<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_20_1836243</id>
	<title>Benchmarks of Debian GNU/kFreeBSD vs. GNU/Linux</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1264015920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"The Debian Squeeze release is going to be accompanied by <a href="http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/09/10/07/1946211/Debian-Elevates-KFreeBSD-Port-to-First-Class-Status?from=rss">a first-rate kFreeBSD port</a> and now early benchmarks of this port have started coming out using <a href="http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/">daily install images</a>. The Debian GNU/kFreeBSD project is marrying the FreeBSD kernel with a GNU userland and glibc while making most of the Debian repository packages available for kfreebsd-i386 and kfreebsd-amd64. The first <a href="http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14511">Debian GNU/kFreeBSD benchmarks</a> compare the performance of it to Debian GNU/Linux with the 2.6.30 kernel while the rest of the packages are the same. Results are shown for both i386 and x86\_64 flavors. Debian GNU/kFreeBSD may be running well, but it has a lot of catching up to do in terms of speed against Linux."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " The Debian Squeeze release is going to be accompanied by a first-rate kFreeBSD port and now early benchmarks of this port have started coming out using daily install images .
The Debian GNU/kFreeBSD project is marrying the FreeBSD kernel with a GNU userland and glibc while making most of the Debian repository packages available for kfreebsd-i386 and kfreebsd-amd64 .
The first Debian GNU/kFreeBSD benchmarks compare the performance of it to Debian GNU/Linux with the 2.6.30 kernel while the rest of the packages are the same .
Results are shown for both i386 and x86 \ _64 flavors .
Debian GNU/kFreeBSD may be running well , but it has a lot of catching up to do in terms of speed against Linux .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "The Debian Squeeze release is going to be accompanied by a first-rate kFreeBSD port and now early benchmarks of this port have started coming out using daily install images.
The Debian GNU/kFreeBSD project is marrying the FreeBSD kernel with a GNU userland and glibc while making most of the Debian repository packages available for kfreebsd-i386 and kfreebsd-amd64.
The first Debian GNU/kFreeBSD benchmarks compare the performance of it to Debian GNU/Linux with the 2.6.30 kernel while the rest of the packages are the same.
Results are shown for both i386 and x86\_64 flavors.
Debian GNU/kFreeBSD may be running well, but it has a lot of catching up to do in terms of speed against Linux.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836280</id>
	<title>Bad time for a holy war</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264019880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can't start a holy war now!  My armor is at the cleaners.</p><p>Cue nerd rage</p><p>Sheldon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We ca n't start a holy war now !
My armor is at the cleaners.Cue nerd rageSheldon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can't start a holy war now!
My armor is at the cleaners.Cue nerd rageSheldon</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30840604</id>
	<title>Other Interesting Benchmarks</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1263994980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would also be interesting to see benchmarks of functionality actually provided by the respective kernels. E.g. performance of fork, fork+exec, socket, accept, reads and writes on IPC, multiprocessor/multicore/hyperthreading performance, etc. Past benchmarks have shown that there can be dramatic differences between operating systems especially when large numbers of something (processes, filehandles, CPUs, etc.) are being used simultaneously.</p><p>Also, I am missing a description of exactly how they measured. Did they recompile the benchmark suite from scratch on each platform? Which compiler was used, and with which settings? Are they running the same binaries on both? How exactly did they arrive at the presented values? Is each bar the result of a single run, or did they run each benchmark multiple times and account for any variation in observed scores somehow?</p><p>As others have already mentioned, it would also be interesting to see how a regular FreeBSD system would fare.</p><p>All in all, interesting benchmarks. My conclusion: there isn't that much of a difference between the tested versions of Linux and kFreeBSD in there benchmarks. The difference between 32-bit and 64-bit is usually more pronounced. If you need the highest performance for your application, you'll still have to run your own tests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would also be interesting to see benchmarks of functionality actually provided by the respective kernels .
E.g. performance of fork , fork + exec , socket , accept , reads and writes on IPC , multiprocessor/multicore/hyperthreading performance , etc .
Past benchmarks have shown that there can be dramatic differences between operating systems especially when large numbers of something ( processes , filehandles , CPUs , etc .
) are being used simultaneously.Also , I am missing a description of exactly how they measured .
Did they recompile the benchmark suite from scratch on each platform ?
Which compiler was used , and with which settings ?
Are they running the same binaries on both ?
How exactly did they arrive at the presented values ?
Is each bar the result of a single run , or did they run each benchmark multiple times and account for any variation in observed scores somehow ? As others have already mentioned , it would also be interesting to see how a regular FreeBSD system would fare.All in all , interesting benchmarks .
My conclusion : there is n't that much of a difference between the tested versions of Linux and kFreeBSD in there benchmarks .
The difference between 32-bit and 64-bit is usually more pronounced .
If you need the highest performance for your application , you 'll still have to run your own tests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would also be interesting to see benchmarks of functionality actually provided by the respective kernels.
E.g. performance of fork, fork+exec, socket, accept, reads and writes on IPC, multiprocessor/multicore/hyperthreading performance, etc.
Past benchmarks have shown that there can be dramatic differences between operating systems especially when large numbers of something (processes, filehandles, CPUs, etc.
) are being used simultaneously.Also, I am missing a description of exactly how they measured.
Did they recompile the benchmark suite from scratch on each platform?
Which compiler was used, and with which settings?
Are they running the same binaries on both?
How exactly did they arrive at the presented values?
Is each bar the result of a single run, or did they run each benchmark multiple times and account for any variation in observed scores somehow?As others have already mentioned, it would also be interesting to see how a regular FreeBSD system would fare.All in all, interesting benchmarks.
My conclusion: there isn't that much of a difference between the tested versions of Linux and kFreeBSD in there benchmarks.
The difference between 32-bit and 64-bit is usually more pronounced.
If you need the highest performance for your application, you'll still have to run your own tests.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837346</id>
	<title>Re:Please educate me a bit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263981120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FreeBSD kernel gives you a few nice things.  ZFS, DTrace, and a high-performance in-kernel sound system that eliminates the need to mess about with things like PulseAudio just to get half a dozen applications going 'bing' at the same time while another one plays music (although this got a lot of improvements in the FreeBSD 8 kernel, which isn't in Debian yet, as did ZFS).  It also gives you the ULE scheduler, which has had several years of testing and refinement (unlike Linux's scheduler-of-the-week) and performs very well (was outperforming Linux by a large margin on 8+ cores, now they're pretty similar).  It includes Jails, which are like chroot but with a complete environment inside so you can have a different IP, different users, and so on in a jail (and you can create them with a complete clone of a skeleton system almost instantly with ZFS clones).  </p><p>
As to why you'd use Debian rather than FreeBSD, the big difference is glibc rather than BSD libc.  When people talk about Linuxisms in code, they most often really mean GNUisms and the code depends on something weird in glibc, rather than on anything specific to the kernel.  It will therefore work with glibc on kFreeBSD just as it would with glibc on Linux.  You may also prefer the GNU userland utilities.  Some people install these on FreeBSD anyway, but with Debian they are the default ones.  This means that a few other common GNUisms (e.g. assuming that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/bin/sh is bash and that POSIX utilities accept GNU arguments in shell scripts) will work.  </p><p>
This means that it's easier to port crappy code (and there is a lot of it about) from GNU/Linux to GNU/kFreeBSD than to FreeBSD.  I've written a bit about <a href="http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1339466" title="informit.com">which bits are GNU and which bits are Linux</a> [informit.com] before: most of what the user or developer interacts with is GNU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FreeBSD kernel gives you a few nice things .
ZFS , DTrace , and a high-performance in-kernel sound system that eliminates the need to mess about with things like PulseAudio just to get half a dozen applications going 'bing ' at the same time while another one plays music ( although this got a lot of improvements in the FreeBSD 8 kernel , which is n't in Debian yet , as did ZFS ) .
It also gives you the ULE scheduler , which has had several years of testing and refinement ( unlike Linux 's scheduler-of-the-week ) and performs very well ( was outperforming Linux by a large margin on 8 + cores , now they 're pretty similar ) .
It includes Jails , which are like chroot but with a complete environment inside so you can have a different IP , different users , and so on in a jail ( and you can create them with a complete clone of a skeleton system almost instantly with ZFS clones ) .
As to why you 'd use Debian rather than FreeBSD , the big difference is glibc rather than BSD libc .
When people talk about Linuxisms in code , they most often really mean GNUisms and the code depends on something weird in glibc , rather than on anything specific to the kernel .
It will therefore work with glibc on kFreeBSD just as it would with glibc on Linux .
You may also prefer the GNU userland utilities .
Some people install these on FreeBSD anyway , but with Debian they are the default ones .
This means that a few other common GNUisms ( e.g .
assuming that /bin/sh is bash and that POSIX utilities accept GNU arguments in shell scripts ) will work .
This means that it 's easier to port crappy code ( and there is a lot of it about ) from GNU/Linux to GNU/kFreeBSD than to FreeBSD .
