but on Gentoo, since you update your software trough the package manager, auto-update of the software itself is disabled. so I get an update, whenever I choose to update whatever I choose to update. And if I want it, I can simply add e.g. &ldquo;&lt;www-client/mozilla-firefox-3.5.6&rdquo; to my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/portage/package.mask, and I will never get any further updates, even when I update the whole system.</p><p>That&rsquo;s the one big thing that Windows lacks, that is more important than all of the bloat, the weak window manager, and the annoying idiot-proofness: The lack of a package manager and a repository.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I don    t know , but on Gentoo , since you update your software trough the package manager , auto-update of the software itself is disabled .
so I get an update , whenever I choose to update whatever I choose to update .
And if I want it , I can simply add e.g .
   /etc/portage/package.mask , and I will never get any further updates , even when I update the whole system.That    s the one big thing that Windows lacks , that is more important than all of the bloat , the weak window manager , and the annoying idiot-proofness : The lack of a package manager and a repository .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don’t know, but on Gentoo, since you update your software trough the package manager, auto-update of the software itself is disabled.
so I get an update, whenever I choose to update whatever I choose to update.
And if I want it, I can simply add e.g.
“ /etc/portage/package.mask, and I will never get any further updates, even when I update the whole system.That’s the one big thing that Windows lacks, that is more important than all of the bloat, the weak window manager, and the annoying idiot-proofness: The lack of a package manager and a repository.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738166</id>
	<title>Re:well super</title>
	<author>BForrester</author>
	<datestamp>1263315900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you need to have an updated version (or install extensions, etc.), use the portable version.  It's meant to be installed to USB, but it works just fine from a local drive.</p><p><a href="http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/firefox\_portable" title="portableapps.com">http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/firefox\_portable</a> [portableapps.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you need to have an updated version ( or install extensions , etc .
) , use the portable version .
It 's meant to be installed to USB , but it works just fine from a local drive.http : //portableapps.com/apps/internet/firefox \ _portable [ portableapps.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you need to have an updated version (or install extensions, etc.
), use the portable version.
It's meant to be installed to USB, but it works just fine from a local drive.http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/firefox\_portable [portableapps.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30740352</id>
	<title>Re:So what was the code from?</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1263323580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ya know, you could just deny Firefox from writing to its own installation directory. That would be the ideal way to prevent such a thing, yes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya know , you could just deny Firefox from writing to its own installation directory .
That would be the ideal way to prevent such a thing , yes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya know, you could just deny Firefox from writing to its own installation directory.
That would be the ideal way to prevent such a thing, yes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30742916</id>
	<title>Re:Memeory Leaks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263291840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should let Canonical know about that so they can update this page.</p><p>https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements</p><p>"Recommended" RAM is 384 Megs.</p><p>My guess is nobody has even tried running Ubuntu on 384 Megs. I have. It SUCKED BALLS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should let Canonical know about that so they can update this page.https : //help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements " Recommended " RAM is 384 Megs.My guess is nobody has even tried running Ubuntu on 384 Megs .
I have .
It SUCKED BALLS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should let Canonical know about that so they can update this page.https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements"Recommended" RAM is 384 Megs.My guess is nobody has even tried running Ubuntu on 384 Megs.
I have.
It SUCKED BALLS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30741560</id>
	<title>Re:Memeory Leaks</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1263328260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. How many pages browser has in memory?<br>2. Have you tried it without google ad-on?<br>3. Firefox with just one add-on. Fine. How many plugins you have in firefox?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
How many pages browser has in memory ? 2 .
Have you tried it without google ad-on ? 3 .
Firefox with just one add-on .
Fine. How many plugins you have in firefox ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
How many pages browser has in memory?2.
Have you tried it without google ad-on?3.
Firefox with just one add-on.
Fine. How many plugins you have in firefox?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30742010</id>
	<title>Re:Memeory Leaks</title>
	<author>V!NCENT</author>
	<datestamp>1263287160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox keeps track of what you visited while running (cashin, can be turned of... *sigh*), so when you are 'closing' your tabs and you decide to re-open it or go backwards or forwards everything responds faster. If you close Firefox it doesn't have the cache in the memory anymore...</p><p>RAM these days is dirt cheap. Preloading is what makes Vista and 7 use so much memory and I gladly run Linux with preload. Because guess what? On newer hardware these tweaks make your system actually faster. I hate uninformed people whine about things that are only their problem because they can't afford to upgrade their PC every 5 years (get a Dell PC for 299 dollars or something, jesus...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox keeps track of what you visited while running ( cashin , can be turned of... * sigh * ) , so when you are 'closing ' your tabs and you decide to re-open it or go backwards or forwards everything responds faster .
If you close Firefox it does n't have the cache in the memory anymore...RAM these days is dirt cheap .
Preloading is what makes Vista and 7 use so much memory and I gladly run Linux with preload .
Because guess what ?
On newer hardware these tweaks make your system actually faster .
I hate uninformed people whine about things that are only their problem because they ca n't afford to upgrade their PC every 5 years ( get a Dell PC for 299 dollars or something , jesus... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox keeps track of what you visited while running (cashin, can be turned of... *sigh*), so when you are 'closing' your tabs and you decide to re-open it or go backwards or forwards everything responds faster.
If you close Firefox it doesn't have the cache in the memory anymore...RAM these days is dirt cheap.
Preloading is what makes Vista and 7 use so much memory and I gladly run Linux with preload.
Because guess what?
On newer hardware these tweaks make your system actually faster.
I hate uninformed people whine about things that are only their problem because they can't afford to upgrade their PC every 5 years (get a Dell PC for 299 dollars or something, jesus...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30750204</id>
	<title>Re:Memeory Leaks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263396900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ooh, ooh, ooh, the anecdote game!  I want to play too!</p><p>I've got a crappy old P4 laptop with only 256MB of RAM.  Loading up only Chrome and surfing to Gmail, basically slows the entire system down to a crawl, as the javascript heavy site has sucked out pretty much every available meg of RAM, but hey, keep thinking that the internet is this sleek, slim little entity that doesn't require gobs of RAM regardless of browser.</p><p>As another anecdote, it's a little better in Linux with Chromium, but having Gmail and Facebook open at the same time also basically means that all available RAM is used up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ooh , ooh , ooh , the anecdote game !
I want to play too ! I 've got a crappy old P4 laptop with only 256MB of RAM .
Loading up only Chrome and surfing to Gmail , basically slows the entire system down to a crawl , as the javascript heavy site has sucked out pretty much every available meg of RAM , but hey , keep thinking that the internet is this sleek , slim little entity that does n't require gobs of RAM regardless of browser.As another anecdote , it 's a little better in Linux with Chromium , but having Gmail and Facebook open at the same time also basically means that all available RAM is used up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ooh, ooh, ooh, the anecdote game!
I want to play too!I've got a crappy old P4 laptop with only 256MB of RAM.
Loading up only Chrome and surfing to Gmail, basically slows the entire system down to a crawl, as the javascript heavy site has sucked out pretty much every available meg of RAM, but hey, keep thinking that the internet is this sleek, slim little entity that doesn't require gobs of RAM regardless of browser.As another anecdote, it's a little better in Linux with Chromium, but having Gmail and Facebook open at the same time also basically means that all available RAM is used up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738430</id>
	<title>Re:Useless Summary</title>
	<author>Björn</author>
	<datestamp>1263316800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>It would have been more useful to cover new features and things that would interest the end-user.</i> </p><p>
<a href="http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2009/10/firefox-3-6-beta-1-review" title="mozillalinks.org">Here</a> [mozillalinks.org] you go. It's for beta 1, so it's a bit old though.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would have been more useful to cover new features and things that would interest the end-user .
