<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_23_1422215</id>
	<title>Oracle/Sun Enforces Pay-For-Security-Updates Plan</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1269358500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Recently, the Oracle/Sun conglomerate has denied public download access to all service packs for Solaris <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.solaris/browse\_thread/thread/2f4e994c40ee2572?pli=1">unless you have a support contract</a>.  Now, paying a premium for gold-class service is nothing new in the industry, but withholding critical security updates smacks of extortion.  While this pay-for-play model may be de rigueur for enterprise database systems, it is certainly not the norm for OS manufactures. What may be more interesting is how Oracle/Sun is able to sidestep GNU licensing requirements since several of the Solaris cluster packs contain patches to GNU utilities and applications."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Recently , the Oracle/Sun conglomerate has denied public download access to all service packs for Solaris unless you have a support contract .
Now , paying a premium for gold-class service is nothing new in the industry , but withholding critical security updates smacks of extortion .
While this pay-for-play model may be de rigueur for enterprise database systems , it is certainly not the norm for OS manufactures .
What may be more interesting is how Oracle/Sun is able to sidestep GNU licensing requirements since several of the Solaris cluster packs contain patches to GNU utilities and applications .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Recently, the Oracle/Sun conglomerate has denied public download access to all service packs for Solaris unless you have a support contract.
Now, paying a premium for gold-class service is nothing new in the industry, but withholding critical security updates smacks of extortion.
While this pay-for-play model may be de rigueur for enterprise database systems, it is certainly not the norm for OS manufactures.
What may be more interesting is how Oracle/Sun is able to sidestep GNU licensing requirements since several of the Solaris cluster packs contain patches to GNU utilities and applications.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585046</id>
	<title>This has been brewing for a long time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269364740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Prior to the merger with Oracle, Sun had been moving toward this for some time.  They were gradually restricting access to more and more of the Sunsolve site, and it got a major rework last year.  At that time, Solaris Recommended and Security patch bundles became available only to current subscribers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Prior to the merger with Oracle , Sun had been moving toward this for some time .
They were gradually restricting access to more and more of the Sunsolve site , and it got a major rework last year .
At that time , Solaris Recommended and Security patch bundles became available only to current subscribers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prior to the merger with Oracle, Sun had been moving toward this for some time.
They were gradually restricting access to more and more of the Sunsolve site, and it got a major rework last year.
At that time, Solaris Recommended and Security patch bundles became available only to current subscribers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585672</id>
	<title>Stop stepping.</title>
	<author>wonkavader</author>
	<datestamp>1269366780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, that was certainly the plan a year ago.</p><p>It's no longer the plan.  You'll soon need to flip it around.</p><p>Solaris is now a great tool to help Oracle force people to one and only one vendor (Oracle) for just about everything.  That's the new plan.  And Linux fits in that plan right now, but probably won't in a few years, if they can get people to trust them as hardware vendors, and they can keep the quality of Solaris testing up.</p><p>Oracle sees Sun as a company with a LOT of great stuff, but both weak and incompetent, since it didn't squeeze cash out of people on every single thing it did.  Oracle is right now in an orgasmic frenzy to take everything Sun had and monetize it -- some at the start, though that's less important, but EVERYTHING must bring in cash via support and updates.  Furthermore, expect to see every piece slowly being changed slightly to push you towards coupling with other Oracle tools.</p><p>Which is why open systems, like Linux, don't help Oracle in the long run.  Open systems give you flexibility, and flexibility is bad.  Oracle is pushing to get the whole enterprise, from soup to nuts.  In the words of an IBM rep I was talking to about this: "We tried that 15 years ago, and it almost killed the company."</p><p>Oracle started doing Linux not because they like open systems (they don't), but because A. they could control it a little through their own distro and B. they could get the support contracts, instead of the money going to Red Hat.  Now they have Solaris.  They'll push that like crazy and move people onto it, since they can certainly control it a lot better than they can control Linux, and instead of some of the support dollars going to Oracle, ALL of the support dollars will go to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that was certainly the plan a year ago.It 's no longer the plan .
You 'll soon need to flip it around.Solaris is now a great tool to help Oracle force people to one and only one vendor ( Oracle ) for just about everything .
That 's the new plan .
