<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_03_1932222</id>
	<title>Android and the Linux Kernel Community</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265185500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader links to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg\_Kroah-Hartman">Greg Kroah-Hartman</a>'s explanation of a rift (hopefully mendable) in the development culture of Google's Linux-based Android OS and the Linux kernel itself. <i>"As the <a href="http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/android-kernel-problems.html">Android kernel code is now gone from the Linux kernel</a>, as of the 2.6.33 kernel release, I'm starting to get a lot of questions about what happened, and what to do next with regards to Android. So here's my opinion on the whole matter ..."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader links to Greg Kroah-Hartman 's explanation of a rift ( hopefully mendable ) in the development culture of Google 's Linux-based Android OS and the Linux kernel itself .
" As the Android kernel code is now gone from the Linux kernel , as of the 2.6.33 kernel release , I 'm starting to get a lot of questions about what happened , and what to do next with regards to Android .
So here 's my opinion on the whole matter ... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader links to Greg Kroah-Hartman's explanation of a rift (hopefully mendable) in the development culture of Google's Linux-based Android OS and the Linux kernel itself.
"As the Android kernel code is now gone from the Linux kernel, as of the 2.6.33 kernel release, I'm starting to get a lot of questions about what happened, and what to do next with regards to Android.
So here's my opinion on the whole matter ..."</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014836</id>
	<title>Android phones..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264932480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So does this mean I should or should not have hacked my android phone?<br>The rain shrunk my brain up too much to think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So does this mean I should or should not have hacked my android phone ? The rain shrunk my brain up too much to think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does this mean I should or should not have hacked my android phone?The rain shrunk my brain up too much to think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31079396</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265716020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>FBSD still has a superior networking stack from what I've seen.    We also deploy Juniper networking equipment and JunOS is based on FreeBSD.</p></div><p>Don't for even a second think that the network stack in *BSD is what is used for the data plane of Juniper devices.  As a matter of fact, only a very, very small fraction of it is even used in the control plane.  The CLI runs on *BSD which then communicates with the actual hardware which runs specialized ASICs and FPGAs.  When you execute a show command, the CLI queries the hardware.  When you issue a set command, the CLI writes to the hardware.  The protocol processes themselves do run under *BSD and that is where the selective RIBs are calculated but the FIB is all in hardware.</p><p>Again, don't be confused.</p><p>--tvo</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FBSD still has a superior networking stack from what I 've seen .
We also deploy Juniper networking equipment and JunOS is based on FreeBSD.Do n't for even a second think that the network stack in * BSD is what is used for the data plane of Juniper devices .
As a matter of fact , only a very , very small fraction of it is even used in the control plane .
The CLI runs on * BSD which then communicates with the actual hardware which runs specialized ASICs and FPGAs .
When you execute a show command , the CLI queries the hardware .
When you issue a set command , the CLI writes to the hardware .
The protocol processes themselves do run under * BSD and that is where the selective RIBs are calculated but the FIB is all in hardware.Again , do n't be confused.--tvo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FBSD still has a superior networking stack from what I've seen.
We also deploy Juniper networking equipment and JunOS is based on FreeBSD.Don't for even a second think that the network stack in *BSD is what is used for the data plane of Juniper devices.
As a matter of fact, only a very, very small fraction of it is even used in the control plane.
The CLI runs on *BSD which then communicates with the actual hardware which runs specialized ASICs and FPGAs.
When you execute a show command, the CLI queries the hardware.
When you issue a set command, the CLI writes to the hardware.
The protocol processes themselves do run under *BSD and that is where the selective RIBs are calculated but the FIB is all in hardware.Again, don't be confused.--tvo
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31016708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014812</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>GenP</author>
	<datestamp>1264932420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I want ZFS for my home server, zfs is not the answer</p></div><p>Very Zen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want ZFS for my home server , zfs is not the answerVery Zen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want ZFS for my home server, zfs is not the answerVery Zen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31019374</id>
	<title>Um, if there's a problem with this, I don't see it</title>
	<author>melted</author>
	<datestamp>1264965360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cell phones need a different kernel than servers, with different drivers, graphics and security requirements. Maybe this fork is justified? Maybe this doesn't need to be in the mainline?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cell phones need a different kernel than servers , with different drivers , graphics and security requirements .
Maybe this fork is justified ?
Maybe this does n't need to be in the mainline ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cell phones need a different kernel than servers, with different drivers, graphics and security requirements.
Maybe this fork is justified?
Maybe this doesn't need to be in the mainline?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014462</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264930500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently Google employees have mod points today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently Google employees have mod points today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently Google employees have mod points today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31025180</id>
	<title>Re:In summary...</title>
	<author>T.E.D.</author>
	<datestamp>1265312400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google has silently forked the kernel. There is an 'Android' kernel, and the mainline kernel

Is this the first time this has happened?</p></div><p>Hardly. It happens every time anybody makes a kernel mod. First they pull down the kernel, then they make their custom mod (technically a fork), then they wrangle with the gatekeepers over how/if their mod can be put into the baseline.

</p><p>I understand it is fairly typical for new mods from first-time submitters to get extra-skeptical treatment. Once the developer has been around a while, learns how to work with the other interested parties, and shows a willingness to do so, things get much easier.

</p><p>The only thing that makes this news is that an employee of Google is getting the same treatment as you or I would get. Some may find that appalling, but I think it is the way things <i>should</i> be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has silently forked the kernel .
There is an 'Android ' kernel , and the mainline kernel Is this the first time this has happened ? Hardly .
It happens every time anybody makes a kernel mod .
First they pull down the kernel , then they make their custom mod ( technically a fork ) , then they wrangle with the gatekeepers over how/if their mod can be put into the baseline .
I understand it is fairly typical for new mods from first-time submitters to get extra-skeptical treatment .
Once the developer has been around a while , learns how to work with the other interested parties , and shows a willingness to do so , things get much easier .
The only thing that makes this news is that an employee of Google is getting the same treatment as you or I would get .
Some may find that appalling , but I think it is the way things should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has silently forked the kernel.
There is an 'Android' kernel, and the mainline kernel

Is this the first time this has happened?Hardly.
It happens every time anybody makes a kernel mod.
First they pull down the kernel, then they make their custom mod (technically a fork), then they wrangle with the gatekeepers over how/if their mod can be put into the baseline.
I understand it is fairly typical for new mods from first-time submitters to get extra-skeptical treatment.
Once the developer has been around a while, learns how to work with the other interested parties, and shows a willingness to do so, things get much easier.
The only thing that makes this news is that an employee of Google is getting the same treatment as you or I would get.
Some may find that appalling, but I think it is the way things should be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31016106</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of comments on LWN.net's coverage</title>
	<author>Rene S. Hollan</author>
	<datestamp>1264938120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay. I got off my ass and actually looked at waitlock. It isn't, as I thought, a lock with a restoration of execution context when held, so that one can temporarily surrender other locks, and reacquire them. It is a lock on keeping the system out of various low-power states.</p><p>Mainline has an (arguably, according to Google-folk, inefficient), lock on guaranteed service latency (low, medium, high?). and Google wants a lock on specific activity level abstractions (idle, suspend, etc.). Did I get that right?</p><p>Well, if the present implementation is inefficient (a linear search...), fix that: use an AA-tree or heap, or something.</p><p>I suspect the latency time guarantees are coarse at best and probably map to specific power states (idle, suspend, etc.) anyway. I think BOTH models should be supported (heck, you could always map levels to latencies in some tunable fashion, if you had to fake it: "responsiveness SUSPEND" vs. "hardware SUSPEND") but only because there are already standard abstract notions of what IDLE, SUSPEND, and POWEROFF are.</p><p>What may have happened is that the existing implementation was inefficient, not quite fitting the expected model, and Google-folk found it faster to roll their own driven by time-pressure, instead of reworking the existing inefficiencies, thinking "heck, we can layer our API over the existing implementation later" and finding the models are more different than thought.</p><p>Reconciling that is called "refactoring" and sometimes it breaks APIs as much as one does not want it to.</p><p>Now, who has a vested interest in doing that?</p><p>Google? Not really. They figure they can handle the overhead of a kernel fork, at least for a while.</p><p>Mainline kernel devs? No. The existing model "works".</p><p>I'll tell you who: Google's downstream customers. One of them will do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay .
I got off my ass and actually looked at waitlock .
It is n't , as I thought , a lock with a restoration of execution context when held , so that one can temporarily surrender other locks , and reacquire them .
It is a lock on keeping the system out of various low-power states.Mainline has an ( arguably , according to Google-folk , inefficient ) , lock on guaranteed service latency ( low , medium , high ? ) .
and Google wants a lock on specific activity level abstractions ( idle , suspend , etc. ) .
Did I get that right ? Well , if the present implementation is inefficient ( a linear search... ) , fix that : use an AA-tree or heap , or something.I suspect the latency time guarantees are coarse at best and probably map to specific power states ( idle , suspend , etc .
) anyway .
I think BOTH models should be supported ( heck , you could always map levels to latencies in some tunable fashion , if you had to fake it : " responsiveness SUSPEND " vs. " hardware SUSPEND " ) but only because there are already standard abstract notions of what IDLE , SUSPEND , and POWEROFF are.What may have happened is that the existing implementation was inefficient , not quite fitting the expected model , and Google-folk found it faster to roll their own driven by time-pressure , instead of reworking the existing inefficiencies , thinking " heck , we can layer our API over the existing implementation later " and finding the models are more different than thought.Reconciling that is called " refactoring " and sometimes it breaks APIs as much as one does not want it to.Now , who has a vested interest in doing that ? Google ?
Not really .
They figure they can handle the overhead of a kernel fork , at least for a while.Mainline kernel devs ?
No. The existing model " works " .I 'll tell you who : Google 's downstream customers .
One of them will do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay.
I got off my ass and actually looked at waitlock.
It isn't, as I thought, a lock with a restoration of execution context when held, so that one can temporarily surrender other locks, and reacquire them.
It is a lock on keeping the system out of various low-power states.Mainline has an (arguably, according to Google-folk, inefficient), lock on guaranteed service latency (low, medium, high?).
and Google wants a lock on specific activity level abstractions (idle, suspend, etc.).
Did I get that right?Well, if the present implementation is inefficient (a linear search...), fix that: use an AA-tree or heap, or something.I suspect the latency time guarantees are coarse at best and probably map to specific power states (idle, suspend, etc.
) anyway.
I think BOTH models should be supported (heck, you could always map levels to latencies in some tunable fashion, if you had to fake it: "responsiveness SUSPEND" vs. "hardware SUSPEND") but only because there are already standard abstract notions of what IDLE, SUSPEND, and POWEROFF are.What may have happened is that the existing implementation was inefficient, not quite fitting the expected model, and Google-folk found it faster to roll their own driven by time-pressure, instead of reworking the existing inefficiencies, thinking "heck, we can layer our API over the existing implementation later" and finding the models are more different than thought.Reconciling that is called "refactoring" and sometimes it breaks APIs as much as one does not want it to.Now, who has a vested interest in doing that?Google?
Not really.
They figure they can handle the overhead of a kernel fork, at least for a while.Mainline kernel devs?
No. The existing model "works".I'll tell you who: Google's downstream customers.
One of them will do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015924</id>
	<title>Re:Technical aspects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264937220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now, if that discussion could translate into a working ACPI subsystem on laptops would be novel! (<i>here's an LWN discussion about what Google is doing wrong, yet we (the mainline) can't get laptops to come out of suspend mode right</i>)...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , if that discussion could translate into a working ACPI subsystem on laptops would be novel !
( here 's an LWN discussion about what Google is doing wrong , yet we ( the mainline ) ca n't get laptops to come out of suspend mode right ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, if that discussion could translate into a working ACPI subsystem on laptops would be novel!
(here's an LWN discussion about what Google is doing wrong, yet we (the mainline) can't get laptops to come out of suspend mode right)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014970</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>diegocg</author>
	<datestamp>1264933140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, Google doesn't <i>need</i> to contribute back their code to the Linux main tree. It's perfectly fine not try to merge it. But because it <i>makes sense</i> for everyone (end users, Google, Android developers, hardware manufacturers), people is trying to fix the situation. Maybe you don't care about working together, but Linux people do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , Google does n't need to contribute back their code to the Linux main tree .
It 's perfectly fine not try to merge it .
But because it makes sense for everyone ( end users , Google , Android developers , hardware manufacturers ) , people is trying to fix the situation .
Maybe you do n't care about working together , but Linux people do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, Google doesn't need to contribute back their code to the Linux main tree.
It's perfectly fine not try to merge it.
But because it makes sense for everyone (end users, Google, Android developers, hardware manufacturers), people is trying to fix the situation.
Maybe you don't care about working together, but Linux people do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31016210</id>
	<title>Apple and BSD</title>
	<author>EEPROMS</author>
	<datestamp>1264938480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't see what the issue is, if Google wants to make their own fork of Linux go for it, that is what FOSS is about, "CHOICE!!". Apple have done this with their own version of BSD (Darwin) and added lots of things not in the mainstream flavours of BSD and they are doing fine thank you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't see what the issue is , if Google wants to make their own fork of Linux go for it , that is what FOSS is about , " CHOICE ! ! " .
Apple have done this with their own version of BSD ( Darwin ) and added lots of things not in the mainstream flavours of BSD and they are doing fine thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't see what the issue is, if Google wants to make their own fork of Linux go for it, that is what FOSS is about, "CHOICE!!".
Apple have done this with their own version of BSD (Darwin) and added lots of things not in the mainstream flavours of BSD and they are doing fine thank you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015116</id>
	<title>Whoa there Cowboy</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1264933860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your representation of the facts is suspect on a number of fronts.</p><p><i>The short form is that if they don't like how we use the kernel, we're unlikely to be accepted upstream.</i><br>You casually forget to mention your introduction of a completely new lock method.  This is a case of Google throwing code over the wall.  That's not going to fly. When some suggestions are made regarding the method, they are ignored.</p><p>Then, there are proprietary dependencies that can't be released that breaks the build process.  No effort is made on Google's part to make this play nice with a kernel build.  More code throwing.</p><p>Then there are implications to other ARM builds that Google won't touch.</p><p><i>It's all still released as source code to the world</i><br>Which creates problems for practically every ARM platform developer BUT Google.</p><p>Outside of the Google Reality Distortion Field, the code just doesn't work.  At all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your representation of the facts is suspect on a number of fronts.The short form is that if they do n't like how we use the kernel , we 're unlikely to be accepted upstream.You casually forget to mention your introduction of a completely new lock method .
This is a case of Google throwing code over the wall .
That 's not going to fly .
When some suggestions are made regarding the method , they are ignored.Then , there are proprietary dependencies that ca n't be released that breaks the build process .
No effort is made on Google 's part to make this play nice with a kernel build .
More code throwing.Then there are implications to other ARM builds that Google wo n't touch.It 's all still released as source code to the worldWhich creates problems for practically every ARM platform developer BUT Google.Outside of the Google Reality Distortion Field , the code just does n't work .
At all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your representation of the facts is suspect on a number of fronts.The short form is that if they don't like how we use the kernel, we're unlikely to be accepted upstream.You casually forget to mention your introduction of a completely new lock method.
This is a case of Google throwing code over the wall.
That's not going to fly.
When some suggestions are made regarding the method, they are ignored.Then, there are proprietary dependencies that can't be released that breaks the build process.
No effort is made on Google's part to make this play nice with a kernel build.
More code throwing.Then there are implications to other ARM builds that Google won't touch.It's all still released as source code to the worldWhich creates problems for practically every ARM platform developer BUT Google.Outside of the Google Reality Distortion Field, the code just doesn't work.
