<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_09_2341249</id>
	<title>A "Never Reboot" Service For Linux</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265718060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"<a href="http://www.ksplice.com/">Ksplice</a>, the company based on the <a href="//tech.slashdot.org/story/08/04/24/1334234/Patch-the-Linux-Kernel-Without-Reboots">MIT Ksplice project</a>, is now offering its 'never reboot' service for Red Hat, Debian, and other Linux distros. You subscribe and get real-time kernel security updates that apply in-memory instead of rebooting. Last summer we discussed the <a href="//linux.slashdot.org/story/09/06/27/2238255/Ksplice-Offers-Rebootless-Updates-For-Ubuntu-Systems">free service for Ubuntu</a>. Cool tech, but will people really <a href="http://www.ksplice.com/pricing">pay $4 a month</a> for this?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Ksplice , the company based on the MIT Ksplice project , is now offering its 'never reboot ' service for Red Hat , Debian , and other Linux distros .
You subscribe and get real-time kernel security updates that apply in-memory instead of rebooting .
Last summer we discussed the free service for Ubuntu .
Cool tech , but will people really pay $ 4 a month for this ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Ksplice, the company based on the MIT Ksplice project, is now offering its 'never reboot' service for Red Hat, Debian, and other Linux distros.
You subscribe and get real-time kernel security updates that apply in-memory instead of rebooting.
Last summer we discussed the free service for Ubuntu.
Cool tech, but will people really pay $4 a month for this?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081564</id>
	<title>hi, let me introduce you to the year 2010</title>
	<author>dAzED1</author>
	<datestamp>1265730780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Years - I mean years - ago I was doing hot patches to Sun boxes that needed to stay up forever no questions.</p><p>Enter the mid 00's, when the cloud became useable.  Enter the late 90s, when Beowulf made computational clustering with commodity products trivial.  MCServiceGuard from...whatever year, etc etc etc.</p><p>Point is, anything that someone thinks is so important that they want to never reboot a system...should have 2 systems that cost half as much each running as a high-availability app cluster.  Anyone with any sense knows that it is supposed to be a <i>service</i> that is always available, not a <i>server</i>.   Patch it and reboot it, ya goofball.  Let your load balancers and app clusters take care of the temporary loss of one of your servers.  Why is this even a question?  What semi-decent app doesn't have HA built in to it these days?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Years - I mean years - ago I was doing hot patches to Sun boxes that needed to stay up forever no questions.Enter the mid 00 's , when the cloud became useable .
Enter the late 90s , when Beowulf made computational clustering with commodity products trivial .
MCServiceGuard from...whatever year , etc etc etc.Point is , anything that someone thinks is so important that they want to never reboot a system...should have 2 systems that cost half as much each running as a high-availability app cluster .
Anyone with any sense knows that it is supposed to be a service that is always available , not a server .
Patch it and reboot it , ya goofball .
Let your load balancers and app clusters take care of the temporary loss of one of your servers .
Why is this even a question ?
What semi-decent app does n't have HA built in to it these days ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Years - I mean years - ago I was doing hot patches to Sun boxes that needed to stay up forever no questions.Enter the mid 00's, when the cloud became useable.
Enter the late 90s, when Beowulf made computational clustering with commodity products trivial.
MCServiceGuard from...whatever year, etc etc etc.Point is, anything that someone thinks is so important that they want to never reboot a system...should have 2 systems that cost half as much each running as a high-availability app cluster.
Anyone with any sense knows that it is supposed to be a service that is always available, not a server.
Patch it and reboot it, ya goofball.
Let your load balancers and app clusters take care of the temporary loss of one of your servers.
Why is this even a question?
What semi-decent app doesn't have HA built in to it these days?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083422</id>
	<title>Re:How long till they..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265019840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's people like you that keep our computing ecosystem in the dark ages. I'm sure you have a lot of support in the security, anti-virus, consultancy industry. Without a hideously poor product (which only survives in the free market due to an illegal monopoly) you people would have to do something more worthwhile to earn your salary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's people like you that keep our computing ecosystem in the dark ages .
I 'm sure you have a lot of support in the security , anti-virus , consultancy industry .
Without a hideously poor product ( which only survives in the free market due to an illegal monopoly ) you people would have to do something more worthwhile to earn your salary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's people like you that keep our computing ecosystem in the dark ages.
I'm sure you have a lot of support in the security, anti-virus, consultancy industry.
Without a hideously poor product (which only survives in the free market due to an illegal monopoly) you people would have to do something more worthwhile to earn your salary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080828</id>
	<title>Re:So instead of doing it right...</title>
	<author>BenoitRen</author>
	<datestamp>1265724720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Given there isn't a microkernel with 1/10 the other capabilities/hw support/usage of linux, doesn't it make sense to add stuff to linux instead of waiting for this mythical desktop microkernel.</p></div> </blockquote><p>No. Linux is, and has always been, predominantly for servers. It's a losing battle to turn it into the perfect desktop OS.</p><p>I'm waiting for Haiku.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given there is n't a microkernel with 1/10 the other capabilities/hw support/usage of linux , does n't it make sense to add stuff to linux instead of waiting for this mythical desktop microkernel .
No. Linux is , and has always been , predominantly for servers .
It 's a losing battle to turn it into the perfect desktop OS.I 'm waiting for Haiku .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given there isn't a microkernel with 1/10 the other capabilities/hw support/usage of linux, doesn't it make sense to add stuff to linux instead of waiting for this mythical desktop microkernel.
No. Linux is, and has always been, predominantly for servers.
It's a losing battle to turn it into the perfect desktop OS.I'm waiting for Haiku.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081666</id>
	<title>At NORAD...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265731860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know of a VMS system with over 150,000 hours of uptime.  An old VAX 750 that just keeps running... handles satellite ephemeris data.... special solid state disks...</p><p>Makes me wonder if there's any PDP 11's in industrial apps that have just never been turned off, and long ago overflowed their uptime counters.</p><p>Patch that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know of a VMS system with over 150,000 hours of uptime .
An old VAX 750 that just keeps running... handles satellite ephemeris data.... special solid state disks...Makes me wonder if there 's any PDP 11 's in industrial apps that have just never been turned off , and long ago overflowed their uptime counters.Patch that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know of a VMS system with over 150,000 hours of uptime.
An old VAX 750 that just keeps running... handles satellite ephemeris data.... special solid state disks...Makes me wonder if there's any PDP 11's in industrial apps that have just never been turned off, and long ago overflowed their uptime counters.Patch that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083842</id>
	<title>Re:Rebooting is a Good Thing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265025780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How often have you seen someone add a service to a machine which becomes a critical part of your infrastructure then they forget to add it into the RC system?</p></div><p>Never but thanks for asking</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How often have you seen someone add a service to a machine which becomes a critical part of your infrastructure then they forget to add it into the RC system ? Never but thanks for asking</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How often have you seen someone add a service to a machine which becomes a critical part of your infrastructure then they forget to add it into the RC system?Never but thanks for asking
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083248</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1265017800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's evil is "technical" staff who started out on windows and think that a reboot is the perfect way to solve any problems. Rebooting CAUSES problems, it takes ALL your services offline when there might have only been  one that had a problem.<br>I used to have machines at home which had been up so long, i never bothered to configure most of the services to start at boot, and i changed the network config at some point but never configured it to use the new config at boot. When that box had a power failure at around 600 days, it didn't come back online properly due to my oversight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's evil is " technical " staff who started out on windows and think that a reboot is the perfect way to solve any problems .
Rebooting CAUSES problems , it takes ALL your services offline when there might have only been one that had a problem.I used to have machines at home which had been up so long , i never bothered to configure most of the services to start at boot , and i changed the network config at some point but never configured it to use the new config at boot .
When that box had a power failure at around 600 days , it did n't come back online properly due to my oversight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's evil is "technical" staff who started out on windows and think that a reboot is the perfect way to solve any problems.
Rebooting CAUSES problems, it takes ALL your services offline when there might have only been  one that had a problem.I used to have machines at home which had been up so long, i never bothered to configure most of the services to start at boot, and i changed the network config at some point but never configured it to use the new config at boot.
When that box had a power failure at around 600 days, it didn't come back online properly due to my oversight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080740</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265724000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For some systems there's no problem rebooting during a maintenance window.  In others, it's a problem. For example, if you have a semi-critical system in an international organization, it's often difficult to get a maintenance window because it's not critical enough to invest in HA yet important enough that people complain if it goes offline. Believe me, it's idiotic but never under-estimate the politics that goes on in an international organization.  There are also critical systems that does not have maintenance windows yet fall under regulations such as SOX, PCI or maybe health related so they must be updated. These can include certain types of hardware controllers, telephony devices, etc.. In many cases having a full cluster solution for these systems is too expensive so ksplice can be the next best thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For some systems there 's no problem rebooting during a maintenance window .
In others , it 's a problem .
For example , if you have a semi-critical system in an international organization , it 's often difficult to get a maintenance window because it 's not critical enough to invest in HA yet important enough that people complain if it goes offline .
Believe me , it 's idiotic but never under-estimate the politics that goes on in an international organization .
There are also critical systems that does not have maintenance windows yet fall under regulations such as SOX , PCI or maybe health related so they must be updated .
These can include certain types of hardware controllers , telephony devices , etc.. In many cases having a full cluster solution for these systems is too expensive so ksplice can be the next best thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some systems there's no problem rebooting during a maintenance window.
In others, it's a problem.
For example, if you have a semi-critical system in an international organization, it's often difficult to get a maintenance window because it's not critical enough to invest in HA yet important enough that people complain if it goes offline.
Believe me, it's idiotic but never under-estimate the politics that goes on in an international organization.
There are also critical systems that does not have maintenance windows yet fall under regulations such as SOX, PCI or maybe health related so they must be updated.