I 've written a bit about which bits are GNU and which bits are Linux [ informit.com ] before : most of what the user or developer interacts with is GNU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FreeBSD kernel gives you a few nice things.
ZFS, DTrace, and a high-performance in-kernel sound system that eliminates the need to mess about with things like PulseAudio just to get half a dozen applications going 'bing' at the same time while another one plays music (although this got a lot of improvements in the FreeBSD 8 kernel, which isn't in Debian yet, as did ZFS).
It also gives you the ULE scheduler, which has had several years of testing and refinement (unlike Linux's scheduler-of-the-week) and performs very well (was outperforming Linux by a large margin on 8+ cores, now they're pretty similar).
It includes Jails, which are like chroot but with a complete environment inside so you can have a different IP, different users, and so on in a jail (and you can create them with a complete clone of a skeleton system almost instantly with ZFS clones).
As to why you'd use Debian rather than FreeBSD, the big difference is glibc rather than BSD libc.
When people talk about Linuxisms in code, they most often really mean GNUisms and the code depends on something weird in glibc, rather than on anything specific to the kernel.
It will therefore work with glibc on kFreeBSD just as it would with glibc on Linux.
You may also prefer the GNU userland utilities.
Some people install these on FreeBSD anyway, but with Debian they are the default ones.
This means that a few other common GNUisms (e.g.
assuming that /bin/sh is bash and that POSIX utilities accept GNU arguments in shell scripts) will work.
This means that it's easier to port crappy code (and there is a lot of it about) from GNU/Linux to GNU/kFreeBSD than to FreeBSD.
I've written a bit about which bits are GNU and which bits are Linux [informit.com] before: most of what the user or developer interacts with is GNU.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30840154</id>
	<title>Re:Please educate me a bit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263992460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why use freebsd with GNU apps, when you can just run freebsd?</p></div><p>Because fBSD has a terrible BSD-like userland stuffed full of all the BSD quirks, and most people strongly prefer GNU userland?  Because fBSD has some great stuff in the kernel, but a Debian userland on top of it would make it suck less?  Because Debian isn't Linux?  Because the Linux kernel is starting to suffer from decades of driver bloat and the 2.6 series' declining stability is undermining the desire of the user base to stick with Linux?</p><p>Personally, I'd be much more interested in FreeBSD or one of the other BSDs if it weren't slathered with all those commands that kinda-sorta work sometimes except for not recognizing half the options I pass them.  Slapping a GNU userland on it makes it more appealing.</p><p>Pick a reason, any reason.  Make up your own if you like.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why use freebsd with GNU apps , when you can just run freebsd ? Because fBSD has a terrible BSD-like userland stuffed full of all the BSD quirks , and most people strongly prefer GNU userland ?
Because fBSD has some great stuff in the kernel , but a Debian userland on top of it would make it suck less ?
Because Debian is n't Linux ?
Because the Linux kernel is starting to suffer from decades of driver bloat and the 2.6 series ' declining stability is undermining the desire of the user base to stick with Linux ? Personally , I 'd be much more interested in FreeBSD or one of the other BSDs if it were n't slathered with all those commands that kinda-sorta work sometimes except for not recognizing half the options I pass them .
Slapping a GNU userland on it makes it more appealing.Pick a reason , any reason .
Make up your own if you like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why use freebsd with GNU apps, when you can just run freebsd?Because fBSD has a terrible BSD-like userland stuffed full of all the BSD quirks, and most people strongly prefer GNU userland?
Because fBSD has some great stuff in the kernel, but a Debian userland on top of it would make it suck less?
Because Debian isn't Linux?
Because the Linux kernel is starting to suffer from decades of driver bloat and the 2.6 series' declining stability is undermining the desire of the user base to stick with Linux?Personally, I'd be much more interested in FreeBSD or one of the other BSDs if it weren't slathered with all those commands that kinda-sorta work sometimes except for not recognizing half the options I pass them.
Slapping a GNU userland on it makes it more appealing.Pick a reason, any reason.
Make up your own if you like.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30839116</id>
	<title>Re:Mod Article Flamebait</title>
	<author>DiegoBravo</author>
	<datestamp>1263987720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; # Sometimes Linux is faster, # Sometimes FreeBSD is faster. # Usually the difference between the two is smaller than the difference between IA32 and x86-64..,</p><p>That's what I would expect! A big difference would be something weird.</p><p>&gt;  The tests were mostly either CPU- or I/O-bound, so there are lots of factors beyond the kernel that would affect the results.</p><p>The benchmarks must be CPU or I/O bound... why should they benchmark sleeping apps?</p><p>&gt;Debian kFreeBSD uses an old FreeBSD kernel, not sure how old the Linux kernel is but it's probably not representative of the speed of recent releases of either kernel</p><p>I really don't hope the last minute changes to the kernel, to do a big improve the system performance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; # Sometimes Linux is faster , # Sometimes FreeBSD is faster .
# Usually the difference between the two is smaller than the difference between IA32 and x86-64..,That 's what I would expect !
A big difference would be something weird. &gt; The tests were mostly either CPU- or I/O-bound , so there are lots of factors beyond the kernel that would affect the results.The benchmarks must be CPU or I/O bound... why should they benchmark sleeping apps ? &gt; Debian kFreeBSD uses an old FreeBSD kernel , not sure how old the Linux kernel is but it 's probably not representative of the speed of recent releases of either kernelI really do n't hope the last minute changes to the kernel , to do a big improve the system performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; # Sometimes Linux is faster, # Sometimes FreeBSD is faster.
# Usually the difference between the two is smaller than the difference between IA32 and x86-64..,That's what I would expect!
A big difference would be something weird.&gt;  The tests were mostly either CPU- or I/O-bound, so there are lots of factors beyond the kernel that would affect the results.The benchmarks must be CPU or I/O bound... why should they benchmark sleeping apps?&gt;Debian kFreeBSD uses an old FreeBSD kernel, not sure how old the Linux kernel is but it's probably not representative of the speed of recent releases of either kernelI really don't hope the last minute changes to the kernel, to do a big improve the system performance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837028</id>
	<title>Re:Please educate me a bit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263979740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why use freebsd with GNU apps, when you can just run freebsd?</p></div><p>Then you'd be stuck with freebsd apps instead of GNU apps.</p><p>If you have a mighty herd of servers, desktops, and kiosks, all sharing various automation scripts, supporting both freebsd and GNU command line apps could be a pain, due to subtle differences in command line options, etc.  Its possible to create a blizzard of "if then" to work around, but why bother.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But I am missing the improvement for Debian here.</p></div><p>Overall, none really.  The way ports work on Debian, is if enough people volunteer to maintain a port, and they are successful, then we have a new port.  Heck, that is the way everything works in the Debian project, if something meets a certain standard of excellence, its in, no matter if its a package, docs, artwork, shared VCS, human language translation, a network service, a mirror, or in this case, a port.  Debian is thankfully not a deletionist stronghold like that dumpy embarrassment known as wikipedia.</p><p>This link provides a one page summary of each attempted Debian port, successful and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... not so successful :</p><p><a href="http://www.debian.org/ports/" title="debian.org">http://www.debian.org/ports/</a> [debian.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why use freebsd with GNU apps , when you can just run freebsd ? Then you 'd be stuck with freebsd apps instead of GNU apps.If you have a mighty herd of servers , desktops , and kiosks , all sharing various automation scripts , supporting both freebsd and GNU command line apps could be a pain , due to subtle differences in command line options , etc .
Its possible to create a blizzard of " if then " to work around , but why bother.But I am missing the improvement for Debian here.Overall , none really .
The way ports work on Debian , is if enough people volunteer to maintain a port , and they are successful , then we have a new port .
Heck , that is the way everything works in the Debian project , if something meets a certain standard of excellence , its in , no matter if its a package , docs , artwork , shared VCS , human language translation , a network service , a mirror , or in this case , a port .
Debian is thankfully not a deletionist stronghold like that dumpy embarrassment known as wikipedia.This link provides a one page summary of each attempted Debian port , successful and ... not so successful : http : //www.debian.org/ports/ [ debian.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why use freebsd with GNU apps, when you can just run freebsd?Then you'd be stuck with freebsd apps instead of GNU apps.If you have a mighty herd of servers, desktops, and kiosks, all sharing various automation scripts, supporting both freebsd and GNU command line apps could be a pain, due to subtle differences in command line options, etc.
Its possible to create a blizzard of "if then" to work around, but why bother.But I am missing the improvement for Debian here.Overall, none really.
The way ports work on Debian, is if enough people volunteer to maintain a port, and they are successful, then we have a new port.
Heck, that is the way everything works in the Debian project, if something meets a certain standard of excellence, its in, no matter if its a package, docs, artwork, shared VCS, human language translation, a network service, a mirror, or in this case, a port.