And Linux fits in that plan right now , but probably wo n't in a few years , if they can get people to trust them as hardware vendors , and they can keep the quality of Solaris testing up.Oracle sees Sun as a company with a LOT of great stuff , but both weak and incompetent , since it did n't squeeze cash out of people on every single thing it did .
Oracle is right now in an orgasmic frenzy to take everything Sun had and monetize it -- some at the start , though that 's less important , but EVERYTHING must bring in cash via support and updates .
Furthermore , expect to see every piece slowly being changed slightly to push you towards coupling with other Oracle tools.Which is why open systems , like Linux , do n't help Oracle in the long run .
Open systems give you flexibility , and flexibility is bad .
Oracle is pushing to get the whole enterprise , from soup to nuts .
In the words of an IBM rep I was talking to about this : " We tried that 15 years ago , and it almost killed the company .
" Oracle started doing Linux not because they like open systems ( they do n't ) , but because A. they could control it a little through their own distro and B. they could get the support contracts , instead of the money going to Red Hat .
Now they have Solaris .
They 'll push that like crazy and move people onto it , since they can certainly control it a lot better than they can control Linux , and instead of some of the support dollars going to Oracle , ALL of the support dollars will go to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, that was certainly the plan a year ago.It's no longer the plan.
You'll soon need to flip it around.Solaris is now a great tool to help Oracle force people to one and only one vendor (Oracle) for just about everything.
That's the new plan.
And Linux fits in that plan right now, but probably won't in a few years, if they can get people to trust them as hardware vendors, and they can keep the quality of Solaris testing up.Oracle sees Sun as a company with a LOT of great stuff, but both weak and incompetent, since it didn't squeeze cash out of people on every single thing it did.
Oracle is right now in an orgasmic frenzy to take everything Sun had and monetize it -- some at the start, though that's less important, but EVERYTHING must bring in cash via support and updates.
Furthermore, expect to see every piece slowly being changed slightly to push you towards coupling with other Oracle tools.Which is why open systems, like Linux, don't help Oracle in the long run.
Open systems give you flexibility, and flexibility is bad.
Oracle is pushing to get the whole enterprise, from soup to nuts.
In the words of an IBM rep I was talking to about this: "We tried that 15 years ago, and it almost killed the company.
"Oracle started doing Linux not because they like open systems (they don't), but because A. they could control it a little through their own distro and B. they could get the support contracts, instead of the money going to Red Hat.
Now they have Solaris.
They'll push that like crazy and move people onto it, since they can certainly control it a lot better than they can control Linux, and instead of some of the support dollars going to Oracle, ALL of the support dollars will go to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31594644</id>
	<title>First the OS...</title>
	<author>akayani</author>
	<datestamp>1269373980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>then we will be paying for Java and next mySQL on the desktop.<br><br>They didn't buy Sun to loose money, not that crowd.</htmltext>
<tokenext>then we will be paying for Java and next mySQL on the desktop.They did n't buy Sun to loose money , not that crowd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then we will be paying for Java and next mySQL on the desktop.They didn't buy Sun to loose money, not that crowd.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584478</id>
	<title>The licensed the software,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269362400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they knew what they were getting in to.  I say, let 'em crash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they knew what they were getting in to .
I say , let 'em crash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they knew what they were getting in to.
I say, let 'em crash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584836</id>
	<title>Centos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269363900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, people DID cry about it and as all of the source was available, those wonderful persons behind Centos took the RHEL source and packaged it themselves.

I am not sure how much of the Solaris code is available for repackaging, but maybe someone will do the same for Solaris.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , people DID cry about it and as all of the source was available , those wonderful persons behind Centos took the RHEL source and packaged it themselves .
I am not sure how much of the Solaris code is available for repackaging , but maybe someone will do the same for Solaris .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, people DID cry about it and as all of the source was available, those wonderful persons behind Centos took the RHEL source and packaged it themselves.
I am not sure how much of the Solaris code is available for repackaging, but maybe someone will do the same for Solaris.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585936</id>
	<title>Novell</title>
	<author>darth dickinson</author>
	<datestamp>1269367800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Novell has started the same thing - unless you have a maintenance contract, no support pack for your SuSE distro.  It stinks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Novell has started the same thing - unless you have a maintenance contract , no support pack for your SuSE distro .
It stinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Novell has started the same thing - unless you have a maintenance contract, no support pack for your SuSE distro.
