<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_21_0232243</id>
	<title>Novell Rejects "Inadequate" $2B Takeover Bid</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269184320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>alphadogg writes <i>"Novell's CEO wrote to customers Saturday telling them that the software company has <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/032010-novell-rejects-takeover.html">rejected a $2 billion bid by hedge fund Elliott Associates</a> to take it private. He called the offer 'inadequate' and said Novell will review alternatives. Novell has struggled financially even as it has reinvented itself from its NetWare network operating roots into an open source (SUSE and Ximian) and management and security software company. Revenue fell 10\% during its most recent fiscal year (wrapped up in October) and its net losses widened. CEO Hovsepian's total compensation fell 17\% to $5.7 million."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>alphadogg writes " Novell 's CEO wrote to customers Saturday telling them that the software company has rejected a $ 2 billion bid by hedge fund Elliott Associates to take it private .
He called the offer 'inadequate ' and said Novell will review alternatives .
Novell has struggled financially even as it has reinvented itself from its NetWare network operating roots into an open source ( SUSE and Ximian ) and management and security software company .
Revenue fell 10 \ % during its most recent fiscal year ( wrapped up in October ) and its net losses widened .
CEO Hovsepian 's total compensation fell 17 \ % to $ 5.7 million .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>alphadogg writes "Novell's CEO wrote to customers Saturday telling them that the software company has rejected a $2 billion bid by hedge fund Elliott Associates to take it private.
He called the offer 'inadequate' and said Novell will review alternatives.
Novell has struggled financially even as it has reinvented itself from its NetWare network operating roots into an open source (SUSE and Ximian) and management and security software company.
Revenue fell 10\% during its most recent fiscal year (wrapped up in October) and its net losses widened.
CEO Hovsepian's total compensation fell 17\% to $5.7 million.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554982</id>
	<title>Re:Why did Novell not Linux-ify older Netwares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269104340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And how about their filesystem where if the file wasn't overwritten yet, you could simply undelete it, even as a user, including only seeing your own files for undeleting. I know it's possible to do something almost similar with snapshotting, but the default linux filesystems don't support that, and with the filesystems that do the functionality is still not the same (automatic removal of oldest files from snapshots as the disk fills up?), and it's not as easy to setup and use, and it's not integrated with the network filesystem and security as it was on Netware...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And how about their filesystem where if the file was n't overwritten yet , you could simply undelete it , even as a user , including only seeing your own files for undeleting .
I know it 's possible to do something almost similar with snapshotting , but the default linux filesystems do n't support that , and with the filesystems that do the functionality is still not the same ( automatic removal of oldest files from snapshots as the disk fills up ?
) , and it 's not as easy to setup and use , and it 's not integrated with the network filesystem and security as it was on Netware.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how about their filesystem where if the file wasn't overwritten yet, you could simply undelete it, even as a user, including only seeing your own files for undeleting.
I know it's possible to do something almost similar with snapshotting, but the default linux filesystems don't support that, and with the filesystems that do the functionality is still not the same (automatic removal of oldest files from snapshots as the disk fills up?
), and it's not as easy to setup and use, and it's not integrated with the network filesystem and security as it was on Netware...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31560108</id>
	<title>Re:Because they're idiots.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269165600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is "generic" Linux? Isn't OpenSUSE generic enough?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is " generic " Linux ?
Is n't OpenSUSE generic enough ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is "generic" Linux?
Isn't OpenSUSE generic enough?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555774</id>
	<title>SCO/Yarrow Link?</title>
	<author>seeker\_1us</author>
	<datestamp>1269204060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if this could be traced to SCO and Yarrow.  If Novell ended up going away,  SCO would be free to try their questionable legal tactics again to get money from Linux users.

Just   tinfoil hat speculation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if this could be traced to SCO and Yarrow .
If Novell ended up going away , SCO would be free to try their questionable legal tactics again to get money from Linux users .
Just tinfoil hat speculation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if this could be traced to SCO and Yarrow.
If Novell ended up going away,  SCO would be free to try their questionable legal tactics again to get money from Linux users.
Just   tinfoil hat speculation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555346</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1269110040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wasn't aware that Novell or Red Hat offered a service where they do system administration for your in-house servers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was n't aware that Novell or Red Hat offered a service where they do system administration for your in-house servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wasn't aware that Novell or Red Hat offered a service where they do system administration for your in-house servers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555126</id>
	<title>Companies like this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269106680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Companies like this is exactly what Elliot et al. wants, liquidize and suck out the billion dollars and throw away the empty shell and all the workers, these hedge funds are the scum of this earth</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies like this is exactly what Elliot et al .
wants , liquidize and suck out the billion dollars and throw away the empty shell and all the workers , these hedge funds are the scum of this earth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies like this is exactly what Elliot et al.
wants, liquidize and suck out the billion dollars and throw away the empty shell and all the workers, these hedge funds are the scum of this earth</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31556976</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1269180300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And where would IBM be if their business revolved around support?  Oh, it does and they're worth $166bn with around a $10bn annual profit.  </p><p>
There seems to be a misguided view among a lot of Slashdot readers that 'support' means 'answering the phone and telling people what to click on.'  It doesn't.  Support means taking products, which might be free or might be proprietary, and turning them into something that solves a specific business problem.  Business problems are things like 'our departments aren't communicating well' or 'we aren't reordering stock quickly enough to track sudden demand spikes'.  Solutions may involve email programs and databases, but these are just parts of the solution.  Integrating them and training the users to make best use of them are the other parts.  Sometimes, modifying the software to do exactly what the user needs, rather than almost what the user needs, is a part of it.  All of these things come under the heading of 'support.'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And where would IBM be if their business revolved around support ?
Oh , it does and they 're worth $ 166bn with around a $ 10bn annual profit .
There seems to be a misguided view among a lot of Slashdot readers that 'support ' means 'answering the phone and telling people what to click on .
' It does n't .
Support means taking products , which might be free or might be proprietary , and turning them into something that solves a specific business problem .
Business problems are things like 'our departments are n't communicating well ' or 'we are n't reordering stock quickly enough to track sudden demand spikes' .
Solutions may involve email programs and databases , but these are just parts of the solution .
Integrating them and training the users to make best use of them are the other parts .
Sometimes , modifying the software to do exactly what the user needs , rather than almost what the user needs , is a part of it .
All of these things come under the heading of 'support .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And where would IBM be if their business revolved around support?
Oh, it does and they're worth $166bn with around a $10bn annual profit.
There seems to be a misguided view among a lot of Slashdot readers that 'support' means 'answering the phone and telling people what to click on.
'  It doesn't.
Support means taking products, which might be free or might be proprietary, and turning them into something that solves a specific business problem.