Debian is thankfully not a deletionist stronghold like that dumpy embarrassment known as wikipedia.This link provides a one page summary of each attempted Debian port, successful and ... not so successful :http://www.debian.org/ports/ [debian.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837380</id>
	<title>glibc</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1263981240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>glibc is a much more complex libc than the one FreeBSD uses. FreeBSD doesn't use libc as the "glue layer" nearly as much as Linux, so the extra overhead of glibc is wasted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>glibc is a much more complex libc than the one FreeBSD uses .
FreeBSD does n't use libc as the " glue layer " nearly as much as Linux , so the extra overhead of glibc is wasted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>glibc is a much more complex libc than the one FreeBSD uses.
FreeBSD doesn't use libc as the "glue layer" nearly as much as Linux, so the extra overhead of glibc is wasted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837504</id>
	<title>FreeBSD ports can't be relied upon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263981840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other day, I was installing an old FreeBSD system for compatibility with some stuff I had. I figure it's like installing an old Linux, right?</p><p>Wrong. When I install an old Linux, I can install all the old software. The *.rpm or *.deb files exist. FreeBSD doesn't work like that. It has ports. If your system is old, you're screwed. The ports system is only 100\% available for the latest release. For older releases, there is a sort of weak idea that maybe it kind of sort of ought to be maintained when somebody bothers, but probably it'll just FAIL.</p><p>Really, that's crap. An OS shouldn't become unavailable as it ages. I might need it!</p><p>Slackware from 1994 still works as well as it did back then, 16 years ago. What's FreeBSD's problem?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other day , I was installing an old FreeBSD system for compatibility with some stuff I had .
I figure it 's like installing an old Linux , right ? Wrong .
When I install an old Linux , I can install all the old software .
The * .rpm or * .deb files exist .
FreeBSD does n't work like that .
It has ports .
If your system is old , you 're screwed .
The ports system is only 100 \ % available for the latest release .
For older releases , there is a sort of weak idea that maybe it kind of sort of ought to be maintained when somebody bothers , but probably it 'll just FAIL.Really , that 's crap .
An OS should n't become unavailable as it ages .
I might need it ! Slackware from 1994 still works as well as it did back then , 16 years ago .
What 's FreeBSD 's problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other day, I was installing an old FreeBSD system for compatibility with some stuff I had.
I figure it's like installing an old Linux, right?Wrong.
When I install an old Linux, I can install all the old software.
The *.rpm or *.deb files exist.
FreeBSD doesn't work like that.
It has ports.
If your system is old, you're screwed.
The ports system is only 100\% available for the latest release.
For older releases, there is a sort of weak idea that maybe it kind of sort of ought to be maintained when somebody bothers, but probably it'll just FAIL.Really, that's crap.
An OS shouldn't become unavailable as it ages.
I might need it!Slackware from 1994 still works as well as it did back then, 16 years ago.
What's FreeBSD's problem?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30839666</id>
	<title>Re:Mod Article Flamebait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263990300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Debian kFreeBSD uses an old FreeBSD kernel, not sure how old the Linux kernel is but it's probably not representative of the speed of recent releases of either kernel.</i></p><p>According to kernel.org and freebsd.org :<br>Linux         stable:      2.6.30.10      2009-12-04<br>FreeBSD    stable:        7                  2008-02-27<br>FreeBSD    stable:        8                  2009-11-26</p><p>The comparison should have been done with FreeBSD 8 or an older version of debian using a kernel of the same vintage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Debian kFreeBSD uses an old FreeBSD kernel , not sure how old the Linux kernel is but it 's probably not representative of the speed of recent releases of either kernel.According to kernel.org and freebsd.org : Linux stable : 2.6.30.10 2009-12-04FreeBSD stable : 7 2008-02-27FreeBSD stable : 8 2009-11-26The comparison should have been done with FreeBSD 8 or an older version of debian using a kernel of the same vintage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Debian kFreeBSD uses an old FreeBSD kernel, not sure how old the Linux kernel is but it's probably not representative of the speed of recent releases of either kernel.According to kernel.org and freebsd.org :Linux         stable:      2.6.30.10      2009-12-04FreeBSD    stable:        7                  2008-02-27FreeBSD    stable:        8                  2009-11-26The comparison should have been done with FreeBSD 8 or an older version of debian using a kernel of the same vintage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836222</id>
	<title>sigh</title>
	<author>grub</author>
	<datestamp>1264019640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><br> <i>Debian GNU/kFreeBSD may be running well, but it has a lot of catching up to do in terms of speed against Linux."</i> <br> <br>Yep, because we ALL KNOW speed is EVERYTHING when running a computer.<br> <br>groan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Debian GNU/kFreeBSD may be running well , but it has a lot of catching up to do in terms of speed against Linux .
" Yep , because we ALL KNOW speed is EVERYTHING when running a computer .
groan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Debian GNU/kFreeBSD may be running well, but it has a lot of catching up to do in terms of speed against Linux.
"  Yep, because we ALL KNOW speed is EVERYTHING when running a computer.
groan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30840910</id>
	<title>Re:Please educate me a bit.</title>
	<author>david.given</author>
	<datestamp>1263996960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This link provides a one page summary of each attempted Debian port...</p></div><p>Don't forget the unofficial Debian ports; one really interesting one is <a href="http://www.debian-interix.net/" title="debian-interix.net">Debian Interix</a> [debian-interix.net], which is a Debian userland on top of Microsoft's Unix layer for Windows. It hasn't had a lot of activity recently because it's mainly run by one guy, and Interix doesn't get a lot of bugfix love from Microsoft (surprise surprise), but compared to the abomination that is Cygwin it's already light-years ahead. All it needs is a decent community...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This link provides a one page summary of each attempted Debian port...Do n't forget the unofficial Debian ports ; one really interesting one is Debian Interix [ debian-interix.net ] , which is a Debian userland on top of Microsoft 's Unix layer for Windows .
It has n't had a lot of activity recently because it 's mainly run by one guy , and Interix does n't get a lot of bugfix love from Microsoft ( surprise surprise ) , but compared to the abomination that is Cygwin it 's already light-years ahead .
All it needs is a decent community.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This link provides a one page summary of each attempted Debian port...Don't forget the unofficial Debian ports; one really interesting one is Debian Interix [debian-interix.net], which is a Debian userland on top of Microsoft's Unix layer for Windows.
It hasn't had a lot of activity recently because it's mainly run by one guy, and Interix doesn't get a lot of bugfix love from Microsoft (surprise surprise), but compared to the abomination that is Cygwin it's already light-years ahead.
All it needs is a decent community...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836444</id>
	<title>I just wanted to see if ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264020540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't use BSD, I just wanted to see if the "BSD is dying" troll still posted. It has been years, eh?</p><p>It does also seem to me that the FreeBSDk thing is meant to make certain features available to developers, maybe be more reliable, and "faster, faster" isn't being sold as part of the bill of goods. Yet, the talk returns to speed, speed, speed.</p><p>But what do I know... I work as a nurse. Although... I DO love a fast computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't use BSD , I just wanted to see if the " BSD is dying " troll still posted .
It has been years , eh ? It does also seem to me that the FreeBSDk thing is meant to make certain features available to developers , maybe be more reliable , and " faster , faster " is n't being sold as part of the bill of goods .
Yet , the talk returns to speed , speed , speed.But what do I know... I work as a nurse .
Although... I DO love a fast computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't use BSD, I just wanted to see if the "BSD is dying" troll still posted.
It has been years, eh?It does also seem to me that the FreeBSDk thing is meant to make certain features available to developers, maybe be more reliable, and "faster, faster" isn't being sold as part of the bill of goods.
Yet, the talk returns to speed, speed, speed.But what do I know... I work as a nurse.
Although... I DO love a fast computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836908</id>
	<title>Re:Please educate me a bit.</title>
	<author>eqisow</author>
	<datestamp>1263979320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why use freebsd with GNU apps, when you can just run freebsd? And why freebsd and not lets say, openbsd or netbsd?</p></div><p>They actually have a <a href="http://www.debian.org/ports/netbsd/" title="debian.org">NetBSD port</a> [debian.org] as well as a <a href="http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/" title="debian.org">Hurd port</a> [debian.org]. They also have a nifty <a href="http://www.debian.org/ports/netbsd/why" title="debian.org">why NetBSD</a> [debian.org] section. There doesn't seem to be a similar page for kFreeBSD, but I assume the reasons are similar.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why use freebsd with GNU apps , when you can just run freebsd ?
And why freebsd and not lets say , openbsd or netbsd ? They actually have a NetBSD port [ debian.org ] as well as a Hurd port [ debian.org ] .
They also have a nifty why NetBSD [ debian.org ] section .
There does n't seem to be a similar page for kFreeBSD , but I assume the reasons are similar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why use freebsd with GNU apps, when you can just run freebsd?
And why freebsd and not lets say, openbsd or netbsd?They actually have a NetBSD port [debian.org] as well as a Hurd port [debian.org].