It stinks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31589588</id>
	<title>Re:Just like Redhat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269340380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because YOU can't pronounce it doesn't mean EXTORTION is a "big word".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because YOU ca n't pronounce it does n't mean EXTORTION is a " big word " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because YOU can't pronounce it doesn't mean EXTORTION is a "big word".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584630</id>
	<title>Just another step...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269363060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and another 'I' dotted in Oracle's plan to kill off Solaris, and force Linux as their high-end product.</p><p>I only have one Solaris server left, and I'm rapidly losing any real need to keep using it.<br>In fact, I will probably end up migrating off of Solaris this year, just to be done with it.</p><p>Linux works just fine on my Sparc hardware, even my Ultra Enterprise 2, which hasn't seen<br>upgrades or replacement parts in over 10 years. (and why it's still up and running, I don't know...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and another 'I ' dotted in Oracle 's plan to kill off Solaris , and force Linux as their high-end product.I only have one Solaris server left , and I 'm rapidly losing any real need to keep using it.In fact , I will probably end up migrating off of Solaris this year , just to be done with it.Linux works just fine on my Sparc hardware , even my Ultra Enterprise 2 , which has n't seenupgrades or replacement parts in over 10 years .
( and why it 's still up and running , I do n't know... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and another 'I' dotted in Oracle's plan to kill off Solaris, and force Linux as their high-end product.I only have one Solaris server left, and I'm rapidly losing any real need to keep using it.In fact, I will probably end up migrating off of Solaris this year, just to be done with it.Linux works just fine on my Sparc hardware, even my Ultra Enterprise 2, which hasn't seenupgrades or replacement parts in over 10 years.
(and why it's still up and running, I don't know...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584594</id>
	<title>Re:Sidestep?</title>
	<author>flaptrap</author>
	<datestamp>1269362880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and I quote (from gnu.org gpl-faq</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and...</p><p>If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.</p><p>The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and I quote ( from gnu.org gpl-faq         The GPL does not require you to release your modified version , or any part of it .
You are free to make modifications and use them privately , without ever releasing them .
This applies to organizations ( including companies ) , too ; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization .
        But if you release the modified version to the public in some way , the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program 's users , under the GPL .
        Thus , the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways , and not in other ways ; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you .
...and...If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code , the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later .
When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you , they must pass along a copy of this written offer .
This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code , along with the written offer.The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and I quote (from gnu.org gpl-faq
        The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it.
You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them.
This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
        But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.
        Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.
...and...If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later.
When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer.
This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585626</id>
	<title>U.S.A. three letter orgs dropping Sun?</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1269366600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this mean that CIA, DoD, et al will be dropping Sun requirements since this is now a foreign company that likes to change the rules (although I'm sure they all have support contracts, so technically nothing changes for them)?  I was told by a CIA headhunter once that Sun was the only *nix they used due to some Congressional mandate of some sort (although that was almost a decade ago).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean that CIA , DoD , et al will be dropping Sun requirements since this is now a foreign company that likes to change the rules ( although I 'm sure they all have support contracts , so technically nothing changes for them ) ?
I was told by a CIA headhunter once that Sun was the only * nix they used due to some Congressional mandate of some sort ( although that was almost a decade ago ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean that CIA, DoD, et al will be dropping Sun requirements since this is now a foreign company that likes to change the rules (although I'm sure they all have support contracts, so technically nothing changes for them)?
I was told by a CIA headhunter once that Sun was the only *nix they used due to some Congressional mandate of some sort (although that was almost a decade ago).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585278</id>
	<title>If you don't like the game, change the rules?</title>
	<author>leereyno</author>
	<datestamp>1269365460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem here is not that they are doing this, but that they are doing this NOW.</p><p>RHEL was pay-to-update from day one.  Everyone considering RHEL knew this and could decide whether that was what they wanted to go with.</p><p>The difference here is that users who have been using Solaris for years and making do with critical updates are now unable to keep their systems secure.</p><p>Oracle is changing the rules of the game in mid-stream.  That is where the problem is.</p><p>Were they to come out with Solaris 11 and proclaim THEN that security updates to THAT version of the OS would be pay-to-play, then that would be fine.</p><p>What isn't fine is yanking the rug out from under people.  Especially in this economy.</p><p>I think this is a fine example of why users should be wary of freeware.  (Not to be confused with open source).  Sooner or later, you pay for what you get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem here is not that they are doing this , but that they are doing this NOW.RHEL was pay-to-update from day one .