Business problems are things like 'our departments aren't communicating well' or 'we aren't reordering stock quickly enough to track sudden demand spikes'.
Solutions may involve email programs and databases, but these are just parts of the solution.
Integrating them and training the users to make best use of them are the other parts.
Sometimes, modifying the software to do exactly what the user needs, rather than almost what the user needs, is a part of it.
All of these things come under the heading of 'support.
'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31557268</id>
	<title>Novell NOT worth that till....</title>
	<author>rec9140</author>
	<datestamp>1269183720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they DUMP miguel mono boi and his crap!</p><p>I wouldn't touch them with a 10000ft pole. Huge legal liability with that mess.</p><p>Plus it would take so much to clean up SLES and OpenSUSE to restore it back to its previous stature as a top of the line distro.</p><p>When you dump miguel mono boi, then you might be worth more than US $0.000001/cents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they DUMP miguel mono boi and his crap ! I would n't touch them with a 10000ft pole .
Huge legal liability with that mess.Plus it would take so much to clean up SLES and OpenSUSE to restore it back to its previous stature as a top of the line distro.When you dump miguel mono boi , then you might be worth more than US $ 0.000001/cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they DUMP miguel mono boi and his crap!I wouldn't touch them with a 10000ft pole.
Huge legal liability with that mess.Plus it would take so much to clean up SLES and OpenSUSE to restore it back to its previous stature as a top of the line distro.When you dump miguel mono boi, then you might be worth more than US $0.000001/cents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31558392</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269195120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"How do you explain the fact that RedHat is profitable?"</p><p>One big reason is that the core technology used to start their business was created by volunteers rather than by burning their own money. (Yes I know they contribute code <i>now</i> but that's quite different from creating your product from scratch).</p><p>As I said earlier, there might be room for one big player to provide a "hand-holding" service to less sophisticated Linux shops, but as Linux grows in popularity the need for hand-holding will diminish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" How do you explain the fact that RedHat is profitable ?
" One big reason is that the core technology used to start their business was created by volunteers rather than by burning their own money .
( Yes I know they contribute code now but that 's quite different from creating your product from scratch ) .As I said earlier , there might be room for one big player to provide a " hand-holding " service to less sophisticated Linux shops , but as Linux grows in popularity the need for hand-holding will diminish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"How do you explain the fact that RedHat is profitable?
"One big reason is that the core technology used to start their business was created by volunteers rather than by burning their own money.
(Yes I know they contribute code now but that's quite different from creating your product from scratch).As I said earlier, there might be room for one big player to provide a "hand-holding" service to less sophisticated Linux shops, but as Linux grows in popularity the need for hand-holding will diminish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555368</id>
	<title>Re:Good move by Novell's part</title>
	<author>ishobo</author>
	<datestamp>1269110280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrysler was saved by CCM. Daimler was the one that wanted to break apart the company and sell the peices. CCM was serious about reinvigoratinig Chrysler, that is why the lured Jim Press away from Toyota. Chrysler's problem was its recovery coincided with the worldwide recession. At that point, CCM had nowhere to go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrysler was saved by CCM .
Daimler was the one that wanted to break apart the company and sell the peices .
CCM was serious about reinvigoratinig Chrysler , that is why the lured Jim Press away from Toyota .
Chrysler 's problem was its recovery coincided with the worldwide recession .
At that point , CCM had nowhere to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrysler was saved by CCM.
Daimler was the one that wanted to break apart the company and sell the peices.
CCM was serious about reinvigoratinig Chrysler, that is why the lured Jim Press away from Toyota.
Chrysler's problem was its recovery coincided with the worldwide recession.
At that point, CCM had nowhere to go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555020</id>
	<title>I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269105060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many companies can survive on selling a commodity that people can acquire for free? If Linux were to become commonplace even Red Hat might have trouble getting customers to cough up for support they don't really need anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many companies can survive on selling a commodity that people can acquire for free ?
If Linux were to become commonplace even Red Hat might have trouble getting customers to cough up for support they do n't really need anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many companies can survive on selling a commodity that people can acquire for free?
If Linux were to become commonplace even Red Hat might have trouble getting customers to cough up for support they don't really need anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555184</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269107580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh come on,<br>there's always going to be a market for support<br>especially in businesses</p><p>Most people do not have the skills to administer a system / network of systems<br>Most businesses are not in the tech field<br>It is far more cost effective to hire a third party company to provide support than to employ someone in-house</p><p>This goes for any service, not just IT</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh come on,there 's always going to be a market for supportespecially in businessesMost people do not have the skills to administer a system / network of systemsMost businesses are not in the tech fieldIt is far more cost effective to hire a third party company to provide support than to employ someone in-houseThis goes for any service , not just IT</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh come on,there's always going to be a market for supportespecially in businessesMost people do not have the skills to administer a system / network of systemsMost businesses are not in the tech fieldIt is far more cost effective to hire a third party company to provide support than to employ someone in-houseThis goes for any service, not just IT</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555210</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1269107940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't agree with the comments on here that support is going to make money.<p>
do you think MS would be a multi billion $ company based around a support model?</p><p>
history shows service industries to be the poor cusions of people with something to sell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't agree with the comments on here that support is going to make money .
do you think MS would be a multi billion $ company based around a support model ?
history shows service industries to be the poor cusions of people with something to sell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't agree with the comments on here that support is going to make money.
do you think MS would be a multi billion $ company based around a support model?
history shows service industries to be the poor cusions of people with something to sell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554954</id>
	<title>Hedge fund just wants the IP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269104040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chances are they'll hire a law firm to sue everyone in sight if/when the acquisition closes, starting with Novell's role as owner of the System V copyrights.  Hedge funds and private equity firms aren't interested in risky new development projects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chances are they 'll hire a law firm to sue everyone in sight if/when the acquisition closes , starting with Novell 's role as owner of the System V copyrights .
Hedge funds and private equity firms are n't interested in risky new development projects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chances are they'll hire a law firm to sue everyone in sight if/when the acquisition closes, starting with Novell's role as owner of the System V copyrights.
Hedge funds and private equity firms aren't interested in risky new development projects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555430</id>
	<title>Re:Why did Novell not Linux-ify older Netwares?</title>
	<author>NOSghoul</author>
	<datestamp>1269111060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One can always tell people who post comments about products they have no clue about.</p><p>Novell <b>did</b> "Linux-ify" their platform. It started with NetWare v5.0 back in 2000. OES on Linux was released in 2005. Where have you been for the past 5 years, by Zombie Ryushu?</p><p>NetWare v5.0 had a CLIB, Java VM and JVM-based XWindows GUI. It also supported CIFS. By NetWare v6.0, in 2003, they'd added a BASH shell, RPMs, ZLib and a lot more Linux components.</p><p>NetWare v3.x had been completely EOLed by 1999, and NetWare v4.x by 2003. Both were tied to IPX - it'd be insane to suggest it would have been worth the time and development effort to re-engineer them with Native IP (NCP over TCP/IP, which was introduced in NetWare v5.x) and the other *NIX-originated features they added to NetWare v5.x and v6.x.</p><p>As another poster has pointed out, OES ported the File and Print services traditionally associated with NetWare to a Linux platform. It's been out for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One can always tell people who post comments about products they have no clue about.Novell did " Linux-ify " their platform .