Here [ mozillalinks.org ] you go .
It 's for beta 1 , so it 's a bit old though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It would have been more useful to cover new features and things that would interest the end-user.
Here [mozillalinks.org] you go.
It's for beta 1, so it's a bit old though.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30743608</id>
	<title>Re:So what was the code from?</title>
	<author>paeanblack</author>
	<datestamp>1263295020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The lack of a package manager and a repository.</i></p><p>Steam works quite well as a package manager and repository. Sure, it caters specific class of packages, but so does Gentoo's repository.</p><p>Will they both expand? Eventually.</p><p>Don't be blind to the existence of competent package managers under Windows simply because they don't smell like Portage or have<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/portage/package.* files for you to dick around with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lack of a package manager and a repository.Steam works quite well as a package manager and repository .
Sure , it caters specific class of packages , but so does Gentoo 's repository.Will they both expand ?
Eventually.Do n't be blind to the existence of competent package managers under Windows simply because they do n't smell like Portage or have /etc/portage/package .
* files for you to dick around with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lack of a package manager and a repository.Steam works quite well as a package manager and repository.
Sure, it caters specific class of packages, but so does Gentoo's repository.Will they both expand?
Eventually.Don't be blind to the existence of competent package managers under Windows simply because they don't smell like Portage or have /etc/portage/package.
* files for you to dick around with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30740130</id>
	<title>Re:How does Chrome do it? No re-start needed.</title>
	<author>Webz</author>
	<datestamp>1263322680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an unsupported guess.</p><p>There's probably two versions of the executable: ones you have already running hot and one that's on the file system. If you update Chrome, it's probably updating only the reference copy on the file system and not the one you're running. So if you shut down all of your instances of Chrome, and then start one up again, it uses that new copy without mentioning anything to you.</p><p>What would really be neat is if you could run different versions of Chrome simultaneously so that given the organic lifetime of your tabs, you could seamlessly use the new Chrome and phase the old Chrome out (given that each tab is a process).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an unsupported guess.There 's probably two versions of the executable : ones you have already running hot and one that 's on the file system .
If you update Chrome , it 's probably updating only the reference copy on the file system and not the one you 're running .
So if you shut down all of your instances of Chrome , and then start one up again , it uses that new copy without mentioning anything to you.What would really be neat is if you could run different versions of Chrome simultaneously so that given the organic lifetime of your tabs , you could seamlessly use the new Chrome and phase the old Chrome out ( given that each tab is a process ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an unsupported guess.There's probably two versions of the executable: ones you have already running hot and one that's on the file system.
If you update Chrome, it's probably updating only the reference copy on the file system and not the one you're running.
So if you shut down all of your instances of Chrome, and then start one up again, it uses that new copy without mentioning anything to you.What would really be neat is if you could run different versions of Chrome simultaneously so that given the organic lifetime of your tabs, you could seamlessly use the new Chrome and phase the old Chrome out (given that each tab is a process).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737934</id>
	<title>Re:well super</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263315060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't the whole point of being a normal user on Windows that the OS shouldn't let you install those updates?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't the whole point of being a normal user on Windows that the OS should n't let you install those updates ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't the whole point of being a normal user on Windows that the OS shouldn't let you install those updates?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30740226</id>
	<title>Does it support SVG animation yet?</title>
	<author>gr8\_phk</author>
	<datestamp>1263323160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just wondering.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wondering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wondering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739196</id>
	<title>Re:Slow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263319260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Various Addons</htmltext>
<tokenext>Various Addons</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Various Addons</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738712</id>
	<title>Slow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263317760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>With so many smaller faster alternatives, Chrome, Opera, etc...<br> <br>
One has to ask in Firefox even relevent anymore?</htmltext>
<tokenext>With so many smaller faster alternatives , Chrome , Opera , etc.. . One has to ask in Firefox even relevent anymore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With so many smaller faster alternatives, Chrome, Opera, etc... 
One has to ask in Firefox even relevent anymore?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30743244</id>
	<title>5 of the 7 add-ons I use don't work</title>
	<author>dthomas2</author>
	<datestamp>1263293400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use a set of development add-ons, most of which<br>I believe are being actively maintained.</p><p>downloaded Mozilla 3.6rc1 yesterday and found<br>only Firebug 1.4.5 and Firecookie 0.9.1 seem compatible</p><p>Mozilla doesn't report Torbutton 1.2.3 as being incompatible,<br>but using it results in a javascript exception.</p><p>Mozilla reports these 4 as being incompatible<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Live HTTP Headers 0.15<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Page Speed 1.4<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; YSlow 2.0.2<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Zend Studio Toolbar 2.2</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use a set of development add-ons , most of whichI believe are being actively maintained.downloaded Mozilla 3.6rc1 yesterday and foundonly Firebug 1.4.5 and Firecookie 0.9.1 seem compatibleMozilla does n't report Torbutton 1.2.3 as being incompatible,but using it results in a javascript exception.Mozilla reports these 4 as being incompatible     Live HTTP Headers 0.15     Page Speed 1.4     YSlow 2.0.2     Zend Studio Toolbar 2.2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use a set of development add-ons, most of whichI believe are being actively maintained.downloaded Mozilla 3.6rc1 yesterday and foundonly Firebug 1.4.5 and Firecookie 0.9.1 seem compatibleMozilla doesn't report Torbutton 1.2.3 as being incompatible,but using it results in a javascript exception.Mozilla reports these 4 as being incompatible
    Live HTTP Headers 0.15
    Page Speed 1.4
    YSlow 2.0.2
    Zend Studio Toolbar 2.2</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118</id>
	<title>Memeory Leaks</title>
	<author>ironicsky</author>
	<datestamp>1263315780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did not read the article, but as long as they finally fixed the memory leaks I'll be happy.<br>
<br>
What memory leaks you ask?<br>
I have 1 tab open(This slashdot article)... my only add on is the <i>Google Toolbar</i>.<br>
Firefox 3.5.7 is using a whopping 174Mb of ram.<br>
<br> <br>
Firefox doesn't properly clear out memory of closed tabs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did not read the article , but as long as they finally fixed the memory leaks I 'll be happy .
What memory leaks you ask ?
I have 1 tab open ( This slashdot article ) ... my only add on is the Google Toolbar .
Firefox 3.5.7 is using a whopping 174Mb of ram .
Firefox does n't properly clear out memory of closed tabs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did not read the article, but as long as they finally fixed the memory leaks I'll be happy.
What memory leaks you ask?
I have 1 tab open(This slashdot article)... my only add on is the Google Toolbar.
Firefox 3.5.7 is using a whopping 174Mb of ram.
Firefox doesn't properly clear out memory of closed tabs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738154</id>
	<title>Re:So what was the code from?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263315900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RTFA</p><blockquote><div><p>For what little it's worth, the code is sample code provided with Inside OLE 2,<br>which I was able to borrow a copy of.  I've attached the license agreement.<br>Amusingly enough, it's actually really permissive.  Really the only part that's<br>problematic is the agreement to "include the copyright notice<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... on your<br>product label and as a part of the sign-on message for your software product."</p></div></blockquote><p>https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=533691#c7</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFAFor what little it 's worth , the code is sample code provided with Inside OLE 2,which I was able to borrow a copy of .
I 've attached the license agreement.Amusingly enough , it 's actually really permissive .
Really the only part that'sproblematic is the agreement to " include the copyright notice ... on yourproduct label and as a part of the sign-on message for your software product .
" https : //bugzilla.mozilla.org/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 533691 # c7</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFAFor what little it's worth, the code is sample code provided with Inside OLE 2,which I was able to borrow a copy of.
I've attached the license agreement.Amusingly enough, it's actually really permissive.
Really the only part that'sproblematic is the agreement to "include the copyright notice ... on yourproduct label and as a part of the sign-on message for your software product.