These can include certain types of hardware controllers, telephony devices, etc.. In many cases having a full cluster solution for these systems is too expensive so ksplice can be the next best thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31086224</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1265042280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When a stock broker's trading floor system goes down, the loss is measured in millions of dollars per second</p></div><p>So a full day's outage would cost them $86B - or $31T a year - assuming only one million per second?</p><p>I could see that as being the value of the potential trades that couldn't be executed, but unless the broker makes 100\% commission, I imagine the actually losses would be much less (although still substantial).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When a stock broker 's trading floor system goes down , the loss is measured in millions of dollars per secondSo a full day 's outage would cost them $ 86B - or $ 31T a year - assuming only one million per second ? I could see that as being the value of the potential trades that could n't be executed , but unless the broker makes 100 \ % commission , I imagine the actually losses would be much less ( although still substantial ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a stock broker's trading floor system goes down, the loss is measured in millions of dollars per secondSo a full day's outage would cost them $86B - or $31T a year - assuming only one million per second?I could see that as being the value of the potential trades that couldn't be executed, but unless the broker makes 100\% commission, I imagine the actually losses would be much less (although still substantial).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080384</id>
	<title>Free?</title>
	<author>NCTRNAL</author>
	<datestamp>1265721840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aren't Linux and the rest of them supposed to be "FREE* software?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't Linux and the rest of them supposed to be " FREE * software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't Linux and the rest of them supposed to be "FREE* software?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083200</id>
	<title>It depends...</title>
	<author>VON-MAN</author>
	<datestamp>1265017260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Think of security patches for 24/7 production servers, or even servers that are only critical during office hours. Do not think pc's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think of security patches for 24/7 production servers , or even servers that are only critical during office hours .
Do not think pc 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think of security patches for 24/7 production servers, or even servers that are only critical during office hours.
Do not think pc's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082208</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1265738520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Some organizations who have operational requirements to provide a service continuously. For them there is no acceptable downtime.</i>
</p><p>And they've designed their systems properly such that not only the planned - but also unplanned - outage of a single server is both non-disruptive, and transparent.
</p><p>"Service" and "server" are not synonymous.  This is especially true once you move outside of trivial environments.  If your HA service can't sustain the outage of an individual server, then its *fundamental architecture* is broken, and what OS is running barely even counts as semantics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some organizations who have operational requirements to provide a service continuously .
For them there is no acceptable downtime .
And they 've designed their systems properly such that not only the planned - but also unplanned - outage of a single server is both non-disruptive , and transparent .
" Service " and " server " are not synonymous .
This is especially true once you move outside of trivial environments .
If your HA service ca n't sustain the outage of an individual server , then its * fundamental architecture * is broken , and what OS is running barely even counts as semantics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Some organizations who have operational requirements to provide a service continuously.
For them there is no acceptable downtime.
And they've designed their systems properly such that not only the planned - but also unplanned - outage of a single server is both non-disruptive, and transparent.
"Service" and "server" are not synonymous.
This is especially true once you move outside of trivial environments.
If your HA service can't sustain the outage of an individual server, then its *fundamental architecture* is broken, and what OS is running barely even counts as semantics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081618</id>
	<title>Re:It can be quite beneficial</title>
	<author>Facegarden</author>
	<datestamp>1265731440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The occasional reboot, under controlled circumstances, is an excellent test of what will happen in an emergency situation.  Mainly, it answers the question of whether the server and required services actually will all come back up by themselves.</p></div><p>Like when you reboot the power grid to keep the raptors out?<br>-Taylor</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The occasional reboot , under controlled circumstances , is an excellent test of what will happen in an emergency situation .
Mainly , it answers the question of whether the server and required services actually will all come back up by themselves.Like when you reboot the power grid to keep the raptors out ? -Taylor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The occasional reboot, under controlled circumstances, is an excellent test of what will happen in an emergency situation.
Mainly, it answers the question of whether the server and required services actually will all come back up by themselves.Like when you reboot the power grid to keep the raptors out?-Taylor
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080774</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>pz</author>
	<datestamp>1265724300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a server running, say, a big web site, or a database, or something else where time is money, and there are a lot of zeros involved, uptime is crucial.  When a stock broker's trading floor system goes down, the loss is measured in millions of dollars per second (disclaimer, my brother used to work for a Wall Street firm, his wife used to work for another, and I have two close friends who still work at a third; my estimate is based on things they have told me).  Downtime is just not acceptable under some circumstances.</p><p>Sure, if my  GoDaddy-hosted web site goes off the air for a minute or two while the virtual server gets rekicked, I can't really complain.  I end up rebooting my laptop once or twice per week.  My desktop gets rebooted maybe twice per year for some hardware update.  Users of single-user machines are generally far more tolerant of reboots since, nominally, they are the ones making the decision to reboot.  When there are many users, though, rebooting needs to be coordinated, at the very least, so as not to interrupt work in progress.  And, as alluded to above, when there's real money involved, sometimes reboots are not ever acceptable.</p><p>For you, rebooting might not be evil, but some people do actually depend on high availability of their computers, and some of them are running Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a server running , say , a big web site , or a database , or something else where time is money , and there are a lot of zeros involved , uptime is crucial .
When a stock broker 's trading floor system goes down , the loss is measured in millions of dollars per second ( disclaimer , my brother used to work for a Wall Street firm , his wife used to work for another , and I have two close friends who still work at a third ; my estimate is based on things they have told me ) .
Downtime is just not acceptable under some circumstances.Sure , if my GoDaddy-hosted web site goes off the air for a minute or two while the virtual server gets rekicked , I ca n't really complain .
I end up rebooting my laptop once or twice per week .
My desktop gets rebooted maybe twice per year for some hardware update .
Users of single-user machines are generally far more tolerant of reboots since , nominally , they are the ones making the decision to reboot .
When there are many users , though , rebooting needs to be coordinated , at the very least , so as not to interrupt work in progress .
And , as alluded to above , when there 's real money involved , sometimes reboots are not ever acceptable.For you , rebooting might not be evil , but some people do actually depend on high availability of their computers , and some of them are running Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a server running, say, a big web site, or a database, or something else where time is money, and there are a lot of zeros involved, uptime is crucial.
When a stock broker's trading floor system goes down, the loss is measured in millions of dollars per second (disclaimer, my brother used to work for a Wall Street firm, his wife used to work for another, and I have two close friends who still work at a third; my estimate is based on things they have told me).
Downtime is just not acceptable under some circumstances.Sure, if my  GoDaddy-hosted web site goes off the air for a minute or two while the virtual server gets rekicked, I can't really complain.
I end up rebooting my laptop once or twice per week.
My desktop gets rebooted maybe twice per year for some hardware update.
Users of single-user machines are generally far more tolerant of reboots since, nominally, they are the ones making the decision to reboot.
When there are many users, though, rebooting needs to be coordinated, at the very least, so as not to interrupt work in progress.
And, as alluded to above, when there's real money involved, sometimes reboots are not ever acceptable.For you, rebooting might not be evil, but some people do actually depend on high availability of their computers, and some of them are running Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082168</id>
	<title>Re:It can be quite beneficial</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1265738040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>The occasional reboot, under controlled circumstances, is an excellent test of what will happen in an emergency situation. Mainly, it answers the question of whether the server and required services actually will all come back up by themselves.</i>
</p><p>More importantly, if your service architecture can't handle the scheduled outage of individual servers, then it is unquestionably broken.
</p><p>If you are concerned with individual server uptimes having a bearing on anything except your e-penis, then You're Doing It Wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The occasional reboot , under controlled circumstances , is an excellent test of what will happen in an emergency situation .
Mainly , it answers the question of whether the server and required services actually will all come back up by themselves .
More importantly , if your service architecture ca n't handle the scheduled outage of individual servers , then it is unquestionably broken .
If you are concerned with individual server uptimes having a bearing on anything except your e-penis , then You 're Doing It Wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The occasional reboot, under controlled circumstances, is an excellent test of what will happen in an emergency situation.
Mainly, it answers the question of whether the server and required services actually will all come back up by themselves.
More importantly, if your service architecture can't handle the scheduled outage of individual servers, then it is unquestionably broken.
If you are concerned with individual server uptimes having a bearing on anything except your e-penis, then You're Doing It Wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31096602</id>
	<title>Re:How long till they..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265054280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why you working overtime.</p><p>You should buy LANDesk Management Suite and use the Patch Manager feature.  Can I just say WOW!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why you working overtime.You should buy LANDesk Management Suite and use the Patch Manager feature .
Can I just say WOW !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why you working overtime.You should buy LANDesk Management Suite and use the Patch Manager feature.
Can I just say WOW!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31087254</id>
	<title>Ksplice kicks ass</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't really care what you guys say. I've been using ksplice on several servers and desktops and it simply kicks ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really care what you guys say .
I 've been using ksplice on several servers and desktops and it simply kicks ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really care what you guys say.
I've been using ksplice on several servers and desktops and it simply kicks ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081698</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265732220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing. People that know what they are doing just keep 2+ servers synchronized and ready to take each other's place. Reboot often and keep the system up-to-date.</p><p>Others, never reboot. Doing this. Assuming the company is trustworthy which I wouldn't count on, you get the patches which is a good thing.</p><p>On the other hand, it's root-kit paradise as they don't need to escalate at all because they will never get wiped. A successful exploit is an eternal exploit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing .
People that know what they are doing just keep 2 + servers synchronized and ready to take each other 's place .
Reboot often and keep the system up-to-date.Others , never reboot .
Doing this .
Assuming the company is trustworthy which I would n't count on , you get the patches which is a good thing.On the other hand , it 's root-kit paradise as they do n't need to escalate at all because they will never get wiped .
A successful exploit is an eternal exploit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing.
People that know what they are doing just keep 2+ servers synchronized and ready to take each other's place.
Reboot often and keep the system up-to-date.Others, never reboot.
Doing this.
Assuming the company is trustworthy which I wouldn't count on, you get the patches which is a good thing.On the other hand, it's root-kit paradise as they don't need to escalate at all because they will never get wiped.
A successful exploit is an eternal exploit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080764</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1265724180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, but if it's truly a critical service you're talking about redundancy and probably a set up where you can afford to take down one server at a time every few months to reboot/clear the gunk. If you've only got one machine, you're already fucked. You just haven't noticed yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but if it 's truly a critical service you 're talking about redundancy and probably a set up where you can afford to take down one server at a time every few months to reboot/clear the gunk .