Everyone considering RHEL knew this and could decide whether that was what they wanted to go with.The difference here is that users who have been using Solaris for years and making do with critical updates are now unable to keep their systems secure.Oracle is changing the rules of the game in mid-stream .
That is where the problem is.Were they to come out with Solaris 11 and proclaim THEN that security updates to THAT version of the OS would be pay-to-play , then that would be fine.What is n't fine is yanking the rug out from under people .
Especially in this economy.I think this is a fine example of why users should be wary of freeware .
( Not to be confused with open source ) .
Sooner or later , you pay for what you get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem here is not that they are doing this, but that they are doing this NOW.RHEL was pay-to-update from day one.
Everyone considering RHEL knew this and could decide whether that was what they wanted to go with.The difference here is that users who have been using Solaris for years and making do with critical updates are now unable to keep their systems secure.Oracle is changing the rules of the game in mid-stream.
That is where the problem is.Were they to come out with Solaris 11 and proclaim THEN that security updates to THAT version of the OS would be pay-to-play, then that would be fine.What isn't fine is yanking the rug out from under people.
Especially in this economy.I think this is a fine example of why users should be wary of freeware.
(Not to be confused with open source).
Sooner or later, you pay for what you get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585724</id>
	<title>Re:That's a nice server you got there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269366960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Actually, that brings up a point. Since this is about security flaws in their distribution, wouldn't this make them liable if something happened to your sever? "They gave me faulty software which THEY KNEW WAS FAULTY because they wanted to charge me $xx to get the fix"...? </i></p><p>Cisco does that. I recall once buying an ASA 5500 series vpn router, and the vpn software it came with had known faults. They wouldn't provide an updated version of the software without a service contract.</p><p>On the other hand, Cisco does provide IOS router security updates for free (without a service contract), but make you jump through many hoops to get them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , that brings up a point .
Since this is about security flaws in their distribution , would n't this make them liable if something happened to your sever ?
" They gave me faulty software which THEY KNEW WAS FAULTY because they wanted to charge me $ xx to get the fix " ... ?
Cisco does that .
I recall once buying an ASA 5500 series vpn router , and the vpn software it came with had known faults .
They would n't provide an updated version of the software without a service contract.On the other hand , Cisco does provide IOS router security updates for free ( without a service contract ) , but make you jump through many hoops to get them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, that brings up a point.
Since this is about security flaws in their distribution, wouldn't this make them liable if something happened to your sever?
"They gave me faulty software which THEY KNEW WAS FAULTY because they wanted to charge me $xx to get the fix"...?
Cisco does that.
I recall once buying an ASA 5500 series vpn router, and the vpn software it came with had known faults.
They wouldn't provide an updated version of the software without a service contract.On the other hand, Cisco does provide IOS router security updates for free (without a service contract), but make you jump through many hoops to get them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31588462</id>
	<title>Re:Sidestep?</title>
	<author>Garen</author>
	<datestamp>1269377820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be fine - and be like the RHEL/Fedora duo, but you don't get any updates with OpenSolaris either.  When "the network is the computer", everyone should at least get security updates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be fine - and be like the RHEL/Fedora duo , but you do n't get any updates with OpenSolaris either .
When " the network is the computer " , everyone should at least get security updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be fine - and be like the RHEL/Fedora duo, but you don't get any updates with OpenSolaris either.
When "the network is the computer", everyone should at least get security updates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585596</id>
	<title>Re:Just another step...</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1269366540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...and another 'I' dotted in Oracle's plan to kill off Solaris, and force Linux as their high-end product.</i></p><p>Oracle isn't stupid about making money.  They're probably seeing if Solaris can be made profitable on its own.  If not, it gets the whack.  But not giving it the full chance would be a foolish disposition of an asset.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and another 'I ' dotted in Oracle 's plan to kill off Solaris , and force Linux as their high-end product.Oracle is n't stupid about making money .
They 're probably seeing if Solaris can be made profitable on its own .
If not , it gets the whack .
But not giving it the full chance would be a foolish disposition of an asset .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and another 'I' dotted in Oracle's plan to kill off Solaris, and force Linux as their high-end product.Oracle isn't stupid about making money.
They're probably seeing if Solaris can be made profitable on its own.