They also have a nifty why NetBSD [debian.org] section.
There doesn't seem to be a similar page for kFreeBSD, but I assume the reasons are similar.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836852</id>
	<title>Re:Please educate me a bit.</title>
	<author>Bill, Shooter of Bul</author>
	<datestamp>1263979080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I prefer Gnu Userland. As for the kernel, its another option. Even though I prefer KDE, I wouldn't say that Gnome devs are wasting their time, or debian shouldn't allow users to install it. FreeBSD's kernel seems to be more performance tuned than Open BSD or Net BSD. Makes sense to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer Gnu Userland .
As for the kernel , its another option .
Even though I prefer KDE , I would n't say that Gnome devs are wasting their time , or debian should n't allow users to install it .
FreeBSD 's kernel seems to be more performance tuned than Open BSD or Net BSD .
Makes sense to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer Gnu Userland.
As for the kernel, its another option.
Even though I prefer KDE, I wouldn't say that Gnome devs are wasting their time, or debian shouldn't allow users to install it.
FreeBSD's kernel seems to be more performance tuned than Open BSD or Net BSD.
Makes sense to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836484</id>
	<title>This benchmark is useless without ZFS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264020720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This benchmark is useless without ZFS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This benchmark is useless without ZFS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This benchmark is useless without ZFS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837244</id>
	<title>Re:Please educate me a bit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263980700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but other than a gui I see no outstanding advantage over the FBSD package system</p></div><p>As a gauge of relative activity level in each package system:</p><p>The weekly list of UPDATED (and possibly NEW) BSD packages at</p><p><a href="http://www.freshports.org/ports-new.php?interval=week" title="freshports.org">http://www.freshports.org/ports-new.php?interval=week</a> [freshports.org]</p><p>is roughly equal in size to the weekly list of NEW Debian packages at</p><p><a href="http://packages.debian.org/unstable/main/newpkg" title="debian.org">http://packages.debian.org/unstable/main/newpkg</a> [debian.org]</p><p>So, each week, there is about as much new stuff added to Debian as there is updated preexisting stuff in BSD.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but other than a gui I see no outstanding advantage over the FBSD package systemAs a gauge of relative activity level in each package system : The weekly list of UPDATED ( and possibly NEW ) BSD packages athttp : //www.freshports.org/ports-new.php ? interval = week [ freshports.org ] is roughly equal in size to the weekly list of NEW Debian packages athttp : //packages.debian.org/unstable/main/newpkg [ debian.org ] So , each week , there is about as much new stuff added to Debian as there is updated preexisting stuff in BSD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but other than a gui I see no outstanding advantage over the FBSD package systemAs a gauge of relative activity level in each package system:The weekly list of UPDATED (and possibly NEW) BSD packages athttp://www.freshports.org/ports-new.php?interval=week [freshports.org]is roughly equal in size to the weekly list of NEW Debian packages athttp://packages.debian.org/unstable/main/newpkg [debian.org]So, each week, there is about as much new stuff added to Debian as there is updated preexisting stuff in BSD.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836318</id>
	<title>Re:sigh</title>
	<author>clarkn0va</author>
	<datestamp>1264020060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think speed is everything when you're writing an article for a benchmark site. Note that I'm not disagreeing with your ironic implication that there are other things to look at, but obviously it's a lot easier to churn out some graphs than to try to compare two OSes/suites/whatever on other important metrics, such as security or usability. Leave that to the media troll sites--there's no shortage of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think speed is everything when you 're writing an article for a benchmark site .
Note that I 'm not disagreeing with your ironic implication that there are other things to look at , but obviously it 's a lot easier to churn out some graphs than to try to compare two OSes/suites/whatever on other important metrics , such as security or usability .
Leave that to the media troll sites--there 's no shortage of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think speed is everything when you're writing an article for a benchmark site.
Note that I'm not disagreeing with your ironic implication that there are other things to look at, but obviously it's a lot easier to churn out some graphs than to try to compare two OSes/suites/whatever on other important metrics, such as security or usability.
Leave that to the media troll sites--there's no shortage of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30840970</id>
	<title>Re:Phoronix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263997440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find your dishonessty unsettling.  Phoronix does look into serious regressions when resources allow, and even has an automated tool that works with the Phoronix Test Suite and (currently Git) repositories of software to isolate the cause of regressions.  I say kudos to the Phoronix team for making the effort.</p><p>Here is the link to the tool:</p><p>http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&amp;item=linux\_perf\_regressions&amp;num=1</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find your dishonessty unsettling .
Phoronix does look into serious regressions when resources allow , and even has an automated tool that works with the Phoronix Test Suite and ( currently Git ) repositories of software to isolate the cause of regressions .
I say kudos to the Phoronix team for making the effort.Here is the link to the tool : http : //www.phoronix.com/scan.php ? page = article&amp;item = linux \ _perf \ _regressions&amp;num = 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find your dishonessty unsettling.
Phoronix does look into serious regressions when resources allow, and even has an automated tool that works with the Phoronix Test Suite and (currently Git) repositories of software to isolate the cause of regressions.
I say kudos to the Phoronix team for making the effort.Here is the link to the tool:http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&amp;item=linux\_perf\_regressions&amp;num=1</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30844446</id>
	<title>Re:Please educate me a bit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264078980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because there's people wiliing to waste their time into that... I find it stupid, to join the worst of both worlds: FreeBSD kernel (with less features than Linux, and specially with less hardware support) + bloated and ever complex GNU/Linux utils/userland. The best part of FreeBSD is the strive for simplicity and Doing Things Right, not the kernel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because there 's people wiliing to waste their time into that... I find it stupid , to join the worst of both worlds : FreeBSD kernel ( with less features than Linux , and specially with less hardware support ) + bloated and ever complex GNU/Linux utils/userland .
The best part of FreeBSD is the strive for simplicity and Doing Things Right , not the kernel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because there's people wiliing to waste their time into that... I find it stupid, to join the worst of both worlds: FreeBSD kernel (with less features than Linux, and specially with less hardware support) + bloated and ever complex GNU/Linux utils/userland.
The best part of FreeBSD is the strive for simplicity and Doing Things Right, not the kernel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836322</id>
	<title>Wait a minute... glibc?</title>
	<author>Tinctorius</author>
	<datestamp>1264020060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't Debian switch to eglibc because Drepper was being an asshole?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't Debian switch to eglibc because Drepper was being an asshole ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't Debian switch to eglibc because Drepper was being an asshole?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30839000</id>
	<title>Question?</title>
	<author>Murdoch5</author>
	<datestamp>1263987180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why even swap the kernel out?   The Linux kernel supports more hardware and has better stock performance then the FreeBSD kernel.    In fact most friends I have that use FreeBSD are snotty to Linux users anyway.  I say give them there OS and it's sorry performance (at least I've never seen anything comparable) and I'll stick with my stage 1 Gentoo which is fast, optimized and ready to go.
<br>
<br>
Sorry if this offends any FreeBSD user as that's not my point but I've installed it a ton of times to try it out and I'm still waiting for an install that lets me say "Woah" from the get go.   Sure you can optimize after the fact but that's not the point, fast out of the box, faster after the tweak! that's what I want and FreeBSD has never given that to me .
<br>
<br>
If your a FreeBSD user great and if you a Linux user great, but lets not mix the two please!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why even swap the kernel out ?
The Linux kernel supports more hardware and has better stock performance then the FreeBSD kernel .
In fact most friends I have that use FreeBSD are snotty to Linux users anyway .
I say give them there OS and it 's sorry performance ( at least I 've never seen anything comparable ) and I 'll stick with my stage 1 Gentoo which is fast , optimized and ready to go .
Sorry if this offends any FreeBSD user as that 's not my point but I 've installed it a ton of times to try it out and I 'm still waiting for an install that lets me say " Woah " from the get go .
Sure you can optimize after the fact but that 's not the point , fast out of the box , faster after the tweak !
that 's what I want and FreeBSD has never given that to me .
If your a FreeBSD user great and if you a Linux user great , but lets not mix the two please !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why even swap the kernel out?
The Linux kernel supports more hardware and has better stock performance then the FreeBSD kernel.
In fact most friends I have that use FreeBSD are snotty to Linux users anyway.
I say give them there OS and it's sorry performance (at least I've never seen anything comparable) and I'll stick with my stage 1 Gentoo which is fast, optimized and ready to go.
Sorry if this offends any FreeBSD user as that's not my point but I've installed it a ton of times to try it out and I'm still waiting for an install that lets me say "Woah" from the get go.
Sure you can optimize after the fact but that's not the point, fast out of the box, faster after the tweak!
that's what I want and FreeBSD has never given that to me .