It started with NetWare v5.0 back in 2000 .
OES on Linux was released in 2005 .
Where have you been for the past 5 years , by Zombie Ryushu ? NetWare v5.0 had a CLIB , Java VM and JVM-based XWindows GUI .
It also supported CIFS .
By NetWare v6.0 , in 2003 , they 'd added a BASH shell , RPMs , ZLib and a lot more Linux components.NetWare v3.x had been completely EOLed by 1999 , and NetWare v4.x by 2003 .
Both were tied to IPX - it 'd be insane to suggest it would have been worth the time and development effort to re-engineer them with Native IP ( NCP over TCP/IP , which was introduced in NetWare v5.x ) and the other * NIX-originated features they added to NetWare v5.x and v6.x.As another poster has pointed out , OES ported the File and Print services traditionally associated with NetWare to a Linux platform .
It 's been out for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One can always tell people who post comments about products they have no clue about.Novell did "Linux-ify" their platform.
It started with NetWare v5.0 back in 2000.
OES on Linux was released in 2005.
Where have you been for the past 5 years, by Zombie Ryushu?NetWare v5.0 had a CLIB, Java VM and JVM-based XWindows GUI.
It also supported CIFS.
By NetWare v6.0, in 2003, they'd added a BASH shell, RPMs, ZLib and a lot more Linux components.NetWare v3.x had been completely EOLed by 1999, and NetWare v4.x by 2003.
Both were tied to IPX - it'd be insane to suggest it would have been worth the time and development effort to re-engineer them with Native IP (NCP over TCP/IP, which was introduced in NetWare v5.x) and the other *NIX-originated features they added to NetWare v5.x and v6.x.As another poster has pointed out, OES ported the File and Print services traditionally associated with NetWare to a Linux platform.
It's been out for years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555476</id>
	<title>Re:Why did Novell not Linux-ify older Netwares?</title>
	<author>drolli</author>
	<datestamp>1269112080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thata exactly what i think would have made them much bigger than they are now. Back in the day big organizations had netware installations spanning 1000s of machines. When i think what our university computing center would have payed back then for a officially supported solution to unify unix and netware servers (e.g. if novell delivered their servers based on solaris) while not having the hassle of switching the clients withing a small timespan and having infinite connectivity and hardware-choices on linux/unix it seems to me like a rather stupid move  not to push such a thing actively.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thata exactly what i think would have made them much bigger than they are now .
Back in the day big organizations had netware installations spanning 1000s of machines .
When i think what our university computing center would have payed back then for a officially supported solution to unify unix and netware servers ( e.g .
if novell delivered their servers based on solaris ) while not having the hassle of switching the clients withing a small timespan and having infinite connectivity and hardware-choices on linux/unix it seems to me like a rather stupid move not to push such a thing actively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thata exactly what i think would have made them much bigger than they are now.
Back in the day big organizations had netware installations spanning 1000s of machines.
When i think what our university computing center would have payed back then for a officially supported solution to unify unix and netware servers (e.g.
if novell delivered their servers based on solaris) while not having the hassle of switching the clients withing a small timespan and having infinite connectivity and hardware-choices on linux/unix it seems to me like a rather stupid move  not to push such a thing actively.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554780</id>
	<title>Somewhere...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269101700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Holy crap! they offered 2 billion to buy us out?  We're not even worth half that!</p><p>I know right!  They must be insane.......  I bet we can get 5 billion!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy crap !
they offered 2 billion to buy us out ?
We 're not even worth half that ! I know right !
They must be insane....... I bet we can get 5 billion !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy crap!
they offered 2 billion to buy us out?
We're not even worth half that!I know right!
They must be insane.......  I bet we can get 5 billion!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555246</id>
	<title>Problem: Old Execs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269108420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Novell could have really dug in to the Linux market.  They waited too long and they continued with their same old marketing and licensing.  It's a sinking ship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Novell could have really dug in to the Linux market .
They waited too long and they continued with their same old marketing and licensing .
It 's a sinking ship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Novell could have really dug in to the Linux market.
They waited too long and they continued with their same old marketing and licensing.
It's a sinking ship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31558464</id>
	<title>Re:Good move by Novell's part</title>
	<author>tabdelgawad</author>
	<datestamp>1269195720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny you should use the 'vulture' analogy, because it implies the company taken over is already 'dead'.  Even 'vultures' serve an important function in the 'ecosystem', movies like "Pretty Woman" not withstanding!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny you should use the 'vulture ' analogy , because it implies the company taken over is already 'dead' .
Even 'vultures ' serve an important function in the 'ecosystem ' , movies like " Pretty Woman " not withstanding !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny you should use the 'vulture' analogy, because it implies the company taken over is already 'dead'.
Even 'vultures' serve an important function in the 'ecosystem', movies like "Pretty Woman" not withstanding!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555494</id>
	<title>Re:Companies like this...</title>
	<author>clarkkent09</author>
	<datestamp>1269112260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A company can only survive for so long making a loss of $200M on a gross revenue of $800M as Novell did last year. I don't know all the details of Novell's finances and maybe the management has a great plan to save it but in general there are cases where its better to put a moribund company out of it's misery sooner rather than later.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A company can only survive for so long making a loss of $ 200M on a gross revenue of $ 800M as Novell did last year .
I do n't know all the details of Novell 's finances and maybe the management has a great plan to save it but in general there are cases where its better to put a moribund company out of it 's misery sooner rather than later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A company can only survive for so long making a loss of $200M on a gross revenue of $800M as Novell did last year.
