<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_20_1652204</id>
	<title>Kernel Contributor Corbet Says Linux Community Is 'Intimidating'</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1264008300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Key Linux kernel contributor Jonathan Corbet has admitted <a href="http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/333159/kernal\_contributer\_says\_linux\_community\_can\_intimidating/">the developer community can be intimidating and hard to break into</a>. He highlighted the issue during his Linux.conf.au presentation on the Linux kernel. Corbet expressed concern about the exclusivity of the kernel community, but says it's doing well regardless. He said in a period of just over a year, 55,000 individual changes from 2,700 developers (representing 370 employers) were made to the kernel, equaling 2.8 million lines of code. Corbet called the process 'alive and active.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Key Linux kernel contributor Jonathan Corbet has admitted the developer community can be intimidating and hard to break into .
He highlighted the issue during his Linux.conf.au presentation on the Linux kernel .
Corbet expressed concern about the exclusivity of the kernel community , but says it 's doing well regardless .
He said in a period of just over a year , 55,000 individual changes from 2,700 developers ( representing 370 employers ) were made to the kernel , equaling 2.8 million lines of code .
Corbet called the process 'alive and active .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Key Linux kernel contributor Jonathan Corbet has admitted the developer community can be intimidating and hard to break into.
He highlighted the issue during his Linux.conf.au presentation on the Linux kernel.
Corbet expressed concern about the exclusivity of the kernel community, but says it's doing well regardless.
He said in a period of just over a year, 55,000 individual changes from 2,700 developers (representing 370 employers) were made to the kernel, equaling 2.8 million lines of code.
Corbet called the process 'alive and active.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836970</id>
	<title>Re:difficult?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263979560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Why does every successful new language have to use "C" syntax?</p><p>Because C syntax is awesome. More importantly, if your language is imperative, odds are your syntax can be C-like, and choosing a C-like syntax will make it easier for people to learn the language, and this allows to language to be succesful.</p><p>The above does not really apply if you use a different programming paradigm, e.g. Haskell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Why does every successful new language have to use " C " syntax ? Because C syntax is awesome .
More importantly , if your language is imperative , odds are your syntax can be C-like , and choosing a C-like syntax will make it easier for people to learn the language , and this allows to language to be succesful.The above does not really apply if you use a different programming paradigm , e.g .
Haskell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Why does every successful new language have to use "C" syntax?Because C syntax is awesome.
More importantly, if your language is imperative, odds are your syntax can be C-like, and choosing a C-like syntax will make it easier for people to learn the language, and this allows to language to be succesful.The above does not really apply if you use a different programming paradigm, e.g.
Haskell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30838214</id>
	<title>It's an annoyance.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263984360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah, super intimidating. every time i edit an article i immediately get reverted. oh, wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , super intimidating .
every time i edit an article i immediately get reverted .
oh , wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, super intimidating.
every time i edit an article i immediately get reverted.
oh, wait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836530</id>
	<title>Re:difficult?</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1264020960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely agree, and we saw a great example of this recently.</p><p>There was a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. article about ReactOS, and I saw more than a few "OMGWTF... why work on your project?  Work on Wine instead!"</p><p>I heart what Linux has become, but I love to see people do all kinds of crazy, maybe game changing stuff too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely agree , and we saw a great example of this recently.There was a / .
article about ReactOS , and I saw more than a few " OMGWTF... why work on your project ?
Work on Wine instead !
" I heart what Linux has become , but I love to see people do all kinds of crazy , maybe game changing stuff too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely agree, and we saw a great example of this recently.There was a /.
article about ReactOS, and I saw more than a few "OMGWTF... why work on your project?
Work on Wine instead!
"I heart what Linux has become, but I love to see people do all kinds of crazy, maybe game changing stuff too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834844</id>
	<title>Re:Write good code?</title>
	<author>gertin</author>
	<datestamp>1264014240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You what's actually harder then Getting in the kernel community, Writing Good Kernel Code!</p></div><p>You accidentally the whole thing?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You what 's actually harder then Getting in the kernel community , Writing Good Kernel Code ! You accidentally the whole thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You what's actually harder then Getting in the kernel community, Writing Good Kernel Code!You accidentally the whole thing?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835628</id>
	<title>The Fark version of the headline</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1264017060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kernel Contributor Corbet Says Linux Community Is 'Intimidating, Smelly'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kernel Contributor Corbet Says Linux Community Is 'Intimidating , Smelly'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kernel Contributor Corbet Says Linux Community Is 'Intimidating, Smelly'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30841970</id>
	<title>Re:Kolivas knows it best</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1264006380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"He tried to break into the clique, but Linus preferred someone he knew who essential ripped off Kolivas' work instead of someone that did all the hard work."</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah.  Either that or he wasn't accepted because he is a wining bitch with whom people with a clue don't like to work.  There are three sides to every story: <i>Side A, Side B, and what really happened.</i>  Your post is at best misinformative.  I have no vested interest in either side per se, but having read the E-Mails from the Linux Kernel mailing list (which evidently makes one of us) I tend to agree with the side I just identified.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" He tried to break into the clique , but Linus preferred someone he knew who essential ripped off Kolivas ' work instead of someone that did all the hard work. " Yeah .
Either that or he was n't accepted because he is a wining bitch with whom people with a clue do n't like to work .
There are three sides to every story : Side A , Side B , and what really happened .
Your post is at best misinformative .
I have no vested interest in either side per se , but having read the E-Mails from the Linux Kernel mailing list ( which evidently makes one of us ) I tend to agree with the side I just identified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"He tried to break into the clique, but Linus preferred someone he knew who essential ripped off Kolivas' work instead of someone that did all the hard work."Yeah.
Either that or he wasn't accepted because he is a wining bitch with whom people with a clue don't like to work.
There are three sides to every story: Side A, Side B, and what really happened.
Your post is at best misinformative.
I have no vested interest in either side per se, but having read the E-Mails from the Linux Kernel mailing list (which evidently makes one of us) I tend to agree with the side I just identified.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30837388</id>
	<title>Re:difficult?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263981300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I agree. The problem is that geeks are too hidebound to support truly new things. Why does every successful new language have to use "C" syntax?</p></div><p>Because a lot of people know "C" syntax. If your new language can incorporate some new features, but still retain a syntax that is familiar to most programmers, it'll be more successful.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's a bit like those who believe that black-and-white movies are more artistic just because they're black-and-white. Many of those movies would have been made in color if that had been a feasible option.</p></div><p>Limitations (like lack of colour) lead people to try and improve in other areas. I wouldn't be surprised to discover black-and-white films to have, on average, better . But, I dunno, I think experience counts for a lot too...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
The problem is that geeks are too hidebound to support truly new things .
Why does every successful new language have to use " C " syntax ? Because a lot of people know " C " syntax .
If your new language can incorporate some new features , but still retain a syntax that is familiar to most programmers , it 'll be more successful.It 's a bit like those who believe that black-and-white movies are more artistic just because they 're black-and-white .
Many of those movies would have been made in color if that had been a feasible option.Limitations ( like lack of colour ) lead people to try and improve in other areas .
I would n't be surprised to discover black-and-white films to have , on average , better .
But , I dunno , I think experience counts for a lot too.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
The problem is that geeks are too hidebound to support truly new things.
Why does every successful new language have to use "C" syntax?Because a lot of people know "C" syntax.
If your new language can incorporate some new features, but still retain a syntax that is familiar to most programmers, it'll be more successful.It's a bit like those who believe that black-and-white movies are more artistic just because they're black-and-white.
Many of those movies would have been made in color if that had been a feasible option.Limitations (like lack of colour) lead people to try and improve in other areas.
I wouldn't be surprised to discover black-and-white films to have, on average, better .
But, I dunno, I think experience counts for a lot too...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30837130</id>
	<title>The Loop...</title>
	<author>PSandusky</author>
	<datestamp>1263980220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something that I've always found interesting is the whole social structure that permeates different internet projects. In particular -- and I qualify this with nothing but my own paltry observations -- it's exceedingly difficult to break into anything that involves skill (particularly the programming sort) because not only is the existing structure built on skill, but it is also built on familiarity. If, say, Bob is well known for doing 'foo,' and you step in one day after cobbling around your own for a while and demonstrate that you're not half bad at 'foo' yourself, there's an exceedingly good chance that you'll fade into the noise unless Bob (or someone who speaks to Bob quite a bit about 'foo') notices what you've done and says something about it.</p><p>At that point (absent of any response), the prospective developer has a few choices -- keep cobbling and work up some more 'foo,' and bring that into the light once it develops, seek out Bob to talk shop that he might let you in on some of the nuances that you may not have seen in development wishlists/buglists/etc., start clamoring over what he/she's already done in (erroneous) hope of getting recognition, or move on to developing 'bar.'</p><p>Granted, I haven't done any Linux development yet, but that's what I've been seeing in other things. That whole breaking in process is difficult because those insecurities about people responding underwhelmingly (or negatively) to your work don't really go away, whether you're coding or doing scientific research. It may well benefit the Linux development community only to work with those who have the drive to continue despite those discouraging possibilities, but it won't necessarily be a huge recruitment tool to get people into developing in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something that I 've always found interesting is the whole social structure that permeates different internet projects .
In particular -- and I qualify this with nothing but my own paltry observations -- it 's exceedingly difficult to break into anything that involves skill ( particularly the programming sort ) because not only is the existing structure built on skill , but it is also built on familiarity .
If , say , Bob is well known for doing 'foo, ' and you step in one day after cobbling around your own for a while and demonstrate that you 're not half bad at 'foo ' yourself , there 's an exceedingly good chance that you 'll fade into the noise unless Bob ( or someone who speaks to Bob quite a bit about 'foo ' ) notices what you 've done and says something about it.At that point ( absent of any response ) , the prospective developer has a few choices -- keep cobbling and work up some more 'foo, ' and bring that into the light once it develops , seek out Bob to talk shop that he might let you in on some of the nuances that you may not have seen in development wishlists/buglists/etc. , start clamoring over what he/she 's already done in ( erroneous ) hope of getting recognition , or move on to developing 'bar .
'Granted , I have n't done any Linux development yet , but that 's what I 've been seeing in other things .
That whole breaking in process is difficult because those insecurities about people responding underwhelmingly ( or negatively ) to your work do n't really go away , whether you 're coding or doing scientific research .
It may well benefit the Linux development community only to work with those who have the drive to continue despite those discouraging possibilities , but it wo n't necessarily be a huge recruitment tool to get people into developing in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something that I've always found interesting is the whole social structure that permeates different internet projects.
In particular -- and I qualify this with nothing but my own paltry observations -- it's exceedingly difficult to break into anything that involves skill (particularly the programming sort) because not only is the existing structure built on skill, but it is also built on familiarity.
If, say, Bob is well known for doing 'foo,' and you step in one day after cobbling around your own for a while and demonstrate that you're not half bad at 'foo' yourself, there's an exceedingly good chance that you'll fade into the noise unless Bob (or someone who speaks to Bob quite a bit about 'foo') notices what you've done and says something about it.At that point (absent of any response), the prospective developer has a few choices -- keep cobbling and work up some more 'foo,' and bring that into the light once it develops, seek out Bob to talk shop that he might let you in on some of the nuances that you may not have seen in development wishlists/buglists/etc., start clamoring over what he/she's already done in (erroneous) hope of getting recognition, or move on to developing 'bar.
'Granted, I haven't done any Linux development yet, but that's what I've been seeing in other things.
That whole breaking in process is difficult because those insecurities about people responding underwhelmingly (or negatively) to your work don't really go away, whether you're coding or doing scientific research.
It may well benefit the Linux development community only to work with those who have the drive to continue despite those discouraging possibilities, but it won't necessarily be a huge recruitment tool to get people into developing in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836526</id>
	<title>Re:Kolivas knows it best</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264020960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kolivas' complaints about the Linux kernel community regarding scheduling reminds me of Linus' complaints to Tannenbaum regarding Minix</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kolivas ' complaints about the Linux kernel community regarding scheduling reminds me of Linus ' complaints to Tannenbaum regarding Minix</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kolivas' complaints about the Linux kernel community regarding scheduling reminds me of Linus' complaints to Tannenbaum regarding Minix</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834392</id>
	<title>really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264012200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.brunching.com/leastsurprising.html" title="brunching.com">Add it to the list!</a> [brunching.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Add it to the list !
[ brunching.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Add it to the list!
[brunching.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835000</id>
	<title>Re:sabotage</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1264014960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only one time have I read about someone inserting code that was malicious into the project.  That code was automatically identified by the tools used to analyze it.  As far as vulnerable, wall that's really a hype word used by neuroelectronic.  What he believes is that the code just gets dumped into the kitty and is used automatically.  No, it is not, it goes through a very thorough review process before it is even accepted, then it is edited to comply.</p><p>That's just FUD on your part dude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only one time have I read about someone inserting code that was malicious into the project .
That code was automatically identified by the tools used to analyze it .
As far as vulnerable , wall that 's really a hype word used by neuroelectronic .
What he believes is that the code just gets dumped into the kitty and is used automatically .