If you 've only got one machine , you 're already fucked .
You just have n't noticed yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but if it's truly a critical service you're talking about redundancy and probably a set up where you can afford to take down one server at a time every few months to reboot/clear the gunk.
If you've only got one machine, you're already fucked.
You just haven't noticed yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081362</id>
	<title>Re:How long till they..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265728860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Prior art. Kearney &amp; Trecker, a machine tool company was doing this in their real-time executives in 1984.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Prior art .
Kearney &amp; Trecker , a machine tool company was doing this in their real-time executives in 1984 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prior art.
Kearney &amp; Trecker, a machine tool company was doing this in their real-time executives in 1984.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082978</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265057760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It could definately stack another 9 on 99.999</p></div><p>Um huh?  999.999?  You mean, like making a server do the work of 10 servers?</p><p>Ohhh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you mean service downtime.  I don't know how you manage to shutdown a service, patch it, and bring it back up, within <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High\_availability#Percentage\_calculation" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">31.5 seconds.</a> [wikipedia.org]  I guess that's why you're earning the big bucks and I'm not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It could definately stack another 9 on 99.999Um huh ?
999.999 ? You mean , like making a server do the work of 10 servers ? Ohhh ... you mean service downtime .
I do n't know how you manage to shutdown a service , patch it , and bring it back up , within 31.5 seconds .
[ wikipedia.org ] I guess that 's why you 're earning the big bucks and I 'm not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could definately stack another 9 on 99.999Um huh?
999.999?  You mean, like making a server do the work of 10 servers?Ohhh ... you mean service downtime.
I don't know how you manage to shutdown a service, patch it, and bring it back up, within 31.5 seconds.
[wikipedia.org]  I guess that's why you're earning the big bucks and I'm not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081954</id>
	<title>Ksplice explanation - with pretty pictures!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265735520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Easier to read explanation: <a href="http://www.linux-magazine.com/w3/issue/95/052-054\_ksplice.pdf" title="linux-magazine.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.linux-magazine.com/w3/issue/95/052-054\_ksplice.pdf</a> [linux-magazine.com]. In short: it's all done with clever (Mario style) trampoline jumps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Easier to read explanation : http : //www.linux-magazine.com/w3/issue/95/052-054 \ _ksplice.pdf [ linux-magazine.com ] .
In short : it 's all done with clever ( Mario style ) trampoline jumps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easier to read explanation: http://www.linux-magazine.com/w3/issue/95/052-054\_ksplice.pdf [linux-magazine.com].
In short: it's all done with clever (Mario style) trampoline jumps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081332</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1265728740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Depends. Most places that require high availability have redundancy built in to the point where half of their servers can go offline and nobody (except server admins) even knows about it.  But for small and mid-sized businesses that don't have those resources available, any time offline is lost work/sales/time/etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends .
Most places that require high availability have redundancy built in to the point where half of their servers can go offline and nobody ( except server admins ) even knows about it .
But for small and mid-sized businesses that do n't have those resources available , any time offline is lost work/sales/time/etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends.
Most places that require high availability have redundancy built in to the point where half of their servers can go offline and nobody (except server admins) even knows about it.
But for small and mid-sized businesses that don't have those resources available, any time offline is lost work/sales/time/etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082930</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>troll8901</author>
	<datestamp>1265057340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Would someone smarter than me please explain<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>That's a well phrased question.  I like that.  That's the reason why you get so many replies and learn so much more than me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Would someone smarter than me please explain ... " That 's a well phrased question .
I like that .
That 's the reason why you get so many replies and learn so much more than me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Would someone smarter than me please explain ..."That's a well phrased question.
I like that.
That's the reason why you get so many replies and learn so much more than me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080632</id>
	<title>Re:Rebooting is a Good Thing...</title>
	<author>Pretzalzz</author>
	<datestamp>1265723220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was going to post something similar from a less serious angle.  I never reboot because I'm never sure the computer will reboot correctly and I'd rather not have to spend half an hour dealing with the problem.  I upgrade things like grub and sysvinit more often than I reboot and until I personally test it there is no guarantee that it will work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to post something similar from a less serious angle .
I never reboot because I 'm never sure the computer will reboot correctly and I 'd rather not have to spend half an hour dealing with the problem .
I upgrade things like grub and sysvinit more often than I reboot and until I personally test it there is no guarantee that it will work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to post something similar from a less serious angle.
I never reboot because I'm never sure the computer will reboot correctly and I'd rather not have to spend half an hour dealing with the problem.
I upgrade things like grub and sysvinit more often than I reboot and until I personally test it there is no guarantee that it will work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080576</id>
	<title>It can be quite beneficial</title>
	<author>XanC</author>
	<datestamp>1265722860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The occasional reboot, under controlled circumstances, is an excellent test of what will happen in an emergency situation.  Mainly, it answers the question of whether the server and required services actually will all come back up by themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The occasional reboot , under controlled circumstances , is an excellent test of what will happen in an emergency situation .
Mainly , it answers the question of whether the server and required services actually will all come back up by themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The occasional reboot, under controlled circumstances, is an excellent test of what will happen in an emergency situation.
Mainly, it answers the question of whether the server and required services actually will all come back up by themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080458</id>
	<title>I foresee uptime.netcraft.com domination</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265722260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Useless stats ftw!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Useless stats ftw !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Useless stats ftw!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082106</id>
	<title>HALinux obviates the need</title>
	<author>kriston</author>
	<datestamp>1265737500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the proper application of HALinux Heartbeat obviates the need for keeping a machine alive forever.  There are going to be ECC parity errors that are going to take the machine down.  Replacing kernel parts on-the-fly is a good ideal, though, but a higher-level view suggests that's not the real challenge for 99.999\% uptime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the proper application of HALinux Heartbeat obviates the need for keeping a machine alive forever .
There are going to be ECC parity errors that are going to take the machine down .
Replacing kernel parts on-the-fly is a good ideal , though , but a higher-level view suggests that 's not the real challenge for 99.999 \ % uptime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the proper application of HALinux Heartbeat obviates the need for keeping a machine alive forever.
There are going to be ECC parity errors that are going to take the machine down.
Replacing kernel parts on-the-fly is a good ideal, though, but a higher-level view suggests that's not the real challenge for 99.999\% uptime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31109466</id>
	<title>Wake up, nobody needs it.</title>
	<author>blue-slonopotam</author>
	<datestamp>1265909340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How you do it:
- you separate your carrier servers from application servers.
- Whenever you need to upgrade an application, you mark one application server after another as "out of service", so that new calls are not routed there. As soon as the last call leaves the application server, you could do whatever you want with it, reboot it or hammer it - your choice.
- Carrier servers do not need updates as frequent, as they need reboots, so the problem is not really there to begin with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How you do it : - you separate your carrier servers from application servers .
- Whenever you need to upgrade an application , you mark one application server after another as " out of service " , so that new calls are not routed there .
As soon as the last call leaves the application server , you could do whatever you want with it , reboot it or hammer it - your choice .
- Carrier servers do not need updates as frequent , as they need reboots , so the problem is not really there to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How you do it:
- you separate your carrier servers from application servers.
- Whenever you need to upgrade an application, you mark one application server after another as "out of service", so that new calls are not routed there.
As soon as the last call leaves the application server, you could do whatever you want with it, reboot it or hammer it - your choice.
- Carrier servers do not need updates as frequent, as they need reboots, so the problem is not really there to begin with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081584</id>
	<title>Re:It can be quite beneficial</title>
	<author>Idarubicin</author>
	<datestamp>1265731140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The occasional reboot, under controlled circumstances, is an excellent test of what will happen in an emergency situation.  Mainly, it answers the question of whether the server and required services actually will all come back up by themselves.</p></div><p>While true, I'd much prefer to be able to decide for myself whether or not I wish to run that test every time I patch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The occasional reboot , under controlled circumstances , is an excellent test of what will happen in an emergency situation .
Mainly , it answers the question of whether the server and required services actually will all come back up by themselves.While true , I 'd much prefer to be able to decide for myself whether or not I wish to run that test every time I patch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The occasional reboot, under controlled circumstances, is an excellent test of what will happen in an emergency situation.
Mainly, it answers the question of whether the server and required services actually will all come back up by themselves.While true, I'd much prefer to be able to decide for myself whether or not I wish to run that test every time I patch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081046</id>
	<title>Re:Rebooting is a Good Thing...</title>
	<author>Locklin</author>
	<datestamp>1265726340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I rebooted my workstation before heading home today. Just a moment ago, I realised that eth0 isn't set to get an IP  address via DHCP. It's running, but I can't connect to it from home tonight! Lesson learned... never reboot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I rebooted my workstation before heading home today .
Just a moment ago , I realised that eth0 is n't set to get an IP address via DHCP .
It 's running , but I ca n't connect to it from home tonight !
Lesson learned... never reboot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I rebooted my workstation before heading home today.
Just a moment ago, I realised that eth0 isn't set to get an IP  address via DHCP.
It's running, but I can't connect to it from home tonight!
Lesson learned... never reboot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31084394</id>
	<title>Re:Free?</title>
	<author>sam0737</author>
	<datestamp>1265032080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Free as in speech. not necessarily as in beer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free as in speech .
not necessarily as in beer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free as in speech.
not necessarily as in beer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080542</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265722740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In critical services, 100\% uptime is essential. Imagine a server used in air traffic control...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In critical services , 100 \ % uptime is essential .
Imagine a server used in air traffic control.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In critical services, 100\% uptime is essential.