I don't know all the details of Novell's finances and maybe the management has a great plan to save it but in general there are cases where its better to put a moribund company out of it's misery sooner rather than later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554854</id>
	<title>Dummy!  Take the money and Run!</title>
	<author>billstewart</author>
	<datestamp>1269102900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are companies that really should resist being taken over at low-ball prices.   I'm very skeptical about any assertion that Novell is one of them; I'd suspect this is a seriously high-ball price, and yes I mean that in several different senses<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>That doesn't mean it's easy to work at a company that's been bought for too high a price - I used to work for Company N, which was bought by Company A for (IMHO) about 3x what they should have paid, and 2.5x what Company A could have gotten if they'd started out with a low enough offer and ignore Company N's CEO ranting about hostile takeovers.  It was a great deal for the stockholders of Company N, but for the company itself, paying 3x what the company was worth meant that the buyers were expecting to get 3x as much revenue from owning Company N as was realistically available.  So they went into radical cost-cutting mode, sold off a couple of divisions, tried a bunch of new things using the skills they imagined that Company N would have if a few people from Company A came over to "help", and when that failed, laid off a bunch of people (including me, but I found another job at Company A about when my severance pay ran out, so basically I got a vacation that was long enough I should have goofed off much more seriously than I did.)  Eventually they stopped doing most of the things they were bad at (including some of their main product lines that were being eclipsed by the technology boom), went back to doing the things they actually were good at, and got spun off for a stock price that was about what they were actually worth at the beginning of this whole charade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are companies that really should resist being taken over at low-ball prices .
I 'm very skeptical about any assertion that Novell is one of them ; I 'd suspect this is a seriously high-ball price , and yes I mean that in several different senses : - ) That does n't mean it 's easy to work at a company that 's been bought for too high a price - I used to work for Company N , which was bought by Company A for ( IMHO ) about 3x what they should have paid , and 2.5x what Company A could have gotten if they 'd started out with a low enough offer and ignore Company N 's CEO ranting about hostile takeovers .
It was a great deal for the stockholders of Company N , but for the company itself , paying 3x what the company was worth meant that the buyers were expecting to get 3x as much revenue from owning Company N as was realistically available .
So they went into radical cost-cutting mode , sold off a couple of divisions , tried a bunch of new things using the skills they imagined that Company N would have if a few people from Company A came over to " help " , and when that failed , laid off a bunch of people ( including me , but I found another job at Company A about when my severance pay ran out , so basically I got a vacation that was long enough I should have goofed off much more seriously than I did .
) Eventually they stopped doing most of the things they were bad at ( including some of their main product lines that were being eclipsed by the technology boom ) , went back to doing the things they actually were good at , and got spun off for a stock price that was about what they were actually worth at the beginning of this whole charade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are companies that really should resist being taken over at low-ball prices.
I'm very skeptical about any assertion that Novell is one of them; I'd suspect this is a seriously high-ball price, and yes I mean that in several different senses :-)That doesn't mean it's easy to work at a company that's been bought for too high a price - I used to work for Company N, which was bought by Company A for (IMHO) about 3x what they should have paid, and 2.5x what Company A could have gotten if they'd started out with a low enough offer and ignore Company N's CEO ranting about hostile takeovers.
It was a great deal for the stockholders of Company N, but for the company itself, paying 3x what the company was worth meant that the buyers were expecting to get 3x as much revenue from owning Company N as was realistically available.
So they went into radical cost-cutting mode, sold off a couple of divisions, tried a bunch of new things using the skills they imagined that Company N would have if a few people from Company A came over to "help", and when that failed, laid off a bunch of people (including me, but I found another job at Company A about when my severance pay ran out, so basically I got a vacation that was long enough I should have goofed off much more seriously than I did.
)  Eventually they stopped doing most of the things they were bad at (including some of their main product lines that were being eclipsed by the technology boom), went back to doing the things they actually were good at, and got spun off for a stock price that was about what they were actually worth at the beginning of this whole charade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554830</id>
	<title>Why did Novell not Linux-ify older Netwares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269102240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why did Novell not Linux-ify older Netwares? That is to say, make it so that Netware 3.x, and 4.x era IPX and NCP architectures could run on Linux (Think Netware-esque Samba). Back in the day, I could run a program called Mars\_new on Linux, and it would permit me to utilize Dos workstations running Netware's Client software. Novell should have done this, make Netware a Linux application, have it go viral to all these orginizations that used Netware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did Novell not Linux-ify older Netwares ?
That is to say , make it so that Netware 3.x , and 4.x era IPX and NCP architectures could run on Linux ( Think Netware-esque Samba ) .
Back in the day , I could run a program called Mars \ _new on Linux , and it would permit me to utilize Dos workstations running Netware 's Client software .
Novell should have done this , make Netware a Linux application , have it go viral to all these orginizations that used Netware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did Novell not Linux-ify older Netwares?
That is to say, make it so that Netware 3.x, and 4.x era IPX and NCP architectures could run on Linux (Think Netware-esque Samba).
Back in the day, I could run a program called Mars\_new on Linux, and it would permit me to utilize Dos workstations running Netware's Client software.
Novell should have done this, make Netware a Linux application, have it go viral to all these orginizations that used Netware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555216</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269108000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Enterprise services are big business, IBM make $13 billion <i>profit</i> every year selling crappy software that does what people need.<br> <br>
Novell has a huge asset (besides their pile of cash), and that is their customer base.  If they can create an attractive way for their customers to move forward, they have strong potential for profitability in the future.  All they need to do is figure out what their customers need, stick it in a pretty package, and the sales will basically take care of themselves.<br> <br>
My understanding (from talking to employees at the company) is that Novell is a very bureaucratic company, and it is hard for new ideas to get backing inside the company.  If they want to succeed they will need to overcome their inertia and become more nimble.  There is no reason they can't do this: if they die, it will be because they got caught in their own tarpit and didn't have the will to change.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Enterprise services are big business , IBM make $ 13 billion profit every year selling crappy software that does what people need .
Novell has a huge asset ( besides their pile of cash ) , and that is their customer base .
If they can create an attractive way for their customers to move forward , they have strong potential for profitability in the future .
All they need to do is figure out what their customers need , stick it in a pretty package , and the sales will basically take care of themselves .
My understanding ( from talking to employees at the company ) is that Novell is a very bureaucratic company , and it is hard for new ideas to get backing inside the company .
If they want to succeed they will need to overcome their inertia and become more nimble .
There is no reason they ca n't do this : if they die , it will be because they got caught in their own tarpit and did n't have the will to change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enterprise services are big business, IBM make $13 billion profit every year selling crappy software that does what people need.
Novell has a huge asset (besides their pile of cash), and that is their customer base.
If they can create an attractive way for their customers to move forward, they have strong potential for profitability in the future.
All they need to do is figure out what their customers need, stick it in a pretty package, and the sales will basically take care of themselves.
My understanding (from talking to employees at the company) is that Novell is a very bureaucratic company, and it is hard for new ideas to get backing inside the company.
If they want to succeed they will need to overcome their inertia and become more nimble.