No , it is not , it goes through a very thorough review process before it is even accepted , then it is edited to comply.That 's just FUD on your part dude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only one time have I read about someone inserting code that was malicious into the project.
That code was automatically identified by the tools used to analyze it.
As far as vulnerable, wall that's really a hype word used by neuroelectronic.
What he believes is that the code just gets dumped into the kitty and is used automatically.
No, it is not, it goes through a very thorough review process before it is even accepted, then it is edited to comply.That's just FUD on your part dude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834350</id>
	<title>sabotage</title>
	<author>Neuroelectronic</author>
	<datestamp>1264012080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More accessible means more vulnerable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More accessible means more vulnerable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More accessible means more vulnerable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30857124</id>
	<title>Mod parent down Re:difficult?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264191720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No no no mods, parent is NOT insightful. Parent is irrelevant. Parent is clueless. Parent's examples completely miss the point. What the f*** is happening to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.? Are you all just pretenders? Fakers? Jocks pretending to be geeks?</p><p>What does the parent propose one should do when your Linux install breaks? And sooner or later like everything else it will break unless you don't really use it. It's not uncommon that's it's broken straight out of the box depending on your hardware (be it new or old). When your chipset or other hardware isn't supported (or support is removed, it happens) and you have to compile the newest (or older) version of a program or kernel that supports it and it breaks other parts of the system so of course you must fix that next and then you get a kernel update which still hasn't fixed the issue and you have to do it all over again? Better get used to it (and yes it is still better than Windows).</p><p>I use Ubuntu (not just "install and test" but real use as the primary system, posting this from an old w2k because the Ubuntu machine is busy with other more important stuff), if no problem ever arises I bet my neighbors dog could use Ubuntu and use it well but if a problem appears you will quickly be up to your neck and then some and there's no way in hell you can fix real issues without multiple sessions in the terminal (and hours on Google with the thinking hat on). If it's core stuff you'll even want to (and sometimes have no choice but to) actually reboot to make sure you solved it for good.</p><p>So don't lie please, it does nobody any favors. Hell anyone can go have a look at the Ubuntu forum itself and get a clue.</p><p>Or an even simpler example: you installed a program with the gui but you can't uninstall it using the same gui, happens.<br>And another similar example: you want to install a program, it is in the repository but it is not available in the gui, not entirely uncommon either. If you just want pure TeX and LaTeX without insane amounts of bloat you might have to do it this way, gui won't help you get it on its own if you don't already have it (for example if you installed then uninstalled related bloatware from the repository). Plenty of small programs that aren't included in the distro that are only available using that old apt-get in the terminal.</p><p>If you do actual work on your Ubuntu machine you should have experienced such examples as these many times.</p><p>Ubuntu is good but it has a lot of "polishing" left (remember the 9.04 trash bin bug/icon crash anyone? Install and update a 9.04 and you'll see it's still there, how the hell did they miss that one anyways?). Debian seems to be a bit too conservative and Ubuntu seems to always be a little bit too rushed (and frankly the default selection of apps in Ubuntu sucks but that's easily remedied as long as you know what to get).</p><p>And why the hell not push updates for the latest stable versions of core programs and packages? Why the hell are packages like Sun Java (IcedTea really isn't appropriate for some uses) not kept up to date as available from Sun? I've got to say that even though I like Ubuntu a lot I see why many business wouldn't want to switch away from Windows on the desktop when Linux distros make them jump through an awful lot of unnecessary hoops.</p><p>Linux: always looking for something better (and yes I am a fan. "Linux" is far better than anything else except OpenBSD on the things that matter the most, but on the rest it still has a long way to go).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No no no mods , parent is NOT insightful .
Parent is irrelevant .
Parent is clueless .
Parent 's examples completely miss the point .
What the f * * * is happening to /. ?
Are you all just pretenders ?
Fakers ? Jocks pretending to be geeks ? What does the parent propose one should do when your Linux install breaks ?
And sooner or later like everything else it will break unless you do n't really use it .
It 's not uncommon that 's it 's broken straight out of the box depending on your hardware ( be it new or old ) .
When your chipset or other hardware is n't supported ( or support is removed , it happens ) and you have to compile the newest ( or older ) version of a program or kernel that supports it and it breaks other parts of the system so of course you must fix that next and then you get a kernel update which still has n't fixed the issue and you have to do it all over again ?
Better get used to it ( and yes it is still better than Windows ) .I use Ubuntu ( not just " install and test " but real use as the primary system , posting this from an old w2k because the Ubuntu machine is busy with other more important stuff ) , if no problem ever arises I bet my neighbors dog could use Ubuntu and use it well but if a problem appears you will quickly be up to your neck and then some and there 's no way in hell you can fix real issues without multiple sessions in the terminal ( and hours on Google with the thinking hat on ) .
If it 's core stuff you 'll even want to ( and sometimes have no choice but to ) actually reboot to make sure you solved it for good.So do n't lie please , it does nobody any favors .
Hell anyone can go have a look at the Ubuntu forum itself and get a clue.Or an even simpler example : you installed a program with the gui but you ca n't uninstall it using the same gui , happens.And another similar example : you want to install a program , it is in the repository but it is not available in the gui , not entirely uncommon either .
If you just want pure TeX and LaTeX without insane amounts of bloat you might have to do it this way , gui wo n't help you get it on its own if you do n't already have it ( for example if you installed then uninstalled related bloatware from the repository ) .
Plenty of small programs that are n't included in the distro that are only available using that old apt-get in the terminal.If you do actual work on your Ubuntu machine you should have experienced such examples as these many times.Ubuntu is good but it has a lot of " polishing " left ( remember the 9.04 trash bin bug/icon crash anyone ?
Install and update a 9.04 and you 'll see it 's still there , how the hell did they miss that one anyways ? ) .
Debian seems to be a bit too conservative and Ubuntu seems to always be a little bit too rushed ( and frankly the default selection of apps in Ubuntu sucks but that 's easily remedied as long as you know what to get ) .And why the hell not push updates for the latest stable versions of core programs and packages ?
Why the hell are packages like Sun Java ( IcedTea really is n't appropriate for some uses ) not kept up to date as available from Sun ?
I 've got to say that even though I like Ubuntu a lot I see why many business would n't want to switch away from Windows on the desktop when Linux distros make them jump through an awful lot of unnecessary hoops.Linux : always looking for something better ( and yes I am a fan .
" Linux " is far better than anything else except OpenBSD on the things that matter the most , but on the rest it still has a long way to go ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No no no mods, parent is NOT insightful.
Parent is irrelevant.
Parent is clueless.
Parent's examples completely miss the point.
What the f*** is happening to /.?
Are you all just pretenders?
Fakers? Jocks pretending to be geeks?What does the parent propose one should do when your Linux install breaks?
And sooner or later like everything else it will break unless you don't really use it.
It's not uncommon that's it's broken straight out of the box depending on your hardware (be it new or old).
When your chipset or other hardware isn't supported (or support is removed, it happens) and you have to compile the newest (or older) version of a program or kernel that supports it and it breaks other parts of the system so of course you must fix that next and then you get a kernel update which still hasn't fixed the issue and you have to do it all over again?
Better get used to it (and yes it is still better than Windows).I use Ubuntu (not just "install and test" but real use as the primary system, posting this from an old w2k because the Ubuntu machine is busy with other more important stuff), if no problem ever arises I bet my neighbors dog could use Ubuntu and use it well but if a problem appears you will quickly be up to your neck and then some and there's no way in hell you can fix real issues without multiple sessions in the terminal (and hours on Google with the thinking hat on).
If it's core stuff you'll even want to (and sometimes have no choice but to) actually reboot to make sure you solved it for good.So don't lie please, it does nobody any favors.
Hell anyone can go have a look at the Ubuntu forum itself and get a clue.Or an even simpler example: you installed a program with the gui but you can't uninstall it using the same gui, happens.And another similar example: you want to install a program, it is in the repository but it is not available in the gui, not entirely uncommon either.
If you just want pure TeX and LaTeX without insane amounts of bloat you might have to do it this way, gui won't help you get it on its own if you don't already have it (for example if you installed then uninstalled related bloatware from the repository).
Plenty of small programs that aren't included in the distro that are only available using that old apt-get in the terminal.If you do actual work on your Ubuntu machine you should have experienced such examples as these many times.Ubuntu is good but it has a lot of "polishing" left (remember the 9.04 trash bin bug/icon crash anyone?
Install and update a 9.04 and you'll see it's still there, how the hell did they miss that one anyways?).
Debian seems to be a bit too conservative and Ubuntu seems to always be a little bit too rushed (and frankly the default selection of apps in Ubuntu sucks but that's easily remedied as long as you know what to get).And why the hell not push updates for the latest stable versions of core programs and packages?
Why the hell are packages like Sun Java (IcedTea really isn't appropriate for some uses) not kept up to date as available from Sun?
I've got to say that even though I like Ubuntu a lot I see why many business wouldn't want to switch away from Windows on the desktop when Linux distros make them jump through an awful lot of unnecessary hoops.Linux: always looking for something better (and yes I am a fan.
"Linux" is far better than anything else except OpenBSD on the things that matter the most, but on the rest it still has a long way to go).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30844762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834964</id>
	<title>Insane</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1264014780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a good way.</p><p>Wow that much activity from that many companies.  370 employees contributing!!  Incredible the number of changes and the amount of code.  This is tremendous.  Open source success in this regard is truly fantastic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a good way.Wow that much activity from that many companies .
370 employees contributing ! !
Incredible the number of changes and the amount of code .
This is tremendous .
Open source success in this regard is truly fantastic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a good way.Wow that much activity from that many companies.
370 employees contributing!!
Incredible the number of changes and the amount of code.
This is tremendous.
Open source success in this regard is truly fantastic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30841236</id>
	<title>But coders don't want criticism, they want code!</title>
	<author>Johnny Loves Linux</author>
	<datestamp>1263999600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I hear what you're saying, and an argument like this was made some years ago on osnews.com (a woman named Eugenia comes to mind.) But the thing is, these coder folks aren't coding a high school homework assignment, they're writing some seriously serious code. They don't need negative criticism --- they get a lot of that from shills, astroturfers, and trolls. And even constructive criticism like for example comments about "improving" the UI to gimp, while it might be genuine, and honest goodwill, and it might even be correct  just isn't as valuable as the most important commidity of all to hackers: code. There is no substitute to good code.
</p><p>
Yes, you can throw money at people to write F/OSS code and that's appreciated because it gives coders a chance to do something they love to do, but other than financial support for coders to write the code, the code itself is the most precious commodity. If there's a F/OSS application that you think stinks and could use some improvement as a service to <b>yourself</b> and to the <b>F/OSS community</b> take the time to study the code, and throw a patch at the developers. It doesn't have to be War-and-Peace sized, just a proof-of-concept patch would be heartily welcome. Really, <b>you</b> will get a chance to flex your coding muscles, <b>you</b>'ll get a chance to feel good about performing a constructive act for the community *and* the F/OSS <b>community</b>  will <b>benefit</b> from <b>your generosity.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear what you 're saying , and an argument like this was made some years ago on osnews.com ( a woman named Eugenia comes to mind .
) But the thing is , these coder folks are n't coding a high school homework assignment , they 're writing some seriously serious code .
They do n't need negative criticism --- they get a lot of that from shills , astroturfers , and trolls .
And even constructive criticism like for example comments about " improving " the UI to gimp , while it might be genuine , and honest goodwill , and it might even be correct just is n't as valuable as the most important commidity of all to hackers : code .
There is no substitute to good code .
Yes , you can throw money at people to write F/OSS code and that 's appreciated because it gives coders a chance to do something they love to do , but other than financial support for coders to write the code , the code itself is the most precious commodity .
If there 's a F/OSS application that you think stinks and could use some improvement as a service to yourself and to the F/OSS community take the time to study the code , and throw a patch at the developers .
It does n't have to be War-and-Peace sized , just a proof-of-concept patch would be heartily welcome .
Really , you will get a chance to flex your coding muscles , you 'll get a chance to feel good about performing a constructive act for the community * and * the F/OSS community will benefit from your generosity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I hear what you're saying, and an argument like this was made some years ago on osnews.com (a woman named Eugenia comes to mind.
) But the thing is, these coder folks aren't coding a high school homework assignment, they're writing some seriously serious code.
They don't need negative criticism --- they get a lot of that from shills, astroturfers, and trolls.
And even constructive criticism like for example comments about "improving" the UI to gimp, while it might be genuine, and honest goodwill, and it might even be correct  just isn't as valuable as the most important commidity of all to hackers: code.
There is no substitute to good code.
Yes, you can throw money at people to write F/OSS code and that's appreciated because it gives coders a chance to do something they love to do, but other than financial support for coders to write the code, the code itself is the most precious commodity.
If there's a F/OSS application that you think stinks and could use some improvement as a service to yourself and to the F/OSS community take the time to study the code, and throw a patch at the developers.
It doesn't have to be War-and-Peace sized, just a proof-of-concept patch would be heartily welcome.