Imagine a server used in air traffic control...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082448</id>
	<title>Re:How long till they.. Never..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265741640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First Microsoft is not very eager to sue anyone, second this is totally different mechanism, third Microsoft patent is an old technology - very old because it describes what we did in OS/360, OS/370 operating systems and applications a long, long time ago. Patching memory was (sometimes!) a daily routine for local systems programmer - updating live 24x7 production systems is/was fun but scary!</p><p>Anyhow - $4 is cheap when someone is doing the pre-work for you. Actually - the more modularized / structured Linux (Linux == kernel!) gets, the easier it is to support dynamic / online updates with no interruption. There are systems where you can do it already, even all(?) Unix systems allow you to change the whole object in flight if the application is written for it. Actually I designed a while ago one for Windows, load new object, kill the old and the new is automatically used for next call / request / whatever. Tandem Pathway is one very good example, Erlang as a language and a system supports it, systems with failover to another cpu / node have always supported it since Datasaab "non-stop" system from (I think?) early 70's (Cobol kernel!)</p><p>Now, giving the "skills" of current "systems programmers", I'm not sure that real time patching is a good idea? Right or wrong, today the "hard" skills, understanding operating systems, their interactions with hardware and applications, etc is very rare! Not a person problem but the documentation, the trust on products / manufacturers / providers, etc are killing the low level skills even the computers handle zeros and ones the same way as day one. And unfortunately the same problems on high level - miracle products will solve all the problems / providers and manufacturers know my problems better than my experienced employees - and I have a bridge to sell!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First Microsoft is not very eager to sue anyone , second this is totally different mechanism , third Microsoft patent is an old technology - very old because it describes what we did in OS/360 , OS/370 operating systems and applications a long , long time ago .
Patching memory was ( sometimes !
) a daily routine for local systems programmer - updating live 24x7 production systems is/was fun but scary ! Anyhow - $ 4 is cheap when someone is doing the pre-work for you .
Actually - the more modularized / structured Linux ( Linux = = kernel !
) gets , the easier it is to support dynamic / online updates with no interruption .
There are systems where you can do it already , even all ( ?
) Unix systems allow you to change the whole object in flight if the application is written for it .
Actually I designed a while ago one for Windows , load new object , kill the old and the new is automatically used for next call / request / whatever .
Tandem Pathway is one very good example , Erlang as a language and a system supports it , systems with failover to another cpu / node have always supported it since Datasaab " non-stop " system from ( I think ?
) early 70 's ( Cobol kernel !
) Now , giving the " skills " of current " systems programmers " , I 'm not sure that real time patching is a good idea ?
Right or wrong , today the " hard " skills , understanding operating systems , their interactions with hardware and applications , etc is very rare !
Not a person problem but the documentation , the trust on products / manufacturers / providers , etc are killing the low level skills even the computers handle zeros and ones the same way as day one .
And unfortunately the same problems on high level - miracle products will solve all the problems / providers and manufacturers know my problems better than my experienced employees - and I have a bridge to sell !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First Microsoft is not very eager to sue anyone, second this is totally different mechanism, third Microsoft patent is an old technology - very old because it describes what we did in OS/360, OS/370 operating systems and applications a long, long time ago.
Patching memory was (sometimes!
) a daily routine for local systems programmer - updating live 24x7 production systems is/was fun but scary!Anyhow - $4 is cheap when someone is doing the pre-work for you.
Actually - the more modularized / structured Linux (Linux == kernel!
) gets, the easier it is to support dynamic / online updates with no interruption.
There are systems where you can do it already, even all(?
) Unix systems allow you to change the whole object in flight if the application is written for it.
Actually I designed a while ago one for Windows, load new object, kill the old and the new is automatically used for next call / request / whatever.
Tandem Pathway is one very good example, Erlang as a language and a system supports it, systems with failover to another cpu / node have always supported it since Datasaab "non-stop" system from (I think?
) early 70's (Cobol kernel!
)Now, giving the "skills" of current "systems programmers", I'm not sure that real time patching is a good idea?
Right or wrong, today the "hard" skills, understanding operating systems, their interactions with hardware and applications, etc is very rare!
Not a person problem but the documentation, the trust on products / manufacturers / providers, etc are killing the low level skills even the computers handle zeros and ones the same way as day one.
And unfortunately the same problems on high level - miracle products will solve all the problems / providers and manufacturers know my problems better than my experienced employees - and I have a bridge to sell!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082170</id>
	<title>Re:How long till they..</title>
	<author>brajbir</author>
	<datestamp>1265738100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How many people will M$ sue?
This was done on AIX a couple of years ago.. I'm sure HPUX and Sun also provide kernel hotpatching..</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many people will M $ sue ?
This was done on AIX a couple of years ago.. I 'm sure HPUX and Sun also provide kernel hotpatching. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many people will M$ sue?
This was done on AIX a couple of years ago.. I'm sure HPUX and Sun also provide kernel hotpatching..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080714</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265723820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At an individual computer level it's not so bad, but in an enterprise it can be troubling.</p><p>A couple of examples: a zero-day exploit of Microsoft Windows (surely this would never happen) requires a patch be applied and the computers rebooted for thousands of users. Even assuming that the reboot can be enforced with 100\% reliability (seldom to never), the 1-3 minutes will impact productivity for at least some users. Sure, desktops can be rebooted at night, but laptop users that take their machines with them and never have them powered up unless they are using them will be impacted. Imagine a company with an average productivity value of $10/hr, $20/hr, or $30/hr. Imagine this company has 100 laptop users or 1,000 or 10,000. Multiplication makes that 1-3 minutes each expensive.</p><p>A different scenario involving servers where services must be available: say web servers that require database servers and both require directory servers. There may be several of each of these for load balancing or fault tolerance, possibly clusters, and real world examples may be far more complex. Reboots must be coordinated based on which nodes of which clusters can be taken down without impacting service. Often, additional commands must be added to gracefully transfer service, notify a load balancer device, possibly tell a monitoring server that its in scheduled maintenance mode and not to send a bunch of emails to the support team because the server is down. Ideally one web server and one database server and one directory server go down and all come back up, followed by another set, etc, and cluster master roles are reallocated correctly, etc.</p><p>Obviously there are ways to script, automate, plan, and mitigate all of this, but if it didn't have to reboot in the first place... that would be nice, huh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At an individual computer level it 's not so bad , but in an enterprise it can be troubling.A couple of examples : a zero-day exploit of Microsoft Windows ( surely this would never happen ) requires a patch be applied and the computers rebooted for thousands of users .
Even assuming that the reboot can be enforced with 100 \ % reliability ( seldom to never ) , the 1-3 minutes will impact productivity for at least some users .
Sure , desktops can be rebooted at night , but laptop users that take their machines with them and never have them powered up unless they are using them will be impacted .
Imagine a company with an average productivity value of $ 10/hr , $ 20/hr , or $ 30/hr .
Imagine this company has 100 laptop users or 1,000 or 10,000 .
Multiplication makes that 1-3 minutes each expensive.A different scenario involving servers where services must be available : say web servers that require database servers and both require directory servers .
There may be several of each of these for load balancing or fault tolerance , possibly clusters , and real world examples may be far more complex .
Reboots must be coordinated based on which nodes of which clusters can be taken down without impacting service .
Often , additional commands must be added to gracefully transfer service , notify a load balancer device , possibly tell a monitoring server that its in scheduled maintenance mode and not to send a bunch of emails to the support team because the server is down .
Ideally one web server and one database server and one directory server go down and all come back up , followed by another set , etc , and cluster master roles are reallocated correctly , etc.Obviously there are ways to script , automate , plan , and mitigate all of this , but if it did n't have to reboot in the first place... that would be nice , huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At an individual computer level it's not so bad, but in an enterprise it can be troubling.A couple of examples: a zero-day exploit of Microsoft Windows (surely this would never happen) requires a patch be applied and the computers rebooted for thousands of users.
Even assuming that the reboot can be enforced with 100\% reliability (seldom to never), the 1-3 minutes will impact productivity for at least some users.
Sure, desktops can be rebooted at night, but laptop users that take their machines with them and never have them powered up unless they are using them will be impacted.
Imagine a company with an average productivity value of $10/hr, $20/hr, or $30/hr.
Imagine this company has 100 laptop users or 1,000 or 10,000.
Multiplication makes that 1-3 minutes each expensive.A different scenario involving servers where services must be available: say web servers that require database servers and both require directory servers.
There may be several of each of these for load balancing or fault tolerance, possibly clusters, and real world examples may be far more complex.
Reboots must be coordinated based on which nodes of which clusters can be taken down without impacting service.
Often, additional commands must be added to gracefully transfer service, notify a load balancer device, possibly tell a monitoring server that its in scheduled maintenance mode and not to send a bunch of emails to the support team because the server is down.
Ideally one web server and one database server and one directory server go down and all come back up, followed by another set, etc, and cluster master roles are reallocated correctly, etc.Obviously there are ways to script, automate, plan, and mitigate all of this, but if it didn't have to reboot in the first place... that would be nice, huh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082424</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>mlts</author>
	<datestamp>1265741220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is also the UNIX philosophy.  The endless chain of reboots was especially horrid in the 95/98/ME days where if one wanted an IP address change, or some other network item, reboot time.</p><p>UNIX machines historically were rarely rebooted, unless someone was dropping the box into single user mode for level 0 dumps and a guarentee that no other programs were touching the filesystems.</p><p>In general, there was only one reason for an unplanned UNIX reboot, and that was a dead NFS handle which locked up a machine.  Almost everything else (except security or hardware issues) could wait until the next downtime window.</p><p>Oh, don't get UNIX people started about reinstalls.  IMHO, only times a machine should ever be reinstalled are after a hardware failure, after a major security breach, or if going to a major version of an OS, where an upgrade would leave a ton of useless and potentially dangerous amount of cruft behind.  Even in most of these cases, a bare metal restore is better than a reinstallation so that applications don't have to be reinstalled, retuned, and reconfigured.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is also the UNIX philosophy .
The endless chain of reboots was especially horrid in the 95/98/ME days where if one wanted an IP address change , or some other network item , reboot time.UNIX machines historically were rarely rebooted , unless someone was dropping the box into single user mode for level 0 dumps and a guarentee that no other programs were touching the filesystems.In general , there was only one reason for an unplanned UNIX reboot , and that was a dead NFS handle which locked up a machine .
Almost everything else ( except security or hardware issues ) could wait until the next downtime window.Oh , do n't get UNIX people started about reinstalls .
IMHO , only times a machine should ever be reinstalled are after a hardware failure , after a major security breach , or if going to a major version of an OS , where an upgrade would leave a ton of useless and potentially dangerous amount of cruft behind .