There is no reason they can't do this: if they die, it will be because they got caught in their own tarpit and didn't have the will to change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31556464</id>
	<title>Re:Why did Novell not Linux-ify older Netwares?</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1269172920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because they can't.</p><p>Those older Netware versions are written so closely to the hardware that they cannot even be run as virtual machines, they just will not run without direct access to the hardware. That's one of the primary reasons they ditched Netware for OES(which is pretty much what you asked for, Netware systems running on Linux).</p><p>The real problem they face is that You cannot upgrade from Netware to OES in situ, you have to create an entirely new instance and, since Novell's products don't modify well in place, export everything out of your old instance and into the new instance. This is a huge amount of work and expense, and most importantly about the same amount of work and expense it takes to migrate your organization to AD and Exchange which I can tell you after working with Novell for the better part of 10 years has reached a point where it is a vastly superior product in every way. Since at the present time the core Novell products(eDirectory and Groupwise) aren't even open source(even if OES runs with a linux core) they don't even have that philosophical advantage.</p><p>Novells core products(not their new middleware products which are fairly good) are gigantic proprietary pieces of crap and realistically if you're going to use a giant piece of proprietary software to run your network you'd get a lot better bang for your buck using Microsoft because it works better and they treat their customers better than Novell treats theirs(which should give you a pretty good idea of just how god awful Novell has treated their customers over the last 10 years or so).</p><p>Novell are not the good guys. They might be the "getting better" guys, they've moved towards open source, they've moved towards treating their customers better, and they've moved towards making products which integrate with anything at all, but they've got a long way to go, and if they fail along the way it won't be for lack of trying.</p><p>The Novell board has rejected this offer, but it'll be interesting to see if their shareholders agree when this goes to them, that bid was well over market valuation and one way or another Novell is extremely unlikely to survive the current recession, if I owned stock I'd be seriously tempted to take cash even for a company with a much better future than Novell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they ca n't.Those older Netware versions are written so closely to the hardware that they can not even be run as virtual machines , they just will not run without direct access to the hardware .
That 's one of the primary reasons they ditched Netware for OES ( which is pretty much what you asked for , Netware systems running on Linux ) .The real problem they face is that You can not upgrade from Netware to OES in situ , you have to create an entirely new instance and , since Novell 's products do n't modify well in place , export everything out of your old instance and into the new instance .
This is a huge amount of work and expense , and most importantly about the same amount of work and expense it takes to migrate your organization to AD and Exchange which I can tell you after working with Novell for the better part of 10 years has reached a point where it is a vastly superior product in every way .
Since at the present time the core Novell products ( eDirectory and Groupwise ) are n't even open source ( even if OES runs with a linux core ) they do n't even have that philosophical advantage.Novells core products ( not their new middleware products which are fairly good ) are gigantic proprietary pieces of crap and realistically if you 're going to use a giant piece of proprietary software to run your network you 'd get a lot better bang for your buck using Microsoft because it works better and they treat their customers better than Novell treats theirs ( which should give you a pretty good idea of just how god awful Novell has treated their customers over the last 10 years or so ) .Novell are not the good guys .
They might be the " getting better " guys , they 've moved towards open source , they 've moved towards treating their customers better , and they 've moved towards making products which integrate with anything at all , but they 've got a long way to go , and if they fail along the way it wo n't be for lack of trying.The Novell board has rejected this offer , but it 'll be interesting to see if their shareholders agree when this goes to them , that bid was well over market valuation and one way or another Novell is extremely unlikely to survive the current recession , if I owned stock I 'd be seriously tempted to take cash even for a company with a much better future than Novell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they can't.Those older Netware versions are written so closely to the hardware that they cannot even be run as virtual machines, they just will not run without direct access to the hardware.
That's one of the primary reasons they ditched Netware for OES(which is pretty much what you asked for, Netware systems running on Linux).The real problem they face is that You cannot upgrade from Netware to OES in situ, you have to create an entirely new instance and, since Novell's products don't modify well in place, export everything out of your old instance and into the new instance.
This is a huge amount of work and expense, and most importantly about the same amount of work and expense it takes to migrate your organization to AD and Exchange which I can tell you after working with Novell for the better part of 10 years has reached a point where it is a vastly superior product in every way.
Since at the present time the core Novell products(eDirectory and Groupwise) aren't even open source(even if OES runs with a linux core) they don't even have that philosophical advantage.Novells core products(not their new middleware products which are fairly good) are gigantic proprietary pieces of crap and realistically if you're going to use a giant piece of proprietary software to run your network you'd get a lot better bang for your buck using Microsoft because it works better and they treat their customers better than Novell treats theirs(which should give you a pretty good idea of just how god awful Novell has treated their customers over the last 10 years or so).Novell are not the good guys.
They might be the "getting better" guys, they've moved towards open source, they've moved towards treating their customers better, and they've moved towards making products which integrate with anything at all, but they've got a long way to go, and if they fail along the way it won't be for lack of trying.The Novell board has rejected this offer, but it'll be interesting to see if their shareholders agree when this goes to them, that bid was well over market valuation and one way or another Novell is extremely unlikely to survive the current recession, if I owned stock I'd be seriously tempted to take cash even for a company with a much better future than Novell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31556278</id>
	<title>Down with Novell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269169860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will never forgive Novell for Groupwise. Pure evil in a red and white box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will never forgive Novell for Groupwise .
Pure evil in a red and white box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will never forgive Novell for Groupwise.
Pure evil in a red and white box.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554890</id>
	<title>Good move by Novell's part</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269103320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These days most private equity firms are basically vultures - I offer case in point, Chrysler Corporation.  They buy out a firm, gut it, wreck it, and then try and unload a few pieces.  Rarely does a private equity firm actually ever improve that which it buys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These days most private equity firms are basically vultures - I offer case in point , Chrysler Corporation .
They buy out a firm , gut it , wreck it , and then try and unload a few pieces .
Rarely does a private equity firm actually ever improve that which it buys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These days most private equity firms are basically vultures - I offer case in point, Chrysler Corporation.
They buy out a firm, gut it, wreck it, and then try and unload a few pieces.
Rarely does a private equity firm actually ever improve that which it buys.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555426</id>
	<title>Re:Because they're idiots.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269110880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Generic, possibly. Only on other Redhat based distributions would this be fairly possible, due to a myriad of reasons. But mostly due to the Sys-V/BSD style split between all variants of Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Generic , possibly .
Only on other Redhat based distributions would this be fairly possible , due to a myriad of reasons .
But mostly due to the Sys-V/BSD style split between all variants of Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generic, possibly.
Only on other Redhat based distributions would this be fairly possible, due to a myriad of reasons.