Really, you will get a chance to flex your coding muscles, you'll get a chance to feel good about performing a constructive act for the community *and* the F/OSS community  will benefit from your generosity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834418</id>
	<title>Kolivas knows it best</title>
	<author>recoiledsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1264012260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He tried to break into the clique, but Linus preferred someone he knew who essential ripped off Kolivas' work instead of someone that did all the hard work.</p><p><a href="http://apcmag.com/why\_i\_quit\_kernel\_developer\_con\_kolivas.htm" title="apcmag.com" rel="nofollow">http://apcmag.com/why\_i\_quit\_kernel\_developer\_con\_kolivas.htm</a> [apcmag.com]</p><p><a href="http://apcmag.com/why\_i\_quit\_kernel\_developer\_con\_kolivas.htm" title="apcmag.com" rel="nofollow">http://apcmag.com/why\_i\_quit\_kernel\_developer\_con\_kolivas.htm</a> [apcmag.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He tried to break into the clique , but Linus preferred someone he knew who essential ripped off Kolivas ' work instead of someone that did all the hard work.http : //apcmag.com/why \ _i \ _quit \ _kernel \ _developer \ _con \ _kolivas.htm [ apcmag.com ] http : //apcmag.com/why \ _i \ _quit \ _kernel \ _developer \ _con \ _kolivas.htm [ apcmag.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He tried to break into the clique, but Linus preferred someone he knew who essential ripped off Kolivas' work instead of someone that did all the hard work.http://apcmag.com/why\_i\_quit\_kernel\_developer\_con\_kolivas.htm [apcmag.com]http://apcmag.com/why\_i\_quit\_kernel\_developer\_con\_kolivas.htm [apcmag.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835826</id>
	<title>Re:Kolivas knows it best</title>
	<author>elloGov</author>
	<datestamp>1264017900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Very interesting interview, thanks for sharing. Knowing little about Kernel Development Community, Kolivas viewpoint shines light on a variety of short-comings of the community.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very interesting interview , thanks for sharing .
Knowing little about Kernel Development Community , Kolivas viewpoint shines light on a variety of short-comings of the community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very interesting interview, thanks for sharing.
Knowing little about Kernel Development Community, Kolivas viewpoint shines light on a variety of short-comings of the community.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834454</id>
	<title>Write good code?</title>
	<author>toastar</author>
	<datestamp>1264012440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You what's actually harder then Getting in the kernel community, Writing Good Kernel Code!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You what 's actually harder then Getting in the kernel community , Writing Good Kernel Code !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You what's actually harder then Getting in the kernel community, Writing Good Kernel Code!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835432</id>
	<title>Re:I fault the internet</title>
	<author>Timothy Brownawell</author>
	<datestamp>1264016460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Further, is there anything resembling Roberts Rules of Order for an online forum, email, etc?</p><p>I know the Debian developers vote on things sometimes, so they probably have something at least vaguely similar. But how much of the rules are about collision avoidance over a shared broadcast medium (ie, people in a room not talking over eachother), which wouldn't really apply to asynchronous communications like email and forums?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Further , is there anything resembling Roberts Rules of Order for an online forum , email , etc ? I know the Debian developers vote on things sometimes , so they probably have something at least vaguely similar .
But how much of the rules are about collision avoidance over a shared broadcast medium ( ie , people in a room not talking over eachother ) , which would n't really apply to asynchronous communications like email and forums ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Further, is there anything resembling Roberts Rules of Order for an online forum, email, etc?I know the Debian developers vote on things sometimes, so they probably have something at least vaguely similar.
But how much of the rules are about collision avoidance over a shared broadcast medium (ie, people in a room not talking over eachother), which wouldn't really apply to asynchronous communications like email and forums?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30837186</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263980460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the fuck does he know?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the fuck does he know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the fuck does he know?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836800</id>
	<title>Re:Corbet says *Kernel* community intimidating</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1263978900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What the h--- is the "kernel" community?  Are we talking about popcorn farmers?</p></div><p> <a href="http://kernel.org/" title="kernel.org">http://kernel.org/</a> [kernel.org]</p><p>Note that it doesn't say "Linux" in the URL anywhere. Some things should be obvious in a given place and time - especially on Slashdot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the h--- is the " kernel " community ?
Are we talking about popcorn farmers ?
http : //kernel.org/ [ kernel.org ] Note that it does n't say " Linux " in the URL anywhere .
Some things should be obvious in a given place and time - especially on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the h--- is the "kernel" community?
Are we talking about popcorn farmers?
http://kernel.org/ [kernel.org]Note that it doesn't say "Linux" in the URL anywhere.
Some things should be obvious in a given place and time - especially on Slashdot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30841958</id>
	<title>Re:difficult?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264006260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Check out any post on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. that dares criticize GIMP's horrid UI, or points out how intimidating Linux's continued reliance on the command line is to the average user.</p></div><p>This is why Linux (in its current state) will never be widely accepted by the average user. This is an area where OSX has succeeded and every Linux distribution up until now has failed. It's the rule of mum: If your mum can't use it, then it's far too complex.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out any post on / .
that dares criticize GIMP 's horrid UI , or points out how intimidating Linux 's continued reliance on the command line is to the average user.This is why Linux ( in its current state ) will never be widely accepted by the average user .
This is an area where OSX has succeeded and every Linux distribution up until now has failed .
It 's the rule of mum : If your mum ca n't use it , then it 's far too complex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out any post on /.
that dares criticize GIMP's horrid UI, or points out how intimidating Linux's continued reliance on the command line is to the average user.This is why Linux (in its current state) will never be widely accepted by the average user.
This is an area where OSX has succeeded and every Linux distribution up until now has failed.
It's the rule of mum: If your mum can't use it, then it's far too complex.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30837152</id>
	<title>Re:Corbet says *Kernel* community intimidating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263980280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux = Kernel.  If he meant anything else he would have said Ubuntu.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux = Kernel .
If he meant anything else he would have said Ubuntu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux = Kernel.
If he meant anything else he would have said Ubuntu.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835162</id>
	<title>Windows kernel community intimidating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264015500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news, "Lead Windows developer admits that the Windows kernel is an intimidating team to join at Microsoft.  Among other challenges, contributors must go through a rigorous process where their academic and professional background is evaluated followed by an in-person grilling but top Windows engineers.  Afterwards, the contributor must sign various legal papers before spending perhaps 3-4 years doing bug work and very simple tasks before being given the privilege of writing any significant portion of code."</p><p>Seriously, the kernel is an important piece of code.  If you want something to be added to it, it's going to be challenging both technically and professionally.  It's not a bad thing.  In most other areas, people would consider a highly selective screening criteria as part of the QA process for a product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , " Lead Windows developer admits that the Windows kernel is an intimidating team to join at Microsoft .
Among other challenges , contributors must go through a rigorous process where their academic and professional background is evaluated followed by an in-person grilling but top Windows engineers .
Afterwards , the contributor must sign various legal papers before spending perhaps 3-4 years doing bug work and very simple tasks before being given the privilege of writing any significant portion of code .
" Seriously , the kernel is an important piece of code .
If you want something to be added to it , it 's going to be challenging both technically and professionally .
It 's not a bad thing .
In most other areas , people would consider a highly selective screening criteria as part of the QA process for a product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, "Lead Windows developer admits that the Windows kernel is an intimidating team to join at Microsoft.
Among other challenges, contributors must go through a rigorous process where their academic and professional background is evaluated followed by an in-person grilling but top Windows engineers.
Afterwards, the contributor must sign various legal papers before spending perhaps 3-4 years doing bug work and very simple tasks before being given the privilege of writing any significant portion of code.
"Seriously, the kernel is an important piece of code.
If you want something to be added to it, it's going to be challenging both technically and professionally.
It's not a bad thing.
In most other areas, people would consider a highly selective screening criteria as part of the QA process for a product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834668</id>
	<title>Re:I fault the internet</title>
	<author>Rakshasa Taisab</author>
	<datestamp>1264013460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bollocks.</p><p>If you think you can shout down your opponents with baseless ad hominem attacks you're probably browsing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/b/, not a developer oriented mailing list. In fact, I'd go as far as claiming that internet communication is \_BENEFICIAL\_ in that it is impersonal. as that allows people to say what they really think about an issue instead of tip-toeing around the issue. And changing your mind is easier when you're not faced with the potentially very embarrassing situation of having people gloat at you face-to-face.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bollocks.If you think you can shout down your opponents with baseless ad hominem attacks you 're probably browsing /b/ , not a developer oriented mailing list .
In fact , I 'd go as far as claiming that internet communication is \ _BENEFICIAL \ _ in that it is impersonal .
as that allows people to say what they really think about an issue instead of tip-toeing around the issue .
And changing your mind is easier when you 're not faced with the potentially very embarrassing situation of having people gloat at you face-to-face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bollocks.If you think you can shout down your opponents with baseless ad hominem attacks you're probably browsing /b/, not a developer oriented mailing list.
In fact, I'd go as far as claiming that internet communication is \_BENEFICIAL\_ in that it is impersonal.
as that allows people to say what they really think about an issue instead of tip-toeing around the issue.
And changing your mind is easier when you're not faced with the potentially very embarrassing situation of having people gloat at you face-to-face.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30841738</id>
	<title>That's not true!</title>
	<author>npsimons</author>
	<datestamp>1264004040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Linux community is very open and egalitarian!  *Anyone* can get called an idiot for saying something stupid or posting a retarded patch!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Linux community is very open and egalitarian !
* Anyone * can get called an idiot for saying something stupid or posting a retarded patch !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Linux community is very open and egalitarian!
*Anyone* can get called an idiot for saying something stupid or posting a retarded patch!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834346</id>
	<title>Breaking into the asylum is...</title>
	<author>AthleteMusicianNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1264012080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>intimidating too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>intimidating too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>intimidating too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835764</id>
	<title>Re:difficult?</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1264017600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He is kind of right, but I would say the relative challenge of understanding the kernel code is far greater than the social challenge of getting involved.  I mean, you can't expect to just sign up to lklm and say, "Hey guys, assign me a project!"  Why would they even believe that you can handle it?</p></div><p>So they assign you to documenting something. If you do it, it shows you at least understand what's going on, and the project has gained that rarest of open-source comoddities, documentation. If you fail, you've not broken anything so it's pretty much just your own time you've wasted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He is kind of right , but I would say the relative challenge of understanding the kernel code is far greater than the social challenge of getting involved .
I mean , you ca n't expect to just sign up to lklm and say , " Hey guys , assign me a project !
" Why would they even believe that you can handle it ? So they assign you to documenting something .
If you do it , it shows you at least understand what 's going on , and the project has gained that rarest of open-source comoddities , documentation .
If you fail , you 've not broken anything so it 's pretty much just your own time you 've wasted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He is kind of right, but I would say the relative challenge of understanding the kernel code is far greater than the social challenge of getting involved.
I mean, you can't expect to just sign up to lklm and say, "Hey guys, assign me a project!
"  Why would they even believe that you can handle it?So they assign you to documenting something.
If you do it, it shows you at least understand what's going on, and the project has gained that rarest of open-source comoddities, documentation.
If you fail, you've not broken anything so it's pretty much just your own time you've wasted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30840946</id>
	<title>Re:difficult?</title>
	<author>neonsignal</author>
	<datestamp>1263997200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
You start talking about supporting "truly new things" and then you complain about syntax? Changing language syntax is hardly innovative.
</p><p>
Both the Linux kernel and the userland applications are mutating faster than any other operating system out there. Just because the POSIX interface is relatively stable doesn't mean that the the rest is anything like UNIX was in the 1970s.
</p><p>
The main thing stopping other operating systems (such as BeOS) from becoming reasonable alternatives is the sheer amount of effort involved, especially in dealing with the range of hardware out there. The best way to lower this barrier is to support device manufacturers who open their specifications and follow international standards. Virtual machines are also lowering the barrier somewhat.
</p><p>
I don't believe that you can produce any *nix geek who is unaware that Unix has its flaws. Defending the design decisions of Unix is not the same as thinking that it is the best way of doing things.
</p><p>
The concern about the lack of choice is valid, but it won't be solved by whining about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You start talking about supporting " truly new things " and then you complain about syntax ?
Changing language syntax is hardly innovative .
Both the Linux kernel and the userland applications are mutating faster than any other operating system out there .
Just because the POSIX interface is relatively stable does n't mean that the the rest is anything like UNIX was in the 1970s .
The main thing stopping other operating systems ( such as BeOS ) from becoming reasonable alternatives is the sheer amount of effort involved , especially in dealing with the range of hardware out there .
The best way to lower this barrier is to support device manufacturers who open their specifications and follow international standards .
Virtual machines are also lowering the barrier somewhat .
I do n't believe that you can produce any * nix geek who is unaware that Unix has its flaws .
Defending the design decisions of Unix is not the same as thinking that it is the best way of doing things .
The concern about the lack of choice is valid , but it wo n't be solved by whining about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
You start talking about supporting "truly new things" and then you complain about syntax?
Changing language syntax is hardly innovative.
Both the Linux kernel and the userland applications are mutating faster than any other operating system out there.