Even in most of these cases , a bare metal restore is better than a reinstallation so that applications do n't have to be reinstalled , retuned , and reconfigured .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is also the UNIX philosophy.
The endless chain of reboots was especially horrid in the 95/98/ME days where if one wanted an IP address change, or some other network item, reboot time.UNIX machines historically were rarely rebooted, unless someone was dropping the box into single user mode for level 0 dumps and a guarentee that no other programs were touching the filesystems.In general, there was only one reason for an unplanned UNIX reboot, and that was a dead NFS handle which locked up a machine.
Almost everything else (except security or hardware issues) could wait until the next downtime window.Oh, don't get UNIX people started about reinstalls.
IMHO, only times a machine should ever be reinstalled are after a hardware failure, after a major security breach, or if going to a major version of an OS, where an upgrade would leave a ton of useless and potentially dangerous amount of cruft behind.
Even in most of these cases, a bare metal restore is better than a reinstallation so that applications don't have to be reinstalled, retuned, and reconfigured.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080678</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265723580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Would someone smarter than me please explain what is so evil about rebooting now and then?</p></div><p>Downtime just KILLS a system's availability requirement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would someone smarter than me please explain what is so evil about rebooting now and then ? Downtime just KILLS a system 's availability requirement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would someone smarter than me please explain what is so evil about rebooting now and then?Downtime just KILLS a system's availability requirement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31104174</id>
	<title>Re:How long till they.. Never..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265879880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would you want to pay $3/month for a service when this should be a built in feature of the operating system? Maybe they should just hack the OS up into services and sell them to customers. Want multi-core support? That's another $3/month! Fuck services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you want to pay $ 3/month for a service when this should be a built in feature of the operating system ?
Maybe they should just hack the OS up into services and sell them to customers .
Want multi-core support ?
That 's another $ 3/month !
Fuck services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you want to pay $3/month for a service when this should be a built in feature of the operating system?
Maybe they should just hack the OS up into services and sell them to customers.
Want multi-core support?
That's another $3/month!
Fuck services.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083220</id>
	<title>Re:So instead of doing it right...</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1265017500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows is and always has been predominantly for desktops (the entire system being named after the gui is a big clue), and yet it's being heavily pushed into the server space...<br>And it isn't exactly suited to being a desktop these days either...</p><p>At least linux is fairly modular, and can be made more suitable, if not ideal, for various different functions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows is and always has been predominantly for desktops ( the entire system being named after the gui is a big clue ) , and yet it 's being heavily pushed into the server space...And it is n't exactly suited to being a desktop these days either...At least linux is fairly modular , and can be made more suitable , if not ideal , for various different functions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows is and always has been predominantly for desktops (the entire system being named after the gui is a big clue), and yet it's being heavily pushed into the server space...And it isn't exactly suited to being a desktop these days either...At least linux is fairly modular, and can be made more suitable, if not ideal, for various different functions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31086066</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Idiot with a gun</author>
	<datestamp>1265041620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What kind of stock broker needs his system up when the markets are closed?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of stock broker needs his system up when the markets are closed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of stock broker needs his system up when the markets are closed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082006</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265736240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In critical services, 100\% uptime is essential. Imagine a server used in air traffic control...</p></div><p>I hope to God ATC only runs critical services on high RAS hardware with software that knows what RAS is.</p><p>Not linux with hotpatching...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In critical services , 100 \ % uptime is essential .
Imagine a server used in air traffic control...I hope to God ATC only runs critical services on high RAS hardware with software that knows what RAS is.Not linux with hotpatching.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In critical services, 100\% uptime is essential.
Imagine a server used in air traffic control...I hope to God ATC only runs critical services on high RAS hardware with software that knows what RAS is.Not linux with hotpatching...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080690</id>
	<title>Re:Rebooting is a Good Thing...</title>
	<author>Hasai</author>
	<datestamp>1265723640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>....How often have you seen someone add a service to a machine which becomes a critical part of your infrastructure then they forget to add it into the RC system?</p></div><p>Um, never?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>....How often have you seen someone add a service to a machine which becomes a critical part of your infrastructure then they forget to add it into the RC system ? Um , never ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ....How often have you seen someone add a service to a machine which becomes a critical part of your infrastructure then they forget to add it into the RC system?Um, never?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082650</id>
	<title>Only Windows you need a reboot</title>
	<author>Billly Gates</author>
	<datestamp>1265745180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It drives me crazy to see this.</p><p>Memory holes and latency go up with age on Windows.</p><p>Mainframes stay up for years and so does my themastat, DVR, and most electronic devices like it should.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It drives me crazy to see this.Memory holes and latency go up with age on Windows.Mainframes stay up for years and so does my themastat , DVR , and most electronic devices like it should .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It drives me crazy to see this.Memory holes and latency go up with age on Windows.Mainframes stay up for years and so does my themastat, DVR, and most electronic devices like it should.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080596</id>
	<title>Re:Free?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265722980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've said it before, and I'll say it again:</p><p>Just because it's free software, doesn't mean that it's afraid of money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've said it before , and I 'll say it again : Just because it 's free software , does n't mean that it 's afraid of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've said it before, and I'll say it again:Just because it's free software, doesn't mean that it's afraid of money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31086196</id>
	<title>Ksplice Crash</title>
	<author>TheNinjaroach</author>
	<datestamp>1265042160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The newer versions of OpenSUSE use Ksplice during the installation process to switch from the kernel used on the boot CD to the kernel recently installed on your system.  It's an unbelievably cool concept to patch a kernel as it's running in memory but in my experience it's not incredibly stable.  I've installed 11.1 at least five times and watched the system crash at least three times during the ksplice process.  It's not a big deal to me because rebooting the system lets me finish up the install, but the ksplice feature is one that I've always considered to be experimental.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The newer versions of OpenSUSE use Ksplice during the installation process to switch from the kernel used on the boot CD to the kernel recently installed on your system .
It 's an unbelievably cool concept to patch a kernel as it 's running in memory but in my experience it 's not incredibly stable .
I 've installed 11.1 at least five times and watched the system crash at least three times during the ksplice process .
It 's not a big deal to me because rebooting the system lets me finish up the install , but the ksplice feature is one that I 've always considered to be experimental .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The newer versions of OpenSUSE use Ksplice during the installation process to switch from the kernel used on the boot CD to the kernel recently installed on your system.
It's an unbelievably cool concept to patch a kernel as it's running in memory but in my experience it's not incredibly stable.
I've installed 11.1 at least five times and watched the system crash at least three times during the ksplice process.
It's not a big deal to me because rebooting the system lets me finish up the install, but the ksplice feature is one that I've always considered to be experimental.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31092134</id>
	<title>Cosmic rays</title>
	<author>timlewis\_atlanta</author>
	<datestamp>1265024400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Never rebooting eh ?  Make sure you are using ECC memory...</p><p><a href="http://lambda-diode.com/opinion/ecc-memory" title="lambda-diode.com" rel="nofollow">http://lambda-diode.com/opinion/ecc-memory</a> [lambda-diode.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never rebooting eh ?
Make sure you are using ECC memory...http : //lambda-diode.com/opinion/ecc-memory [ lambda-diode.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never rebooting eh ?
Make sure you are using ECC memory...http://lambda-diode.com/opinion/ecc-memory [lambda-diode.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081742</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1265732640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What kind of stock broker system doesn't have redundancy to handle if a server goes down?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of stock broker system does n't have redundancy to handle if a server goes down ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of stock broker system doesn't have redundancy to handle if a server goes down?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31096766</id>
	<title>Re:How long till they..</title>
	<author>Geoffreyerffoeg</author>
	<datestamp>1265920140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a patent application, not a patent. It was <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/340890/" title="lwn.net">denied</a> [lwn.net].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a patent application , not a patent .
It was denied [ lwn.net ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a patent application, not a patent.
It was denied [lwn.net].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080488</id>
	<title>Re:So instead of doing it right...</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1265722440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as you purge ALL the memory pages used by a chunk of the kernel, nothing can go wrong, right?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>Hey, it <i>seems</i> to work...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as you purge ALL the memory pages used by a chunk of the kernel , nothing can go wrong , right ?
; ) Hey , it seems to work.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as you purge ALL the memory pages used by a chunk of the kernel, nothing can go wrong, right?
;)Hey, it seems to work...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31084840</id>
	<title>Re:When</title>
	<author>RMH101</author>
	<datestamp>1265035680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reminds me of the old story of the University of North Carolina's "missing" Novell server.  <br>
<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/04/12/missing\_novell\_server\_discovered\_after/" title="theregister.co.uk">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/04/12/missing\_novell\_server\_discovered\_after/</a> [theregister.co.uk] <br>
We've lost a server!  No, it's still responding to pings, we just don't know where it is" - eventually found four years later behind a drywall someone had errected.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of the old story of the University of North Carolina 's " missing " Novell server .
http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2001/04/12/missing \ _novell \ _server \ _discovered \ _after/ [ theregister.co.uk ] We 've lost a server !
No , it 's still responding to pings , we just do n't know where it is " - eventually found four years later behind a drywall someone had errected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of the old story of the University of North Carolina's "missing" Novell server.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/04/12/missing\_novell\_server\_discovered\_after/ [theregister.co.uk] 
We've lost a server!
No, it's still responding to pings, we just don't know where it is" - eventually found four years later behind a drywall someone had errected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080652</id>
	<title>Re:So instead of doing it right...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265723280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would probably cost more than $4 a month to rewrite the Linux kernel to that extent.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would probably cost more than $ 4 a month to rewrite the Linux kernel to that extent .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would probably cost more than $4 a month to rewrite the Linux kernel to that extent.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31156046</id>
	<title>Re:Free?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266340920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux is useful?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux is useful ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux is useful?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1265722320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would someone smarter than me please explain what is so evil about rebooting now and then?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would someone smarter than me please explain what is so evil about rebooting now and then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would someone smarter than me please explain what is so evil about rebooting now and then?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083150</id>
	<title>X server?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265016660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will it also recompile my video drivers without needing to stop X?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will it also recompile my video drivers without needing to stop X ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will it also recompile my video drivers without needing to stop X?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081174</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265727360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Would someone smarter than me please explain what is so evil about rebooting now and then?</i> </p><p>It's time taken from your work to fix what MS screwed up. It's time taken offline from users. It often entails repeated reboots because, if you check for updates after applying one set and rebooting, you find there is yet anther set to run (and reboot after). I have had this happen up to three times in a row. So why don't they display and make available all updates at the same time? It makes your uptime a butt of jokes from people running Linux who have uptimes measured in well over a year. It's a sign of gross incompetence among the people who develop MS OSes. As a system gets more and more SW installed, including boot-time loads, the time lost to a reboot takes longer and longer.</p><p>Sorry, dinner's ready or I'd go on with a lot more.</p><p>Hah! -- captcha = condemn</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would someone smarter than me please explain what is so evil about rebooting now and then ?