But mostly due to the Sys-V/BSD style split between all variants of Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555594</id>
	<title>Oh, an ex-NCR guy from the AT&amp;T merger days!</title>
	<author>kbahey</author>
	<datestamp>1269113880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, an ex-NCR guy from the AT&amp;T merger days in the early 90s.</p><p>So, like me you remember Chuck Exley's rants about AT&amp;T's takeover as being "grossly inadequate"?</p><p>It has been downhill ever since for NCR, even post spinoff<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , an ex-NCR guy from the AT&amp;T merger days in the early 90s.So , like me you remember Chuck Exley 's rants about AT&amp;T 's takeover as being " grossly inadequate " ? It has been downhill ever since for NCR , even post spinoff .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, an ex-NCR guy from the AT&amp;T merger days in the early 90s.So, like me you remember Chuck Exley's rants about AT&amp;T's takeover as being "grossly inadequate"?It has been downhill ever since for NCR, even post spinoff ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31556410</id>
	<title>Novell, Linux, Netware, and Schools</title>
	<author>mosburger</author>
	<datestamp>1269171960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems like public schools everywhere (up here in Maine, U.S. anyway) still use Netware for everything.  I've always thought it would make sense for Novell to migrate them to a Netware/SuSE solution.  The kids would win, because (hopefully) a Microsoft-free solution would be a lot cheaper for the schools, and Novell wins by keeping customers who will otherwise inevitably leave their platform as it ages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like public schools everywhere ( up here in Maine , U.S. anyway ) still use Netware for everything .
I 've always thought it would make sense for Novell to migrate them to a Netware/SuSE solution .
The kids would win , because ( hopefully ) a Microsoft-free solution would be a lot cheaper for the schools , and Novell wins by keeping customers who will otherwise inevitably leave their platform as it ages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like public schools everywhere (up here in Maine, U.S. anyway) still use Netware for everything.
I've always thought it would make sense for Novell to migrate them to a Netware/SuSE solution.
The kids would win, because (hopefully) a Microsoft-free solution would be a lot cheaper for the schools, and Novell wins by keeping customers who will otherwise inevitably leave their platform as it ages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31586426</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>tuomoks</author>
	<datestamp>1269369720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, there always is a market for support but - "It is far more cost effective to hire a third party company to provide support than to employ someone in-house" - an urban myth - if that would be true then also it would be more cost effective to hire third party to provide all the executive level "support" for the company / corporation / enterprise! Obviously doesn't work?</p><p>There are other aspects for outside support, timing and getting to new for what there is not yet experience in company or for one time only requirements are really valid but any company which has even a little strategy / planning can avoid the long term costs by having the knowledge inside instead of paying (and paying again!) any outside source.</p><p>Anyhow - Novell made (has made many times IMHO) the same old mistakes. In networking maybe look U-B (Ungermann-Bass) or Atalla or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. or maybe Netscape, kind of same stories over and over again. Many more in earlier years - some never learn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , there always is a market for support but - " It is far more cost effective to hire a third party company to provide support than to employ someone in-house " - an urban myth - if that would be true then also it would be more cost effective to hire third party to provide all the executive level " support " for the company / corporation / enterprise !
Obviously does n't work ? There are other aspects for outside support , timing and getting to new for what there is not yet experience in company or for one time only requirements are really valid but any company which has even a little strategy / planning can avoid the long term costs by having the knowledge inside instead of paying ( and paying again !
) any outside source.Anyhow - Novell made ( has made many times IMHO ) the same old mistakes .
In networking maybe look U-B ( Ungermann-Bass ) or Atalla or .. or maybe Netscape , kind of same stories over and over again .
Many more in earlier years - some never learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, there always is a market for support but - "It is far more cost effective to hire a third party company to provide support than to employ someone in-house" - an urban myth - if that would be true then also it would be more cost effective to hire third party to provide all the executive level "support" for the company / corporation / enterprise!
Obviously doesn't work?There are other aspects for outside support, timing and getting to new for what there is not yet experience in company or for one time only requirements are really valid but any company which has even a little strategy / planning can avoid the long term costs by having the knowledge inside instead of paying (and paying again!
) any outside source.Anyhow - Novell made (has made many times IMHO) the same old mistakes.
In networking maybe look U-B (Ungermann-Bass) or Atalla or .. or maybe Netscape, kind of same stories over and over again.
Many more in earlier years - some never learn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555482</id>
	<title>Re:Why did Novell not Linux-ify older Netwares?</title>
	<author>SEE</author>
	<datestamp>1269112080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why?  Lack of vision.  Basically, while Linux was emerging, Novell was busy divesting itself of all Ray Noorda's Unix purchases in favor of concentrating on the "core competency" of selling the profitable NetWare, because their stock price was suffering from attempts to expand into other areas.  For their lack of vision, they got eaten alive.</p><p>The vision of NetWare-on-(Unix|Linux) was continued over at a new company, called Caldera, founded by Novell people and financed by Ray Noorda.  That company wound up positioning itself as the "business Linux", selling itself as the logical replacement for installations of SCO Xenix/Unix/UnixWare.  To make such transitions easier, Caldera took a bunch of money it got from Microsoft in a lawsuit settlement and bought the Unix business of the Santa Cruz Operation.  The trouble was that the SCO Xenix/Unix/UnixWare business it just bought was more profitable than the Linux business it was supposed to feed.  And after a CEO change, Caldera switched to trying to concentrate on the "core competency" of selling the profitable SCO products, and threw in some lawsuits to stop other people from following the old Caldera strategy of switching from SCO to Linux.  For its lack of vision. Caldera/SCO is now basically dead.</p><p>By this time, Novell's mistake had become obvious to Novell.  If Caldera had still been following the business plan of former CEO Ransom Love, the obvious thing would have been for Novell to buy Caldera, incidentally re-acquiring many of the rights to UnixWare, and sell (Caldera|Novell) Linux as the heir to both NetWare and UnixWare.  But with Darl McBride in charge at Caldrea/The SCO Group, Novell bought SuSE instead, and positioned that as the NetWare successor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ?
Lack of vision .
Basically , while Linux was emerging , Novell was busy divesting itself of all Ray Noorda 's Unix purchases in favor of concentrating on the " core competency " of selling the profitable NetWare , because their stock price was suffering from attempts to expand into other areas .
For their lack of vision , they got eaten alive.The vision of NetWare-on- ( Unix | Linux ) was continued over at a new company , called Caldera , founded by Novell people and financed by Ray Noorda .
That company wound up positioning itself as the " business Linux " , selling itself as the logical replacement for installations of SCO Xenix/Unix/UnixWare .
To make such transitions easier , Caldera took a bunch of money it got from Microsoft in a lawsuit settlement and bought the Unix business of the Santa Cruz Operation .
The trouble was that the SCO Xenix/Unix/UnixWare business it just bought was more profitable than the Linux business it was supposed to feed .
And after a CEO change , Caldera switched to trying to concentrate on the " core competency " of selling the profitable SCO products , and threw in some lawsuits to stop other people from following the old Caldera strategy of switching from SCO to Linux .
For its lack of vision .
Caldera/SCO is now basically dead.By this time , Novell 's mistake had become obvious to Novell .