Just because the POSIX interface is relatively stable doesn't mean that the the rest is anything like UNIX was in the 1970s.
The main thing stopping other operating systems (such as BeOS) from becoming reasonable alternatives is the sheer amount of effort involved, especially in dealing with the range of hardware out there.
The best way to lower this barrier is to support device manufacturers who open their specifications and follow international standards.
Virtual machines are also lowering the barrier somewhat.
I don't believe that you can produce any *nix geek who is unaware that Unix has its flaws.
Defending the design decisions of Unix is not the same as thinking that it is the best way of doing things.
The concern about the lack of choice is valid, but it won't be solved by whining about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834732</id>
	<title>Re:Not news</title>
	<author>Goodgerster</author>
	<datestamp>1264013760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A new study says that illiterate people overgeneralise more easily: we'll have the full story and the latest news and weather. Join Fiona Bruce and I with the News at 10.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A new study says that illiterate people overgeneralise more easily : we 'll have the full story and the latest news and weather .
Join Fiona Bruce and I with the News at 10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A new study says that illiterate people overgeneralise more easily: we'll have the full story and the latest news and weather.
Join Fiona Bruce and I with the News at 10.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30837394</id>
	<title>Linux isnt intimidating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263981360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You should find most linux people friendly and willing to help learn.

You might try joining a linux user group before taking on the kernel development.

Here is a list of user groups   <a href="http://www.linux.org/groups/" title="linux.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.linux.org/groups/</a> [linux.org]

You have to remember the kernel development is difficult, some people have been programming

for 10 or more years to get to that knowledge.

You might try this steps in your linux knowlegde.

1)  basic user
2)  beginner
3)  proficient use of applications
4)  some programming
5)  development
6)  kernel programming</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should find most linux people friendly and willing to help learn .
You might try joining a linux user group before taking on the kernel development .
Here is a list of user groups http : //www.linux.org/groups/ [ linux.org ] You have to remember the kernel development is difficult , some people have been programming for 10 or more years to get to that knowledge .
You might try this steps in your linux knowlegde .
1 ) basic user 2 ) beginner 3 ) proficient use of applications 4 ) some programming 5 ) development 6 ) kernel programming</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should find most linux people friendly and willing to help learn.
You might try joining a linux user group before taking on the kernel development.
Here is a list of user groups   http://www.linux.org/groups/ [linux.org]

You have to remember the kernel development is difficult, some people have been programming

for 10 or more years to get to that knowledge.
You might try this steps in your linux knowlegde.
1)  basic user
2)  beginner
3)  proficient use of applications
4)  some programming
5)  development
6)  kernel programming</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30841656</id>
	<title>Only on the kernel, you people are intimidating?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264003260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It happens that, If you have a hardware that is not supported for the Linux community aka the same hardware that they buy or hack, they have a nice answer for you: "Waste your hardware and buy the same than me or WRITE THE DAMN DRIVER YOU N000000B!". Yes that's a lot of support from the community. I used SUSE and FEDORA CORE, and I needed to come back to Windows XP since I won't replace: Scanner, Digital Camera, Printer and Internet provider just to please the Linux Community.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It happens that , If you have a hardware that is not supported for the Linux community aka the same hardware that they buy or hack , they have a nice answer for you : " Waste your hardware and buy the same than me or WRITE THE DAMN DRIVER YOU N000000B ! " .
Yes that 's a lot of support from the community .
I used SUSE and FEDORA CORE , and I needed to come back to Windows XP since I wo n't replace : Scanner , Digital Camera , Printer and Internet provider just to please the Linux Community .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It happens that, If you have a hardware that is not supported for the Linux community aka the same hardware that they buy or hack, they have a nice answer for you: "Waste your hardware and buy the same than me or WRITE THE DAMN DRIVER YOU N000000B!".
Yes that's a lot of support from the community.
I used SUSE and FEDORA CORE, and I needed to come back to Windows XP since I won't replace: Scanner, Digital Camera, Printer and Internet provider just to please the Linux Community.
:P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834862</id>
	<title>Re:difficult?</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1264014360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The larger problem here isn't that the Linux kernel group is exclusive -- though it probably does manage to deny itself (and its users) some good ideas as a result. It's that the FOSS world has developed a dominant monoculture that very definitely marginalizes alternative approaches that, both in the short term and in the long term, retards progress in other areas. Yes, there are FOSS alternatives to Linux, but we have arrived at a state where there is Linux, and then there is everything else. And that "everything else", excepting perhaps the *BSDs which are competitors in the Unix clone space rather than fundamental alternatives, generally lack maturity and application support.</p><p>That's only an acceptable state of affairs if you think Unix (and Linux's implementation of Unix) represent some kind of final end state in OS development. This is by no means a criticism of Linux in and of itself -- it's a fine OS and I'm glad to have it -- but in terms both of user choice and advancing the state of the art, it's no more healthy to have Linux as the overwhelmingly dominant player in the FOSS world than it was to have Windows as the overwhelmingly dominant player in the broader PC world.</p><p>Rather than fretting about getting into the inner sanctums of Linux development, more would be OS developers should be looking at the alternatives (or starting their own, if they have the vision for it). Most will fail, of course, but somewhere out there is a project that, like Linus Torvald's ambitious little toy *nix kernel all those years ago, will someday be a game changer. And even in failure, one learns a great deal -- perhaps enough that one might later find entry into more established circles easier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The larger problem here is n't that the Linux kernel group is exclusive -- though it probably does manage to deny itself ( and its users ) some good ideas as a result .
It 's that the FOSS world has developed a dominant monoculture that very definitely marginalizes alternative approaches that , both in the short term and in the long term , retards progress in other areas .
Yes , there are FOSS alternatives to Linux , but we have arrived at a state where there is Linux , and then there is everything else .
And that " everything else " , excepting perhaps the * BSDs which are competitors in the Unix clone space rather than fundamental alternatives , generally lack maturity and application support.That 's only an acceptable state of affairs if you think Unix ( and Linux 's implementation of Unix ) represent some kind of final end state in OS development .
This is by no means a criticism of Linux in and of itself -- it 's a fine OS and I 'm glad to have it -- but in terms both of user choice and advancing the state of the art , it 's no more healthy to have Linux as the overwhelmingly dominant player in the FOSS world than it was to have Windows as the overwhelmingly dominant player in the broader PC world.Rather than fretting about getting into the inner sanctums of Linux development , more would be OS developers should be looking at the alternatives ( or starting their own , if they have the vision for it ) .
Most will fail , of course , but somewhere out there is a project that , like Linus Torvald 's ambitious little toy * nix kernel all those years ago , will someday be a game changer .
And even in failure , one learns a great deal -- perhaps enough that one might later find entry into more established circles easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The larger problem here isn't that the Linux kernel group is exclusive -- though it probably does manage to deny itself (and its users) some good ideas as a result.
It's that the FOSS world has developed a dominant monoculture that very definitely marginalizes alternative approaches that, both in the short term and in the long term, retards progress in other areas.
Yes, there are FOSS alternatives to Linux, but we have arrived at a state where there is Linux, and then there is everything else.
And that "everything else", excepting perhaps the *BSDs which are competitors in the Unix clone space rather than fundamental alternatives, generally lack maturity and application support.That's only an acceptable state of affairs if you think Unix (and Linux's implementation of Unix) represent some kind of final end state in OS development.
This is by no means a criticism of Linux in and of itself -- it's a fine OS and I'm glad to have it -- but in terms both of user choice and advancing the state of the art, it's no more healthy to have Linux as the overwhelmingly dominant player in the FOSS world than it was to have Windows as the overwhelmingly dominant player in the broader PC world.Rather than fretting about getting into the inner sanctums of Linux development, more would be OS developers should be looking at the alternatives (or starting their own, if they have the vision for it).
Most will fail, of course, but somewhere out there is a project that, like Linus Torvald's ambitious little toy *nix kernel all those years ago, will someday be a game changer.
And even in failure, one learns a great deal -- perhaps enough that one might later find entry into more established circles easier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30837488</id>
	<title>Re:Too many changes anyway.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263981780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Arguably, no USB device driver or printer driver should be in the kernel or have any significant privileges. That alone would cut way down on kernel mods.</p></div><p>Are you intentionally trolling or just uninformed? Someone made a very similar comment in a recent article.</p><p>Linux handles printing completely <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutenprint" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">in usermode</a> [wikipedia.org]. There is no printer support in the kernel. USB is mostly <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libusb" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">in usermode</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Arguably , no USB device driver or printer driver should be in the kernel or have any significant privileges .
That alone would cut way down on kernel mods.Are you intentionally trolling or just uninformed ?
Someone made a very similar comment in a recent article.Linux handles printing completely in usermode [ wikipedia.org ] .
There is no printer support in the kernel .
USB is mostly in usermode [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Arguably, no USB device driver or printer driver should be in the kernel or have any significant privileges.
That alone would cut way down on kernel mods.Are you intentionally trolling or just uninformed?
Someone made a very similar comment in a recent article.Linux handles printing completely in usermode [wikipedia.org].
There is no printer support in the kernel.
USB is mostly in usermode [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30844284</id>
	<title>Re:Intimidating...</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1264076820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That really depends, in some cases if you run an intimidating job interview you may risk pushing away people with the qualities you require.</p><p>Intimidating job interviews risk pushing away people who are technically brilliant, but not socially brilliant. That doesn't mean they can't communicate, but it might mean that under pressure of intimidation, something they wouldn't usually suffer in the normal workplace (well, that they shouldn't- if they do it's a shit workplace anyway) that they will struggle and not be able to show their best. What you will get though is a lot of mediocre people who can talk the talk but not walk the walk, if you're really lucky you may get people who are capable of both, but is it worth the gamble? Of course all things in moderation of course- on the other side of it there are some people that are simply too quiet and wont communicate anything which can be problematic in itself unless the role really is one that doesn't need communication.</p><p>It's best to make the candidates feel comfortable, give them the opportunity to show what they can do in a more friendly environment where they feel confident enough to open up and show off their true abilities. In some roles you may prefer the more sociable people, for example, in customer facing jobs, but for kernel development? it'd be stupid to scare off some brilliant but shy people and just risk filling the team with mouthy incompetent developers that sounded good in their interview because they weren't scared off by intimidation but couldn't deliver in the job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That really depends , in some cases if you run an intimidating job interview you may risk pushing away people with the qualities you require.Intimidating job interviews risk pushing away people who are technically brilliant , but not socially brilliant .
That does n't mean they ca n't communicate , but it might mean that under pressure of intimidation , something they would n't usually suffer in the normal workplace ( well , that they should n't- if they do it 's a shit workplace anyway ) that they will struggle and not be able to show their best .
What you will get though is a lot of mediocre people who can talk the talk but not walk the walk , if you 're really lucky you may get people who are capable of both , but is it worth the gamble ?
Of course all things in moderation of course- on the other side of it there are some people that are simply too quiet and wont communicate anything which can be problematic in itself unless the role really is one that does n't need communication.It 's best to make the candidates feel comfortable , give them the opportunity to show what they can do in a more friendly environment where they feel confident enough to open up and show off their true abilities .
In some roles you may prefer the more sociable people , for example , in customer facing jobs , but for kernel development ?
it 'd be stupid to scare off some brilliant but shy people and just risk filling the team with mouthy incompetent developers that sounded good in their interview because they were n't scared off by intimidation but could n't deliver in the job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That really depends, in some cases if you run an intimidating job interview you may risk pushing away people with the qualities you require.Intimidating job interviews risk pushing away people who are technically brilliant, but not socially brilliant.
That doesn't mean they can't communicate, but it might mean that under pressure of intimidation, something they wouldn't usually suffer in the normal workplace (well, that they shouldn't- if they do it's a shit workplace anyway) that they will struggle and not be able to show their best.
What you will get though is a lot of mediocre people who can talk the talk but not walk the walk, if you're really lucky you may get people who are capable of both, but is it worth the gamble?
Of course all things in moderation of course- on the other side of it there are some people that are simply too quiet and wont communicate anything which can be problematic in itself unless the role really is one that doesn't need communication.It's best to make the candidates feel comfortable, give them the opportunity to show what they can do in a more friendly environment where they feel confident enough to open up and show off their true abilities.
In some roles you may prefer the more sociable people, for example, in customer facing jobs, but for kernel development?
it'd be stupid to scare off some brilliant but shy people and just risk filling the team with mouthy incompetent developers that sounded good in their interview because they weren't scared off by intimidation but couldn't deliver in the job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835210</id>
	<title>And why is that?</title>
	<author>Jodka</author>
	<datestamp>1264015680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p><i> the developer community can be intimidating and hard to break into.</i></p></div></blockquote><p>Well.. duh. Because you have to learn to program the Linux kernel to join.</p><p>  It is a "best of the best" club for programmers.  Obviously that requires a lot of brains and effort.  It <i>should</i> be hard to join, otherwise there would be a lot of crappy code in the kernel and Linux would suck.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the developer community can be intimidating and hard to break into.Well.. duh. Because you have to learn to program the Linux kernel to join .