If your a FreeBSD user great and if you a Linux user great, but lets not mix the two please!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30914712</id>
	<title>Re:Please educate me a bit.</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1264586520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because for some inexplicable reason (read: unwillingness to learn), many Linux users seem inextricably bound to the shitty GNU userland tools.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because for some inexplicable reason ( read : unwillingness to learn ) , many Linux users seem inextricably bound to the shitty GNU userland tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because for some inexplicable reason (read: unwillingness to learn), many Linux users seem inextricably bound to the shitty GNU userland tools.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837530</id>
	<title>Re:Mod Article Flamebait</title>
	<author>bark</author>
	<datestamp>1263981900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's NOT testing freebsd. the article tests the Debian world running with FreeBSD</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's NOT testing freebsd .
the article tests the Debian world running with FreeBSD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's NOT testing freebsd.
the article tests the Debian world running with FreeBSD</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30863120</id>
	<title>XWindows</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1264152960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does FreeBSD boot you into X by default yet?   I installed the latest and told it "everything" and booted to a command shell.  'startx' returned an error.   What gives?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does FreeBSD boot you into X by default yet ?
I installed the latest and told it " everything " and booted to a command shell .
'startx ' returned an error .
What gives ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does FreeBSD boot you into X by default yet?
I installed the latest and told it "everything" and booted to a command shell.
'startx' returned an error.
What gives?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30840328</id>
	<title>Re:FreeBSD ports can't be relied upon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263993360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, your slackware from 1994 is full of security holes. The FAIL here is you trying to install an unsupported version of the OS and then complaining about it when it doesn't work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , your slackware from 1994 is full of security holes .
The FAIL here is you trying to install an unsupported version of the OS and then complaining about it when it does n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, your slackware from 1994 is full of security holes.
The FAIL here is you trying to install an unsupported version of the OS and then complaining about it when it doesn't work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30840876</id>
	<title>Re:Phoronix</title>
	<author>david.given</author>
	<datestamp>1263996720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Their FreeBSD filesystem-heavy benchmarks look extremely dubious --- UFS and ext3 aren't <i>that</i> different. I find myself wondering whether they actually remembered to turn SoftUpdates on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their FreeBSD filesystem-heavy benchmarks look extremely dubious --- UFS and ext3 are n't that different .
I find myself wondering whether they actually remembered to turn SoftUpdates on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their FreeBSD filesystem-heavy benchmarks look extremely dubious --- UFS and ext3 aren't that different.
I find myself wondering whether they actually remembered to turn SoftUpdates on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30838972</id>
	<title>Re:Please educate me a bit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263987060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean GNU/NetBSD and GNU/Hurd, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean GNU/NetBSD and GNU/Hurd , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean GNU/NetBSD and GNU/Hurd, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837932</id>
	<title>Re:Please educate me a bit.</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1263983460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They also claim that you get the advantage of the debian package system, but other than a gui I see no outstanding advantage over the FBSD package system, with the exception that I think they still don't make a screen package due to some kernel interface issues that break it when used with a kernel compiled with slightly different options</p></div></blockquote><p>What are you talking about?  I have screen installed on FreeBSD 8, all I had to do to install it was 'pkg\_add -r screen'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They also claim that you get the advantage of the debian package system , but other than a gui I see no outstanding advantage over the FBSD package system , with the exception that I think they still do n't make a screen package due to some kernel interface issues that break it when used with a kernel compiled with slightly different optionsWhat are you talking about ?
I have screen installed on FreeBSD 8 , all I had to do to install it was 'pkg \ _add -r screen' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They also claim that you get the advantage of the debian package system, but other than a gui I see no outstanding advantage over the FBSD package system, with the exception that I think they still don't make a screen package due to some kernel interface issues that break it when used with a kernel compiled with slightly different optionsWhat are you talking about?
I have screen installed on FreeBSD 8, all I had to do to install it was 'pkg\_add -r screen'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30838068</id>
	<title>Re:Holy moley !</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1263983820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, I am really surprised to see that Debian Linux 32 bits is actually faster than Debian Linux 64 bits in many tests !</p></div><p>I'm not so surprised to see that somebody didn't read the graphs very well.  32 bit was faster in only  4 out of 25 tests (16\%). Further, 2 of those were only marginally faster to the point where they barely count as a clear lead.  Conversely in the majority of cases, 64 bit was not only faster but significantly faster. To the point where I wonder if there were other configuration differences -- for example I don't understand why you'd see a much higher hard drive TPS rate under 64 bit (something like 4x)  -- unless they're using a different IO scheduler...
</p><p>
All that said, is it really so unreasonable to ask for results to be laid out in a simple grid for all tests?  Raw data is what we like here...  (To answer my own question - of course it is. That would mean fewer page hits...)

</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , I am really surprised to see that Debian Linux 32 bits is actually faster than Debian Linux 64 bits in many tests ! I 'm not so surprised to see that somebody did n't read the graphs very well .
32 bit was faster in only 4 out of 25 tests ( 16 \ % ) .
Further , 2 of those were only marginally faster to the point where they barely count as a clear lead .
Conversely in the majority of cases , 64 bit was not only faster but significantly faster .
To the point where I wonder if there were other configuration differences -- for example I do n't understand why you 'd see a much higher hard drive TPS rate under 64 bit ( something like 4x ) -- unless they 're using a different IO scheduler.. . All that said , is it really so unreasonable to ask for results to be laid out in a simple grid for all tests ?
Raw data is what we like here... ( To answer my own question - of course it is .
That would mean fewer page hits... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, I am really surprised to see that Debian Linux 32 bits is actually faster than Debian Linux 64 bits in many tests !I'm not so surprised to see that somebody didn't read the graphs very well.
32 bit was faster in only  4 out of 25 tests (16\%).
Further, 2 of those were only marginally faster to the point where they barely count as a clear lead.
Conversely in the majority of cases, 64 bit was not only faster but significantly faster.
To the point where I wonder if there were other configuration differences -- for example I don't understand why you'd see a much higher hard drive TPS rate under 64 bit (something like 4x)  -- unless they're using a different IO scheduler...

All that said, is it really so unreasonable to ask for results to be laid out in a simple grid for all tests?
Raw data is what we like here...  (To answer my own question - of course it is.
That would mean fewer page hits...)


	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836306</id>
	<title>Phoronix</title>
	<author>OverlordQ</author>
	<datestamp>1264020000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While they're really the only group that does a lot of linux benchmarking, I'd put a *large* grain of salt in their results.</p><p>They have no problem blindly accepting something like <a href="http://www.phoronix.com/data/img/results/ubuntu\_32\_pae/2.png" title="phoronix.com">this</a> [phoronix.com] without investigating why it is so much faster and seeing if there's a problem with their testing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While they 're really the only group that does a lot of linux benchmarking , I 'd put a * large * grain of salt in their results.They have no problem blindly accepting something like this [ phoronix.com ] without investigating why it is so much faster and seeing if there 's a problem with their testing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While they're really the only group that does a lot of linux benchmarking, I'd put a *large* grain of salt in their results.They have no problem blindly accepting something like this [phoronix.com] without investigating why it is so much faster and seeing if there's a problem with their testing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478</id>
	<title>Please educate me a bit.</title>
	<author>santax</author>
	<datestamp>1264020660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a long time debian user who also has to work with freebsd sometimes I don't get it. Why use freebsd with GNU apps, when you can just run freebsd? And why freebsd and not lets say, openbsd or netbsd?

What is the advantage in using the freebsd-kernel instead of the linux-kernel? I have access to every linux app when I use freebsd and to be honest, if I knew my way around bsd as I do under debian I would probably switch. But I am missing the improvement for Debian here. Can someone please clear this up for me a bit?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a long time debian user who also has to work with freebsd sometimes I do n't get it .
Why use freebsd with GNU apps , when you can just run freebsd ?
And why freebsd and not lets say , openbsd or netbsd ?
What is the advantage in using the freebsd-kernel instead of the linux-kernel ?
I have access to every linux app when I use freebsd and to be honest , if I knew my way around bsd as I do under debian I would probably switch .
But I am missing the improvement for Debian here .
Can someone please clear this up for me a bit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a long time debian user who also has to work with freebsd sometimes I don't get it.
Why use freebsd with GNU apps, when you can just run freebsd?
And why freebsd and not lets say, openbsd or netbsd?
What is the advantage in using the freebsd-kernel instead of the linux-kernel?
I have access to every linux app when I use freebsd and to be honest, if I knew my way around bsd as I do under debian I would probably switch.
But I am missing the improvement for Debian here.
Can someone please clear this up for me a bit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836354</id>
	<title>Article over 9 pages.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264020120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.....fuck that! Tab got closed, comments get whinge added, going elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.....fuck that !
Tab got closed , comments get whinge added , going elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.....fuck that!