At all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015034</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of comments on LWN.net's coverage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264933500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's completely disingenuous.  Everyone agrees that the problems Android needs to solve should be solved.  The kernel community simply disagrees with *how* Google solved the problems.  Long ago Google could have asked "we need to optimize power usage by doing agressive suspend" and then worked with the kernel community to get a solution that everyone was happy with.</p><p>But instead, Google went off into a corner, created their own solution behind closed doors that nobody in the kernel community likes and now it can't go upstream.</p><p>It's not about "how we use the kernel", it's about how you coded things in isolation then expect everyone to be ecstatic with the result despite the fact that the gatekeepers never had any input into the design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's completely disingenuous .
Everyone agrees that the problems Android needs to solve should be solved .
The kernel community simply disagrees with * how * Google solved the problems .
Long ago Google could have asked " we need to optimize power usage by doing agressive suspend " and then worked with the kernel community to get a solution that everyone was happy with.But instead , Google went off into a corner , created their own solution behind closed doors that nobody in the kernel community likes and now it ca n't go upstream.It 's not about " how we use the kernel " , it 's about how you coded things in isolation then expect everyone to be ecstatic with the result despite the fact that the gatekeepers never had any input into the design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's completely disingenuous.
Everyone agrees that the problems Android needs to solve should be solved.
The kernel community simply disagrees with *how* Google solved the problems.
Long ago Google could have asked "we need to optimize power usage by doing agressive suspend" and then worked with the kernel community to get a solution that everyone was happy with.But instead, Google went off into a corner, created their own solution behind closed doors that nobody in the kernel community likes and now it can't go upstream.It's not about "how we use the kernel", it's about how you coded things in isolation then expect everyone to be ecstatic with the result despite the fact that the gatekeepers never had any input into the design.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31029412</id>
	<title>Android is not Google's</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1265291280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFS:</p><blockquote><div><p>[...] Google's Linux-based Android OS [...]</p></div></blockquote><p>Android, while Google popularized it (after purchasing Android, Inc.) and provides its own apps that are used on most Android phones, is the Open Handset Alliance's Linux-based OS now, not Google's.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFS : [ ... ] Google 's Linux-based Android OS [ ... ] Android , while Google popularized it ( after purchasing Android , Inc. ) and provides its own apps that are used on most Android phones , is the Open Handset Alliance 's Linux-based OS now , not Google 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFS:[...] Google's Linux-based Android OS [...]Android, while Google popularized it (after purchasing Android, Inc.) and provides its own apps that are used on most Android phones, is the Open Handset Alliance's Linux-based OS now, not Google's.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014870</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264932600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, so do I, so I give your post and the parent's a bump up.</p><p>Fuck 'em, that's what I say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , so do I , so I give your post and the parent 's a bump up.Fuck 'em , that 's what I say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, so do I, so I give your post and the parent's a bump up.Fuck 'em, that's what I say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015092</id>
	<title>An oldie but a goodie:</title>
	<author>Ossifer</author>
	<datestamp>1264933740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Embrace &amp; extend"!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Embrace &amp; extend " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Embrace &amp; extend"!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31016636</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264940820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually if Linux was under the BSD license Google could have taken what they wanted, changed what they wanted, and never have released the code at all. In that case there would be no open source Android project to contribute to.

Would that be better?

Ask 20 people who know something about the internals of BSD and Linux which has a better code base and better technology and probably 60\%+ would say BSD. Why is it not as popular as Linux? Because a lot of companies would never release code under the BSD license and take the chance that a competitor would take that code, improve it, and release a proprietary app with it. The GPL keeps companies in a share and share alike truce.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually if Linux was under the BSD license Google could have taken what they wanted , changed what they wanted , and never have released the code at all .
In that case there would be no open source Android project to contribute to .
Would that be better ?
Ask 20 people who know something about the internals of BSD and Linux which has a better code base and better technology and probably 60 \ % + would say BSD .
Why is it not as popular as Linux ?
Because a lot of companies would never release code under the BSD license and take the chance that a competitor would take that code , improve it , and release a proprietary app with it .
The GPL keeps companies in a share and share alike truce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually if Linux was under the BSD license Google could have taken what they wanted, changed what they wanted, and never have released the code at all.
In that case there would be no open source Android project to contribute to.
Would that be better?
Ask 20 people who know something about the internals of BSD and Linux which has a better code base and better technology and probably 60\%+ would say BSD.
Why is it not as popular as Linux?
Because a lot of companies would never release code under the BSD license and take the chance that a competitor would take that code, improve it, and release a proprietary app with it.
The GPL keeps companies in a share and share alike truce.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31017924</id>
	<title>anyone see the Feb. Linux Journal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264949520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was wondering why the editorial in the February edition of Linux Journal was saying so much bad stuff about Google! I was like why all the google-hate from Linux users? Well, if Google forked the kernel, that would explain it....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was wondering why the editorial in the February edition of Linux Journal was saying so much bad stuff about Google !
I was like why all the google-hate from Linux users ?
Well , if Google forked the kernel , that would explain it... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was wondering why the editorial in the February edition of Linux Journal was saying so much bad stuff about Google!
I was like why all the google-hate from Linux users?
Well, if Google forked the kernel, that would explain it....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015322</id>
	<title>Android is open source so does it really matter?</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1264934880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suspect this isn't clear cut and there is more than a little "Google is too big we must hate them now" attitude. The fact is Android is open source and anyone can take their code do what they want with it just as Google can take any other open source code and do what they want with it.
<br> <br>
That's the point of open source code. Claiming something is open and all about freedom and then trying force everyone into doing what you think should be done is neither really free or open.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect this is n't clear cut and there is more than a little " Google is too big we must hate them now " attitude .
The fact is Android is open source and anyone can take their code do what they want with it just as Google can take any other open source code and do what they want with it .
That 's the point of open source code .
Claiming something is open and all about freedom and then trying force everyone into doing what you think should be done is neither really free or open .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect this isn't clear cut and there is more than a little "Google is too big we must hate them now" attitude.
The fact is Android is open source and anyone can take their code do what they want with it just as Google can take any other open source code and do what they want with it.
That's the point of open source code.
Claiming something is open and all about freedom and then trying force everyone into doing what you think should be done is neither really free or open.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015526</id>
	<title>Re:Technical aspects</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1264935600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah cause it's not like the kernel devs have ever turned down ideas that later they would implement themselves after years of denial that there's even a problem with their original design. *cough* Complete Fair Scheduler *cough*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah cause it 's not like the kernel devs have ever turned down ideas that later they would implement themselves after years of denial that there 's even a problem with their original design .
* cough * Complete Fair Scheduler * cough *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah cause it's not like the kernel devs have ever turned down ideas that later they would implement themselves after years of denial that there's even a problem with their original design.
*cough* Complete Fair Scheduler *cough*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014794</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1264932240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If linux was under the BSD license it would be in the same shape FreeBSD is in, nearly no one using it in the server room.</p><p>So sure we have to wait for btrfs instead of using ZFS, but only because SUN decided to make sure they chose an incompatible license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If linux was under the BSD license it would be in the same shape FreeBSD is in , nearly no one using it in the server room.So sure we have to wait for btrfs instead of using ZFS , but only because SUN decided to make sure they chose an incompatible license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If linux was under the BSD license it would be in the same shape FreeBSD is in, nearly no one using it in the server room.So sure we have to wait for btrfs instead of using ZFS, but only because SUN decided to make sure they chose an incompatible license.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014546</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1264930980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux was under the BSD license, they wouldn't have had to give anything back, but it would have made it easier for contributors to give to both branches. (Or just copy the code between the two).</p><p>The GPL has actually caused me to drop Linux. I want ZFS for my home server, zfs is not the answer (maxing out 2 cores to copy files?!). Because of the whole "GPL or the highway" approach, even though ZFS IS opensource, it's not 'compatible'.</p><p>FreeBSD has no qualms, so I'm in the process of migrating my servers to FreebSD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux was under the BSD license , they would n't have had to give anything back , but it would have made it easier for contributors to give to both branches .