It is a " best of the best " club for programmers .
Obviously that requires a lot of brains and effort .
It should be hard to join , otherwise there would be a lot of crappy code in the kernel and Linux would suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> the developer community can be intimidating and hard to break into.Well.. duh. Because you have to learn to program the Linux kernel to join.
It is a "best of the best" club for programmers.
Obviously that requires a lot of brains and effort.
It should be hard to join, otherwise there would be a lot of crappy code in the kernel and Linux would suck.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30839002</id>
	<title>Re:I fault the internet</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1263987240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Never in a town hall meeting is it considered productive to shout that your opponents are "F~ING STUPID" and yet this tactic works exceedingly well on the internet."</p><p>I assume you've never watched the Australian parliament in session.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Never in a town hall meeting is it considered productive to shout that your opponents are " F ~ ING STUPID " and yet this tactic works exceedingly well on the internet .
" I assume you 've never watched the Australian parliament in session .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Never in a town hall meeting is it considered productive to shout that your opponents are "F~ING STUPID" and yet this tactic works exceedingly well on the internet.
"I assume you've never watched the Australian parliament in session.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834642</id>
	<title>And rightly so</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264013340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Linux kernel is not some hobbyist tinker toy.  It is an extremely serious, mainstream and global-scale project.  If it were more inclusive rather than exclusive, there would be MUCH risk in stability and security as I firmly believe that there would be attempts at installing exploitable code within the kernel.  These types of problems have already occurred in F/OSS projects all over and we know that there are parties out there who are willing to to to GREAT lengths to accomplish their goals.</p><p>With all this, I have little doubt that the present condition is for the best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Linux kernel is not some hobbyist tinker toy .
It is an extremely serious , mainstream and global-scale project .
If it were more inclusive rather than exclusive , there would be MUCH risk in stability and security as I firmly believe that there would be attempts at installing exploitable code within the kernel .
These types of problems have already occurred in F/OSS projects all over and we know that there are parties out there who are willing to to to GREAT lengths to accomplish their goals.With all this , I have little doubt that the present condition is for the best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Linux kernel is not some hobbyist tinker toy.
It is an extremely serious, mainstream and global-scale project.
If it were more inclusive rather than exclusive, there would be MUCH risk in stability and security as I firmly believe that there would be attempts at installing exploitable code within the kernel.
These types of problems have already occurred in F/OSS projects all over and we know that there are parties out there who are willing to to to GREAT lengths to accomplish their goals.With all this, I have little doubt that the present condition is for the best.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834948</id>
	<title>Re:Corbet says *Kernel* community intimidating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264014780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What the h--- is the "kernel" community? Are we talking about popcorn farmers? No. It's the Linux (development) community, like the article says.<br> <br>

BTW, HTH is this marked informative?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the h--- is the " kernel " community ?
Are we talking about popcorn farmers ?
No. It 's the Linux ( development ) community , like the article says .
BTW , HTH is this marked informative ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the h--- is the "kernel" community?
Are we talking about popcorn farmers?
No. It's the Linux (development) community, like the article says.
BTW, HTH is this marked informative?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834438</id>
	<title>Corbet says *Kernel* community intimidating</title>
	<author>jra</author>
	<datestamp>1264012380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hard to break into.</p><p>There, fixed that for ya.</p><p>And let's note Jon knows whereof he speaks; he's not just the Editor/Publisher of the almost-10 year old LWN, he's also a fairly well-respected device driver author.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hard to break into.There , fixed that for ya.And let 's note Jon knows whereof he speaks ; he 's not just the Editor/Publisher of the almost-10 year old LWN , he 's also a fairly well-respected device driver author .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hard to break into.There, fixed that for ya.And let's note Jon knows whereof he speaks; he's not just the Editor/Publisher of the almost-10 year old LWN, he's also a fairly well-respected device driver author.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834450</id>
	<title>I fault the internet</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1264012440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think this is necessarily a flaw in Linux kernel development, because I've seen the same sort of thing all over every internet-based community.  Think about the forums, chat rooms, and even discussions on this very site.  'Good' input is secondary to both 'loud' and 'popular', to the deficit of the community.</p><p>Part of it is that the text removes a good deal of the context behind the words.  To be sure...</p><p>However I think there exists a general lack of morality/ethics/whatever in terms on internet communication.  Never in a town hall meeting is it considered productive to shout that your opponents are "F~ING STUPID" and yet this tactic works exceedingly well on the internet.  I assume that in person this behavior is taboo, but online anything goes.  At a minimum you would pretend to listen and use some form of tactful technique to move forward.  Online the aggressor seems to hope the opposing voices will simply stop participating in the conversation.</p><p>Does anyone have any links to research or the like on this topic?</p><p>Further, is there anything resembling Roberts Rules of Order for an online forum, email, etc?</p><p>Back to the topic at hand, what if the Linux kernel developers held voice-based meetings on controversial topics?  Or at least adopted a code of conduct that demanded civility?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think this is necessarily a flaw in Linux kernel development , because I 've seen the same sort of thing all over every internet-based community .
Think about the forums , chat rooms , and even discussions on this very site .
'Good ' input is secondary to both 'loud ' and 'popular ' , to the deficit of the community.Part of it is that the text removes a good deal of the context behind the words .
To be sure...However I think there exists a general lack of morality/ethics/whatever in terms on internet communication .
Never in a town hall meeting is it considered productive to shout that your opponents are " F ~ ING STUPID " and yet this tactic works exceedingly well on the internet .
I assume that in person this behavior is taboo , but online anything goes .
At a minimum you would pretend to listen and use some form of tactful technique to move forward .
Online the aggressor seems to hope the opposing voices will simply stop participating in the conversation.Does anyone have any links to research or the like on this topic ? Further , is there anything resembling Roberts Rules of Order for an online forum , email , etc ? Back to the topic at hand , what if the Linux kernel developers held voice-based meetings on controversial topics ?
Or at least adopted a code of conduct that demanded civility ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think this is necessarily a flaw in Linux kernel development, because I've seen the same sort of thing all over every internet-based community.
Think about the forums, chat rooms, and even discussions on this very site.
'Good' input is secondary to both 'loud' and 'popular', to the deficit of the community.Part of it is that the text removes a good deal of the context behind the words.
To be sure...However I think there exists a general lack of morality/ethics/whatever in terms on internet communication.
Never in a town hall meeting is it considered productive to shout that your opponents are "F~ING STUPID" and yet this tactic works exceedingly well on the internet.
I assume that in person this behavior is taboo, but online anything goes.
At a minimum you would pretend to listen and use some form of tactful technique to move forward.
Online the aggressor seems to hope the opposing voices will simply stop participating in the conversation.Does anyone have any links to research or the like on this topic?Further, is there anything resembling Roberts Rules of Order for an online forum, email, etc?Back to the topic at hand, what if the Linux kernel developers held voice-based meetings on controversial topics?
Or at least adopted a code of conduct that demanded civility?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835622</id>
	<title>Groklaw is a pioneer in clean discussions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264017060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PJ has at least 100 spare hands to do the kind of moderation she does.</p><p>She really is a robot<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PJ has at least 100 spare hands to do the kind of moderation she does.She really is a robot : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PJ has at least 100 spare hands to do the kind of moderation she does.She really is a robot :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834860</id>
	<title>Re:Corbet says *Kernel* community intimidating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264014300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As opposed to the non-kernel Linux community?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As opposed to the non-kernel Linux community ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As opposed to the non-kernel Linux community?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30965712</id>
	<title>Which printer drivers are in the Linux kernel?</title>
	<author>Sits</author>
	<datestamp>1264848060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To the best of my knowledge, most printer drivers are in CUPS (something similar happens for scanners with SANE) which is userland. There are plenty of USB widgets in the kernel but this seems to be mostly for devices that do no not conform to a standardised USB class (e.g. most usb pens will be handled with the existing mass storage driver).</p><p>The majority of Linux kernel changes are to drivers but these are for new hard disk controllers, video cards, wifi cards and so forth. In fact I've just done a quick check on where the changes between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33-rc4 were and it looked like this:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 9.0\% arch/arm/<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 16.7\% arch/<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 3.2\% drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 5.2\% drivers/gpu/drm/<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4.0\% drivers/media/<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4.5\% drivers/net/wireless/<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 8.1\% drivers/net/<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 3.6\% drivers/staging/rt2860/common/<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 7.4\% drivers/staging/rt2860/<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4.3\% drivers/staging/rt3090/common/<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 9.4\% drivers/staging/rt3090/<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4.5\% drivers/staging/rtl8192u/<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 8.5\% drivers/staging/wlags49\_h2/<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 35.2\% drivers/staging/<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 66.1\% drivers/<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 6.1\% firmware/</p><p>Percentages are cumulative (drivers includes drivers/staging etc) and directories with less than 3\% of the changes have been left out. So in this case most of the changes were to wifi driver, the ARM architecture and graphics driver bits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To the best of my knowledge , most printer drivers are in CUPS ( something similar happens for scanners with SANE ) which is userland .
There are plenty of USB widgets in the kernel but this seems to be mostly for devices that do no not conform to a standardised USB class ( e.g .
most usb pens will be handled with the existing mass storage driver ) .The majority of Linux kernel changes are to drivers but these are for new hard disk controllers , video cards , wifi cards and so forth .
In fact I 've just done a quick check on where the changes between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33-rc4 were and it looked like this :       9.0 \ % arch/arm/     16.7 \ % arch/       3.2 \ % drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/       5.2 \ % drivers/gpu/drm/       4.0 \ % drivers/media/       4.5 \ % drivers/net/wireless/       8.1 \ % drivers/net/       3.6 \ % drivers/staging/rt2860/common/       7.4 \ % drivers/staging/rt2860/       4.3 \ % drivers/staging/rt3090/common/       9.4 \ % drivers/staging/rt3090/       4.5 \ % drivers/staging/rtl8192u/       8.5 \ % drivers/staging/wlags49 \ _h2/     35.2 \ % drivers/staging/     66.1 \ % drivers/       6.1 \ % firmware/Percentages are cumulative ( drivers includes drivers/staging etc ) and directories with less than 3 \ % of the changes have been left out .
So in this case most of the changes were to wifi driver , the ARM architecture and graphics driver bits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To the best of my knowledge, most printer drivers are in CUPS (something similar happens for scanners with SANE) which is userland.
There are plenty of USB widgets in the kernel but this seems to be mostly for devices that do no not conform to a standardised USB class (e.g.
most usb pens will be handled with the existing mass storage driver).The majority of Linux kernel changes are to drivers but these are for new hard disk controllers, video cards, wifi cards and so forth.
In fact I've just done a quick check on where the changes between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33-rc4 were and it looked like this:
      9.0\% arch/arm/
    16.7\% arch/
      3.2\% drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/
      5.2\% drivers/gpu/drm/
      4.0\% drivers/media/
      4.5\% drivers/net/wireless/
      8.1\% drivers/net/
      3.6\% drivers/staging/rt2860/common/
      7.4\% drivers/staging/rt2860/
      4.3\% drivers/staging/rt3090/common/
      9.4\% drivers/staging/rt3090/
      4.5\% drivers/staging/rtl8192u/
      8.5\% drivers/staging/wlags49\_h2/
    35.2\% drivers/staging/
    66.1\% drivers/
      6.1\% firmware/Percentages are cumulative (drivers includes drivers/staging etc) and directories with less than 3\% of the changes have been left out.
So in this case most of the changes were to wifi driver, the ARM architecture and graphics driver bits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835694</id>
	<title>It's part of the quality control</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1264017300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The arrogance is intentional and deliberate. These people aren't getting paid for this, and simply don't have time to deal with noobs. Nor do they have time to screen patches from everyone who is trying to be helpful. Some intimidation is necessary to weed out those who aren't really serious and haven't made a concerted effort to fully understand the problem before contacting the kernel developers.<br> <br>
Unix developers have always had an attitude, but in my experience they have been far more tolerant than Microsoft Developers (who insisted we rewrite all the Winsock2 code Intel was doing for them for free to better suit their revision control system) or that paragon of arrogance, the original SCO. When I worked for Amdahl UTS, one of my coworkers got the comment in his annual review that he "has little tolerance for mediocrity". Problem is, he thought this was a GOOD thing, while his manager was using it as a negative to justify a bare cost of living raise. Yes, they don't suffer fools easily, so make sure you do your homework first and get your facts straight before talking to them. Really, they are a lot like slashdot posters who rush to point out even the most minor mistakes in a post.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The arrogance is intentional and deliberate .
These people are n't getting paid for this , and simply do n't have time to deal with noobs .
Nor do they have time to screen patches from everyone who is trying to be helpful .
Some intimidation is necessary to weed out those who are n't really serious and have n't made a concerted effort to fully understand the problem before contacting the kernel developers .
Unix developers have always had an attitude , but in my experience they have been far more tolerant than Microsoft Developers ( who insisted we rewrite all the Winsock2 code Intel was doing for them for free to better suit their revision control system ) or that paragon of arrogance , the original SCO .