It 's time taken from your work to fix what MS screwed up .
It 's time taken offline from users .
It often entails repeated reboots because , if you check for updates after applying one set and rebooting , you find there is yet anther set to run ( and reboot after ) .
I have had this happen up to three times in a row .
So why do n't they display and make available all updates at the same time ?
It makes your uptime a butt of jokes from people running Linux who have uptimes measured in well over a year .
It 's a sign of gross incompetence among the people who develop MS OSes .
As a system gets more and more SW installed , including boot-time loads , the time lost to a reboot takes longer and longer.Sorry , dinner 's ready or I 'd go on with a lot more.Hah !
-- captcha = condemn</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would someone smarter than me please explain what is so evil about rebooting now and then?
It's time taken from your work to fix what MS screwed up.
It's time taken offline from users.
It often entails repeated reboots because, if you check for updates after applying one set and rebooting, you find there is yet anther set to run (and reboot after).
I have had this happen up to three times in a row.
So why don't they display and make available all updates at the same time?
It makes your uptime a butt of jokes from people running Linux who have uptimes measured in well over a year.
It's a sign of gross incompetence among the people who develop MS OSes.
As a system gets more and more SW installed, including boot-time loads, the time lost to a reboot takes longer and longer.Sorry, dinner's ready or I'd go on with a lot more.Hah!
-- captcha = condemn</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080572</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265722860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You run a server of any kind. In the old days of novell, we had severs with 6 year uptimes. Not possible today simply from patches, not crashes.</p><p>This service has the potential to get us closer to that ever distant 100\% uptime. It could definately stack another 9 on 99.999</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You run a server of any kind .
In the old days of novell , we had severs with 6 year uptimes .
Not possible today simply from patches , not crashes.This service has the potential to get us closer to that ever distant 100 \ % uptime .
It could definately stack another 9 on 99.999</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You run a server of any kind.
In the old days of novell, we had severs with 6 year uptimes.
Not possible today simply from patches, not crashes.This service has the potential to get us closer to that ever distant 100\% uptime.
It could definately stack another 9 on 99.999</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31085882</id>
	<title>Re:Rebooting is a Good Thing...</title>
	<author>starfishsystems</author>
	<datestamp>1265040720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At several places I've worked, I established a particular time window in the week for system maintenance.  Whenever possible, we'd reboot systems and conduct other scheduled activity during the scheduled time.
<br> <br>
Users would be advised in advance of possible impacts, and had an official channel to raise concerns, suggest mitigations or request rescheduling.  In my experience, once everyone gets used to the regime, it works very well.
<br> <br>
More complex environments may need more complex treatement.  The organization may decide to identify mission-critical services that must not be interrupted, or special procedures to follow for particular systems.  That's all to the good.
<br> <br>
What we have then is the very desirable situation where operational policy and its implementation are separated in an explicit and agreed way.  And once you have this policy framework, it can be extended to security considerations as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At several places I 've worked , I established a particular time window in the week for system maintenance .
Whenever possible , we 'd reboot systems and conduct other scheduled activity during the scheduled time .
Users would be advised in advance of possible impacts , and had an official channel to raise concerns , suggest mitigations or request rescheduling .
In my experience , once everyone gets used to the regime , it works very well .
More complex environments may need more complex treatement .
The organization may decide to identify mission-critical services that must not be interrupted , or special procedures to follow for particular systems .
That 's all to the good .
What we have then is the very desirable situation where operational policy and its implementation are separated in an explicit and agreed way .
And once you have this policy framework , it can be extended to security considerations as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At several places I've worked, I established a particular time window in the week for system maintenance.
Whenever possible, we'd reboot systems and conduct other scheduled activity during the scheduled time.
Users would be advised in advance of possible impacts, and had an official channel to raise concerns, suggest mitigations or request rescheduling.
In my experience, once everyone gets used to the regime, it works very well.
More complex environments may need more complex treatement.
The organization may decide to identify mission-critical services that must not be interrupted, or special procedures to follow for particular systems.
That's all to the good.
What we have then is the very desirable situation where operational policy and its implementation are separated in an explicit and agreed way.
And once you have this policy framework, it can be extended to security considerations as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080490</id>
	<title>who gives a fuck?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265722500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>linux is for faggots anyways.<br> <br> <br> <br> <br>FAGGOTS!</htmltext>
<tokenext>linux is for faggots anyways .
FAGGOTS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>linux is for faggots anyways.
FAGGOTS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080512</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265722560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to save all your work and can't use your computer for 1-3 minutes as your computer stops/boots up again.  And you'll probably have to login again, so you'll need to remember and type in your user name and password.  And then relaunch all your applications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to save all your work and ca n't use your computer for 1-3 minutes as your computer stops/boots up again .
And you 'll probably have to login again , so you 'll need to remember and type in your user name and password .
And then relaunch all your applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to save all your work and can't use your computer for 1-3 minutes as your computer stops/boots up again.
And you'll probably have to login again, so you'll need to remember and type in your user name and password.
And then relaunch all your applications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081344</id>
	<title>When</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265728800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was in H.S. in my pc repair/networking class (it was technically a 2 year 3 hour every day class). We had our "learning" novell server, and our 'production' novell server. The Production server was up for right at 6 years before we ended up replacing the entire system with Linux. The learning server got rebooted more often than I care to think about... But the real point is thus: Find me a Linux distro that won't crash for 6 years straight running the printserver/fileserver/ftp server/etc. with a bunch of 16-18 year old children "administering" it... I think the ability to update the kernel on the fly like this is interesting. I'd be more interested in a service that let me pick and choose the patches/etc. to determine if they work in my environment properly or not.. but 4 dollars a month for not having to reboot the system... I'd pay it *shrug*... Granted, the original point still remains that in the end this is worthless because outside of home-hacked/custom-built shit, or a true UNIX with a major support contract, there hasn't been a system since Netware that would run like that for that long w/o a reboot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was in H.S .
in my pc repair/networking class ( it was technically a 2 year 3 hour every day class ) .
We had our " learning " novell server , and our 'production ' novell server .
The Production server was up for right at 6 years before we ended up replacing the entire system with Linux .
The learning server got rebooted more often than I care to think about... But the real point is thus : Find me a Linux distro that wo n't crash for 6 years straight running the printserver/fileserver/ftp server/etc .
with a bunch of 16-18 year old children " administering " it... I think the ability to update the kernel on the fly like this is interesting .
I 'd be more interested in a service that let me pick and choose the patches/etc .
to determine if they work in my environment properly or not.. but 4 dollars a month for not having to reboot the system... I 'd pay it * shrug * ... Granted , the original point still remains that in the end this is worthless because outside of home-hacked/custom-built shit , or a true UNIX with a major support contract , there has n't been a system since Netware that would run like that for that long w/o a reboot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was in H.S.
in my pc repair/networking class (it was technically a 2 year 3 hour every day class).
We had our "learning" novell server, and our 'production' novell server.
The Production server was up for right at 6 years before we ended up replacing the entire system with Linux.
The learning server got rebooted more often than I care to think about... But the real point is thus: Find me a Linux distro that won't crash for 6 years straight running the printserver/fileserver/ftp server/etc.
with a bunch of 16-18 year old children "administering" it... I think the ability to update the kernel on the fly like this is interesting.
I'd be more interested in a service that let me pick and choose the patches/etc.
to determine if they work in my environment properly or not.. but 4 dollars a month for not having to reboot the system... I'd pay it *shrug*... Granted, the original point still remains that in the end this is worthless because outside of home-hacked/custom-built shit, or a true UNIX with a major support contract, there hasn't been a system since Netware that would run like that for that long w/o a reboot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081544</id>
	<title>Re:Rebooting is a Good Thing...</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1265730480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sound gay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sound gay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sound gay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081656</id>
	<title>Many will pay...</title>
	<author>EmagGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1265731860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all, $4/mo is pretty cheap to have a better chance of winning the BOFH penis length... er... uptime contest...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , $ 4/mo is pretty cheap to have a better chance of winning the BOFH penis length... er... uptime contest.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, $4/mo is pretty cheap to have a better chance of winning the BOFH penis length... er... uptime contest...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083238</id>
	<title>Utterly idiotic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265017740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, to get this straight: My production servers that should have as much uptime and stability as possible are going to have their kernel updated willy-nilly by a third party several times a day because I'm too STOOPID to devise my own HA solution, choose which kernel updates are appropriate and find out where can I reboot a critical server, or group of them. Yippiee hee haw! Count me in! I'm an idiot! where do I sign? It's so cheap! No more hassles! Customizable and user-friendly!</p><p>I can see banks, hospitals, oil drilling platforms, the IMF and their cousin jumping into it. Why oh why didn't I think of that BEESHNUSH MODELL before?</p><p>SHEESH! I hope they crash and burn (their client's servers and that stupid company).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , to get this straight : My production servers that should have as much uptime and stability as possible are going to have their kernel updated willy-nilly by a third party several times a day because I 'm too STOOPID to devise my own HA solution , choose which kernel updates are appropriate and find out where can I reboot a critical server , or group of them .
Yippiee hee haw !
Count me in !
I 'm an idiot !
where do I sign ?
It 's so cheap !
No more hassles !
Customizable and user-friendly ! I can see banks , hospitals , oil drilling platforms , the IMF and their cousin jumping into it .