If Caldera had still been following the business plan of former CEO Ransom Love , the obvious thing would have been for Novell to buy Caldera , incidentally re-acquiring many of the rights to UnixWare , and sell ( Caldera | Novell ) Linux as the heir to both NetWare and UnixWare .
But with Darl McBride in charge at Caldrea/The SCO Group , Novell bought SuSE instead , and positioned that as the NetWare successor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?
Lack of vision.
Basically, while Linux was emerging, Novell was busy divesting itself of all Ray Noorda's Unix purchases in favor of concentrating on the "core competency" of selling the profitable NetWare, because their stock price was suffering from attempts to expand into other areas.
For their lack of vision, they got eaten alive.The vision of NetWare-on-(Unix|Linux) was continued over at a new company, called Caldera, founded by Novell people and financed by Ray Noorda.
That company wound up positioning itself as the "business Linux", selling itself as the logical replacement for installations of SCO Xenix/Unix/UnixWare.
To make such transitions easier, Caldera took a bunch of money it got from Microsoft in a lawsuit settlement and bought the Unix business of the Santa Cruz Operation.
The trouble was that the SCO Xenix/Unix/UnixWare business it just bought was more profitable than the Linux business it was supposed to feed.
And after a CEO change, Caldera switched to trying to concentrate on the "core competency" of selling the profitable SCO products, and threw in some lawsuits to stop other people from following the old Caldera strategy of switching from SCO to Linux.
For its lack of vision.
Caldera/SCO is now basically dead.By this time, Novell's mistake had become obvious to Novell.
If Caldera had still been following the business plan of former CEO Ransom Love, the obvious thing would have been for Novell to buy Caldera, incidentally re-acquiring many of the rights to UnixWare, and sell (Caldera|Novell) Linux as the heir to both NetWare and UnixWare.
But with Darl McBride in charge at Caldrea/The SCO Group, Novell bought SuSE instead, and positioned that as the NetWare successor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554964</id>
	<title>Because they're idiots.</title>
	<author>khasim</author>
	<datestamp>1269104160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hovsepian is pulling in $5.7 MILLION a year for what?</p><p>Why isn't he porting Netware and their other products to GENERIC Linux? Why do they want to tie everything to SuSE?</p><p>Because they're idiots who are milking Novell for what they can get out of it while it slides into obscurity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hovsepian is pulling in $ 5.7 MILLION a year for what ? Why is n't he porting Netware and their other products to GENERIC Linux ?
Why do they want to tie everything to SuSE ? Because they 're idiots who are milking Novell for what they can get out of it while it slides into obscurity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hovsepian is pulling in $5.7 MILLION a year for what?Why isn't he porting Netware and their other products to GENERIC Linux?
Why do they want to tie everything to SuSE?Because they're idiots who are milking Novell for what they can get out of it while it slides into obscurity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31557548</id>
	<title>Re:Why did Novell not Linux-ify older Netwares?</title>
	<author>SEE</author>
	<datestamp>1269186600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because they can't.</p></div><p>"Portable NetWare" (later called "NetWare for Unix") was running on Unix back in 1989.  Yes, in-situ upgrades are a bitch, but there was pretty much no barrier at all to shipping "NetWare for Linux" back in, say, 1996, except for the lack of vision in Novell's executive suite.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they ca n't .
" Portable NetWare " ( later called " NetWare for Unix " ) was running on Unix back in 1989 .
Yes , in-situ upgrades are a bitch , but there was pretty much no barrier at all to shipping " NetWare for Linux " back in , say , 1996 , except for the lack of vision in Novell 's executive suite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they can't.
"Portable NetWare" (later called "NetWare for Unix") was running on Unix back in 1989.
Yes, in-situ upgrades are a bitch, but there was pretty much no barrier at all to shipping "NetWare for Linux" back in, say, 1996, except for the lack of vision in Novell's executive suite.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31556464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555204</id>
	<title>Re:Dummy! Take the money and Run!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269107880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So... you travelled back in time to tell us your story of the Novell sellout?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So... you travelled back in time to tell us your story of the Novell sellout ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... you travelled back in time to tell us your story of the Novell sellout?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555606</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269114000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't agree with the comments on here that support is going to make money.</p></div><p>How do you explain the fact that RedHat is profitable?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>do you think MS would be a multi billion $ company based around a support model?</p></div><p>Society has no goal to have a large IT sector. If the software we want can be developed and distributed by a smaller company, that is called "more efficient" which is a good thing.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>history shows service industries to be the poor cusions of people with something to sell.</p></div><p>I expect that over time, the software industry will get smaller and be a smaller percentage of the economy, with more devices running more copies of software. Sort of similar to the way that agriculture employs a much smaller proportion of people than in the past but has higher output. In agriculture this has been the result of efficiencies of production, in software it seems like it will be a result of efficiencies of distribution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't agree with the comments on here that support is going to make money.How do you explain the fact that RedHat is profitable ? do you think MS would be a multi billion $ company based around a support model ? Society has no goal to have a large IT sector .
If the software we want can be developed and distributed by a smaller company , that is called " more efficient " which is a good thing.history shows service industries to be the poor cusions of people with something to sell.I expect that over time , the software industry will get smaller and be a smaller percentage of the economy , with more devices running more copies of software .
Sort of similar to the way that agriculture employs a much smaller proportion of people than in the past but has higher output .
In agriculture this has been the result of efficiencies of production , in software it seems like it will be a result of efficiencies of distribution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't agree with the comments on here that support is going to make money.How do you explain the fact that RedHat is profitable?do you think MS would be a multi billion $ company based around a support model?Society has no goal to have a large IT sector.
If the software we want can be developed and distributed by a smaller company, that is called "more efficient" which is a good thing.history shows service industries to be the poor cusions of people with something to sell.I expect that over time, the software industry will get smaller and be a smaller percentage of the economy, with more devices running more copies of software.
Sort of similar to the way that agriculture employs a much smaller proportion of people than in the past but has higher output.
In agriculture this has been the result of efficiencies of production, in software it seems like it will be a result of efficiencies of distribution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554970</id>
	<title>Re:Why did Novell not Linux-ify older Netwares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269104220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No point in doing that for the older versions.<br>They are working on adding their services to their Linux.  OES.<br>The product is pretty good.<br>The message (marketing), not so good so far...  We'll see...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No point in doing that for the older versions.They are working on adding their services to their Linux .
OES.The product is pretty good.The message ( marketing ) , not so good so far... We 'll see.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No point in doing that for the older versions.They are working on adding their services to their Linux.
OES.The product is pretty good.The message (marketing), not so good so far...  We'll see...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554824</id>
	<title>Sympathy for the poor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269102180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"CEO Hovsepian's total compensation fell 17\% to $5.7 million."</i>

<br> <br>The man's struggling! Send Novell your donations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" CEO Hovsepian 's total compensation fell 17 \ % to $ 5.7 million .