( Or just copy the code between the two ) .The GPL has actually caused me to drop Linux .
I want ZFS for my home server , zfs is not the answer ( maxing out 2 cores to copy files ? ! ) .
Because of the whole " GPL or the highway " approach , even though ZFS IS opensource , it 's not 'compatible'.FreeBSD has no qualms , so I 'm in the process of migrating my servers to FreebSD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux was under the BSD license, they wouldn't have had to give anything back, but it would have made it easier for contributors to give to both branches.
(Or just copy the code between the two).The GPL has actually caused me to drop Linux.
I want ZFS for my home server, zfs is not the answer (maxing out 2 cores to copy files?!).
Because of the whole "GPL or the highway" approach, even though ZFS IS opensource, it's not 'compatible'.FreeBSD has no qualms, so I'm in the process of migrating my servers to FreebSD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31016880</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1264942140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apparently Google employees have mod points today.</p></div><p>Well, duh. Google employees always have mod-points. Where do you think slashdot gets them from in the first place?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently Google employees have mod points today.Well , duh .
Google employees always have mod-points .
Where do you think slashdot gets them from in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently Google employees have mod points today.Well, duh.
Google employees always have mod-points.
Where do you think slashdot gets them from in the first place?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31017842</id>
	<title>Lazy</title>
	<author>CrypticSpawn</author>
	<datestamp>1264948800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>GPL says contribute your changes.  Doesn't say one thing about contribute your changes, and make sure they work in the main tree.  He himself said they were doing it, until people started complaining about how things were written or what not.  So they stopped.  I don't blame them one bit.  It is kind of like writing a library to be in PEAR, you have a piece of code that works.  And and you see people asking for a library and you submit it for a vote, they first don't like that you used the PHP license, they want you to use the BSD license, then they don't like your naming of the methods.  Hell, has the people running PEAR, looked at the naming conventions of PHP (addslashes, mysql\_connect)  I basically said flip that and put it on google code.  There are forks all the time in the linux kernel, they usually die out, but wouldn't it be fun if googles kernel was the only one to survive?</htmltext>
<tokenext>GPL says contribute your changes .
Does n't say one thing about contribute your changes , and make sure they work in the main tree .
He himself said they were doing it , until people started complaining about how things were written or what not .
So they stopped .
I do n't blame them one bit .
It is kind of like writing a library to be in PEAR , you have a piece of code that works .
And and you see people asking for a library and you submit it for a vote , they first do n't like that you used the PHP license , they want you to use the BSD license , then they do n't like your naming of the methods .
Hell , has the people running PEAR , looked at the naming conventions of PHP ( addslashes , mysql \ _connect ) I basically said flip that and put it on google code .
There are forks all the time in the linux kernel , they usually die out , but would n't it be fun if googles kernel was the only one to survive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GPL says contribute your changes.
Doesn't say one thing about contribute your changes, and make sure they work in the main tree.
He himself said they were doing it, until people started complaining about how things were written or what not.
So they stopped.
I don't blame them one bit.
It is kind of like writing a library to be in PEAR, you have a piece of code that works.
And and you see people asking for a library and you submit it for a vote, they first don't like that you used the PHP license, they want you to use the BSD license, then they don't like your naming of the methods.
Hell, has the people running PEAR, looked at the naming conventions of PHP (addslashes, mysql\_connect)  I basically said flip that and put it on google code.
There are forks all the time in the linux kernel, they usually die out, but wouldn't it be fun if googles kernel was the only one to survive?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31016474</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1264939860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hence the whole hulla-bulloo over BTRFS.  If Linux had a license compatible with ZFS, then this wouldn't be an issue.  But it's not, so they have to do a clean-room implementation of the whole thing.  Nevermind the wars about VFS layering, and whether a filesystem should be doing snapshotting and volume management or not.<br><br>I so wanted to run OpenFiler for my NAS.  But their lack of support for CF media drove me to EON (OpenSolaris) with my 6TB RAIDZ2 array.  FreeNAS still has ZFS as experimental, and I'm just not ready to trust experimental to my data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hence the whole hulla-bulloo over BTRFS .
If Linux had a license compatible with ZFS , then this would n't be an issue .
But it 's not , so they have to do a clean-room implementation of the whole thing .
Nevermind the wars about VFS layering , and whether a filesystem should be doing snapshotting and volume management or not.I so wanted to run OpenFiler for my NAS .
But their lack of support for CF media drove me to EON ( OpenSolaris ) with my 6TB RAIDZ2 array .
FreeNAS still has ZFS as experimental , and I 'm just not ready to trust experimental to my data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hence the whole hulla-bulloo over BTRFS.
If Linux had a license compatible with ZFS, then this wouldn't be an issue.
But it's not, so they have to do a clean-room implementation of the whole thing.
Nevermind the wars about VFS layering, and whether a filesystem should be doing snapshotting and volume management or not.I so wanted to run OpenFiler for my NAS.
But their lack of support for CF media drove me to EON (OpenSolaris) with my 6TB RAIDZ2 array.
FreeNAS still has ZFS as experimental, and I'm just not ready to trust experimental to my data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014662</id>
	<title>Lots of comments on LWN.net's coverage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264931460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you head over to LWN, we've already gone back and forth on this a bit. <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/372419/" title="lwn.net">http://lwn.net/Articles/372419/</a> [lwn.net]. The short form is that if they don't like how we use the kernel, we're unlikely to be accepted upstream. It's all still released as source code to the world, but the mainline is not interested in most of what we've with to the kernel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you head over to LWN , we 've already gone back and forth on this a bit .
http : //lwn.net/Articles/372419/ [ lwn.net ] .
The short form is that if they do n't like how we use the kernel , we 're unlikely to be accepted upstream .
It 's all still released as source code to the world , but the mainline is not interested in most of what we 've with to the kernel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you head over to LWN, we've already gone back and forth on this a bit.
http://lwn.net/Articles/372419/ [lwn.net].
The short form is that if they don't like how we use the kernel, we're unlikely to be accepted upstream.
It's all still released as source code to the world, but the mainline is not interested in most of what we've with to the kernel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014844</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>nietsch</author>
	<datestamp>1264932540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well good on ya! Drop it if you like, or make it into a balmerbot and let it throw chairs at your Linus idol, I don;t really care (but I do want to see the vids though:). Linux is available in a LOT of different flavours. The free BSD's however have much less mind and market-share. Yes you may argue OSX is a BSD variant, but there you have a company that is more evil then google IMHO.<br>Nobody forced them to built on a linux kernel, they choose that one partially because it was Open and Free. On top of that they built an operating system that they could have kept very closed. (The GPL kernel does not imply anything about the licence of the software that runs on top of it), but they chose not to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well good on ya !
Drop it if you like , or make it into a balmerbot and let it throw chairs at your Linus idol , I don ; t really care ( but I do want to see the vids though : ) .
Linux is available in a LOT of different flavours .
The free BSD 's however have much less mind and market-share .
Yes you may argue OSX is a BSD variant , but there you have a company that is more evil then google IMHO.Nobody forced them to built on a linux kernel , they choose that one partially because it was Open and Free .
On top of that they built an operating system that they could have kept very closed .
( The GPL kernel does not imply anything about the licence of the software that runs on top of it ) , but they chose not to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well good on ya!
Drop it if you like, or make it into a balmerbot and let it throw chairs at your Linus idol, I don;t really care (but I do want to see the vids though:).
Linux is available in a LOT of different flavours.
The free BSD's however have much less mind and market-share.
Yes you may argue OSX is a BSD variant, but there you have a company that is more evil then google IMHO.Nobody forced them to built on a linux kernel, they choose that one partially because it was Open and Free.