Why oh why did n't I think of that BEESHNUSH MODELL before ? SHEESH !
I hope they crash and burn ( their client 's servers and that stupid company ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, to get this straight: My production servers that should have as much uptime and stability as possible are going to have their kernel updated willy-nilly by a third party several times a day because I'm too STOOPID to devise my own HA solution, choose which kernel updates are appropriate and find out where can I reboot a critical server, or group of them.
Yippiee hee haw!
Count me in!
I'm an idiot!
where do I sign?
It's so cheap!
No more hassles!
Customizable and user-friendly!I can see banks, hospitals, oil drilling platforms, the IMF and their cousin jumping into it.
Why oh why didn't I think of that BEESHNUSH MODELL before?SHEESH!
I hope they crash and burn (their client's servers and that stupid company).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083510</id>
	<title>Re:How long till they..</title>
	<author>beh</author>
	<datestamp>1265021280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not implemented in 8 years...</p><p>Hmmm - does that mean, Microsoft is one of those (patent-troll-like) 'non-practising entities'?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not implemented in 8 years...Hmmm - does that mean , Microsoft is one of those ( patent-troll-like ) 'non-practising entities ' ?
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not implemented in 8 years...Hmmm - does that mean, Microsoft is one of those (patent-troll-like) 'non-practising entities'?
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080562</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265722860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Would someone smarter than me please explain what is so evil about rebooting now and then?</p></div><p>Some organizations who have operational requirements to provide a service <b>continuously</b>. For them there is no acceptable downtime. Having said that I think their safety managers would have a few things to say about software which auto updates kernels on the fly, but that is a different issue. Their preference would be to never update their systems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would someone smarter than me please explain what is so evil about rebooting now and then ? Some organizations who have operational requirements to provide a service continuously .
For them there is no acceptable downtime .
Having said that I think their safety managers would have a few things to say about software which auto updates kernels on the fly , but that is a different issue .
Their preference would be to never update their systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would someone smarter than me please explain what is so evil about rebooting now and then?Some organizations who have operational requirements to provide a service continuously.
For them there is no acceptable downtime.
Having said that I think their safety managers would have a few things to say about software which auto updates kernels on the fly, but that is a different issue.
Their preference would be to never update their systems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080516</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265722620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It compromises uptime counters and serves as one more painful reminder that the glory days of the VAX are gone.</p><p>It once was said that in order to be a true VAX sysop, you had to know first-hand how many digits the VMS uptime counter had on it for the days field.</p><p>Sources say three.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It compromises uptime counters and serves as one more painful reminder that the glory days of the VAX are gone.It once was said that in order to be a true VAX sysop , you had to know first-hand how many digits the VMS uptime counter had on it for the days field.Sources say three .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It compromises uptime counters and serves as one more painful reminder that the glory days of the VAX are gone.It once was said that in order to be a true VAX sysop, you had to know first-hand how many digits the VMS uptime counter had on it for the days field.Sources say three.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082468</id>
	<title>Cool, but pointless</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1265741820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For home machines or desktop machines, the occasional reboot for patches is not problem.</p><p>For servers, you <b>want</b> to reboot after any significant change to the code running on your system, to verify the change didn't break booting. It is very annoying when a server fails to start properly after a power failure or the replacement of broken hardware, and it turns out to be due to a change someone made weeks or months ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For home machines or desktop machines , the occasional reboot for patches is not problem.For servers , you want to reboot after any significant change to the code running on your system , to verify the change did n't break booting .
It is very annoying when a server fails to start properly after a power failure or the replacement of broken hardware , and it turns out to be due to a change someone made weeks or months ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For home machines or desktop machines, the occasional reboot for patches is not problem.For servers, you want to reboot after any significant change to the code running on your system, to verify the change didn't break booting.
It is very annoying when a server fails to start properly after a power failure or the replacement of broken hardware, and it turns out to be due to a change someone made weeks or months ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083392</id>
	<title>Wasn't this what the GNU Hurd OS promised?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265019600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...something like 20 years ago?  What ever happened to the GNU OS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...something like 20 years ago ?
What ever happened to the GNU OS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...something like 20 years ago?
What ever happened to the GNU OS?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080660</id>
	<title>Re:Free?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265723460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"FREE" as in "you are free to obtain the software and its source and do with them what you wish" unlike non-free software that has restrictions on its use and no access to the source code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" FREE " as in " you are free to obtain the software and its source and do with them what you wish " unlike non-free software that has restrictions on its use and no access to the source code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"FREE" as in "you are free to obtain the software and its source and do with them what you wish" unlike non-free software that has restrictions on its use and no access to the source code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080388</id>
	<title>How long till they..</title>
	<author>mystikkman</author>
	<datestamp>1265721840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long till they get sued by Microsoft?</p><p><a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=cVyWAAAAEBAJ&amp;dq=hotpatching" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/patents?id=cVyWAAAAEBAJ&amp;dq=hotpatching</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long till they get sued by Microsoft ? http : //www.google.com/patents ? id = cVyWAAAAEBAJ&amp;dq = hotpatching [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long till they get sued by Microsoft?http://www.google.com/patents?id=cVyWAAAAEBAJ&amp;dq=hotpatching [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081094</id>
	<title>making stuff up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265726640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well-controlled live changes are not inherent to microkernels.  Monolithic design does not preclude well-controlled live changes; all you need is persistent memory and a kernel that can resume operation on that memory.  Stage the new kernel and switch.  This has been done for HA systems.</p><p>Can one argue that microkernels are more amenable to well-controlled live changes?  Perhaps.</p><p>That's the best you can say about it.  The rest is a fiction that exists exclusively in your head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well-controlled live changes are not inherent to microkernels .
Monolithic design does not preclude well-controlled live changes ; all you need is persistent memory and a kernel that can resume operation on that memory .
Stage the new kernel and switch .
This has been done for HA systems.Can one argue that microkernels are more amenable to well-controlled live changes ?
Perhaps.That 's the best you can say about it .
The rest is a fiction that exists exclusively in your head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well-controlled live changes are not inherent to microkernels.
Monolithic design does not preclude well-controlled live changes; all you need is persistent memory and a kernel that can resume operation on that memory.
Stage the new kernel and switch.
This has been done for HA systems.Can one argue that microkernels are more amenable to well-controlled live changes?
Perhaps.That's the best you can say about it.
The rest is a fiction that exists exclusively in your head.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081754</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1265732700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sorry, dinner's ready or I'd go on with a lot more.</p></div><p>Your mom calling you to come up from the basement?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , dinner 's ready or I 'd go on with a lot more.Your mom calling you to come up from the basement ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, dinner's ready or I'd go on with a lot more.Your mom calling you to come up from the basement?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080778</id>
	<title>Re:Free?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265724300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it weren't for companies like Redhat, Mandrake (Mandriva), (pre-Darl) Caldera, and Novell trying to find ways to convince people to pay for "free" software, how likely do you think it is that we would have a useful Linux today?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it were n't for companies like Redhat , Mandrake ( Mandriva ) , ( pre-Darl ) Caldera , and Novell trying to find ways to convince people to pay for " free " software , how likely do you think it is that we would have a useful Linux today ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it weren't for companies like Redhat, Mandrake (Mandriva), (pre-Darl) Caldera, and Novell trying to find ways to convince people to pay for "free" software, how likely do you think it is that we would have a useful Linux today?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083602</id>
	<title>Re:So instead of doing it right...</title>
	<author>PhunkySchtuff</author>
	<datestamp>1265022780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach\_(kernel)" title="wikipedia.org">mythical desktop microkernel</a> [wikipedia.org]?<br><br>What, you mean like <a href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/" title="apple.com">this</a> [apple.com]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A mythical desktop microkernel [ wikipedia.org ] ? What , you mean like this [ apple.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A mythical desktop microkernel [wikipedia.org]?What, you mean like this [apple.com]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31090944</id>
	<title>Centos stability</title>
	<author>RichM</author>
	<datestamp>1265019840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a Centos server with over 1180 days of uptime, and another of 760.<br>
They are both thrashed pretty heavily by being used as data processing servers and the 760 days one (which has a quad Xeon with 16GB RAM) was used today to perform a MySQL load test and got to <strong>321,000 queries per second</strong> when referencing tables with over 100 million rows, running at a load of 5-6.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Centos server with over 1180 days of uptime , and another of 760 .
They are both thrashed pretty heavily by being used as data processing servers and the 760 days one ( which has a quad Xeon with 16GB RAM ) was used today to perform a MySQL load test and got to 321,000 queries per second when referencing tables with over 100 million rows , running at a load of 5-6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Centos server with over 1180 days of uptime, and another of 760.
They are both thrashed pretty heavily by being used as data processing servers and the 760 days one (which has a quad Xeon with 16GB RAM) was used today to perform a MySQL load test and got to 321,000 queries per second when referencing tables with over 100 million rows, running at a load of 5-6.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080508</id>
	<title>Rebooting is a Good Thing...</title>
	<author>Dice</author>
	<datestamp>1265722560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those who do not perform scheduled reboots of their servers do not know whether their servers will come back up properly after unscheduled reboots.  How often have you seen someone add a service to a machine which becomes a critical part of your infrastructure then they forget to add it into the RC system?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those who do not perform scheduled reboots of their servers do not know whether their servers will come back up properly after unscheduled reboots .
How often have you seen someone add a service to a machine which becomes a critical part of your infrastructure then they forget to add it into the RC system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those who do not perform scheduled reboots of their servers do not know whether their servers will come back up properly after unscheduled reboots.
How often have you seen someone add a service to a machine which becomes a critical part of your infrastructure then they forget to add it into the RC system?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31086380</id>
	<title>Should have been integrated long ago</title>
	<author>Scarumanga</author>
	<datestamp>1265042940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Features like this should have been integrated into Linux and Windows years ago....if they cared enough to do it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Features like this should have been integrated into Linux and Windows years ago....if they cared enough to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Features like this should have been integrated into Linux and Windows years ago....if they cared enough to do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083854</id>
	<title>got root?</title>
	<author>Karl\_R</author>
	<datestamp>1265025900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mental! I understand the need for ksplice, but would you trust a third party to "patch" your kernel for "security" flaws?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mental !