When I worked for Amdahl UTS , one of my coworkers got the comment in his annual review that he " has little tolerance for mediocrity " .
Problem is , he thought this was a GOOD thing , while his manager was using it as a negative to justify a bare cost of living raise .
Yes , they do n't suffer fools easily , so make sure you do your homework first and get your facts straight before talking to them .
Really , they are a lot like slashdot posters who rush to point out even the most minor mistakes in a post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The arrogance is intentional and deliberate.
These people aren't getting paid for this, and simply don't have time to deal with noobs.
Nor do they have time to screen patches from everyone who is trying to be helpful.
Some intimidation is necessary to weed out those who aren't really serious and haven't made a concerted effort to fully understand the problem before contacting the kernel developers.
Unix developers have always had an attitude, but in my experience they have been far more tolerant than Microsoft Developers (who insisted we rewrite all the Winsock2 code Intel was doing for them for free to better suit their revision control system) or that paragon of arrogance, the original SCO.
When I worked for Amdahl UTS, one of my coworkers got the comment in his annual review that he "has little tolerance for mediocrity".
Problem is, he thought this was a GOOD thing, while his manager was using it as a negative to justify a bare cost of living raise.
Yes, they don't suffer fools easily, so make sure you do your homework first and get your facts straight before talking to them.
Really, they are a lot like slashdot posters who rush to point out even the most minor mistakes in a post.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834562</id>
	<title>Re:difficult?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1264012920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well exactly. Just because you spent a weekend learning how, and then made your own personal changes in your spare time, doesn't mean you actually have the know-how to help on the project. The Linux Kernal has been around for some time, I'd bet a dollar or two that they have put a lot of work into making it work properly and efficiently. If they want to implement something new, they are going to go with the guys who know the ins and the outs to make things as efficient as possible. Its a slippery slope where it could be excluding people who have developed a new methodology, meaning they miss out on a great opportunity, but thats just a risk they don't want to take.</p><p>It's the same as any industry. I'm not going to grab just any old guy to build my house. He could be an excellent carpenter - and maybe he'll even show me a few chairs and tables he has built. Superb as they may be, I'll still go with the guy who has built a house from start to finish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well exactly .
Just because you spent a weekend learning how , and then made your own personal changes in your spare time , does n't mean you actually have the know-how to help on the project .
The Linux Kernal has been around for some time , I 'd bet a dollar or two that they have put a lot of work into making it work properly and efficiently .
If they want to implement something new , they are going to go with the guys who know the ins and the outs to make things as efficient as possible .
Its a slippery slope where it could be excluding people who have developed a new methodology , meaning they miss out on a great opportunity , but thats just a risk they do n't want to take.It 's the same as any industry .
I 'm not going to grab just any old guy to build my house .
He could be an excellent carpenter - and maybe he 'll even show me a few chairs and tables he has built .
Superb as they may be , I 'll still go with the guy who has built a house from start to finish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well exactly.
Just because you spent a weekend learning how, and then made your own personal changes in your spare time, doesn't mean you actually have the know-how to help on the project.
The Linux Kernal has been around for some time, I'd bet a dollar or two that they have put a lot of work into making it work properly and efficiently.
If they want to implement something new, they are going to go with the guys who know the ins and the outs to make things as efficient as possible.
Its a slippery slope where it could be excluding people who have developed a new methodology, meaning they miss out on a great opportunity, but thats just a risk they don't want to take.It's the same as any industry.
I'm not going to grab just any old guy to build my house.
He could be an excellent carpenter - and maybe he'll even show me a few chairs and tables he has built.
Superb as they may be, I'll still go with the guy who has built a house from start to finish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30841106</id>
	<title>p.P.P.ooo.P.o.P.pp.P..P...Pulseaudio</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1263998640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the creator of something is an ass yet they manage somehow to keep hangers on coding crap and dazzling corprats into snorting their product I wonder what is good about 'free' software.</p><p>I've used a linux based distribution since around 97, started with Slackware. It's gotten bad enough I'm getting tired of dealing with egos.</p><p>I don't want to have to pay M$ for win7 but the audio and X server issues in Linux distributions are killers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the creator of something is an ass yet they manage somehow to keep hangers on coding crap and dazzling corprats into snorting their product I wonder what is good about 'free ' software.I 've used a linux based distribution since around 97 , started with Slackware .
It 's gotten bad enough I 'm getting tired of dealing with egos.I do n't want to have to pay M $ for win7 but the audio and X server issues in Linux distributions are killers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the creator of something is an ass yet they manage somehow to keep hangers on coding crap and dazzling corprats into snorting their product I wonder what is good about 'free' software.I've used a linux based distribution since around 97, started with Slackware.
It's gotten bad enough I'm getting tired of dealing with egos.I don't want to have to pay M$ for win7 but the audio and X server issues in Linux distributions are killers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836300</id>
	<title>Re:Too many changes anyway.</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1264019940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do you always have to drag up the same tired arguments Tanenbaum?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you always have to drag up the same tired arguments Tanenbaum ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you always have to drag up the same tired arguments Tanenbaum?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834436</id>
	<title>Not news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264012320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux elitests are jerks, news at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux elitests are jerks , news at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux elitests are jerks, news at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835690</id>
	<title>Re:Corbet says *Kernel* community intimidating</title>
	<author>recoiledsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1264017300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What the h--- is the "kernel" community? Are we talking about popcorn farmers?</p> </div><p>You mean GNU/Popcorn farmers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the h--- is the " kernel " community ?
Are we talking about popcorn farmers ?
You mean GNU/Popcorn farmers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the h--- is the "kernel" community?
Are we talking about popcorn farmers?
You mean GNU/Popcorn farmers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835586</id>
	<title>Re:difficult?</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1264016940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"That's only an acceptable state of affairs if you think Unix (and Linux's implementation of Unix) represent some kind of final end state in OS development."</p><p>I agree. The problem is that geeks are too hidebound to support truly new things. Why does every successful new language have to use "C" syntax?</p><p>In the case of UNIX, there are those who think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but since they weren't on earth when it was created they can't differentiate between its good ideas and those that were adopted because of the limitations of that era.</p><p>It's a bit like those who believe that black-and-white movies are more artistic just because they're black-and-white. Many of those movies would have been made in color if that had been a feasible option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" That 's only an acceptable state of affairs if you think Unix ( and Linux 's implementation of Unix ) represent some kind of final end state in OS development .
" I agree .
The problem is that geeks are too hidebound to support truly new things .
Why does every successful new language have to use " C " syntax ? In the case of UNIX , there are those who think it 's the greatest thing since sliced bread , but since they were n't on earth when it was created they ca n't differentiate between its good ideas and those that were adopted because of the limitations of that era.It 's a bit like those who believe that black-and-white movies are more artistic just because they 're black-and-white .
Many of those movies would have been made in color if that had been a feasible option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"That's only an acceptable state of affairs if you think Unix (and Linux's implementation of Unix) represent some kind of final end state in OS development.
"I agree.
The problem is that geeks are too hidebound to support truly new things.
Why does every successful new language have to use "C" syntax?In the case of UNIX, there are those who think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but since they weren't on earth when it was created they can't differentiate between its good ideas and those that were adopted because of the limitations of that era.It's a bit like those who believe that black-and-white movies are more artistic just because they're black-and-white.
Many of those movies would have been made in color if that had been a feasible option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834682</id>
	<title>The more lines the better</title>
	<author>lemur3</author>
	<datestamp>1264013520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just think, if they have done this many lines with an intimidating atmosphere how many millions will be made with a friendly one!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just think , if they have done this many lines with an intimidating atmosphere how many millions will be made with a friendly one !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just think, if they have done this many lines with an intimidating atmosphere how many millions will be made with a friendly one!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834426</id>
	<title>difficult?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264012320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>He is kind of right, but I would say the relative challenge of understanding the kernel code is far greater than the social challenge of getting involved.  I mean, you can't expect to just sign up to lklm and say, "Hey guys, assign me a project!"  Why would they even believe that you can handle it?  As likely as not, you'll just make things worse.  Start by understanding the code, doing some debugging, and once you are actually doing productive things, people will be more likely to believe you can do more productive things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He is kind of right , but I would say the relative challenge of understanding the kernel code is far greater than the social challenge of getting involved .
I mean , you ca n't expect to just sign up to lklm and say , " Hey guys , assign me a project !
" Why would they even believe that you can handle it ?
As likely as not , you 'll just make things worse .
Start by understanding the code , doing some debugging , and once you are actually doing productive things , people will be more likely to believe you can do more productive things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He is kind of right, but I would say the relative challenge of understanding the kernel code is far greater than the social challenge of getting involved.
I mean, you can't expect to just sign up to lklm and say, "Hey guys, assign me a project!
"  Why would they even believe that you can handle it?
As likely as not, you'll just make things worse.
Start by understanding the code, doing some debugging, and once you are actually doing productive things, people will be more likely to believe you can do more productive things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835910</id>
	<title>Anyone anytime can modify Linux</title>
	<author>MarkH</author>
	<datestamp>1264018200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only problem is getting your changes into the trunk.</p><p>For that I am glad they are very picky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only problem is getting your changes into the trunk.For that I am glad they are very picky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only problem is getting your changes into the trunk.For that I am glad they are very picky.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835756</id>
	<title>Re:And rightly so</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1264017540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The Linux kernel is not some hobbyist tinker toy."</p><p>You're right. Linus probably played with Legos rather than Tinker Toys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Linux kernel is not some hobbyist tinker toy .
" You 're right .
Linus probably played with Legos rather than Tinker Toys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Linux kernel is not some hobbyist tinker toy.
"You're right.
Linus probably played with Legos rather than Tinker Toys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30838692</id>
	<title>Huh, C syntax?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1263986040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why does every successful new language have to use "C" syntax?</p></div><p>You mean like python, ruby and Haskell?</p><p>Also, what's gained <em>just</em> by being different?  It's one thing to have different <em>concepts</em> that need new syntax simply because there isn't anything to copy.  It's another thing to rehash an old concept with a different syntax, without any apparent purpose for the difference.  Why "fix" what works?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does every successful new language have to use " C " syntax ? You mean like python , ruby and Haskell ? Also , what 's gained just by being different ?
It 's one thing to have different concepts that need new syntax simply because there is n't anything to copy .
It 's another thing to rehash an old concept with a different syntax , without any apparent purpose for the difference .
Why " fix " what works ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does every successful new language have to use "C" syntax?You mean like python, ruby and Haskell?Also, what's gained just by being different?
It's one thing to have different concepts that need new syntax simply because there isn't anything to copy.
It's another thing to rehash an old concept with a different syntax, without any apparent purpose for the difference.
Why "fix" what works?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836488</id>
	<title>Re:difficult?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264020720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is also a reflexive defensiveness in the FOSS community that tends to scare aware any but the hardiest. Check out any post on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. that dares criticize GIMP's horrid UI, or points out how intimidating Linux's continued reliance on the command line is to the average user--then watch the series of flames that follow even these benign criticisms. Now imagine trying to offer contructive criticism to a group of people who are even MORE dedicated to Linux and FOSS than even the average<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. user. I would rather walk into the meanest bar in Boston with a "Red Sox Suck!" t-shirt on than to post even a slight criticism of the existing kernal on lklm. It's WAY too personal for those guys.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is also a reflexive defensiveness in the FOSS community that tends to scare aware any but the hardiest .
Check out any post on / .
that dares criticize GIMP 's horrid UI , or points out how intimidating Linux 's continued reliance on the command line is to the average user--then watch the series of flames that follow even these benign criticisms .
Now imagine trying to offer contructive criticism to a group of people who are even MORE dedicated to Linux and FOSS than even the average / .
user. I would rather walk into the meanest bar in Boston with a " Red Sox Suck !
" t-shirt on than to post even a slight criticism of the existing kernal on lklm .
It 's WAY too personal for those guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is also a reflexive defensiveness in the FOSS community that tends to scare aware any but the hardiest.
Check out any post on /.
that dares criticize GIMP's horrid UI, or points out how intimidating Linux's continued reliance on the command line is to the average user--then watch the series of flames that follow even these benign criticisms.
Now imagine trying to offer contructive criticism to a group of people who are even MORE dedicated to Linux and FOSS than even the average /.
user. I would rather walk into the meanest bar in Boston with a "Red Sox Suck!
" t-shirt on than to post even a slight criticism of the existing kernal on lklm.
It's WAY too personal for those guys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835298</id>
	<title>Re:I fault the internet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264015980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was that a joke? Did you really say BOLLOCKS to somebody who suggested that shouting down people sometimes happens on the internet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was that a joke ?
Did you really say BOLLOCKS to somebody who suggested that shouting down people sometimes happens on the internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was that a joke?
Did you really say BOLLOCKS to somebody who suggested that shouting down people sometimes happens on the internet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30840584</id>
	<title>I don't get the problem:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263994800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It&rsquo;s GIT. There is no central top of the hierarchy. Pull whatever you like into your own repository, add whatever patches you like, modify it, and distribute as you please.<br>I have over a dozen alternative kernel mods for Linux available in the Gentoo package manager. I chose the one that fits me best. Done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It    s GIT .