On top of that they built an operating system that they could have kept very closed.
(The GPL kernel does not imply anything about the licence of the software that runs on top of it), but they chose not to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31018566</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of comments on LWN.net's coverage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264955460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AC commenting pussy, show some respect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AC commenting pussy , show some respect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AC commenting pussy, show some respect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015700</id>
	<title>In summary...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264936380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google has silently forked the kernel.  There is an 'Android' kernel, and the mainline kernel</p><p>Is this the first time this has happened?</p><p>Will it matter?</p><p>Apparently, this is <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/03/android\_driver\_code\_deleted\_from\_linux\_kernel/" title="theregister.co.uk">reasonably well understood</a> [theregister.co.uk].</p><p>I, for one, welcome our Android kernel overlords.  My phone doesn't need server optimizations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has silently forked the kernel .
There is an 'Android ' kernel , and the mainline kernelIs this the first time this has happened ? Will it matter ? Apparently , this is reasonably well understood [ theregister.co.uk ] .I , for one , welcome our Android kernel overlords .
My phone does n't need server optimizations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has silently forked the kernel.
There is an 'Android' kernel, and the mainline kernelIs this the first time this has happened?Will it matter?Apparently, this is reasonably well understood [theregister.co.uk].I, for one, welcome our Android kernel overlords.
My phone doesn't need server optimizations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015524</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of comments on LWN.net's coverage</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1264935600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>isn't that what they should be allowed to do if open source is striving for the freedom to use the code as you wish?</htmltext>
<tokenext>is n't that what they should be allowed to do if open source is striving for the freedom to use the code as you wish ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>isn't that what they should be allowed to do if open source is striving for the freedom to use the code as you wish?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015040</id>
	<title>Technical aspects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264933560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"OMG fork!" and other political issues aside, I think it's interesting to look at the technical side of the problem. What is the exact nature of Google's changes to the kernel, why did they feel they need them, and are they actually a good idea or not? Can someone with kernel hacking experience enlighten us?</p><p>I'm particularly curious after reading the <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/372419/" title="lwn.net">comments on LWN</a> [lwn.net], and specifically <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/372576/" title="lwn.net">this</a> [lwn.net]:</p><p><i>Kernel developers (including other embedded developers who have achieved good power savings modes) don't believe that the Android way of doing things is good.</i></p><p>and <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/372631/" title="lwn.net">this</a> [lwn.net]:</p><p><i>The code could be mainlined if Google were willing to consider that their wakelock approach was suboptimal and adapt to a more reasonable one.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</i></p><p><i>The wakelock patches were  first posted to the linux-pm list on the 13th of January 2009, which is just over a year ago. <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/318611/" title="lwn.net">http://lwn.net/Articles/318611/</a> [lwn.net] gives a good overview of how they were received - there's  basically no buy in, even from other developers in the embedded Linux field.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</i></p><p><i>the major sticking point (ie, wakelocks) were posted for public review a year ago and most of the substantive issues people had with them weren't addressed at all in the four months of intermittent discussion that followed. If the entire world suggests that you do something in some other way and you refuse to, that doesn't constitute a genuine effort to work with them. Nokia  have managed to obtain the same level of power management without such invasive changes,  so any assertion that wakelocks are required for Android to achieve its goals seem pretty baseless.</i></p><p>So apparently the issue at the heart of this is a questionable design decision by Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" OMG fork !
" and other political issues aside , I think it 's interesting to look at the technical side of the problem .
What is the exact nature of Google 's changes to the kernel , why did they feel they need them , and are they actually a good idea or not ?
Can someone with kernel hacking experience enlighten us ? I 'm particularly curious after reading the comments on LWN [ lwn.net ] , and specifically this [ lwn.net ] : Kernel developers ( including other embedded developers who have achieved good power savings modes ) do n't believe that the Android way of doing things is good.and this [ lwn.net ] : The code could be mainlined if Google were willing to consider that their wakelock approach was suboptimal and adapt to a more reasonable one .
...The wakelock patches were first posted to the linux-pm list on the 13th of January 2009 , which is just over a year ago .
http : //lwn.net/Articles/318611/ [ lwn.net ] gives a good overview of how they were received - there 's basically no buy in , even from other developers in the embedded Linux field .
...the major sticking point ( ie , wakelocks ) were posted for public review a year ago and most of the substantive issues people had with them were n't addressed at all in the four months of intermittent discussion that followed .
If the entire world suggests that you do something in some other way and you refuse to , that does n't constitute a genuine effort to work with them .
Nokia have managed to obtain the same level of power management without such invasive changes , so any assertion that wakelocks are required for Android to achieve its goals seem pretty baseless.So apparently the issue at the heart of this is a questionable design decision by Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"OMG fork!
" and other political issues aside, I think it's interesting to look at the technical side of the problem.
What is the exact nature of Google's changes to the kernel, why did they feel they need them, and are they actually a good idea or not?
Can someone with kernel hacking experience enlighten us?I'm particularly curious after reading the comments on LWN [lwn.net], and specifically this [lwn.net]:Kernel developers (including other embedded developers who have achieved good power savings modes) don't believe that the Android way of doing things is good.and this [lwn.net]:The code could be mainlined if Google were willing to consider that their wakelock approach was suboptimal and adapt to a more reasonable one.
...The wakelock patches were  first posted to the linux-pm list on the 13th of January 2009, which is just over a year ago.
http://lwn.net/Articles/318611/ [lwn.net] gives a good overview of how they were received - there's  basically no buy in, even from other developers in the embedded Linux field.
...the major sticking point (ie, wakelocks) were posted for public review a year ago and most of the substantive issues people had with them weren't addressed at all in the four months of intermittent discussion that followed.
If the entire world suggests that you do something in some other way and you refuse to, that doesn't constitute a genuine effort to work with them.
Nokia  have managed to obtain the same level of power management without such invasive changes,  so any assertion that wakelocks are required for Android to achieve its goals seem pretty baseless.So apparently the issue at the heart of this is a questionable design decision by Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31018016</id>
	<title>Btrfs vs ZFS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264950420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.codestrom.com/wandering/2009/03/zfs-vs-btrfs-comparison.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.codestrom.com/wandering/2009/03/zfs-vs-btrfs-comparison.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.codestrom.com/wandering/2009/03/zfs-vs-btrfs-comparison.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015976</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of comments on LWN.net's coverage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264937460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The kernel community simply disagrees with *how* Google solved the problems. Long ago Google could have asked "we need to optimize power usage by doing agressive suspend" and then worked with the kernel community to get a solution that everyone was happy with.</p></div><p>Unfortunately, this is Google's standard operating procedure. Don't get me wrong, I like Google and enjoy tinkering with Android, but its far from perfect. And don't make suggestions to the core developers as some are more than happy to give you the middle finger for simply not bowing to their brilliance. Some of them are pretty good, but some are brilliant at being assholes. I mean, look at some of their widgets. Eeek! Its as if the people who wrote some of the widgets had never actually used UI widgets before. Saw someone politely make suggestion and the Google engineer rudely ignored them after telling them they were wrong.</p><p>Should double clicking of a button, which opens a new window, result in two new windows being opened? No. Shouldn't widgets maintain state? Yes. According to Google's they do yet cancel doesn't actually cancel despite the fact they've already notified the user of the change. Its up to applications to actually track state and cancel it. So on and so on. If a widget's cancel doesn't actually cancel, I don't believe that qualifies as stateful.</p><p>Despite Google's assurances everything they do is better than anything you could ever do, sadly the truth is nowhere near. Google very much has a problem with not invented here and in some cases, a complete lack of consultation with people who actually know what the hell is going on. As a result, some things Google does are just truly horrific, lacking any clue, forcing developers to add lots of code to work around their huge ego and seemingly lack of real world experience.</p><p>I'm posting anonymously because some of the Google engineers also hold petty grudges.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The kernel community simply disagrees with * how * Google solved the problems .