If not, it gets the whack.
But not giving it the full chance would be a foolish disposition of an asset.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584506</id>
	<title>Sidestep?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1269362460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> What may be more interesting is how Oracle/Sun is able to sidestep GNU licensing requirements since several of the Solaris cluster packs contain patches to GNU utilities and applications</p></div><p>The GPL doesn't prevent you from charging a fee for GNU software.  It just stops you from preventing the people you sell it to from distributing it to everyone else.  OpenSolaris is free and the source is available.  If you are using Solaris (not OpenSolaris) then you are paying for a platform that has undergone some extra testing and comes with support guarantees.  If this isn't important to you, then use OpenSolaris for free.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What may be more interesting is how Oracle/Sun is able to sidestep GNU licensing requirements since several of the Solaris cluster packs contain patches to GNU utilities and applicationsThe GPL does n't prevent you from charging a fee for GNU software .
It just stops you from preventing the people you sell it to from distributing it to everyone else .
OpenSolaris is free and the source is available .
If you are using Solaris ( not OpenSolaris ) then you are paying for a platform that has undergone some extra testing and comes with support guarantees .
If this is n't important to you , then use OpenSolaris for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> What may be more interesting is how Oracle/Sun is able to sidestep GNU licensing requirements since several of the Solaris cluster packs contain patches to GNU utilities and applicationsThe GPL doesn't prevent you from charging a fee for GNU software.
It just stops you from preventing the people you sell it to from distributing it to everyone else.
OpenSolaris is free and the source is available.
If you are using Solaris (not OpenSolaris) then you are paying for a platform that has undergone some extra testing and comes with support guarantees.
If this isn't important to you, then use OpenSolaris for free.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31586122</id>
	<title>Oracle will be the next SGI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269368520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Realizing this is a stupid thing, they'll break updates into a Feature Stream and a Maintenance Stream.<br>2) Supporting the OS and developing hardware will drive them to bankruptcy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Realizing this is a stupid thing , they 'll break updates into a Feature Stream and a Maintenance Stream.2 ) Supporting the OS and developing hardware will drive them to bankruptcy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Realizing this is a stupid thing, they'll break updates into a Feature Stream and a Maintenance Stream.2) Supporting the OS and developing hardware will drive them to bankruptcy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31587110</id>
	<title>Title of Article Is Incorrect</title>
	<author>turkeyfish</author>
	<datestamp>1269371940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The title of this article is incorrect.  It should read Oracle announces its products will become less secure over time.  This will be true because they will permit malware to infect a percentage of their installations, which in turn will corrupt others by providing an internal platform for hackers to penetrate otherwise secure systems.  Either a product is secure or it is not.  Oracle is merely announcing that their products will not be secure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The title of this article is incorrect .
It should read Oracle announces its products will become less secure over time .
This will be true because they will permit malware to infect a percentage of their installations , which in turn will corrupt others by providing an internal platform for hackers to penetrate otherwise secure systems .
Either a product is secure or it is not .
Oracle is merely announcing that their products will not be secure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The title of this article is incorrect.
It should read Oracle announces its products will become less secure over time.
This will be true because they will permit malware to infect a percentage of their installations, which in turn will corrupt others by providing an internal platform for hackers to penetrate otherwise secure systems.
Either a product is secure or it is not.
Oracle is merely announcing that their products will not be secure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585184</id>
	<title>Re:Was to be exepected</title>
	<author>hoggoth</author>
	<datestamp>1269365160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wanted to play with a particular technology from a company that was acquired by a company that was acquired by Oracle. I called Oracle and got passed from department to department. Nobody had ever even heard of this technology or the company they had acquired years ago. One rep was willing to sell me a license to use the technology for many thousands of dollars even though he himself couldn't find any mention of it inside Oracle, with the caveat that I would have to FIND IT myself because he didn't have any idea where it might be. After being transferred back to the same person the fourth or fifth time I gave up with the phone and started googling for the technology. I found a web page deep inside Oracle's website that had the entire thing, source code and all, available. There were no disclaimers, there was no license, just instructions on how to download it, compile it, install it, and use it.</p><p>So I did.</p><p>I suspect Oracle is run by the Department of Motor Vehicles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wanted to play with a particular technology from a company that was acquired by a company that was acquired by Oracle .
I called Oracle and got passed from department to department .