"https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=533691#c7
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30746576</id>
	<title>Re:Why no Linux x86\_64 Firefox releases yet???</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1263313080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox 3.5 is slower when built 64-bit instead of 32-bit, because the jit shipped in that doesn't generate 64-bit instructions yet.  It doesn't really make sense to ship a 64-bit build it if has worse user experience than a 32-bit one.</p><p>Firefox 3.6 will have a 64-bit-capable jit.  So at that point all that's needed to make 64-bit a tier1 platform is setting up the test infrastructure for it, hiring more people to do the QA for it (or finding more volunteers willing to do it, of course), and so forth.  It'll probably happen (especially as some other platforms, like Mac OS X 10.4 are dropped), but it's not quite as simple as compiling and then tossing the binaries up on the FTP server.  That last \_can\_ be done, but they're likely to have bugs that the 32-bit binaries don't have, just by virtue of having gotten less testing....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox 3.5 is slower when built 64-bit instead of 32-bit , because the jit shipped in that does n't generate 64-bit instructions yet .
It does n't really make sense to ship a 64-bit build it if has worse user experience than a 32-bit one.Firefox 3.6 will have a 64-bit-capable jit .
So at that point all that 's needed to make 64-bit a tier1 platform is setting up the test infrastructure for it , hiring more people to do the QA for it ( or finding more volunteers willing to do it , of course ) , and so forth .
It 'll probably happen ( especially as some other platforms , like Mac OS X 10.4 are dropped ) , but it 's not quite as simple as compiling and then tossing the binaries up on the FTP server .
That last \ _can \ _ be done , but they 're likely to have bugs that the 32-bit binaries do n't have , just by virtue of having gotten less testing... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox 3.5 is slower when built 64-bit instead of 32-bit, because the jit shipped in that doesn't generate 64-bit instructions yet.
It doesn't really make sense to ship a 64-bit build it if has worse user experience than a 32-bit one.Firefox 3.6 will have a 64-bit-capable jit.
So at that point all that's needed to make 64-bit a tier1 platform is setting up the test infrastructure for it, hiring more people to do the QA for it (or finding more volunteers willing to do it, of course), and so forth.
It'll probably happen (especially as some other platforms, like Mac OS X 10.4 are dropped), but it's not quite as simple as compiling and then tossing the binaries up on the FTP server.
That last \_can\_ be done, but they're likely to have bugs that the 32-bit binaries don't have, just by virtue of having gotten less testing....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30741002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30740592</id>
	<title>Re:How does Chrome do it? No re-start needed.</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1263324420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I never noticed ever needing a restart, but still, the executable is being updated, too.</p></div><p>Chrome runs a process per open page to isolate crashes. I'm guessing that as long as binaries of different versions communicate by passing well-defined messages and only binaries of the same version share memory, multiple versions of the Chrome engine can run at once.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never noticed ever needing a restart , but still , the executable is being updated , too.Chrome runs a process per open page to isolate crashes .
I 'm guessing that as long as binaries of different versions communicate by passing well-defined messages and only binaries of the same version share memory , multiple versions of the Chrome engine can run at once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never noticed ever needing a restart, but still, the executable is being updated, too.Chrome runs a process per open page to isolate crashes.
I'm guessing that as long as binaries of different versions communicate by passing well-defined messages and only binaries of the same version share memory, multiple versions of the Chrome engine can run at once.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738466</id>
	<title>New Gecko 1.9.2 in FF 3.6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263316920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love the new Gecko features, especially -moz-linear-gradient  and -moz-radial-gradient. Huge bandwidth savings for gradient loving web developers out there.</p><p>https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Firefox\_3.6\_for\_developers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the new Gecko features , especially -moz-linear-gradient and -moz-radial-gradient .
Huge bandwidth savings for gradient loving web developers out there.https : //developer.mozilla.org/En/Firefox \ _3.6 \ _for \ _developers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the new Gecko features, especially -moz-linear-gradient  and -moz-radial-gradient.
Huge bandwidth savings for gradient loving web developers out there.https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Firefox\_3.6\_for\_developers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30741406</id>
	<title>Re:Memeory Leaks</title>
	<author>TangoMargarine</author>
	<datestamp>1263327660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's all in your head. It's Microsoft's fault. This is not the RAM you are looking for...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all in your head .
It 's Microsoft 's fault .
This is not the RAM you are looking for.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all in your head.
It's Microsoft's fault.
This is not the RAM you are looking for...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30742028</id>
	<title>Re:Memeory Leaks</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1263287280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Firefox 3.5.7 is using a whopping 174Mb of ram.</p></div><p>Put another way, that would be gobbling up an Earth-shattering 2.83\% of the RAM in the desktop I'm typing this on.  They should drop everything and get that down to no more than 1.4\% of my installed RAM.</p><p>Yeah, I know: best practices, bloat, netbooks, old computers, etc.  Those are all perfectly valid reasons why <em>all</em> software should be well-crafted and should limit wasted resources.  I just can't get excited about the raw numbers involved in this case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox 3.5.7 is using a whopping 174Mb of ram.Put another way , that would be gobbling up an Earth-shattering 2.83 \ % of the RAM in the desktop I 'm typing this on .
They should drop everything and get that down to no more than 1.4 \ % of my installed RAM.Yeah , I know : best practices , bloat , netbooks , old computers , etc .
Those are all perfectly valid reasons why all software should be well-crafted and should limit wasted resources .
I just ca n't get excited about the raw numbers involved in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox 3.5.7 is using a whopping 174Mb of ram.Put another way, that would be gobbling up an Earth-shattering 2.83\% of the RAM in the desktop I'm typing this on.
They should drop everything and get that down to no more than 1.4\% of my installed RAM.Yeah, I know: best practices, bloat, netbooks, old computers, etc.
Those are all perfectly valid reasons why all software should be well-crafted and should limit wasted resources.
I just can't get excited about the raw numbers involved in this case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738536</id>
	<title>Go get it.</title>
	<author>el\_jake</author>
	<datestamp>1263317160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-beta.html" title="mozilla.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-beta.html</a> [mozilla.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-beta.html [ mozilla.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-beta.html [mozilla.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739170</id>
	<title>Re:Slow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263319200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until Opera and Chrome get usable, working AdBlock+ and NoScript, then there are no good alternatives to Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until Opera and Chrome get usable , working AdBlock + and NoScript , then there are no good alternatives to Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until Opera and Chrome get usable, working AdBlock+ and NoScript, then there are no good alternatives to Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738954</id>
	<title>Re:well super</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263318480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but a notice for normal users that an update is available and that they should notify their system administrator would be nice I guess. Enabling updates for normal users might seem nice from a home desktop user perspective but it is a no go in corporate environments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but a notice for normal users that an update is available and that they should notify their system administrator would be nice I guess .
Enabling updates for normal users might seem nice from a home desktop user perspective but it is a no go in corporate environments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but a notice for normal users that an update is available and that they should notify their system administrator would be nice I guess.
Enabling updates for normal users might seem nice from a home desktop user perspective but it is a no go in corporate environments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739088</id>
	<title>Re:How does Chrome do it? No re-start needed.</title>
	<author>at\_slashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1263318960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you do it manually it prompts you to restart it to benefit from the update, otherwise it does it in the background (if you run Windows, in Linux you need to use the package manager to upgrade it)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do it manually it prompts you to restart it to benefit from the update , otherwise it does it in the background ( if you run Windows , in Linux you need to use the package manager to upgrade it )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you do it manually it prompts you to restart it to benefit from the update, otherwise it does it in the background (if you run Windows, in Linux you need to use the package manager to upgrade it)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738614</id>
	<title>Re:Memeory Leaks</title>
	<author>adiether</author>
	<datestamp>1263317400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Closing a tab, hitting CTR-ALT-DEL, and looking at how much memory Firefox is using is NOT a good indicator of a memory leak. A better indicator is how long and how much can you use Firefox.   I can't remember the last time I ran up against Firefox being unusable because it was bloating.  Also, to lay blame at Firefox's feet you would need to turn off all your plugins such as Flash, Quicktime, Java, etc.<br> <br>

 In a low RAM environment, Firefox is much more aggressive at keeping RAM usage down. Most computers these days have lots of RAM.  Programs should use it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Closing a tab , hitting CTR-ALT-DEL , and looking at how much memory Firefox is using is NOT a good indicator of a memory leak .