Long ago Google could have asked " we need to optimize power usage by doing agressive suspend " and then worked with the kernel community to get a solution that everyone was happy with.Unfortunately , this is Google 's standard operating procedure .
Do n't get me wrong , I like Google and enjoy tinkering with Android , but its far from perfect .
And do n't make suggestions to the core developers as some are more than happy to give you the middle finger for simply not bowing to their brilliance .
Some of them are pretty good , but some are brilliant at being assholes .
I mean , look at some of their widgets .
Eeek ! Its as if the people who wrote some of the widgets had never actually used UI widgets before .
Saw someone politely make suggestion and the Google engineer rudely ignored them after telling them they were wrong.Should double clicking of a button , which opens a new window , result in two new windows being opened ?
No. Should n't widgets maintain state ?
Yes. According to Google 's they do yet cancel does n't actually cancel despite the fact they 've already notified the user of the change .
Its up to applications to actually track state and cancel it .
So on and so on .
If a widget 's cancel does n't actually cancel , I do n't believe that qualifies as stateful.Despite Google 's assurances everything they do is better than anything you could ever do , sadly the truth is nowhere near .
Google very much has a problem with not invented here and in some cases , a complete lack of consultation with people who actually know what the hell is going on .
As a result , some things Google does are just truly horrific , lacking any clue , forcing developers to add lots of code to work around their huge ego and seemingly lack of real world experience.I 'm posting anonymously because some of the Google engineers also hold petty grudges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The kernel community simply disagrees with *how* Google solved the problems.
Long ago Google could have asked "we need to optimize power usage by doing agressive suspend" and then worked with the kernel community to get a solution that everyone was happy with.Unfortunately, this is Google's standard operating procedure.
Don't get me wrong, I like Google and enjoy tinkering with Android, but its far from perfect.
And don't make suggestions to the core developers as some are more than happy to give you the middle finger for simply not bowing to their brilliance.
Some of them are pretty good, but some are brilliant at being assholes.
I mean, look at some of their widgets.
Eeek! Its as if the people who wrote some of the widgets had never actually used UI widgets before.
Saw someone politely make suggestion and the Google engineer rudely ignored them after telling them they were wrong.Should double clicking of a button, which opens a new window, result in two new windows being opened?
No. Shouldn't widgets maintain state?
Yes. According to Google's they do yet cancel doesn't actually cancel despite the fact they've already notified the user of the change.
Its up to applications to actually track state and cancel it.
So on and so on.
If a widget's cancel doesn't actually cancel, I don't believe that qualifies as stateful.Despite Google's assurances everything they do is better than anything you could ever do, sadly the truth is nowhere near.
Google very much has a problem with not invented here and in some cases, a complete lack of consultation with people who actually know what the hell is going on.
As a result, some things Google does are just truly horrific, lacking any clue, forcing developers to add lots of code to work around their huge ego and seemingly lack of real world experience.I'm posting anonymously because some of the Google engineers also hold petty grudges.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31026126</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of comments on LWN.net's coverage</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1265274480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>if they don't like how we use the kernel, we're unlikely to be accepted upstream</i></p><p>I think we all know how this story ends - it's only a matter of how long it takes and how much it costs to get sync'ed back up with mainline.</p><p>Given that, the longer it takes the more it's going to cost everybody, so better to just get on with it now, and it's done when it's done (assuming you can offset future budget with current budget).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if they do n't like how we use the kernel , we 're unlikely to be accepted upstreamI think we all know how this story ends - it 's only a matter of how long it takes and how much it costs to get sync'ed back up with mainline.Given that , the longer it takes the more it 's going to cost everybody , so better to just get on with it now , and it 's done when it 's done ( assuming you can offset future budget with current budget ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if they don't like how we use the kernel, we're unlikely to be accepted upstreamI think we all know how this story ends - it's only a matter of how long it takes and how much it costs to get sync'ed back up with mainline.Given that, the longer it takes the more it's going to cost everybody, so better to just get on with it now, and it's done when it's done (assuming you can offset future budget with current budget).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014498</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264930680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is called Embrace, Extend and Extinguish. I thought it only applies to MS. Well I think, Do no Evil is gone through the window<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is called Embrace , Extend and Extinguish .
I thought it only applies to MS. Well I think , Do no Evil is gone through the window : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is called Embrace, Extend and Extinguish.
I thought it only applies to MS. Well I think, Do no Evil is gone through the window :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014340</id>
	<title>Google</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1264929900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because Google doesn't have their code merged into the mainline, these companies creating drivers and platform code are locked out from ever contributing it back to the kernel community.</p><p>Google shows no sign of working to get their code upstream anymore.</p></div><p>Oh come on, was it really a surprise to anyone that Google does only care about OSS when it suits them and drops out instantly when it doesn't. All of their own sites, business and back-end technology is just as closed as Microsoft's.</p><p>I see someone coming along and saying "but they contribute to open source!". Sure, they do, they release little snippets of code and open source those products they base on OSS code <i>because they have to by GPL</i>. One could seriously argue if their open sourcing efforts are making better open source community in general, or not. Like TFA states, their ignorance has caused more turmoil than ever before in Linux land. Companies are obviously going to create support and drivers for Android-branch of Linux kernel, but cant contribute the same code back to real Linux kernel. And possibly never will because it costs them too much work, money and time. Even those companies that previously did develop linux drivers. That's not harming Linux and OSS community?</p><p>Get off your lazy ass and see what's really happening.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Google does n't have their code merged into the mainline , these companies creating drivers and platform code are locked out from ever contributing it back to the kernel community.Google shows no sign of working to get their code upstream anymore.Oh come on , was it really a surprise to anyone that Google does only care about OSS when it suits them and drops out instantly when it does n't .
All of their own sites , business and back-end technology is just as closed as Microsoft 's.I see someone coming along and saying " but they contribute to open source ! " .
Sure , they do , they release little snippets of code and open source those products they base on OSS code because they have to by GPL .
One could seriously argue if their open sourcing efforts are making better open source community in general , or not .
Like TFA states , their ignorance has caused more turmoil than ever before in Linux land .
Companies are obviously going to create support and drivers for Android-branch of Linux kernel , but cant contribute the same code back to real Linux kernel .
And possibly never will because it costs them too much work , money and time .
Even those companies that previously did develop linux drivers .
That 's not harming Linux and OSS community ? Get off your lazy ass and see what 's really happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Google doesn't have their code merged into the mainline, these companies creating drivers and platform code are locked out from ever contributing it back to the kernel community.Google shows no sign of working to get their code upstream anymore.Oh come on, was it really a surprise to anyone that Google does only care about OSS when it suits them and drops out instantly when it doesn't.
All of their own sites, business and back-end technology is just as closed as Microsoft's.I see someone coming along and saying "but they contribute to open source!".
Sure, they do, they release little snippets of code and open source those products they base on OSS code because they have to by GPL.
One could seriously argue if their open sourcing efforts are making better open source community in general, or not.
Like TFA states, their ignorance has caused more turmoil than ever before in Linux land.
Companies are obviously going to create support and drivers for Android-branch of Linux kernel, but cant contribute the same code back to real Linux kernel.
And possibly never will because it costs them too much work, money and time.
Even those companies that previously did develop linux drivers.
That's not harming Linux and OSS community?Get off your lazy ass and see what's really happening.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015002</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of comments on LWN.net's coverage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264933320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok. But as far as I know, all new code has to be made fit for the kernel before merging, and not the other way around. So I wonder: can somebody else -outside of Google- cleanup and merge your stuff?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok. But as far as I know , all new code has to be made fit for the kernel before merging , and not the other way around .
So I wonder : can somebody else -outside of Google- cleanup and merge your stuff ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok. But as far as I know, all new code has to be made fit for the kernel before merging, and not the other way around.