There is no central top of the hierarchy .
Pull whatever you like into your own repository , add whatever patches you like , modify it , and distribute as you please.I have over a dozen alternative kernel mods for Linux available in the Gentoo package manager .
I chose the one that fits me best .
Done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It’s GIT.
There is no central top of the hierarchy.
Pull whatever you like into your own repository, add whatever patches you like, modify it, and distribute as you please.I have over a dozen alternative kernel mods for Linux available in the Gentoo package manager.
I chose the one that fits me best.
Done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835064</id>
	<title>Too many changes anyway.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264015140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
If anything, the Linux kernel changes too much.  It ought to settle down into a tight little kernel that's changed only for rare bug fixes.  The "monolithic kernel" concept has gotten somewhat out of hand.  Arguably, no USB device driver or printer driver should be in the kernel or have any significant privileges.  That alone would cut way down on kernel mods.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If anything , the Linux kernel changes too much .
It ought to settle down into a tight little kernel that 's changed only for rare bug fixes .
The " monolithic kernel " concept has gotten somewhat out of hand .
Arguably , no USB device driver or printer driver should be in the kernel or have any significant privileges .
That alone would cut way down on kernel mods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
If anything, the Linux kernel changes too much.
It ought to settle down into a tight little kernel that's changed only for rare bug fixes.
The "monolithic kernel" concept has gotten somewhat out of hand.
Arguably, no USB device driver or printer driver should be in the kernel or have any significant privileges.
That alone would cut way down on kernel mods.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835590</id>
	<title>Re:I fault the internet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264016940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Out of curiosity, how do you weigh your bollocks against Torvalds/Kolivas square-off?</p><p><a href="http://linux.slashdot.org/story/07/07/28/1836247/Torvalds-Explains-Scheduler-Decision" title="slashdot.org">http://linux.slashdot.org/story/07/07/28/1836247/Torvalds-Explains-Scheduler-Decision</a> [slashdot.org]<br><a href="http://linux.slashdot.org/story/07/09/24/1210236/The-Linux-Identity-Crisis" title="slashdot.org">http://linux.slashdot.org/story/07/09/24/1210236/The-Linux-Identity-Crisis</a> [slashdot.org]<br><a href="http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/09/06/0433209/Con-Kolivas-Returns-With-a-Desktop-Oriented-Linux-Scheduler" title="slashdot.org">http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/09/06/0433209/Con-Kolivas-Returns-With-a-Desktop-Oriented-Linux-Scheduler</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>IIRC, Torvalds behaved like a total tool in rejecting the idea, and another developer basically stole the concept and made his own implementation, which got accepted.</p><p>Sounds like the same-ol'-same-ol' to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of curiosity , how do you weigh your bollocks against Torvalds/Kolivas square-off ? http : //linux.slashdot.org/story/07/07/28/1836247/Torvalds-Explains-Scheduler-Decision [ slashdot.org ] http : //linux.slashdot.org/story/07/09/24/1210236/The-Linux-Identity-Crisis [ slashdot.org ] http : //linux.slashdot.org/story/09/09/06/0433209/Con-Kolivas-Returns-With-a-Desktop-Oriented-Linux-Scheduler [ slashdot.org ] IIRC , Torvalds behaved like a total tool in rejecting the idea , and another developer basically stole the concept and made his own implementation , which got accepted.Sounds like the same-ol'-same-ol ' to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Out of curiosity, how do you weigh your bollocks against Torvalds/Kolivas square-off?http://linux.slashdot.org/story/07/07/28/1836247/Torvalds-Explains-Scheduler-Decision [slashdot.org]http://linux.slashdot.org/story/07/09/24/1210236/The-Linux-Identity-Crisis [slashdot.org]http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/09/06/0433209/Con-Kolivas-Returns-With-a-Desktop-Oriented-Linux-Scheduler [slashdot.org]IIRC, Torvalds behaved like a total tool in rejecting the idea, and another developer basically stole the concept and made his own implementation, which got accepted.Sounds like the same-ol'-same-ol' to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834774</id>
	<title>"Key contributor"?</title>
	<author>diegocg</author>
	<datestamp>1264013940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Corbet is the editor of LWN.net and has contributed some patches to the kernel, but i doubt he would accept to be called "key contributor". IMHO his best description would be "the best linux kernel journalist".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Corbet is the editor of LWN.net and has contributed some patches to the kernel , but i doubt he would accept to be called " key contributor " .
IMHO his best description would be " the best linux kernel journalist " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corbet is the editor of LWN.net and has contributed some patches to the kernel, but i doubt he would accept to be called "key contributor".
IMHO his best description would be "the best linux kernel journalist".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834340</id>
	<title>Intimidating...</title>
	<author>AmericanGladiator</author>
	<datestamp>1264012020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Job interviews are also intimidating - but highly worth it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Job interviews are also intimidating - but highly worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Job interviews are also intimidating - but highly worth it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834678</id>
	<title>At least its open at all...</title>
	<author>al3k</author>
	<datestamp>1264013520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least you can metaphorically break into the linux kernel at all, even just for your own fork to mess around.  I would literally have to break into somewhere to look at windows code</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least you can metaphorically break into the linux kernel at all , even just for your own fork to mess around .
I would literally have to break into somewhere to look at windows code</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least you can metaphorically break into the linux kernel at all, even just for your own fork to mess around.
I would literally have to break into somewhere to look at windows code</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30838398</id>
	<title>Re:Too many changes anyway.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263984960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>.  Arguably, no USB device driver or printer driver should be in the kernel or have any significant privileges.  That alone would cut way down on kernel mods.</p></div><p>No printer drivers reside in the Linux kernel. They are all found in user space.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
Arguably , no USB device driver or printer driver should be in the kernel or have any significant privileges .
That alone would cut way down on kernel mods.No printer drivers reside in the Linux kernel .
They are all found in user space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
Arguably, no USB device driver or printer driver should be in the kernel or have any significant privileges.
That alone would cut way down on kernel mods.No printer drivers reside in the Linux kernel.
They are all found in user space.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30844762</id>
	<title>Re:difficult?</title>
	<author>Alioth</author>
	<datestamp>1264082580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As an experiment, about a year ago I installed Ubuntu on my PC (complete with proprietary nvidia 3D card), to see if I could:</p><p>* set it up so I could install 3D games<br>* set it up to play MP3 files<br>* set it up to play DVDs and random MP4 videos<br>* do the common usery things (read email, browse the web, play YouTube videos)</p><p>without using the command line.</p><p>The experiment showed it was entirely possible, and indeed - easy. Much easier than installing Windows. Even the nvidia driver installed over the net - Ubuntu simply prompted me "Do you want to install the proprietary nvidia drivers?" after first boot.</p><p>Linux doesn't have a "continued dependence on the command line" at least for anything a normal user does. If you complain that administration needs a command line, it does on Windows as well - there are many tasks on Windows Server that can only be accomplished via the command line and enough things on the Windows desktop that at least need hacking the registry.</p><p>Perhaps 5 years ago this criticism was valid, but it's not now with supported hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an experiment , about a year ago I installed Ubuntu on my PC ( complete with proprietary nvidia 3D card ) , to see if I could : * set it up so I could install 3D games * set it up to play MP3 files * set it up to play DVDs and random MP4 videos * do the common usery things ( read email , browse the web , play YouTube videos ) without using the command line.The experiment showed it was entirely possible , and indeed - easy .
Much easier than installing Windows .
Even the nvidia driver installed over the net - Ubuntu simply prompted me " Do you want to install the proprietary nvidia drivers ?
" after first boot.Linux does n't have a " continued dependence on the command line " at least for anything a normal user does .
If you complain that administration needs a command line , it does on Windows as well - there are many tasks on Windows Server that can only be accomplished via the command line and enough things on the Windows desktop that at least need hacking the registry.Perhaps 5 years ago this criticism was valid , but it 's not now with supported hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an experiment, about a year ago I installed Ubuntu on my PC (complete with proprietary nvidia 3D card), to see if I could:* set it up so I could install 3D games* set it up to play MP3 files* set it up to play DVDs and random MP4 videos* do the common usery things (read email, browse the web, play YouTube videos)without using the command line.The experiment showed it was entirely possible, and indeed - easy.
Much easier than installing Windows.
Even the nvidia driver installed over the net - Ubuntu simply prompted me "Do you want to install the proprietary nvidia drivers?
" after first boot.Linux doesn't have a "continued dependence on the command line" at least for anything a normal user does.
If you complain that administration needs a command line, it does on Windows as well - there are many tasks on Windows Server that can only be accomplished via the command line and enough things on the Windows desktop that at least need hacking the registry.Perhaps 5 years ago this criticism was valid, but it's not now with supported hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834458</id>
	<title>You're playing with the Big Boys, Jonathan.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264012500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you're playing with the Linux kernel developers, you're playing with the Big Boys, Jonathan. These guys are among the best there is. Some of them are getting paid the Big Bucks to work on the kernel, and they can't be distracted by little shits who don't know what they're doing.</p><p>You're free to try to attain and maintain their level of excellence. There are many top-notch software developers who can do this. But if you can't, then YOU WILL BE LEFT BEHIND. You will be treated like rubbish. For the professionals don't have time for the amateurs.</p><p>Now, it goes a step further when you're working with the FreeBSD, NetBSD and especially OpenBSD communities. They are meritocracies that put even the Linux kernel development community to shame. I mean, guys like Poul-Henning Kamp, Robert Watson, Theo, Wes Peters, Warner Losh are the best there are today. There are, literally less than 10 other people out of the 6 billion people on earth who can compete with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you 're playing with the Linux kernel developers , you 're playing with the Big Boys , Jonathan .
These guys are among the best there is .
Some of them are getting paid the Big Bucks to work on the kernel , and they ca n't be distracted by little shits who do n't know what they 're doing.You 're free to try to attain and maintain their level of excellence .
There are many top-notch software developers who can do this .
But if you ca n't , then YOU WILL BE LEFT BEHIND .
You will be treated like rubbish .
For the professionals do n't have time for the amateurs.Now , it goes a step further when you 're working with the FreeBSD , NetBSD and especially OpenBSD communities .
They are meritocracies that put even the Linux kernel development community to shame .
I mean , guys like Poul-Henning Kamp , Robert Watson , Theo , Wes Peters , Warner Losh are the best there are today .
There are , literally less than 10 other people out of the 6 billion people on earth who can compete with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you're playing with the Linux kernel developers, you're playing with the Big Boys, Jonathan.
These guys are among the best there is.
Some of them are getting paid the Big Bucks to work on the kernel, and they can't be distracted by little shits who don't know what they're doing.You're free to try to attain and maintain their level of excellence.
There are many top-notch software developers who can do this.
But if you can't, then YOU WILL BE LEFT BEHIND.
You will be treated like rubbish.
For the professionals don't have time for the amateurs.Now, it goes a step further when you're working with the FreeBSD, NetBSD and especially OpenBSD communities.
They are meritocracies that put even the Linux kernel development community to shame.
I mean, guys like Poul-Henning Kamp, Robert Watson, Theo, Wes Peters, Warner Losh are the best there are today.
There are, literally less than 10 other people out of the 6 billion people on earth who can compete with them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30837352</id>
	<title>Re:difficult?</title>
	<author>grcumb</author>
	<datestamp>1263981120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>[T]he FOSS world has developed a dominant monoculture that very definitely marginalizes alternative approaches that, both in the short term and in the long term, retards progress in other areas.</p></div></blockquote><p>How do you support this assertion? You seem to be implying that there's only one kernel, but the fact of the matter is that this is only nominally true. There is one kernel stack, yes, but its permutations are almost beyond count. It runs on literally thousands of different hardware devices. Even the major distros all roll their own. So the kernel, while nominally monolithic, varies considerably in practice.</p><p>One of the defining characteristics of a monoculture is that it's susceptible to system-wide compromise. In short, if you can hack one instance of the monoculture, you can hack them all. That is arguably untrue of the Linux kernel. There are so many different implementations that <em>systemic</em> compromise becomes almost impossible. Conversely (and almost ironically), the kernel does possess one often overlooked strength of monoculture: As long as the core commonality remains strong, the system at large remains healthy. Small, targeted patches can propagate quickly.</p><p>It's peculiar and counter-intuitive, I realise, but experience teaches us that the Linux kernel seems to have few of the weaknesses of a classic monoculture while retaining many of its strengths.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ T ] he FOSS world has developed a dominant monoculture that very definitely marginalizes alternative approaches that , both in the short term and in the long term , retards progress in other areas.How do you support this assertion ?
You seem to be implying that there 's only one kernel , but the fact of the matter is that this is only nominally true .
There is one kernel stack , yes , but its permutations are almost beyond count .
It runs on literally thousands of different hardware devices .
Even the major distros all roll their own .
So the kernel , while nominally monolithic , varies considerably in practice.One of the defining characteristics of a monoculture is that it 's susceptible to system-wide compromise .
In short , if you can hack one instance of the monoculture , you can hack them all .
That is arguably untrue of the Linux kernel .