" The man 's struggling !
Send Novell your donations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"CEO Hovsepian's total compensation fell 17\% to $5.7 million.
"

 The man's struggling!
Send Novell your donations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31556216</id>
	<title>Novell has made their own mess.</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1269169140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back when Novell bought SUSE they wore lining up to be the most important company of all. They had a core service, eDir, that let them connect Linux, Windows and Mac computers together and collaborate in a coherent way. They could be the spider in the net, connecting it all in the background. Microsoft would never even touch that market with a ten foot pole so they wouldn't compete directly with MS.</p><p>Then came a series of very bad decisions like only (barely) support their own Linux version. kind of made their core service suck since you couldnt use it with any other Linux distribution than SUSE. They made a strange decision to use mono for their services. Things that was pretty reliable, like Zenworks completely blows with mono. Zenworks 10 is something your lucky if you get working, if you get a function realiable, go buy a lottery ticket. They made DSFW, domain services for Windows. A hard complicated and cumbersome way of running an AD. Why on earth would i want to run AD even crazier than on Windows?</p><p>The patent agreement with Microsoft was the real letter of resignation. They had the technology to capture a untapped market. The customers existed everywhere (what company today dont have Linux machines all over?) and they could help them with very little effort because their core services was ready to go and much of them already worked on Linux. It was just a matter of compiling and testing.</p><p>My theory is that upper management knew this and still opted for a quick buck. They sold their shareholders out in the long run, killing the company in the process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back when Novell bought SUSE they wore lining up to be the most important company of all .
They had a core service , eDir , that let them connect Linux , Windows and Mac computers together and collaborate in a coherent way .
They could be the spider in the net , connecting it all in the background .
Microsoft would never even touch that market with a ten foot pole so they would n't compete directly with MS.Then came a series of very bad decisions like only ( barely ) support their own Linux version .
kind of made their core service suck since you couldnt use it with any other Linux distribution than SUSE .
They made a strange decision to use mono for their services .
Things that was pretty reliable , like Zenworks completely blows with mono .
Zenworks 10 is something your lucky if you get working , if you get a function realiable , go buy a lottery ticket .
They made DSFW , domain services for Windows .
A hard complicated and cumbersome way of running an AD .
Why on earth would i want to run AD even crazier than on Windows ? The patent agreement with Microsoft was the real letter of resignation .
They had the technology to capture a untapped market .
The customers existed everywhere ( what company today dont have Linux machines all over ?
) and they could help them with very little effort because their core services was ready to go and much of them already worked on Linux .
It was just a matter of compiling and testing.My theory is that upper management knew this and still opted for a quick buck .
They sold their shareholders out in the long run , killing the company in the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back when Novell bought SUSE they wore lining up to be the most important company of all.
They had a core service, eDir, that let them connect Linux, Windows and Mac computers together and collaborate in a coherent way.
They could be the spider in the net, connecting it all in the background.
Microsoft would never even touch that market with a ten foot pole so they wouldn't compete directly with MS.Then came a series of very bad decisions like only (barely) support their own Linux version.
kind of made their core service suck since you couldnt use it with any other Linux distribution than SUSE.
They made a strange decision to use mono for their services.
Things that was pretty reliable, like Zenworks completely blows with mono.
Zenworks 10 is something your lucky if you get working, if you get a function realiable, go buy a lottery ticket.
They made DSFW, domain services for Windows.
A hard complicated and cumbersome way of running an AD.
Why on earth would i want to run AD even crazier than on Windows?The patent agreement with Microsoft was the real letter of resignation.
They had the technology to capture a untapped market.
The customers existed everywhere (what company today dont have Linux machines all over?
) and they could help them with very little effort because their core services was ready to go and much of them already worked on Linux.
It was just a matter of compiling and testing.My theory is that upper management knew this and still opted for a quick buck.
They sold their shareholders out in the long run, killing the company in the process.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31557700</id>
	<title>Re:Companies like this...</title>
	<author>cerberusss</author>
	<datestamp>1269187860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>suck out the billion dollars and throw away the empty shell and all the workers, these hedge funds are the scum of this earth</p></div><p>The current management is also busy sucking out the billion dollars, and sooner or later, they'll have an empty shell, too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>suck out the billion dollars and throw away the empty shell and all the workers , these hedge funds are the scum of this earthThe current management is also busy sucking out the billion dollars , and sooner or later , they 'll have an empty shell , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suck out the billion dollars and throw away the empty shell and all the workers, these hedge funds are the scum of this earthThe current management is also busy sucking out the billion dollars, and sooner or later, they'll have an empty shell, too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555348</id>
	<title>Take the money now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269110040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>before the next crash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>before the next crash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>before the next crash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555014</id>
	<title>Vulture Fund</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269104820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vulture Funds need to pay a higher premium than the current market value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vulture Funds need to pay a higher premium than the current market value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vulture Funds need to pay a higher premium than the current market value.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554774</id>
	<title>First takeover post!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269101700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I now own 20\% of all first posts!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I now own 20 \ % of all first posts !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I now own 20\% of all first posts!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31557736</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>jbengt</author>
	<datestamp>1269188160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>history shows service industries to be the poor cusions[sic] of people with something to sell.</p></div><p>Citation needed.</p><p>In my limited personal experience (working almost 30 years for consulting engineering companies) service industries make more money for far less investment than product-producing companies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>history shows service industries to be the poor cusions [ sic ] of people with something to sell.Citation needed.In my limited personal experience ( working almost 30 years for consulting engineering companies ) service industries make more money for far less investment than product-producing companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>history shows service industries to be the poor cusions[sic] of people with something to sell.Citation needed.In my limited personal experience (working almost 30 years for consulting engineering companies) service industries make more money for far less investment than product-producing companies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554846</id>
	<title>Quick!</title>
	<author>OverlordQ</author>
	<datestamp>1269102480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let us lose more money so that $2B looks like a better offer!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let us lose more money so that $ 2B looks like a better offer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let us lose more money so that $2B looks like a better offer!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0232243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0232243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0232243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31557736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0232243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31556976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0232243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31558392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0232243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31558464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0232243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0232243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0232243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0232243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0232243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31557548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31556464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0232243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0232243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0232243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0232243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31586426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0232243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0232243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31560108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0232243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0232243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31557700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0232243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_0232243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31557700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_0232243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31586426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31557736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31556976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555606
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31558392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_0232243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31556278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_0232243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31556216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_0232243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_0232243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31560108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31556464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31557548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_0232243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31558464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_0232243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555774
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_0232243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_0232243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31555594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_0232243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0232243.31554846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