So I wonder: can somebody else -outside of Google- cleanup and merge your stuff?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31019456</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Meumeu</author>
	<datestamp>1264966800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The GPL has actually caused me to drop Linux. I want ZFS for my home server, zfs is not the answer (maxing out 2 cores to copy files?!). Because of the whole "GPL or the highway" approach, even though ZFS IS opensource, it's not 'compatible'.</p></div><p>Except ZFS being not compatible with the GPL is not an accident, it was done on purpose by Sun to avoid giving ZFS to Linux. If Linux had been under a BSD license and as successful as it is, you can bet Sun would have managed to make it incompatible with BSD...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The GPL has actually caused me to drop Linux .
I want ZFS for my home server , zfs is not the answer ( maxing out 2 cores to copy files ? ! ) .
Because of the whole " GPL or the highway " approach , even though ZFS IS opensource , it 's not 'compatible'.Except ZFS being not compatible with the GPL is not an accident , it was done on purpose by Sun to avoid giving ZFS to Linux .
If Linux had been under a BSD license and as successful as it is , you can bet Sun would have managed to make it incompatible with BSD.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GPL has actually caused me to drop Linux.
I want ZFS for my home server, zfs is not the answer (maxing out 2 cores to copy files?!).
Because of the whole "GPL or the highway" approach, even though ZFS IS opensource, it's not 'compatible'.Except ZFS being not compatible with the GPL is not an accident, it was done on purpose by Sun to avoid giving ZFS to Linux.
If Linux had been under a BSD license and as successful as it is, you can bet Sun would have managed to make it incompatible with BSD...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31020390</id>
	<title>Shipping an embedded Linux product</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265282820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you're shipping an embedded Linux product you can only debate the relative goodness of an approach for so long. You're on product time, not community time. They shipped their product, people made phone calls, Linux got used in the process.</p><p>Wakelocks are quick and dirty, so they were rejected, but they work for Google's embedded Linux product. The giant VM hack that separates user process space from kernel space was also quick and dirty, but it got in, and now the entire VM is affected by it. 4 KB page size assumption is also a giant problem now, but it got in. There are a million hacks in the Linux kernel, people just bring up Wakelocks because other people have explained them and said "these are bad." Well the emperor has no clothes. Read the code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you 're shipping an embedded Linux product you can only debate the relative goodness of an approach for so long .
You 're on product time , not community time .
They shipped their product , people made phone calls , Linux got used in the process.Wakelocks are quick and dirty , so they were rejected , but they work for Google 's embedded Linux product .
The giant VM hack that separates user process space from kernel space was also quick and dirty , but it got in , and now the entire VM is affected by it .
4 KB page size assumption is also a giant problem now , but it got in .
There are a million hacks in the Linux kernel , people just bring up Wakelocks because other people have explained them and said " these are bad .
" Well the emperor has no clothes .
Read the code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you're shipping an embedded Linux product you can only debate the relative goodness of an approach for so long.
You're on product time, not community time.
They shipped their product, people made phone calls, Linux got used in the process.Wakelocks are quick and dirty, so they were rejected, but they work for Google's embedded Linux product.
The giant VM hack that separates user process space from kernel space was also quick and dirty, but it got in, and now the entire VM is affected by it.
4 KB page size assumption is also a giant problem now, but it got in.
There are a million hacks in the Linux kernel, people just bring up Wakelocks because other people have explained them and said "these are bad.
" Well the emperor has no clothes.
Read the code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31018410</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of comments on LWN.net's coverage</title>
	<author>Obsequious</author>
	<datestamp>1264953720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do you even bother, man?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you even bother , man ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you even bother, man?
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31020376</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>RichM</author>
	<datestamp>1265282700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Where BSD has found a niche is in Network appliances such as routers and firewalls.</p></div></blockquote><p>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_router\_or\_firewall\_distributions" title="wikipedia.org">Incorrect</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where BSD has found a niche is in Network appliances such as routers and firewalls .
Incorrect [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where BSD has found a niche is in Network appliances such as routers and firewalls.
Incorrect [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31016708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31018492</id>
	<title>google should open all their code!!</title>
	<author>frvfilmslashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1264954560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>help humanity get knowledge inovation</htmltext>
<tokenext>help humanity get knowledge inovation</tokentext>
<sentencetext>help humanity get knowledge inovation</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31016708</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1264941120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Server room, depends.  Desktop, BSD is still beating Linux (Thanks to Apple.)  Where BSD has found a niche is in Network appliances such as routers and firewalls.  FBSD still has a superior networking stack from what I've seen.  I know we use pfSense around here and Monowall before that.  We also deploy Juniper networking equipment and JunOS is based on FreeBSD.</p><p>We actually deploy all our production servers on FreeBSD including our PostgreSQL and MySQL database servers.  And they do so with rock solid realiability. The only time I can think of boxes crashing had to do with hardware failures.  Including a couple boxes that were still running FBSD 6.x.  We didn't bother taking them offline to upgrade until we replaced the hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Server room , depends .
Desktop , BSD is still beating Linux ( Thanks to Apple .
) Where BSD has found a niche is in Network appliances such as routers and firewalls .
FBSD still has a superior networking stack from what I 've seen .
I know we use pfSense around here and Monowall before that .
We also deploy Juniper networking equipment and JunOS is based on FreeBSD.We actually deploy all our production servers on FreeBSD including our PostgreSQL and MySQL database servers .
And they do so with rock solid realiability .
The only time I can think of boxes crashing had to do with hardware failures .
Including a couple boxes that were still running FBSD 6.x .
We did n't bother taking them offline to upgrade until we replaced the hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Server room, depends.
Desktop, BSD is still beating Linux (Thanks to Apple.
)  Where BSD has found a niche is in Network appliances such as routers and firewalls.
FBSD still has a superior networking stack from what I've seen.
I know we use pfSense around here and Monowall before that.
We also deploy Juniper networking equipment and JunOS is based on FreeBSD.We actually deploy all our production servers on FreeBSD including our PostgreSQL and MySQL database servers.
And they do so with rock solid realiability.
The only time I can think of boxes crashing had to do with hardware failures.
Including a couple boxes that were still running FBSD 6.x.
We didn't bother taking them offline to upgrade until we replaced the hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31019294</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of comments on LWN.net's coverage</title>
	<author>Pastis</author>
	<datestamp>1264964160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing I don't understand is that chosing Linux is to implicitly acknowledge that the Linux development model works.</p><p>And the Linux development model is about working with the community and getting things accepted upstream. Sure you can maintain a fork, but that's typically not done and considered not optimum.</p><p>And when you see now that your downstream clients are asking help from the Linux community to get their things accepted, there's clearly a problem.</p><p>So now, I really hope that if one day Google finds that their approach wasn't the best one, that they do a retrospective / 5 why's / whatever session and find out that maybe they should have had a different interaction with the community.</p><p>Getting things to market is important. Getting it with too much code clutter may not be the best thing in the long run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing I do n't understand is that chosing Linux is to implicitly acknowledge that the Linux development model works.And the Linux development model is about working with the community and getting things accepted upstream .
Sure you can maintain a fork , but that 's typically not done and considered not optimum.And when you see now that your downstream clients are asking help from the Linux community to get their things accepted , there 's clearly a problem.So now , I really hope that if one day Google finds that their approach was n't the best one , that they do a retrospective / 5 why 's / whatever session and find out that maybe they should have had a different interaction with the community.Getting things to market is important .
Getting it with too much code clutter may not be the best thing in the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing I don't understand is that chosing Linux is to implicitly acknowledge that the Linux development model works.And the Linux development model is about working with the community and getting things accepted upstream.
Sure you can maintain a fork, but that's typically not done and considered not optimum.And when you see now that your downstream clients are asking help from the Linux community to get their things accepted, there's clearly a problem.So now, I really hope that if one day Google finds that their approach wasn't the best one, that they do a retrospective / 5 why's / whatever session and find out that maybe they should have had a different interaction with the community.Getting things to market is important.