There are so many different implementations that systemic compromise becomes almost impossible .
Conversely ( and almost ironically ) , the kernel does possess one often overlooked strength of monoculture : As long as the core commonality remains strong , the system at large remains healthy .
Small , targeted patches can propagate quickly.It 's peculiar and counter-intuitive , I realise , but experience teaches us that the Linux kernel seems to have few of the weaknesses of a classic monoculture while retaining many of its strengths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[T]he FOSS world has developed a dominant monoculture that very definitely marginalizes alternative approaches that, both in the short term and in the long term, retards progress in other areas.How do you support this assertion?
You seem to be implying that there's only one kernel, but the fact of the matter is that this is only nominally true.
There is one kernel stack, yes, but its permutations are almost beyond count.
It runs on literally thousands of different hardware devices.
Even the major distros all roll their own.
So the kernel, while nominally monolithic, varies considerably in practice.One of the defining characteristics of a monoculture is that it's susceptible to system-wide compromise.
In short, if you can hack one instance of the monoculture, you can hack them all.
That is arguably untrue of the Linux kernel.
There are so many different implementations that systemic compromise becomes almost impossible.
Conversely (and almost ironically), the kernel does possess one often overlooked strength of monoculture: As long as the core commonality remains strong, the system at large remains healthy.
Small, targeted patches can propagate quickly.It's peculiar and counter-intuitive, I realise, but experience teaches us that the Linux kernel seems to have few of the weaknesses of a classic monoculture while retaining many of its strengths.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30841902</id>
	<title>Re:Too many changes anyway.</title>
	<author>walshy007</author>
	<datestamp>1264005840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"The fundamental result of access space separation is that you can't share data structures. That means that you can't share locking, it means that you must copy any shared data, and that in turn means that you have a much harder time handling coherency. All your algorithms basically end up being distributed algorithms.

And anybody who tells you that distributed algorithms are "simpler" is just so full of sh*t that it's not even funny.

Microkernels are much harder to write and maintain exactly because of this issue. You can do simple things easily - and in particular, you can do things where the information only passes in one direction quite easily, but anythign else is much much harder, because there is no "shared state" (by design). And in the absense of shared state, you have a hell of a lot of problems trying to make any decision that spans more than one entity in the system.

And I'm not just saying that. This is a fact. It's a fact that has been shown in practice over and over again, not just in kernels. But it's been shown in operating systems too - and not just once. The whole "microkernels are simpler" argument is just bull, and it is clearly shown to be bull by the fact that whenever you compare the speed of development of a microkernel and a traditional kernel, the traditional kernel wins. By a huge amount, too.

The whole argument that microkernels are somehow "more secure" or "more stable" is also total crap. The fact that each individual piece is simple and secure does not make the aggregate either simple or secure."</p></div><p>If this were practical or secure, it would have been done already. "let's have a dumb kernel that does it all in userspace" has it's own set of larger problems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The fundamental result of access space separation is that you ca n't share data structures .
That means that you ca n't share locking , it means that you must copy any shared data , and that in turn means that you have a much harder time handling coherency .
All your algorithms basically end up being distributed algorithms .
And anybody who tells you that distributed algorithms are " simpler " is just so full of sh * t that it 's not even funny .
Microkernels are much harder to write and maintain exactly because of this issue .
You can do simple things easily - and in particular , you can do things where the information only passes in one direction quite easily , but anythign else is much much harder , because there is no " shared state " ( by design ) .
And in the absense of shared state , you have a hell of a lot of problems trying to make any decision that spans more than one entity in the system .
And I 'm not just saying that .
This is a fact .
It 's a fact that has been shown in practice over and over again , not just in kernels .
But it 's been shown in operating systems too - and not just once .
The whole " microkernels are simpler " argument is just bull , and it is clearly shown to be bull by the fact that whenever you compare the speed of development of a microkernel and a traditional kernel , the traditional kernel wins .
By a huge amount , too .
The whole argument that microkernels are somehow " more secure " or " more stable " is also total crap .
The fact that each individual piece is simple and secure does not make the aggregate either simple or secure .
" If this were practical or secure , it would have been done already .
" let 's have a dumb kernel that does it all in userspace " has it 's own set of larger problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The fundamental result of access space separation is that you can't share data structures.
That means that you can't share locking, it means that you must copy any shared data, and that in turn means that you have a much harder time handling coherency.
All your algorithms basically end up being distributed algorithms.
And anybody who tells you that distributed algorithms are "simpler" is just so full of sh*t that it's not even funny.
Microkernels are much harder to write and maintain exactly because of this issue.
You can do simple things easily - and in particular, you can do things where the information only passes in one direction quite easily, but anythign else is much much harder, because there is no "shared state" (by design).
And in the absense of shared state, you have a hell of a lot of problems trying to make any decision that spans more than one entity in the system.
And I'm not just saying that.
This is a fact.
It's a fact that has been shown in practice over and over again, not just in kernels.
But it's been shown in operating systems too - and not just once.
The whole "microkernels are simpler" argument is just bull, and it is clearly shown to be bull by the fact that whenever you compare the speed of development of a microkernel and a traditional kernel, the traditional kernel wins.
By a huge amount, too.
The whole argument that microkernels are somehow "more secure" or "more stable" is also total crap.
The fact that each individual piece is simple and secure does not make the aggregate either simple or secure.
"If this were practical or secure, it would have been done already.
"let's have a dumb kernel that does it all in userspace" has it's own set of larger problems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834680</id>
	<title>A lot of changes for something that's "perfect"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264013520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; in a period of just over a year, 55,000 individual changes</p><p>Is that new functionality or changes to existing code?</p><p>I wonder how many changes per year something like Solaris or FreeBSD kernel have.</p><p>Go ahead, mod me flamebait. It'll just confirm my suspicions. And ya know, sometimes the truth hurts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; in a period of just over a year , 55,000 individual changesIs that new functionality or changes to existing code ? I wonder how many changes per year something like Solaris or FreeBSD kernel have.Go ahead , mod me flamebait .
It 'll just confirm my suspicions .
And ya know , sometimes the truth hurts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; in a period of just over a year, 55,000 individual changesIs that new functionality or changes to existing code?I wonder how many changes per year something like Solaris or FreeBSD kernel have.Go ahead, mod me flamebait.
It'll just confirm my suspicions.
And ya know, sometimes the truth hurts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836496</id>
	<title>Exclusivity not exclusive to kernel devs.</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1264020780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He can paint with a much broader brush than that, because the insular mindset extends well beyond just the kernel developers.  I encounter it constantly in the Ubuntu and similar user forums as well.  Groupthink is viral and highly contagious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He can paint with a much broader brush than that , because the insular mindset extends well beyond just the kernel developers .
I encounter it constantly in the Ubuntu and similar user forums as well .
Groupthink is viral and highly contagious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He can paint with a much broader brush than that, because the insular mindset extends well beyond just the kernel developers.
I encounter it constantly in the Ubuntu and similar user forums as well.
Groupthink is viral and highly contagious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836224</id>
	<title>Re:Too many changes anyway.</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1264019640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think I agree with you.  I'd be willing to give up 5\% of my performance to the overhead of a microkernel if it means my systems become rock-stable and any userspace program can become a driver.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I agree with you .
I 'd be willing to give up 5 \ % of my performance to the overhead of a microkernel if it means my systems become rock-stable and any userspace program can become a driver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I agree with you.
I'd be willing to give up 5\% of my performance to the overhead of a microkernel if it means my systems become rock-stable and any userspace program can become a driver.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835142</id>
	<title>Just wait until you're in the community</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1264015440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...then you can really get chewed out by Linus because you should have known better. It's not just from the outside it's a tough crowd all the way, but you also have to remember these people write the most key component of any good server. There are many places where having a developer, even if he's not the world's greatest is better than having none at all. The kernel isn't one of those places, if you can't take the heat then get out of the fire.</p><p>Think of it more like chess, the rules are simple but the most effective implementation hard. Hell, I know a couple geeks who built their own OS, but I think the scheduling was just a round robin. Well a lot of bright people have thought quite a lot about it, and the kernel performs to some level. It's like a grandmaster chess player, he can't learn anything from a player ranked below 2000, it'll only be rehashing the same simple ideas and walking into the same traps that people have walked into before.</p><p>Of course there's also the asshats that think that just because they know how to write an operating core, they're god's gift to mankind. But, I've run into those in quite a few other areas too...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...then you can really get chewed out by Linus because you should have known better .
It 's not just from the outside it 's a tough crowd all the way , but you also have to remember these people write the most key component of any good server .
There are many places where having a developer , even if he 's not the world 's greatest is better than having none at all .
The kernel is n't one of those places , if you ca n't take the heat then get out of the fire.Think of it more like chess , the rules are simple but the most effective implementation hard .
Hell , I know a couple geeks who built their own OS , but I think the scheduling was just a round robin .
Well a lot of bright people have thought quite a lot about it , and the kernel performs to some level .
It 's like a grandmaster chess player , he ca n't learn anything from a player ranked below 2000 , it 'll only be rehashing the same simple ideas and walking into the same traps that people have walked into before.Of course there 's also the asshats that think that just because they know how to write an operating core , they 're god 's gift to mankind .
But , I 've run into those in quite a few other areas too.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...then you can really get chewed out by Linus because you should have known better.
It's not just from the outside it's a tough crowd all the way, but you also have to remember these people write the most key component of any good server.
There are many places where having a developer, even if he's not the world's greatest is better than having none at all.
The kernel isn't one of those places, if you can't take the heat then get out of the fire.Think of it more like chess, the rules are simple but the most effective implementation hard.
Hell, I know a couple geeks who built their own OS, but I think the scheduling was just a round robin.
Well a lot of bright people have thought quite a lot about it, and the kernel performs to some level.
It's like a grandmaster chess player, he can't learn anything from a player ranked below 2000, it'll only be rehashing the same simple ideas and walking into the same traps that people have walked into before.Of course there's also the asshats that think that just because they know how to write an operating core, they're god's gift to mankind.
But, I've run into those in quite a few other areas too...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30840432</id>
	<title>Is it hard to break into other kernel communities?</title>
	<author>mitrevski</author>
	<datestamp>1263993960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would you say that it's difficult to break into the Microsoft Windows or Mac OS X kernel community?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you say that it 's difficult to break into the Microsoft Windows or Mac OS X kernel community ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you say that it's difficult to break into the Microsoft Windows or Mac OS X kernel community?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835062</id>
	<title>Re:difficult?</title>
	<author>dnoyeb</author>
	<datestamp>1264015140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree.  You cant just jump in and write code until you prove that you know what your doing.  And you may offer several patched that get rejected because the form of the change is incorrect.  If your competent and really want to make a change you will keep at it and eventually get in.</p><p>I can't think of a more perfect system.  I have done this on several open source projects.  Typically though you are not just looking for work.  You are looking to get something fixed that no one else seems to care much about.  I don't know how it would work for someone just wanting to write code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
You cant just jump in and write code until you prove that you know what your doing .
And you may offer several patched that get rejected because the form of the change is incorrect .
If your competent and really want to make a change you will keep at it and eventually get in.I ca n't think of a more perfect system .
I have done this on several open source projects .
Typically though you are not just looking for work .
You are looking to get something fixed that no one else seems to care much about .
I do n't know how it would work for someone just wanting to write code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
You cant just jump in and write code until you prove that you know what your doing.
And you may offer several patched that get rejected because the form of the change is incorrect.
If your competent and really want to make a change you will keep at it and eventually get in.I can't think of a more perfect system.
I have done this on several open source projects.
Typically though you are not just looking for work.
You are looking to get something fixed that no one else seems to care much about.
I don't know how it would work for someone just wanting to write code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834596</id>
	<title>Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264013160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is all Microsoft's fault. They've been causing this trying to bust up the F/OSS community.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all Microsoft 's fault .
They 've been causing this trying to bust up the F/OSS community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all Microsoft's fault.
They've been causing this trying to bust up the F/OSS community.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30838770</id>
	<title>Re:I fault the internet</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1263986280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'Good' input is secondary to both 'loud' and 'popular', to the deficit of the community.</p></div><p>That's a very 'loud' and 'popular' point!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Good ' input is secondary to both 'loud ' and 'popular ' , to the deficit of the community.That 's a very 'loud ' and 'popular ' point !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Good' input is secondary to both 'loud' and 'popular', to the deficit of the community.That's a very 'loud' and 'popular' point!
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834450</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30841902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30844284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30840946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30965712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30839002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30838692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30837152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30837352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30841958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30838770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30857124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30844762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30837488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30837388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30841970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30838398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1652204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30841236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1652204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1652204.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1652204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30841656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1652204.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835586
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30838692
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30840946
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836970
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30837388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30837352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836488
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30844762
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30857124
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30841958
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30841236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1652204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30837394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1652204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30844284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1652204.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1652204.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1652204.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1652204.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1652204.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1652204.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1652204.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30841970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1652204.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1652204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30838770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30839002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1652204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1652204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30841902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30965712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30838398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30837488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1652204.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30837152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834948
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30835690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30836800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1652204.30834860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