Tab got closed, comments get whinge added, going elsewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836286</id>
	<title>Mod Article Flamebait</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1264019880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay, so I only read the first couple of pages because it's Phoronix who have a history of inflamatory and misleading benchmarks, but from what I saw:
<ul>
<li>Sometimes Linux is faster.</li>
<li>Sometimes FreeBSD is faster.</li>
<li>Usually the difference between the two is smaller than the difference between IA32 and x86-64.</li>
<li>The tests were mostly either CPU- or I/O-bound, so there are lots of factors beyond the kernel that would affect the results.</li>
<li>Debian kFreeBSD uses an old FreeBSD kernel, not sure how old the Linux kernel is but it's probably not representative of the speed of recent releases of either kernel.</li>
</ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , so I only read the first couple of pages because it 's Phoronix who have a history of inflamatory and misleading benchmarks , but from what I saw : Sometimes Linux is faster .
Sometimes FreeBSD is faster .
Usually the difference between the two is smaller than the difference between IA32 and x86-64 .
The tests were mostly either CPU- or I/O-bound , so there are lots of factors beyond the kernel that would affect the results .
Debian kFreeBSD uses an old FreeBSD kernel , not sure how old the Linux kernel is but it 's probably not representative of the speed of recent releases of either kernel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, so I only read the first couple of pages because it's Phoronix who have a history of inflamatory and misleading benchmarks, but from what I saw:

Sometimes Linux is faster.
Sometimes FreeBSD is faster.
Usually the difference between the two is smaller than the difference between IA32 and x86-64.
The tests were mostly either CPU- or I/O-bound, so there are lots of factors beyond the kernel that would affect the results.
Debian kFreeBSD uses an old FreeBSD kernel, not sure how old the Linux kernel is but it's probably not representative of the speed of recent releases of either kernel.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30840410</id>
	<title>This is a good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263993840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see a really good usage case for this.</p><p>You're a sysadmin, and you're running Debian almost exclusively.  You have a large number of automation scripts that you use to do your job (security updates, auditing, provisioning, general maintenance, etc).  All of them are expecting to run on Debian, because all you run is Debian.  So you, as a sysadmin, decide you want to use ZFS somewhere.</p><p>You have a few options:</p><p>
1) Run Solaris<br>
2) Run some derivative of BSD (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc)<br>
3) Run Debian w/ ZFS in Fuse<br>
4) Run Debian kFreeBSD</p><p>Options 1 and 2 will most likely require you to tweak or rewrite a lot of your scripts.  I shouldn't need to explain why option 3 is a bad idea.  Since you're working with Debian userland, going with option 4 seems like it would be the path of least resistance.  Seems pretty useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see a really good usage case for this.You 're a sysadmin , and you 're running Debian almost exclusively .
You have a large number of automation scripts that you use to do your job ( security updates , auditing , provisioning , general maintenance , etc ) .
All of them are expecting to run on Debian , because all you run is Debian .
So you , as a sysadmin , decide you want to use ZFS somewhere.You have a few options : 1 ) Run Solaris 2 ) Run some derivative of BSD ( FreeBSD , OpenBSD , NetBSD , etc ) 3 ) Run Debian w/ ZFS in Fuse 4 ) Run Debian kFreeBSDOptions 1 and 2 will most likely require you to tweak or rewrite a lot of your scripts .
I should n't need to explain why option 3 is a bad idea .
Since you 're working with Debian userland , going with option 4 seems like it would be the path of least resistance .
Seems pretty useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see a really good usage case for this.You're a sysadmin, and you're running Debian almost exclusively.
You have a large number of automation scripts that you use to do your job (security updates, auditing, provisioning, general maintenance, etc).
All of them are expecting to run on Debian, because all you run is Debian.
So you, as a sysadmin, decide you want to use ZFS somewhere.You have a few options:
1) Run Solaris
2) Run some derivative of BSD (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc)
3) Run Debian w/ ZFS in Fuse
4) Run Debian kFreeBSDOptions 1 and 2 will most likely require you to tweak or rewrite a lot of your scripts.
I shouldn't need to explain why option 3 is a bad idea.
Since you're working with Debian userland, going with option 4 seems like it would be the path of least resistance.
Seems pretty useful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30838438</id>
	<title>A marriage made in...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263985080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The unpolished GNU userland and GlibC (no offense, just compared to BSD's userland/libc or Solaris, they just tend to be weirder imo) combined with FreeBSD's stable but mostly unsupported kernel (Oh? You wanted ALSA? Sorry.  You wanted Linux kernel modules? Oh, sorry.  You need Linux hardware support? Oh sorry).</p><p>So I guess you get the worst of both worlds?  Awesome.</p><p>And it's slow.</p><p>Great job guys<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The unpolished GNU userland and GlibC ( no offense , just compared to BSD 's userland/libc or Solaris , they just tend to be weirder imo ) combined with FreeBSD 's stable but mostly unsupported kernel ( Oh ?
You wanted ALSA ?
Sorry. You wanted Linux kernel modules ?
Oh , sorry .
You need Linux hardware support ?
Oh sorry ) .So I guess you get the worst of both worlds ?
Awesome.And it 's slow.Great job guys : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The unpolished GNU userland and GlibC (no offense, just compared to BSD's userland/libc or Solaris, they just tend to be weirder imo) combined with FreeBSD's stable but mostly unsupported kernel (Oh?
You wanted ALSA?
Sorry.  You wanted Linux kernel modules?
Oh, sorry.
You need Linux hardware support?
Oh sorry).So I guess you get the worst of both worlds?
Awesome.And it's slow.Great job guys :D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836732</id>
	<title>Re:Holy moley !</title>
	<author>Erikderzweite</author>
	<datestamp>1263978600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, what?!<br>What are "many tests" you speak of?<br>32-bit Debian Linux was notably better only on compilation (which isto be expected) and POVRay. A couple of tests have shown very small advantage towards 32-bit system, but 64-bit has won MOST of 27 test hands down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , what ?
! What are " many tests " you speak of ? 32-bit Debian Linux was notably better only on compilation ( which isto be expected ) and POVRay .
A couple of tests have shown very small advantage towards 32-bit system , but 64-bit has won MOST of 27 test hands down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, what?
!What are "many tests" you speak of?32-bit Debian Linux was notably better only on compilation (which isto be expected) and POVRay.
A couple of tests have shown very small advantage towards 32-bit system, but 64-bit has won MOST of 27 test hands down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30840926</id>
	<title>Re:Flash?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263997080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see why not. Flash works on Debian and Flash works on FreeBSD. I'd assume it works on the hybrid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see why not .
Flash works on Debian and Flash works on FreeBSD .
I 'd assume it works on the hybrid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see why not.
Flash works on Debian and Flash works on FreeBSD.
I'd assume it works on the hybrid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30854942</id>
	<title>Re:I just wanted to see if ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264082700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yet, the talk returns to speed, speed, speed.</p></div><p>An article about benchmarks encourages discussions of speed?  Who'd of thunk it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet , the talk returns to speed , speed , speed.An article about benchmarks encourages discussions of speed ?
Who 'd of thunk it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet, the talk returns to speed, speed, speed.An article about benchmarks encourages discussions of speed?
Who'd of thunk it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837188</id>
	<title>Re:Please educate me a bit.</title>
	<author>mrsteveman1</author>
	<datestamp>1263980460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who is just now stepping into FreeBSD and who has managed Debian/Ubuntu systems for quite some time, i do find the front end tools for package management on Debian to be a bit nicer than pkg\_add/pkg\_delete on FreeBSD, but i know there are many other tools on FreeBSD for this purpose that i haven't found yet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who is just now stepping into FreeBSD and who has managed Debian/Ubuntu systems for quite some time , i do find the front end tools for package management on Debian to be a bit nicer than pkg \ _add/pkg \ _delete on FreeBSD , but i know there are many other tools on FreeBSD for this purpose that i have n't found yet : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who is just now stepping into FreeBSD and who has managed Debian/Ubuntu systems for quite some time, i do find the front end tools for package management on Debian to be a bit nicer than pkg\_add/pkg\_delete on FreeBSD, but i know there are many other tools on FreeBSD for this purpose that i haven't found yet :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836838</id>
	<title>Re:Please educate me a bit.</title>
	<author>0racle</author>
	<datestamp>1263979020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Off the top of my head, and pretty much pulled out of my ass:<br> <br>The FreeBSD kernel can be faster the Linux, but there are a lot of poorly written apps that think they absolutely must run on Linux or were written expecting GNUisms. Now you can do that.<br> <br>FreeBSD is generally the more generic and performance driven of the BSD's with a larger developer base then the othe BSD's. The odds for very good performance and good hardware support are in FreeBSD's favor over Open or Net.<br> <br>Porting apps to different platforms can have the advantage of opening or exaggerating new or difficult bugs in software, the end result being that everyone gets a better final product out of it.<br> <br>Finally, of course, why not?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Off the top of my head , and pretty much pulled out of my ass : The FreeBSD kernel can be faster the Linux , but there are a lot of poorly written apps that think they absolutely must run on Linux or were written expecting GNUisms .
Now you can do that .
FreeBSD is generally the more generic and performance driven of the BSD 's with a larger developer base then the othe BSD 's .
The odds for very good performance and good hardware support are in FreeBSD 's favor over Open or Net .