Getting it with too much code clutter may not be the best thing in the long run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31020888</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of comments on LWN.net's coverage</title>
	<author>Eunuchswear</author>
	<datestamp>1265289600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Might be rather hard to "clean up".  Back in 2008 <a href="http://mjg59.livejournal.com/100221.html" title="livejournal.com">Mathew Garret wrote:</a> [livejournal.com] </p><blockquote><div><p>Google was going to be an interesting case of a large company hiring people both from the embedded world and also the existing Linux development community and then producing an embedded device that was intended to compete with the very best existing platforms. I had high hopes that this combination of factors would result in the Linux community as a whole having a better idea what the constraints and requirements for high-quality power management in the embedded world were, rather than us ending up with another pile of vendor code sitting on an FTP site somewhere in Taiwan that implements its power management by passing tokenised dead mice through a wormhole.</p><p>To a certain extent, my hopes were fulfilled. We got a git server in California.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Might be rather hard to " clean up " .
Back in 2008 Mathew Garret wrote : [ livejournal.com ] Google was going to be an interesting case of a large company hiring people both from the embedded world and also the existing Linux development community and then producing an embedded device that was intended to compete with the very best existing platforms .
I had high hopes that this combination of factors would result in the Linux community as a whole having a better idea what the constraints and requirements for high-quality power management in the embedded world were , rather than us ending up with another pile of vendor code sitting on an FTP site somewhere in Taiwan that implements its power management by passing tokenised dead mice through a wormhole.To a certain extent , my hopes were fulfilled .
We got a git server in California .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Might be rather hard to "clean up".
Back in 2008 Mathew Garret wrote: [livejournal.com] Google was going to be an interesting case of a large company hiring people both from the embedded world and also the existing Linux development community and then producing an embedded device that was intended to compete with the very best existing platforms.
I had high hopes that this combination of factors would result in the Linux community as a whole having a better idea what the constraints and requirements for high-quality power management in the embedded world were, rather than us ending up with another pile of vendor code sitting on an FTP site somewhere in Taiwan that implements its power management by passing tokenised dead mice through a wormhole.To a certain extent, my hopes were fulfilled.
We got a git server in California.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015544</id>
	<title>Re:An oldie but a goodie:</title>
	<author>Virtucon</author>
	<datestamp>1264935660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Embrace, Extend and Eradicate is more like it.</p><p>This is what I love about FOSS, these little tiffs can now be on public display to just show how petty organizations or individuals can be.</p><p>I don't pretend to understand why this rift exists however I do know that market forces can move mountains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Embrace , Extend and Eradicate is more like it.This is what I love about FOSS , these little tiffs can now be on public display to just show how petty organizations or individuals can be.I do n't pretend to understand why this rift exists however I do know that market forces can move mountains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Embrace, Extend and Eradicate is more like it.This is what I love about FOSS, these little tiffs can now be on public display to just show how petty organizations or individuals can be.I don't pretend to understand why this rift exists however I do know that market forces can move mountains.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015294</id>
	<title>Re:Lots of comments on LWN.net's coverage</title>
	<author>diegocg</author>
	<datestamp>1264934700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is perfectly fine, but it shows the autism in the google culture when it comes to working with people from outside. There're many companies working on Linux (doing more serious hacking than Android does), and they have learnt to interact with the Linux community when they want to add a feature. They ask maintainers what design they should follow to implement some feature. They listen, they write code, they get reviews, they make changes, they repost the patches. In other words, they interact with the community, they are a <i>part</i> of the community. SGI, for example, has done a tremendous amount of work in the past years to get the kernel in shape for their beasts with thousands of CPUs, they have touched a lot of complex core code, yet they did all contributing with the community, targetting the main kernel in first place.</p><p>Google, in the other hand, is not a "part" of the community. It hacks the kernel for months without any contact outside of Google, some day it announces a future product using the code and only after that, it drops a shitload of code to the community which does very weird things that many Linux hackers don't like. Then it does nothing to improve the design (because there's already production code depending on it), and it makes zero efforts to fix it or get it merged. Then it claims that everything is fine, because the code is GPL which means you can reuse it. In other words: Google doesn't care about what the rest of the community thinks before modifying the code, and it doesn't care when it releases either.</p><p>Given that Android is supposed to be not just a Google project but a community, and Google is a opensource oriented company, one would expect that Google would have done it better. Sadly, Android has become one of the best examples of how <b>not</b> to work in a opensource community,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is perfectly fine , but it shows the autism in the google culture when it comes to working with people from outside .
There 're many companies working on Linux ( doing more serious hacking than Android does ) , and they have learnt to interact with the Linux community when they want to add a feature .
They ask maintainers what design they should follow to implement some feature .
They listen , they write code , they get reviews , they make changes , they repost the patches .
In other words , they interact with the community , they are a part of the community .
SGI , for example , has done a tremendous amount of work in the past years to get the kernel in shape for their beasts with thousands of CPUs , they have touched a lot of complex core code , yet they did all contributing with the community , targetting the main kernel in first place.Google , in the other hand , is not a " part " of the community .
It hacks the kernel for months without any contact outside of Google , some day it announces a future product using the code and only after that , it drops a shitload of code to the community which does very weird things that many Linux hackers do n't like .
Then it does nothing to improve the design ( because there 's already production code depending on it ) , and it makes zero efforts to fix it or get it merged .
Then it claims that everything is fine , because the code is GPL which means you can reuse it .
In other words : Google does n't care about what the rest of the community thinks before modifying the code , and it does n't care when it releases either.Given that Android is supposed to be not just a Google project but a community , and Google is a opensource oriented company , one would expect that Google would have done it better .
Sadly , Android has become one of the best examples of how not to work in a opensource community,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is perfectly fine, but it shows the autism in the google culture when it comes to working with people from outside.
There're many companies working on Linux (doing more serious hacking than Android does), and they have learnt to interact with the Linux community when they want to add a feature.
They ask maintainers what design they should follow to implement some feature.
They listen, they write code, they get reviews, they make changes, they repost the patches.
In other words, they interact with the community, they are a part of the community.
SGI, for example, has done a tremendous amount of work in the past years to get the kernel in shape for their beasts with thousands of CPUs, they have touched a lot of complex core code, yet they did all contributing with the community, targetting the main kernel in first place.Google, in the other hand, is not a "part" of the community.
It hacks the kernel for months without any contact outside of Google, some day it announces a future product using the code and only after that, it drops a shitload of code to the community which does very weird things that many Linux hackers don't like.
Then it does nothing to improve the design (because there's already production code depending on it), and it makes zero efforts to fix it or get it merged.
Then it claims that everything is fine, because the code is GPL which means you can reuse it.
In other words: Google doesn't care about what the rest of the community thinks before modifying the code, and it doesn't care when it releases either.Given that Android is supposed to be not just a Google project but a community, and Google is a opensource oriented company, one would expect that Google would have done it better.
Sadly, Android has become one of the best examples of how not to work in a opensource community,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015096</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264933800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I also had mod points, but I bumped you down to encourage the Google conspiracy theorists. It's nice to have some of the attention off of me for a change.
<br> <br>
-Steve B.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also had mod points , but I bumped you down to encourage the Google conspiracy theorists .
It 's nice to have some of the attention off of me for a change .
-Steve B .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also had mod points, but I bumped you down to encourage the Google conspiracy theorists.
It's nice to have some of the attention off of me for a change.
-Steve B.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014462</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31016474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31019456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31018410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31025180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31020888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31016106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31016880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31019294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31079396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31016708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31020376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31016708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31018016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31026126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31016636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1932222_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31018566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1932222.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1932222.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1932222.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31019374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1932222.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31016880
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014970
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31016474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31016636
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31019456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014794
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31018016
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31016708
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31079396
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31020376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1932222.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31014662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31018410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31018566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31026126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31016106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31020888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31019294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1932222.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1932222.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31015700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1932222.31025180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