A better indicator is how long and how much can you use Firefox .
I ca n't remember the last time I ran up against Firefox being unusable because it was bloating .
Also , to lay blame at Firefox 's feet you would need to turn off all your plugins such as Flash , Quicktime , Java , etc .
In a low RAM environment , Firefox is much more aggressive at keeping RAM usage down .
Most computers these days have lots of RAM .
Programs should use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Closing a tab, hitting CTR-ALT-DEL, and looking at how much memory Firefox is using is NOT a good indicator of a memory leak.
A better indicator is how long and how much can you use Firefox.
I can't remember the last time I ran up against Firefox being unusable because it was bloating.
Also, to lay blame at Firefox's feet you would need to turn off all your plugins such as Flash, Quicktime, Java, etc.
In a low RAM environment, Firefox is much more aggressive at keeping RAM usage down.
Most computers these days have lots of RAM.
Programs should use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30741534</id>
	<title>Re:Slow...</title>
	<author>TangoMargarine</author>
	<datestamp>1263328140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Plugins.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plugins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plugins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30742596</id>
	<title>Re:How does Chrome do it? No re-start needed.</title>
	<author>HoboCop</author>
	<datestamp>1263290220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen the executable in the localsettings/application data folder on windows.  Likely it's copied &amp; executed from there on startup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen the executable in the localsettings/application data folder on windows .
Likely it 's copied &amp; executed from there on startup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen the executable in the localsettings/application data folder on windows.
Likely it's copied &amp; executed from there on startup.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737748</id>
	<title>So what was the code from?</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1263314400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Inglorious Netscape days, or sneaked in by some saboteur into Mozilla/Firefox?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Inglorious Netscape days , or sneaked in by some saboteur into Mozilla/Firefox ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Inglorious Netscape days, or sneaked in by some saboteur into Mozilla/Firefox?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739844</id>
	<title>Re:Memeory Leaks</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263321660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As is noted for at least one or two years, you can disable that behavior.</p><p>Also 174 MB (I don&rsquo;t think you meant megabits<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) is not that much, if you calculate the size of the actual data, in its *uncompressed* form with a full parse tree. Do some calculations. You&rsquo;ll be surprised at how big that actually becomes.</p><p>I&rsquo;d like to see some memory map for Firefox anyway. Since when Opera can do it, so should Firefox.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br>My guess is, that Opera has something like a offscreen buffer that is in memory for all inactive tabs. So they don&rsquo;t have to draw anything.</p><p>And my main guess is, that the reason for Firefox&rsquo;s bloat, apart from Flash having more memory leaks than IE has holes, is simple: XUL. Or in other words: Tons of XML files (a format known for excessive bloat), which means tons of parse trees, with parse trees for the attached JavaScript events/triggers, and all that attached to the unnecessarily complex XPCOM interface.<br>Which from a software design standpoint certainly is a very nice thing, becase it&rsquo;s so platform-independent, and because it&rsquo;s so flexible.<br>But I fear they went too far, and now it&rsquo;s caught in the horrible anti-pattern of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner\_platform\_effect" title="wikipedia.org">inner-platform effect</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>So what it needs, is less layers (/ inner platforms), or at least a layer-combining compiler. (XUL+JS to efficient machine code.)</p><p>Or to talk more general: We need something generic like HTML, but for application interfaces, that is compilable to machine code. Doesn&rsquo;t QT/KDE do that already?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As is noted for at least one or two years , you can disable that behavior.Also 174 MB ( I don    t think you meant megabits ; ) is not that much , if you calculate the size of the actual data , in its * uncompressed * form with a full parse tree .
Do some calculations .
You    ll be surprised at how big that actually becomes.I    d like to see some memory map for Firefox anyway .
Since when Opera can do it , so should Firefox .
; ) My guess is , that Opera has something like a offscreen buffer that is in memory for all inactive tabs .
So they don    t have to draw anything.And my main guess is , that the reason for Firefox    s bloat , apart from Flash having more memory leaks than IE has holes , is simple : XUL .
Or in other words : Tons of XML files ( a format known for excessive bloat ) , which means tons of parse trees , with parse trees for the attached JavaScript events/triggers , and all that attached to the unnecessarily complex XPCOM interface.Which from a software design standpoint certainly is a very nice thing , becase it    s so platform-independent , and because it    s so flexible.But I fear they went too far , and now it    s caught in the horrible anti-pattern of the inner-platform effect [ wikipedia.org ] .So what it needs , is less layers ( / inner platforms ) , or at least a layer-combining compiler .
( XUL + JS to efficient machine code .
) Or to talk more general : We need something generic like HTML , but for application interfaces , that is compilable to machine code .
Doesn    t QT/KDE do that already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As is noted for at least one or two years, you can disable that behavior.Also 174 MB (I don’t think you meant megabits ;) is not that much, if you calculate the size of the actual data, in its *uncompressed* form with a full parse tree.
Do some calculations.
You’ll be surprised at how big that actually becomes.I’d like to see some memory map for Firefox anyway.
Since when Opera can do it, so should Firefox.
;)My guess is, that Opera has something like a offscreen buffer that is in memory for all inactive tabs.
So they don’t have to draw anything.And my main guess is, that the reason for Firefox’s bloat, apart from Flash having more memory leaks than IE has holes, is simple: XUL.
Or in other words: Tons of XML files (a format known for excessive bloat), which means tons of parse trees, with parse trees for the attached JavaScript events/triggers, and all that attached to the unnecessarily complex XPCOM interface.Which from a software design standpoint certainly is a very nice thing, becase it’s so platform-independent, and because it’s so flexible.But I fear they went too far, and now it’s caught in the horrible anti-pattern of the inner-platform effect [wikipedia.org].So what it needs, is less layers (/ inner platforms), or at least a layer-combining compiler.
(XUL+JS to efficient machine code.
)Or to talk more general: We need something generic like HTML, but for application interfaces, that is compilable to machine code.
Doesn’t QT/KDE do that already?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737814</id>
	<title>well super</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263314640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it possible to check for updates as a normal user on Windows yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it possible to check for updates as a normal user on Windows yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it possible to check for updates as a normal user on Windows yet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738240</id>
	<title>Re:well super</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263316140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it possible to check for updates as a normal (gksudoed) user on Linux yet?</p><p>Oh, no because the Linux upgrade of Mozilla products lags behind horribly, and you have to run some piece of shit, hacked up bash script to pick apart some tar.gz files downloaded from nightlies.<br>What a fucking mess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it possible to check for updates as a normal ( gksudoed ) user on Linux yet ? Oh , no because the Linux upgrade of Mozilla products lags behind horribly , and you have to run some piece of shit , hacked up bash script to pick apart some tar.gz files downloaded from nightlies.What a fucking mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it possible to check for updates as a normal (gksudoed) user on Linux yet?Oh, no because the Linux upgrade of Mozilla products lags behind horribly, and you have to run some piece of shit, hacked up bash script to pick apart some tar.gz files downloaded from nightlies.What a fucking mess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738566</id>
	<title>Re:Memeory Leaks</title>
	<author>mejogid</author>
	<datestamp>1263317280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firefox at this point is really <a href="http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory" title="dotnetperls.com" rel="nofollow">quite reasonable</a> [dotnetperls.com] with its memory use - I can't get my head around the continual complaints.  The only area where it's appreciably worse performing than Chrome is in UI responsiveness and this has significantly improved in 3.5.  It also has far faster back/forward navigation through the cache  and (although I don't have figures for this) it feels faster at displaying pages without extremely heavy javascript.  There's also less flicker - most pages load in one paint rather than loading in sections.