I understand the need for ksplice , but would you trust a third party to " patch " your kernel for " security " flaws ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mental!
I understand the need for ksplice, but would you trust a third party to "patch" your kernel for "security" flaws?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080548</id>
	<title>Re:So instead of doing it right...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265722800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Advantages of a microkernel:</p><p>Modules can be rebooted/maintained separately from the core kernel<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... check</p><p>The core kernel can be updated.....Nope but Linux has this anyway</p><p>In kernel bug isolation &amp; security....Nope</p><p>Given there isn't a microkernel with 1/10 the other capabilities/hw support/usage of linux, doesn't it make sense to add stuff to linux instead of waiting for this mythical desktop microkernel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Advantages of a microkernel : Modules can be rebooted/maintained separately from the core kernel .... checkThe core kernel can be updated.....Nope but Linux has this anywayIn kernel bug isolation &amp; security....NopeGiven there is n't a microkernel with 1/10 the other capabilities/hw support/usage of linux , does n't it make sense to add stuff to linux instead of waiting for this mythical desktop microkernel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Advantages of a microkernel:Modules can be rebooted/maintained separately from the core kernel .... checkThe core kernel can be updated.....Nope but Linux has this anywayIn kernel bug isolation &amp; security....NopeGiven there isn't a microkernel with 1/10 the other capabilities/hw support/usage of linux, doesn't it make sense to add stuff to linux instead of waiting for this mythical desktop microkernel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080500</id>
	<title>4/month to keep your uptime?</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1265722500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe if it was almost 497.1 days:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe if it was almost 497.1 days : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe if it was almost 497.1 days:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080646</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>darth dickinson</author>
	<datestamp>1265723280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One would hope that there would be redundancy in such a situation...</htmltext>
<tokenext>One would hope that there would be redundancy in such a situation.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One would hope that there would be redundancy in such a situation...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080742</id>
	<title>Re:Huh?</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1265724060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends on what your system is doing. If you're an end user running desktop apps, mostly it's just a pain in the ass. If you're maintaining a server that does something that has to be available all the time, the results range from expensive to disastrous. If the server in question handles credit card transactions for a bank, downtime costs the bank money -- they profit from transaction fees -- and it also costs vendors that use the bank's services. If the server handles air traffic control, the operation of a nuclear power plant, or life support for patients in a hospital, downtime can cost lives. It all depends on what the machine is responsible for.</p><p>While it's probably not all that directly important to you (or, for that matter, for me, since I am blessedly free of sysadmin duties at the moment), it does affect all of us indirectly, since the perceived reliability of Linux has a marked effect on the resources any number of companies and institutions are willing to pour into it, some of which is going to be source code that is then shared by everyone.</p><p>But the short answer is it doesn't matter much in 99.9\% of cases. For the remaining 0.1\%, rebooting can be a very big deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on what your system is doing .
If you 're an end user running desktop apps , mostly it 's just a pain in the ass .
If you 're maintaining a server that does something that has to be available all the time , the results range from expensive to disastrous .
If the server in question handles credit card transactions for a bank , downtime costs the bank money -- they profit from transaction fees -- and it also costs vendors that use the bank 's services .
If the server handles air traffic control , the operation of a nuclear power plant , or life support for patients in a hospital , downtime can cost lives .
It all depends on what the machine is responsible for.While it 's probably not all that directly important to you ( or , for that matter , for me , since I am blessedly free of sysadmin duties at the moment ) , it does affect all of us indirectly , since the perceived reliability of Linux has a marked effect on the resources any number of companies and institutions are willing to pour into it , some of which is going to be source code that is then shared by everyone.But the short answer is it does n't matter much in 99.9 \ % of cases .
For the remaining 0.1 \ % , rebooting can be a very big deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on what your system is doing.
If you're an end user running desktop apps, mostly it's just a pain in the ass.
If you're maintaining a server that does something that has to be available all the time, the results range from expensive to disastrous.
If the server in question handles credit card transactions for a bank, downtime costs the bank money -- they profit from transaction fees -- and it also costs vendors that use the bank's services.
If the server handles air traffic control, the operation of a nuclear power plant, or life support for patients in a hospital, downtime can cost lives.
It all depends on what the machine is responsible for.While it's probably not all that directly important to you (or, for that matter, for me, since I am blessedly free of sysadmin duties at the moment), it does affect all of us indirectly, since the perceived reliability of Linux has a marked effect on the resources any number of companies and institutions are willing to pour into it, some of which is going to be source code that is then shared by everyone.But the short answer is it doesn't matter much in 99.9\% of cases.
For the remaining 0.1\%, rebooting can be a very big deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080672</id>
	<title>Re:Rebooting is a Good Thing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265723520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats exactly right. The cause of THAT problem is the lack of a unified management interface that would otherwise make system configuration changes mandatory to commit to nv storage.But even beyond that, sometimes the boot order of things can prevent what you just did from the command line to setup that new service from actually working at 'startup time'.... Will the interfaces your config file references exist when your startup script executes? Will the dhcp server have responded and given you a default gateway so that dns resolution works? Will the local sql database be running or will it have 'crashed' and require a manual start or table rebuild? Will your NFS mounted directory actually be mounted at the time your script runs or does that depend on something else?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats exactly right .
The cause of THAT problem is the lack of a unified management interface that would otherwise make system configuration changes mandatory to commit to nv storage.But even beyond that , sometimes the boot order of things can prevent what you just did from the command line to setup that new service from actually working at 'startup time'.... Will the interfaces your config file references exist when your startup script executes ?
Will the dhcp server have responded and given you a default gateway so that dns resolution works ?
Will the local sql database be running or will it have 'crashed ' and require a manual start or table rebuild ?
Will your NFS mounted directory actually be mounted at the time your script runs or does that depend on something else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats exactly right.
The cause of THAT problem is the lack of a unified management interface that would otherwise make system configuration changes mandatory to commit to nv storage.But even beyond that, sometimes the boot order of things can prevent what you just did from the command line to setup that new service from actually working at 'startup time'.... Will the interfaces your config file references exist when your startup script executes?
Will the dhcp server have responded and given you a default gateway so that dns resolution works?
Will the local sql database be running or will it have 'crashed' and require a manual start or table rebuild?
Will your NFS mounted directory actually be mounted at the time your script runs or does that depend on something else?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31088530</id>
	<title>Re:How long till they..</title>
	<author>NeoSkandranon</author>
	<datestamp>1265052120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Overtime?</p><p>Fakepost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Overtime ? Fakepost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Overtime?Fakepost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080484</id>
	<title>Hell yeah!</title>
	<author>Zocalo</author>
	<datestamp>1265722440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Immortality baby!  <a href="http://xkcd.com/686/" title="xkcd.com">Immortality!</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Immortality baby !
Immortality ! [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Immortality baby!
Immortality! [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083528</id>
	<title>SP3 hangs at "Running Processes After Install"</title>
	<author>G3ckoG33k</author>
	<datestamp>1265021520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://forums.techarena.in/windows-update/984365.htm" title="techarena.in">http://forums.techarena.in/windows-update/984365.htm</a> [techarena.in]

' SP3 hangs at "Running Processes After Install" '</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //forums.techarena.in/windows-update/984365.htm [ techarena.in ] ' SP3 hangs at " Running Processes After Install " '</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://forums.techarena.in/windows-update/984365.htm [techarena.in]

' SP3 hangs at "Running Processes After Install" '</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080416</id>
	<title>So instead of doing it right...</title>
	<author>drolli</author>
	<datestamp>1265722020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>..an using some Microkernel OS in which something like this would come as a well-controlled feature, we are using a monolithic kernel and self-modifying code?</htmltext>
<tokenext>..an using some Microkernel OS in which something like this would come as a well-controlled feature , we are using a monolithic kernel and self-modifying code ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..an using some Microkernel OS in which something like this would come as a well-controlled feature, we are using a monolithic kernel and self-modifying code?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080498</id>
	<title>Re:How long till they..</title>
	<author>JSG</author>
	<datestamp>1265722500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The patent on this was filed in 2002.  Yet in 2010 I am still making a handsome profit in overtime rebooting customer systems on a "patch Tuesday" monthly frenzy.</p><p>Please MS, don't implement this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The patent on this was filed in 2002 .
Yet in 2010 I am still making a handsome profit in overtime rebooting customer systems on a " patch Tuesday " monthly frenzy.Please MS , do n't implement this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The patent on this was filed in 2002.
Yet in 2010 I am still making a handsome profit in overtime rebooting customer systems on a "patch Tuesday" monthly frenzy.Please MS, don't implement this one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080460</id>
	<title>$4 a month too much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265722260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is $4 a month too much for the benefits of instant(ish) security patches and 24/7 kernel uptime, I don't run any dedicated servers, but if i had a couple i wanted to setup and leave for years serving content without worrying about them I wouldn't mind paying ~20GBP to almost forget about a ubuntu LTS/RHEL install with autoupdates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is $ 4 a month too much for the benefits of instant ( ish ) security patches and 24/7 kernel uptime , I do n't run any dedicated servers , but if i had a couple i wanted to setup and leave for years serving content without worrying about them I would n't mind paying ~ 20GBP to almost forget about a ubuntu LTS/RHEL install with autoupdates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is $4 a month too much for the benefits of instant(ish) security patches and 24/7 kernel uptime, I don't run any dedicated servers, but if i had a couple i wanted to setup and leave for years serving content without worrying about them I wouldn't mind paying ~20GBP to almost forget about a ubuntu LTS/RHEL install with autoupdates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31086224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31084840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31086066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31096766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31088530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31085882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31084394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31096602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31104174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31156046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_2341249_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_2341249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_2341249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080498
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31088530
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31096602
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082448
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31104174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31096766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_2341249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31156046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31084394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_2341249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_2341249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080828
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_2341249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081618
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31086224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31086066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_2341249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31083842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31080672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31082650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31085882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_2341249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31081344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_2341249.31084840
</commentlist>
</conversation>