Porting apps to different platforms can have the advantage of opening or exaggerating new or difficult bugs in software , the end result being that everyone gets a better final product out of it .
Finally , of course , why not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Off the top of my head, and pretty much pulled out of my ass: The FreeBSD kernel can be faster the Linux, but there are a lot of poorly written apps that think they absolutely must run on Linux or were written expecting GNUisms.
Now you can do that.
FreeBSD is generally the more generic and performance driven of the BSD's with a larger developer base then the othe BSD's.
The odds for very good performance and good hardware support are in FreeBSD's favor over Open or Net.
Porting apps to different platforms can have the advantage of opening or exaggerating new or difficult bugs in software, the end result being that everyone gets a better final product out of it.
Finally, of course, why not?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836960</id>
	<title>Re:I just wanted to see if ...</title>
	<author>brackishboy</author>
	<datestamp>1263979500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That meme died ages ago. Netcraft confirmed it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That meme died ages ago .
Netcraft confirmed it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That meme died ages ago.
Netcraft confirmed it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836206</id>
	<title>Holy moley !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264019520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the Linux only perspective, I am still running everything (servers, desktop, laptop) on Linux 32 bits even on 64 bits machine because I figured that running 64 bits wasn't really worth yet.</p><p>Now, I am really surprised to see that Debian Linux 32 bits is actually faster than Debian Linux 64 bits in many tests !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the Linux only perspective , I am still running everything ( servers , desktop , laptop ) on Linux 32 bits even on 64 bits machine because I figured that running 64 bits was n't really worth yet.Now , I am really surprised to see that Debian Linux 32 bits is actually faster than Debian Linux 64 bits in many tests !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the Linux only perspective, I am still running everything (servers, desktop, laptop) on Linux 32 bits even on 64 bits machine because I figured that running 64 bits wasn't really worth yet.Now, I am really surprised to see that Debian Linux 32 bits is actually faster than Debian Linux 64 bits in many tests !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836754</id>
	<title>Comparison with original FreeBSD?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263978720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about a performance comparison with original FreeBSD?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about a performance comparison with original FreeBSD ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about a performance comparison with original FreeBSD?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836954</id>
	<title>Re:Please educate me a bit.</title>
	<author>Enleth</author>
	<datestamp>1263979500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When George Mallory, the guy who attempted to climb Mount Everest several times (and almost succeeded, though the most successful attempt was also fatal in the end), was asked why exactly would he try to climb it, as it was extremely dangerous and he wasn't even a scientist or a cartographer, he said one simple thing.</p><p>"Because it's there."</p><p>Sure, there probably are some practical purposes for a version of Debian running the FreeBSD kernel, but whatever those might be, I think it's not a matter of "what for" but of "why", and this in turn is answered by the aforementioned quote.</p><p>Someone wanted to do that, probably just for the heck of it, someone else thought that it might be fun, they joined their efforts and did it. A good part of the whole FLOSS and academic research worlds works like that. Nothing wrong with that, IMHO.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When George Mallory , the guy who attempted to climb Mount Everest several times ( and almost succeeded , though the most successful attempt was also fatal in the end ) , was asked why exactly would he try to climb it , as it was extremely dangerous and he was n't even a scientist or a cartographer , he said one simple thing .
" Because it 's there .
" Sure , there probably are some practical purposes for a version of Debian running the FreeBSD kernel , but whatever those might be , I think it 's not a matter of " what for " but of " why " , and this in turn is answered by the aforementioned quote.Someone wanted to do that , probably just for the heck of it , someone else thought that it might be fun , they joined their efforts and did it .
A good part of the whole FLOSS and academic research worlds works like that .
Nothing wrong with that , IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When George Mallory, the guy who attempted to climb Mount Everest several times (and almost succeeded, though the most successful attempt was also fatal in the end), was asked why exactly would he try to climb it, as it was extremely dangerous and he wasn't even a scientist or a cartographer, he said one simple thing.
"Because it's there.
"Sure, there probably are some practical purposes for a version of Debian running the FreeBSD kernel, but whatever those might be, I think it's not a matter of "what for" but of "why", and this in turn is answered by the aforementioned quote.Someone wanted to do that, probably just for the heck of it, someone else thought that it might be fun, they joined their efforts and did it.
A good part of the whole FLOSS and academic research worlds works like that.
Nothing wrong with that, IMHO.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837316</id>
	<title>Re:Comparison with original FreeBSD?</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1263981000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What about a performance comparison with original FreeBSD?</p></div><p>The "original"?  Just for laughs, get the results for version 1.0 from 1993 along with 8.0-RELEASE and 9.0-CURRENT</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD#Version\_history" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD#Version\_history</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about a performance comparison with original FreeBSD ? The " original " ?
Just for laughs , get the results for version 1.0 from 1993 along with 8.0-RELEASE and 9.0-CURRENThttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD # Version \ _history [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about a performance comparison with original FreeBSD?The "original"?
Just for laughs, get the results for version 1.0 from 1993 along with 8.0-RELEASE and 9.0-CURRENThttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD#Version\_history [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30840544</id>
	<title>Re:Question?</title>
	<author>IMightB</author>
	<datestamp>1263994620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a Linux fan, but there's a first.  A linux user complaining that he needs to tweak the OS to get the most out of it!</p><p>Here's a tip, ALL OS's require tweaking to get the most out of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a Linux fan , but there 's a first .
A linux user complaining that he needs to tweak the OS to get the most out of it ! Here 's a tip , ALL OS 's require tweaking to get the most out of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a Linux fan, but there's a first.
A linux user complaining that he needs to tweak the OS to get the most out of it!Here's a tip, ALL OS's require tweaking to get the most out of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30839000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837050</id>
	<title>Flash?</title>
	<author>xoundmind</author>
	<datestamp>1263979800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So can I run Flash-enabled browser on this port?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So can I run Flash-enabled browser on this port ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So can I run Flash-enabled browser on this port?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836580</id>
	<title>Re:Holy moley !</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1263978000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where many is ~20\% of them.</p><p>And why would that be surprising?  64 bit lets you address more memory and they did the tests in a machine with memory that 32 bits could address all of. 64 bit pointers are obviously larger too, so the 32 bit version has effectively more memory and better cache usage.</p><p>Some programs aren't going to take advantage of 64 bit registers and so on, but are going to suffer from worse cache performance.</p><p>Stick 8 or 12 GB of RAM in and things might be different</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where many is ~ 20 \ % of them.And why would that be surprising ?
64 bit lets you address more memory and they did the tests in a machine with memory that 32 bits could address all of .
64 bit pointers are obviously larger too , so the 32 bit version has effectively more memory and better cache usage.Some programs are n't going to take advantage of 64 bit registers and so on , but are going to suffer from worse cache performance.Stick 8 or 12 GB of RAM in and things might be different</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where many is ~20\% of them.And why would that be surprising?
64 bit lets you address more memory and they did the tests in a machine with memory that 32 bits could address all of.
64 bit pointers are obviously larger too, so the 32 bit version has effectively more memory and better cache usage.Some programs aren't going to take advantage of 64 bit registers and so on, but are going to suffer from worse cache performance.Stick 8 or 12 GB of RAM in and things might be different</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30838920</id>
	<title>Re:Please educate me a bit.</title>
	<author>machine321</author>
	<datestamp>1263986880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other words, in FreeBSD they fix the shit that's there, in Debian they just keep shoveling in more shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , in FreeBSD they fix the shit that 's there , in Debian they just keep shoveling in more shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, in FreeBSD they fix the shit that's there, in Debian they just keep shoveling in more shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30842284</id>
	<title>Re:Please educate me a bit.</title>
	<author>NemoinSpace</author>
	<datestamp>1264009500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When George Mallory, the guy who attempted to climb Mount Everest several times (and almost succeeded, though the most successful attempt was also fatal in the end)</p><blockquote><div><p>Nothing wrong with that, IMHO.</p></div></blockquote></div> </blockquote><p>

What about the <b>dying</b> part?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When George Mallory , the guy who attempted to climb Mount Everest several times ( and almost succeeded , though the most successful attempt was also fatal in the end ) Nothing wrong with that , IMHO .
What about the dying part ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When George Mallory, the guy who attempted to climb Mount Everest several times (and almost succeeded, though the most successful attempt was also fatal in the end)Nothing wrong with that, IMHO.