Besides that, web browsers have a lot of useful RAM caching they can do (your history, uncompressed images etc) - it hardly makes sense to keep browser usage below 174MB when even netbooks come with 1-2GB and that RAM can be used effectively to speed up the browser.  Frankly, if you're too stingy to splash out on a stick of RAM use xterm with lynx or another browser from the era when that amount of RAM was normal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox at this point is really quite reasonable [ dotnetperls.com ] with its memory use - I ca n't get my head around the continual complaints .
The only area where it 's appreciably worse performing than Chrome is in UI responsiveness and this has significantly improved in 3.5 .
It also has far faster back/forward navigation through the cache and ( although I do n't have figures for this ) it feels faster at displaying pages without extremely heavy javascript .
There 's also less flicker - most pages load in one paint rather than loading in sections .
Besides that , web browsers have a lot of useful RAM caching they can do ( your history , uncompressed images etc ) - it hardly makes sense to keep browser usage below 174MB when even netbooks come with 1-2GB and that RAM can be used effectively to speed up the browser .
Frankly , if you 're too stingy to splash out on a stick of RAM use xterm with lynx or another browser from the era when that amount of RAM was normal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox at this point is really quite reasonable [dotnetperls.com] with its memory use - I can't get my head around the continual complaints.
The only area where it's appreciably worse performing than Chrome is in UI responsiveness and this has significantly improved in 3.5.
It also has far faster back/forward navigation through the cache  and (although I don't have figures for this) it feels faster at displaying pages without extremely heavy javascript.
There's also less flicker - most pages load in one paint rather than loading in sections.
Besides that, web browsers have a lot of useful RAM caching they can do (your history, uncompressed images etc) - it hardly makes sense to keep browser usage below 174MB when even netbooks come with 1-2GB and that RAM can be used effectively to speed up the browser.
Frankly, if you're too stingy to splash out on a stick of RAM use xterm with lynx or another browser from the era when that amount of RAM was normal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738230</id>
	<title>Re:So what was the code from?</title>
	<author>TrisexualPuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1263316080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually kind of makes me wonder. I keep getting updates pushed like crazy, and just about every time that I restart my browser (running a pretty stable system, so it may be days or weeks), I get a new Firefox update. You push off the updates and say "never" or "ask me later," and you are completely ignored because it starts updating when you restart your browser regardless of what you checked. Incredibly patronizing. Makes it hard to run an old version. There may be security risks with old versions, but at least they're generally known a little better than the ones known in the new versions that are being crammed down your throat on a daily basis.<br> <br>Then for some of my clients' intranet sites, there's this thing about not being able to turn off security for "risky" (certificate broken) sites that pose no threat but I have no control over and have to add an exception for every time. The browser.ssl\_override\_behavior setting is there, but it is completely ignored now, just like the "never update" option.<br> <br>Every new version of Firefox removes my control a little more, and it has gotten really old. It makes me wonder what version 3.6 is going to bring--if anything--and why they keep changing things for the sake of changing them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually kind of makes me wonder .
I keep getting updates pushed like crazy , and just about every time that I restart my browser ( running a pretty stable system , so it may be days or weeks ) , I get a new Firefox update .
You push off the updates and say " never " or " ask me later , " and you are completely ignored because it starts updating when you restart your browser regardless of what you checked .
Incredibly patronizing .
Makes it hard to run an old version .
There may be security risks with old versions , but at least they 're generally known a little better than the ones known in the new versions that are being crammed down your throat on a daily basis .
Then for some of my clients ' intranet sites , there 's this thing about not being able to turn off security for " risky " ( certificate broken ) sites that pose no threat but I have no control over and have to add an exception for every time .
The browser.ssl \ _override \ _behavior setting is there , but it is completely ignored now , just like the " never update " option .
Every new version of Firefox removes my control a little more , and it has gotten really old .
It makes me wonder what version 3.6 is going to bring--if anything--and why they keep changing things for the sake of changing them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually kind of makes me wonder.
I keep getting updates pushed like crazy, and just about every time that I restart my browser (running a pretty stable system, so it may be days or weeks), I get a new Firefox update.
You push off the updates and say "never" or "ask me later," and you are completely ignored because it starts updating when you restart your browser regardless of what you checked.
Incredibly patronizing.
Makes it hard to run an old version.
There may be security risks with old versions, but at least they're generally known a little better than the ones known in the new versions that are being crammed down your throat on a daily basis.
Then for some of my clients' intranet sites, there's this thing about not being able to turn off security for "risky" (certificate broken) sites that pose no threat but I have no control over and have to add an exception for every time.
The browser.ssl\_override\_behavior setting is there, but it is completely ignored now, just like the "never update" option.
Every new version of Firefox removes my control a little more, and it has gotten really old.
It makes me wonder what version 3.6 is going to bring--if anything--and why they keep changing things for the sake of changing them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738962</id>
	<title>Re:Memeory Leaks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263318540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>RAM is cheap. My desktop rig has 8GB. I don't mind firefox using 500-1024MB as long as my browsing is snappy and I can get to old closed tabs for some time (hence the high memory usage).</htmltext>
<tokenext>RAM is cheap .
My desktop rig has 8GB .
I do n't mind firefox using 500-1024MB as long as my browsing is snappy and I can get to old closed tabs for some time ( hence the high memory usage ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RAM is cheap.
My desktop rig has 8GB.
I don't mind firefox using 500-1024MB as long as my browsing is snappy and I can get to old closed tabs for some time (hence the high memory usage).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738902</id>
	<title>Re:Useless Summary</title>
	<author>Provocateur</author>
	<datestamp>1263318300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personas have been in Firefox before, then discontinued. You'll see a lot of submissions there from those days. I'm glad that it's back, but I am hoping for a utility that could make the earlier personas work in this updated version.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personas have been in Firefox before , then discontinued .
You 'll see a lot of submissions there from those days .
I 'm glad that it 's back , but I am hoping for a utility that could make the earlier personas work in this updated version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personas have been in Firefox before, then discontinued.
You'll see a lot of submissions there from those days.
I'm glad that it's back, but I am hoping for a utility that could make the earlier personas work in this updated version.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30742968</id>
	<title>Re:Slow...</title>
	<author>Revenger75</author>
	<datestamp>1263292080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't checked up on NoScript, but I'm currently using Chrome Beta with AdBlock.  I haven't had a single problem with Chrome, unlike Firefox which comes bundled with features like memory leaks and countless crashes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't checked up on NoScript , but I 'm currently using Chrome Beta with AdBlock .
I have n't had a single problem with Chrome , unlike Firefox which comes bundled with features like memory leaks and countless crashes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't checked up on NoScript, but I'm currently using Chrome Beta with AdBlock.
I haven't had a single problem with Chrome, unlike Firefox which comes bundled with features like memory leaks and countless crashes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739132</id>
	<title>Re:Memeory Leaks</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1263319080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google Toolbar may be leaky. However I guess the initial amount of memory for Firefox is actually high (higher than say, Opera or IE).</p><p>Right now I am using Firefox 3.5.5 on Win XP. I have 3 windows open:<br>Window 1 with 13 tabs including Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Notebook and Slashdot.<br>Window 2: 19 Tabs (some wikipedia, Eurostat sites, etc)</p><p>Window 3: 2 tabs Google search.</p><p>In addition I have the following extensions:Adblock Plus, Delicious bookmarks, DOM inspector, downthemall, fireftp, grasemonkey, pricedrop, sage, scrapbook stop-or-reload button, stylish, tab mix plus, tinymenu treestyle tab, xmarks.</p><p>All that makes 476,620K as measured by Process Explored "Private Bytes" field. I would not say it is a lot of memory =oP. This machine has 2 GB of RAM. and According to RAMPage I have 700 MB free. (and I've got a total of 25 windows opened including Word, Excel, Forefox, Outlook, Explorer, etc) distributed in 4 VirtuaWin virtual desktops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Toolbar may be leaky .
However I guess the initial amount of memory for Firefox is actually high ( higher than say , Opera or IE ) .Right now I am using Firefox 3.5.5 on Win XP .
I have 3 windows open : Window 1 with 13 tabs including Gmail , Google Calendar , Google Notebook and Slashdot.Window 2 : 19 Tabs ( some wikipedia , Eurostat sites , etc ) Window 3 : 2 tabs Google search.In addition I have the following extensions : Adblock Plus , Delicious bookmarks , DOM inspector , downthemall , fireftp , grasemonkey , pricedrop , sage , scrapbook stop-or-reload button , stylish , tab mix plus , tinymenu treestyle tab , xmarks.All that makes 476,620K as measured by Process Explored " Private Bytes " field .
I would not say it is a lot of memory = oP .
This machine has 2 GB of RAM .
and According to RAMPage I have 700 MB free .
( and I 've got a total of 25 windows opened including Word , Excel , Forefox , Outlook , Explorer , etc ) distributed in 4 VirtuaWin virtual desktops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Toolbar may be leaky.
However I guess the initial amount of memory for Firefox is actually high (higher than say, Opera or IE).Right now I am using Firefox 3.5.5 on Win XP.
I have 3 windows open:Window 1 with 13 tabs including Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Notebook and Slashdot.Window 2: 19 Tabs (some wikipedia, Eurostat sites, etc)Window 3: 2 tabs Google search.In addition I have the following extensions:Adblock Plus, Delicious bookmarks, DOM inspector, downthemall, fireftp, grasemonkey, pricedrop, sage, scrapbook stop-or-reload button, stylish, tab mix plus, tinymenu treestyle tab, xmarks.All that makes 476,620K as measured by Process Explored "Private Bytes" field.
I would not say it is a lot of memory =oP.
This machine has 2 GB of RAM.
and According to RAMPage I have 700 MB free.
(and I've got a total of 25 windows opened including Word, Excel, Forefox, Outlook, Explorer, etc) distributed in 4 VirtuaWin virtual desktops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30740976</id>
	<title>Re:So what was the code from?</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1263325980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The former.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The former .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The former.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738952</id>
	<title>Re:So what was the code from?</title>
	<author>Provocateur</author>
	<datestamp>1263318480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a <i>prehistoric</i> Moz sitting on an old distro that I have kept since it picked up my webcam before the next release started ignoring it. Back then it wasn't 'self aware' to phone home and check for updates. Didn't see the point as I was using the distro less and less, but the Moz skin <a href="http://themes.mozdev.org/themes/negativemod.html" title="mozdev.org">http://themes.mozdev.org/themes/negativemod.html</a> [mozdev.org] sure is beyond compare, and I've kept it that way since.</p><p>Hmmm considering one poster below said to stick to 'browsers of that era' if your RAM is 'of that era', I think I'd get FF 1.0+<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) just to make this skin work again (and out of spite).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a prehistoric Moz sitting on an old distro that I have kept since it picked up my webcam before the next release started ignoring it .
Back then it was n't 'self aware ' to phone home and check for updates .
Did n't see the point as I was using the distro less and less , but the Moz skin http : //themes.mozdev.org/themes/negativemod.html [ mozdev.org ] sure is beyond compare , and I 've kept it that way since.Hmmm considering one poster below said to stick to 'browsers of that era ' if your RAM is 'of that era ' , I think I 'd get FF 1.0 + : ) just to make this skin work again ( and out of spite ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a prehistoric Moz sitting on an old distro that I have kept since it picked up my webcam before the next release started ignoring it.
Back then it wasn't 'self aware' to phone home and check for updates.
Didn't see the point as I was using the distro less and less, but the Moz skin http://themes.mozdev.org/themes/negativemod.html [mozdev.org] sure is beyond compare, and I've kept it that way since.Hmmm considering one poster below said to stick to 'browsers of that era' if your RAM is 'of that era', I think I'd get FF 1.0+ :) just to make this skin work again (and out of spite).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738160</id>
	<title>Re:well super</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263315900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't the entire point of running Linux as a normal user that you can't update anything?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't the entire point of running Linux as a normal user that you ca n't update anything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't the entire point of running Linux as a normal user that you can't update anything?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739718</id>
	<title>Re:Memeory Leaks</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1263321240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My desktop rig has 8GB.</p></div><p>Netbooks and old (paid-for) PCs tend not to even have enough slots for 8 GB of RAM.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My desktop rig has 8GB.Netbooks and old ( paid-for ) PCs tend not to even have enough slots for 8 GB of RAM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My desktop rig has 8GB.Netbooks and old (paid-for) PCs tend not to even have enough slots for 8 GB of RAM.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738286</id>
	<title>Re:Memeory Leaks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263316320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm at work using IE 7. I just closed down to one tab after heavy use, and IE is still at 64 megs of physical memory, and 180 megs of virtual memory. Sound like Firefox wins there.</p><p>The only browser I've seen that can properly close memory from closed tabs is Chrome.</p><p>Firefox INTENTIONALLY AS A FEATURE (not a memory leak) does keep fully rendered pages, with full history and the cache of X rendered pages, for some time after you close the tab. You can right-click on the tab bar and reopen recently closed tabs. I actually love that feature and miss it all the time in IE. However, you can probably turn off the feature with about:config if you need to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm at work using IE 7 .
I just closed down to one tab after heavy use , and IE is still at 64 megs of physical memory , and 180 megs of virtual memory .
Sound like Firefox wins there.The only browser I 've seen that can properly close memory from closed tabs is Chrome.Firefox INTENTIONALLY AS A FEATURE ( not a memory leak ) does keep fully rendered pages , with full history and the cache of X rendered pages , for some time after you close the tab .
You can right-click on the tab bar and reopen recently closed tabs .
I actually love that feature and miss it all the time in IE .
However , you can probably turn off the feature with about : config if you need to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm at work using IE 7.
I just closed down to one tab after heavy use, and IE is still at 64 megs of physical memory, and 180 megs of virtual memory.
Sound like Firefox wins there.The only browser I've seen that can properly close memory from closed tabs is Chrome.Firefox INTENTIONALLY AS A FEATURE (not a memory leak) does keep fully rendered pages, with full history and the cache of X rendered pages, for some time after you close the tab.
You can right-click on the tab bar and reopen recently closed tabs.
I actually love that feature and miss it all the time in IE.
However, you can probably turn off the feature with about:config if you need to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30744338</id>
	<title>Re:Memeory Leaks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263298560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may be (uneducated guess) a result of the ability to restore tabs and closed windows. That is ctrl+shift+t T opens the last closed tab (it also keeps all previous pages visited in that tab), and can do so more than once. same with windows, ctrl+shift+N.<br>On this, when banks ask you to close your browser windows, if you are actually concerned, you'd need to completely shut down Firefox in order to actually lose the session.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may be ( uneducated guess ) a result of the ability to restore tabs and closed windows .