What about the dying part?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836348</id>
	<title>*BSD is Dying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264020120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>It is now official. Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying</b>  <br> <br>
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD
community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped
yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all
servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which
plainly states that <b>*BSD has lost more market share</b>,
this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD
is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by <a href="http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1148/sam0107a/0107a.htm" title="samag.com" rel="nofollow">failing
dead last</a> [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive
networking test.  <br> <br> You don't need to be the <a href="http://www.amazingkreskin.com/" title="amazingkreskin.com" rel="nofollow"> <b>Amazing Kreskin</b> </a> [amazingkreskin.com] to
predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a
bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because
<b>*BSD is dying</b>. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of
us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows
like a river of blood.  <br> <br> FreeBSD is the most endangered of them
all, having lost 93\% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant
departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith
only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be
any doubt: <b>FreeBSD is dying</b>.  <br> <br> Let's keep to the facts and
look at the numbers.  <br> <br> OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are
7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The
number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5
to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts
on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there
are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80
percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400
FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
<br> <br> Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on,
<b>FreeBSD went out of business</b> and was taken over by BSDI who sell
another troubled OS.  <b>Now BSDI is also dead</b>, its corpse turned
over to yet another charnel house.  <br> <br> All major surveys show that
*BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its
long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all
it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing
short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical
purposes, *BSD is dead.  <br> <br> <b>Fact: *BSD is dying</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is now official .
Netcraft confirms : * BSD is dying One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered * BSD community when IDC confirmed that * BSD market share has dropped yet again , now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers .
Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that * BSD has lost more market share , this news serves to reinforce what we 've known all along .
* BSD is collapsing in complete disarray , as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [ samag.com ] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test .
You do n't need to be the Amazing Kreskin [ amazingkreskin.com ] to predict * BSD 's future .
The hand writing is on the wall : * BSD faces a bleak future .
In fact there wo n't be any future at all for * BSD because * BSD is dying .
Things are looking very bad for * BSD .
As many of us are already aware , * BSD continues to lose market share .
Red ink flows like a river of blood .
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all , having lost 93 \ % of its core developers .
The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly .
There can no longer be any doubt : FreeBSD is dying .
Let 's keep to the facts and look at the numbers .
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD .
How many users of NetBSD are there ?
Let 's see .
The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1 .
Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users .
BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts .
Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS .
A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the * BSD market .
Therefore there are ( 7000 + 1400 + 700 ) * 4 = 36400 FreeBSD users .
This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts .
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek , abysmal sales and so on , FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS .
Now BSDI is also dead , its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house .
All major surveys show that * BSD has steadily declined in market share .
* BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim .
If * BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers .
* BSD continues to decay .
Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time .
For all practical purposes , * BSD is dead .
Fact : * BSD is dying</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is now official.
Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying   
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD
community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped
yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all
servers.
Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which
plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share,
this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along.
*BSD
is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing
dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive
networking test.
You don't need to be the  Amazing Kreskin  [amazingkreskin.com] to
predict *BSD's future.
The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a
bleak future.
In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because
*BSD is dying.
Things are looking very bad for *BSD.
As many of
us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share.
Red ink flows
like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them
all, having lost 93\% of its core developers.
The sudden and unpleasant
departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith
only serve to underscore the point more clearly.
There can no longer be
any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and
look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are
7000 users of OpenBSD.
How many users of NetBSD are there?
Let's see.
The
number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5
to 1.
Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users.
BSD/OS posts
on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts.
Therefore there
are about 700 users of BSD/OS.
A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80
percent of the *BSD market.
Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400
FreeBSD users.
This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on,
FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell
another troubled OS.
Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned
over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that
*BSD has steadily declined in market share.
*BSD is very sick and its
long term survival prospects are very dim.
If *BSD is to survive at all
it will be among OS dilettante dabblers.
*BSD continues to decay.
Nothing
short of a miracle could save it at this point in time.
For all practical
purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30839410</id>
	<title>Re:sigh</title>
	<author>ShieldW0lf</author>
	<datestamp>1263988980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would be interesting if this ends up being forked into a GPLv3 project and forms the basis for the first ever pure GPLv3 distribution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be interesting if this ends up being forked into a GPLv3 project and forms the basis for the first ever pure GPLv3 distribution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be interesting if this ends up being forked into a GPLv3 project and forms the basis for the first ever pure GPLv3 distribution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836808</id>
	<title>Re:Please educate me a bit.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1263978900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'Because we can' is the answer you are looking for I think.</p><p>Considering what they've done (most of it anyway) can be accomplished with a few flags to make.conf anyway, its not exactly impressive.  Tell the system to use glibc instead of its native libc, then rebuild world (to rebuild the built in GNU tools with glibc) and build the ports for other GNU tools you want and you've got what they made.</p><p>You could probably write a fairly trivial sh script to do this on a generic FBSD install.</p><p>This is just a typical 'We did it because we can and we wanted to' type of thing the way I see it.</p><p>You use the FBSD kernel because its going to have the largest driver base compared to the other two for hardware that people care about, although NetBSD can't be far behind it.  OpenBSD is just a bitch thats not worth the effort to deal with for any reason since it has no real advantage over a FBSD 'Minimal' install, possibly with some config tweaks but it won't be many.</p><p>The one shining thing you can get, is a native ZFS implementation, though by using an old kernel they've kinda killed that idea since the version in that kernel is not really production ready.  You get jails, which are nice for some purposes, but with paravirtualized linux on linux and enough ram its really not that big of a deal.  They also claim that you get the advantage of the debian package system, but other than a gui I see no outstanding advantage over the FBSD package system, with the exception that I think they still don't make a screen package due to some kernel interface issues that break it when used with a kernel compiled with slightly different options, its never been a problem for me, I build and distribute screen internally to our BSD boxes without 'noticing' a problem.</p><p>TFA has more reasons why you might want to do it, but they all seem pretty weak to me, but I'm a FBSD person, and don't care for Linux that much, so my bias is probably not helping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Because we can ' is the answer you are looking for I think.Considering what they 've done ( most of it anyway ) can be accomplished with a few flags to make.conf anyway , its not exactly impressive .
Tell the system to use glibc instead of its native libc , then rebuild world ( to rebuild the built in GNU tools with glibc ) and build the ports for other GNU tools you want and you 've got what they made.You could probably write a fairly trivial sh script to do this on a generic FBSD install.This is just a typical 'We did it because we can and we wanted to ' type of thing the way I see it.You use the FBSD kernel because its going to have the largest driver base compared to the other two for hardware that people care about , although NetBSD ca n't be far behind it .
OpenBSD is just a bitch thats not worth the effort to deal with for any reason since it has no real advantage over a FBSD 'Minimal ' install , possibly with some config tweaks but it wo n't be many.The one shining thing you can get , is a native ZFS implementation , though by using an old kernel they 've kinda killed that idea since the version in that kernel is not really production ready .
You get jails , which are nice for some purposes , but with paravirtualized linux on linux and enough ram its really not that big of a deal .
They also claim that you get the advantage of the debian package system , but other than a gui I see no outstanding advantage over the FBSD package system , with the exception that I think they still do n't make a screen package due to some kernel interface issues that break it when used with a kernel compiled with slightly different options , its never been a problem for me , I build and distribute screen internally to our BSD boxes without 'noticing ' a problem.TFA has more reasons why you might want to do it , but they all seem pretty weak to me , but I 'm a FBSD person , and do n't care for Linux that much , so my bias is probably not helping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Because we can' is the answer you are looking for I think.Considering what they've done (most of it anyway) can be accomplished with a few flags to make.conf anyway, its not exactly impressive.
Tell the system to use glibc instead of its native libc, then rebuild world (to rebuild the built in GNU tools with glibc) and build the ports for other GNU tools you want and you've got what they made.You could probably write a fairly trivial sh script to do this on a generic FBSD install.This is just a typical 'We did it because we can and we wanted to' type of thing the way I see it.You use the FBSD kernel because its going to have the largest driver base compared to the other two for hardware that people care about, although NetBSD can't be far behind it.
OpenBSD is just a bitch thats not worth the effort to deal with for any reason since it has no real advantage over a FBSD 'Minimal' install, possibly with some config tweaks but it won't be many.The one shining thing you can get, is a native ZFS implementation, though by using an old kernel they've kinda killed that idea since the version in that kernel is not really production ready.
You get jails, which are nice for some purposes, but with paravirtualized linux on linux and enough ram its really not that big of a deal.
They also claim that you get the advantage of the debian package system, but other than a gui I see no outstanding advantage over the FBSD package system, with the exception that I think they still don't make a screen package due to some kernel interface issues that break it when used with a kernel compiled with slightly different options, its never been a problem for me, I build and distribute screen internally to our BSD boxes without 'noticing' a problem.TFA has more reasons why you might want to do it, but they all seem pretty weak to me, but I'm a FBSD person, and don't care for Linux that much, so my bias is probably not helping.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30854942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30838972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30839666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30840926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30839116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30839410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30840328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30838920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30840544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30839000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30838068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30840876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30842284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30914712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30840970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30844446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30840910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30840154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1836243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1836243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30840926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1836243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30839116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30839666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1836243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30839000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30840544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1836243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30854942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1836243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836280
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1836243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30838068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1836243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30844446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30838972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30842284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30840910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30840154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30914712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837504
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30840328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837244
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30838920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1836243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30837316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1836243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30840410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1836243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30840876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30840970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1836243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30836318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1836243.30839410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