That is ctrl + shift + t T opens the last closed tab ( it also keeps all previous pages visited in that tab ) , and can do so more than once .
same with windows , ctrl + shift + N.On this , when banks ask you to close your browser windows , if you are actually concerned , you 'd need to completely shut down Firefox in order to actually lose the session .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may be (uneducated guess) a result of the ability to restore tabs and closed windows.
That is ctrl+shift+t T opens the last closed tab (it also keeps all previous pages visited in that tab), and can do so more than once.
same with windows, ctrl+shift+N.On this, when banks ask you to close your browser windows, if you are actually concerned, you'd need to completely shut down Firefox in order to actually lose the session.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30741002</id>
	<title>Why no Linux x86\_64 Firefox releases yet???</title>
	<author>trutative</author>
	<datestamp>1263326040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am always dismayed by the lack of Linux x86\_64 Firefox releases.<br>I can download current releases of OpenOffice for Linux x96\_64.<br>Why is it so hard to find Firefox for x86\_64???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am always dismayed by the lack of Linux x86 \ _64 Firefox releases.I can download current releases of OpenOffice for Linux x96 \ _64.Why is it so hard to find Firefox for x86 \ _64 ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am always dismayed by the lack of Linux x86\_64 Firefox releases.I can download current releases of OpenOffice for Linux x96\_64.Why is it so hard to find Firefox for x86\_64??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738970</id>
	<title>Still no Web Socket support</title>
	<author>heathm</author>
	<datestamp>1263318540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox continues to fall behind Chrome.  Unfortunately, there's no web socket support in this release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox continues to fall behind Chrome .
Unfortunately , there 's no web socket support in this release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox continues to fall behind Chrome.
Unfortunately, there's no web socket support in this release.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738974</id>
	<title>Re:Memeory Leaks</title>
	<author>FudRucker</author>
	<datestamp>1263318540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>RE: "Firefox 3.5.7 is using a whopping 174Mb of ram."
<br> <br>
and with most systems having at least 1 to 4 gigs of ram 174 megs is what?
<br> <br>
a pimple on a hippo's butt?</htmltext>
<tokenext>RE : " Firefox 3.5.7 is using a whopping 174Mb of ram .
" and with most systems having at least 1 to 4 gigs of ram 174 megs is what ?
a pimple on a hippo 's butt ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RE: "Firefox 3.5.7 is using a whopping 174Mb of ram.
"
 
and with most systems having at least 1 to 4 gigs of ram 174 megs is what?
a pimple on a hippo's butt?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30748596</id>
	<title>Re:So what was the code from?</title>
	<author>uiuyhn8i8</author>
	<datestamp>1263381060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;running a pretty stable system, so it may be days or weeks</p><p>Jesus, I hope you are running windos or something if you consider weekly reboots stable. For the record, my Linux system practically never goes down. It's the power outages that takes it down perhaps once a year. Desktop machine that is. And I use a window manager that only manages windows (ctwm) and not the entire system, which I suspect is the reason it never dies. The servers are on UPS and are usually up for a couple of years before we upgrade redhat on them or upgrade hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; running a pretty stable system , so it may be days or weeksJesus , I hope you are running windos or something if you consider weekly reboots stable .
For the record , my Linux system practically never goes down .
It 's the power outages that takes it down perhaps once a year .
Desktop machine that is .
And I use a window manager that only manages windows ( ctwm ) and not the entire system , which I suspect is the reason it never dies .
The servers are on UPS and are usually up for a couple of years before we upgrade redhat on them or upgrade hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;running a pretty stable system, so it may be days or weeksJesus, I hope you are running windos or something if you consider weekly reboots stable.
For the record, my Linux system practically never goes down.
It's the power outages that takes it down perhaps once a year.
Desktop machine that is.
And I use a window manager that only manages windows (ctwm) and not the entire system, which I suspect is the reason it never dies.
The servers are on UPS and are usually up for a couple of years before we upgrade redhat on them or upgrade hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30741282</id>
	<title>Does This Fix The Flash CPU Issues?</title>
	<author>BfA</author>
	<datestamp>1263327240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm running a E4500 Core 2 Duo and continuously saw my one core at ~50\% with Firefox 3.5 and Flash 10. Luckily, I have that second core so I can still function. On my latest Windows 7 x64 build then I installed Firefox 3.6 b4 and Flash 10.1 Beta... still happening. Is this issue strictly a flash issue or is it also involving Firefox as well? Anyone have any idea when this issue will be fixed?

PS The issue still happens in both Firefox b5 and RC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm running a E4500 Core 2 Duo and continuously saw my one core at ~ 50 \ % with Firefox 3.5 and Flash 10 .
Luckily , I have that second core so I can still function .
On my latest Windows 7 x64 build then I installed Firefox 3.6 b4 and Flash 10.1 Beta... still happening .
Is this issue strictly a flash issue or is it also involving Firefox as well ?
Anyone have any idea when this issue will be fixed ?
PS The issue still happens in both Firefox b5 and RC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm running a E4500 Core 2 Duo and continuously saw my one core at ~50\% with Firefox 3.5 and Flash 10.
Luckily, I have that second core so I can still function.
On my latest Windows 7 x64 build then I installed Firefox 3.6 b4 and Flash 10.1 Beta... still happening.
Is this issue strictly a flash issue or is it also involving Firefox as well?
Anyone have any idea when this issue will be fixed?
PS The issue still happens in both Firefox b5 and RC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30743984</id>
	<title>Re:Memeory Leaks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263296880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also 174 MB (I don&rsquo;t think you meant megabits<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) is not that much, if you calculate the size of the actual data, in its *uncompressed* form with a full parse tree.</p></div><p>True and false.  True for what you say, but false because it doesn't quite work that way.</p><p>If I completely close Firefox down, and reopen and restore about 20 tabs, FF uses somewhere around 180 MB to 220 MB of RAM.  If I were to completely clear everything out and restart with only a basic Google search page and no other tabs (which I haven't done in ages, mind), I believe it used about 80 MB of RAM.  To have only a single tab open and be using 174 MB of RAM does seem excessively bloated when compared to that.</p><p>FF just crashed on me earlier today, so I don't have my usual few days of usage built up, but at the moment with 29 tabs open it's using 482 MB of RAM.  Even if the number of tabs goes down, I fully expect it to hit 1 GB within a couple days.</p><p>Which isn't to say it's all bad.  Interestingly enough, in the time it took me to write this all out (in a text editor, not FF), FF's memory usage dropped to 401 MB, so there is a certain amount of memory freeing going on.  It's just that in the long term, the amount freed doesn't match up with the amount used.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also 174 MB ( I don    t think you meant megabits ; ) is not that much , if you calculate the size of the actual data , in its * uncompressed * form with a full parse tree.True and false .
True for what you say , but false because it does n't quite work that way.If I completely close Firefox down , and reopen and restore about 20 tabs , FF uses somewhere around 180 MB to 220 MB of RAM .
If I were to completely clear everything out and restart with only a basic Google search page and no other tabs ( which I have n't done in ages , mind ) , I believe it used about 80 MB of RAM .
To have only a single tab open and be using 174 MB of RAM does seem excessively bloated when compared to that.FF just crashed on me earlier today , so I do n't have my usual few days of usage built up , but at the moment with 29 tabs open it 's using 482 MB of RAM .
Even if the number of tabs goes down , I fully expect it to hit 1 GB within a couple days.Which is n't to say it 's all bad .
Interestingly enough , in the time it took me to write this all out ( in a text editor , not FF ) , FF 's memory usage dropped to 401 MB , so there is a certain amount of memory freeing going on .
It 's just that in the long term , the amount freed does n't match up with the amount used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also 174 MB (I don’t think you meant megabits ;) is not that much, if you calculate the size of the actual data, in its *uncompressed* form with a full parse tree.True and false.
True for what you say, but false because it doesn't quite work that way.If I completely close Firefox down, and reopen and restore about 20 tabs, FF uses somewhere around 180 MB to 220 MB of RAM.
If I were to completely clear everything out and restart with only a basic Google search page and no other tabs (which I haven't done in ages, mind), I believe it used about 80 MB of RAM.
To have only a single tab open and be using 174 MB of RAM does seem excessively bloated when compared to that.FF just crashed on me earlier today, so I don't have my usual few days of usage built up, but at the moment with 29 tabs open it's using 482 MB of RAM.
Even if the number of tabs goes down, I fully expect it to hit 1 GB within a couple days.Which isn't to say it's all bad.
Interestingly enough, in the time it took me to write this all out (in a text editor, not FF), FF's memory usage dropped to 401 MB, so there is a certain amount of memory freeing going on.
It's just that in the long term, the amount freed doesn't match up with the amount used.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739410</id>
	<title>Re:Performance issues off flash drives</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1263320040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>After 3.0, I've had severe performance issues with firefox off of a flash drive.</p></div><p>That'll be the writing to the urlclassifier3.sqlite, file amongst others. I sorted this on my Ubuntu setup (running on a netbook with an internal SSD that had *very* bad write performance) by moving my profile to a RAM drive on boot (and rsyncing it back to the on-disc copy on shutdown and every now and again via cron). You might be able to do something similar on Windows if you have a decent RAM drive implementation but you are unlikely to have that in most circumstances where you are using a portable install of a browser. You could try explicitly enabling write caching for the USB device, but again you may not have the right perms for that in all cases when using a portable setup and it isn't a great idea anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After 3.0 , I 've had severe performance issues with firefox off of a flash drive.That 'll be the writing to the urlclassifier3.sqlite , file amongst others .
I sorted this on my Ubuntu setup ( running on a netbook with an internal SSD that had * very * bad write performance ) by moving my profile to a RAM drive on boot ( and rsyncing it back to the on-disc copy on shutdown and every now and again via cron ) .
You might be able to do something similar on Windows if you have a decent RAM drive implementation but you are unlikely to have that in most circumstances where you are using a portable install of a browser .
You could try explicitly enabling write caching for the USB device , but again you may not have the right perms for that in all cases when using a portable setup and it is n't a great idea anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After 3.0, I've had severe performance issues with firefox off of a flash drive.That'll be the writing to the urlclassifier3.sqlite, file amongst others.
I sorted this on my Ubuntu setup (running on a netbook with an internal SSD that had *very* bad write performance) by moving my profile to a RAM drive on boot (and rsyncing it back to the on-disc copy on shutdown and every now and again via cron).
You might be able to do something similar on Windows if you have a decent RAM drive implementation but you are unlikely to have that in most circumstances where you are using a portable install of a browser.
You could try explicitly enabling write caching for the USB device, but again you may not have the right perms for that in all cases when using a portable setup and it isn't a great idea anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739046</id>
	<title>Re:Memeory Leaks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263318780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a feature, not a bug. Firefox maintains its own memory cache. If you're that desperate for memory... you should be using Opera Mini or Dillo or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a feature , not a bug .
Firefox maintains its own memory cache .
If you 're that desperate for memory... you should be using Opera Mini or Dillo or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a feature, not a bug.
Firefox maintains its own memory cache.
If you're that desperate for memory... you should be using Opera Mini or Dillo or something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738774</id>
	<title>How does Chrome do it? No re-start needed.</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1263317940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't quite understand how the Chrome guys do the updates, but it seems like dark magic: I never noticed ever needing a restart, but still, the executable is being updated, too. I have no clue how that is achieved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't quite understand how the Chrome guys do the updates , but it seems like dark magic : I never noticed ever needing a restart , but still , the executable is being updated , too .
I have no clue how that is achieved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't quite understand how the Chrome guys do the updates, but it seems like dark magic: I never noticed ever needing a restart, but still, the executable is being updated, too.
I have no clue how that is achieved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738284</id>
	<title>Firefox seriously broken - the 5.0 curse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263316320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The fixes resolved numerous crash bugs, including one that brought down the browser when it was steered to Yahoo's front page. Another fix removed a small amount of code owned by Microsoft from Firefox.</p></div><p>For a piece of software that's been actively developed for so many years, Firefox has way too many bugs that cause it to crash. The memory footprint seems to be getting bigger and bigger with each release and Firefox is noticably slower compared to Opera when it comes to rendering and general GUI responsiveness. I don't want to start any flame wars, I'm just sharing my experience and point of view, it just seems to me that Firefox has been on an unfortunate development path that will lead to its death before it hits version 5.0, much like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape\_5" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Netscape</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Some of you know that FreeBSD 5.x was a very unfortunate branch plagued with serious bugs. Can you recall any other pieces of software that suffered under the 5.0 curse?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fixes resolved numerous crash bugs , including one that brought down the browser when it was steered to Yahoo 's front page .
Another fix removed a small amount of code owned by Microsoft from Firefox.For a piece of software that 's been actively developed for so many years , Firefox has way too many bugs that cause it to crash .
The memory footprint seems to be getting bigger and bigger with each release and Firefox is noticably slower compared to Opera when it comes to rendering and general GUI responsiveness .
I do n't want to start any flame wars , I 'm just sharing my experience and point of view , it just seems to me that Firefox has been on an unfortunate development path that will lead to its death before it hits version 5.0 , much like Netscape [ wikipedia.org ] .Some of you know that FreeBSD 5.x was a very unfortunate branch plagued with serious bugs .
Can you recall any other pieces of software that suffered under the 5.0 curse ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fixes resolved numerous crash bugs, including one that brought down the browser when it was steered to Yahoo's front page.
Another fix removed a small amount of code owned by Microsoft from Firefox.For a piece of software that's been actively developed for so many years, Firefox has way too many bugs that cause it to crash.
The memory footprint seems to be getting bigger and bigger with each release and Firefox is noticably slower compared to Opera when it comes to rendering and general GUI responsiveness.
I don't want to start any flame wars, I'm just sharing my experience and point of view, it just seems to me that Firefox has been on an unfortunate development path that will lead to its death before it hits version 5.0, much like Netscape [wikipedia.org].Some of you know that FreeBSD 5.x was a very unfortunate branch plagued with serious bugs.
Can you recall any other pieces of software that suffered under the 5.0 curse?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737914</id>
	<title>Re:well super</title>
	<author>yakumo.unr</author>
	<datestamp>1263315000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No because this is a Release Candidate. 'Normal' users using release (final) software, only get update notifications for release software.</p><p>Anyone on the beta update channel would have seen this RC available as a normal update any time from several days ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No because this is a Release Candidate .
'Normal ' users using release ( final ) software , only get update notifications for release software.Anyone on the beta update channel would have seen this RC available as a normal update any time from several days ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No because this is a Release Candidate.
'Normal' users using release (final) software, only get update notifications for release software.Anyone on the beta update channel would have seen this RC available as a normal update any time from several days ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737814</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30748596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30742316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30743984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30744338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30742916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30746576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30741002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30742596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30740976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30743608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30740130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30740352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30742010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30740592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30742968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30742442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30742028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30741406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30750204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30741534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_1422245_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30741560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1422245.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30741534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30742968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1422245.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1422245.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30740130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30742596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30740592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1422245.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1422245.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30737748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30740976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30740352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30742316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739660
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30743608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30748596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1422245.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30741002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30746576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1422245.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30743244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1422245.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30740226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1422245.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1422245.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1422245.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30744338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30742916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30742010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30742442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30739844
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30743984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30741560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30750204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30741406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30742028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1422245.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30741282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_1422245.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_1422245.30738430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