Nobody had ever even heard of this technology or the company they had acquired years ago .
One rep was willing to sell me a license to use the technology for many thousands of dollars even though he himself could n't find any mention of it inside Oracle , with the caveat that I would have to FIND IT myself because he did n't have any idea where it might be .
After being transferred back to the same person the fourth or fifth time I gave up with the phone and started googling for the technology .
I found a web page deep inside Oracle 's website that had the entire thing , source code and all , available .
There were no disclaimers , there was no license , just instructions on how to download it , compile it , install it , and use it.So I did.I suspect Oracle is run by the Department of Motor Vehicles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wanted to play with a particular technology from a company that was acquired by a company that was acquired by Oracle.
I called Oracle and got passed from department to department.
Nobody had ever even heard of this technology or the company they had acquired years ago.
One rep was willing to sell me a license to use the technology for many thousands of dollars even though he himself couldn't find any mention of it inside Oracle, with the caveat that I would have to FIND IT myself because he didn't have any idea where it might be.
After being transferred back to the same person the fourth or fifth time I gave up with the phone and started googling for the technology.
I found a web page deep inside Oracle's website that had the entire thing, source code and all, available.
There were no disclaimers, there was no license, just instructions on how to download it, compile it, install it, and use it.So I did.I suspect Oracle is run by the Department of Motor Vehicles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31586014</id>
	<title>subjugate Sun</title>
	<author>epine</author>
	<datestamp>1269368040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny, I was just reading this blog post last night.</p><p>Danese Cooper is a long time open source advocate who formerly worked at Sun, among others, and is recently the new CTO at the Wikimedia Foundation after the recent departure of Brion Vibber for a micro-blogging upstart.</p><p><a href="http://danesecooper.blogs.com/divablog/2010/01/assimilation-beginsoracle-censors-blogssuncom.html" title="blogs.com">New DivaBlog: Assimilation begins...Oracle Censors Blogs.Sun.Com</a> [blogs.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Remaining Snoracle employees have until May to migrate their personal blogs to a non-Oracle-owned hosting service...but if even after such migration, <b>anyone who mentions work on a personal blog forfeits their editorial self-determination</b>, as Oracle believes the blog then becomes Oracle property subject to their draconian rules.</p></div><p>That sounds a mite drama-queeny until you factor in that she helped to create Blogs.Sun.Com and probably cared a lot about the culture of her former employer.</p><p>What you don't see in the picture behind the Borg ship is that giant cone thing that eats solar systems, and on the underside of the Borg ship, Ellison's personal executive-escape-yacht launch portal.</p><p>On an engineering note, pretty obvious that the Borg ship was designed by a DBA for optimum table access efficiency.  This of course limits the scalability.  On a a planetary scale, starships come in any shape you like, so long as the shape is an oblate sphere.  Of the two, I'd say Darth had more vision.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , I was just reading this blog post last night.Danese Cooper is a long time open source advocate who formerly worked at Sun , among others , and is recently the new CTO at the Wikimedia Foundation after the recent departure of Brion Vibber for a micro-blogging upstart.New DivaBlog : Assimilation begins...Oracle Censors Blogs.Sun.Com [ blogs.com ] Remaining Snoracle employees have until May to migrate their personal blogs to a non-Oracle-owned hosting service...but if even after such migration , anyone who mentions work on a personal blog forfeits their editorial self-determination , as Oracle believes the blog then becomes Oracle property subject to their draconian rules.That sounds a mite drama-queeny until you factor in that she helped to create Blogs.Sun.Com and probably cared a lot about the culture of her former employer.What you do n't see in the picture behind the Borg ship is that giant cone thing that eats solar systems , and on the underside of the Borg ship , Ellison 's personal executive-escape-yacht launch portal.On an engineering note , pretty obvious that the Borg ship was designed by a DBA for optimum table access efficiency .
This of course limits the scalability .
On a a planetary scale , starships come in any shape you like , so long as the shape is an oblate sphere .
Of the two , I 'd say Darth had more vision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, I was just reading this blog post last night.Danese Cooper is a long time open source advocate who formerly worked at Sun, among others, and is recently the new CTO at the Wikimedia Foundation after the recent departure of Brion Vibber for a micro-blogging upstart.New DivaBlog: Assimilation begins...Oracle Censors Blogs.Sun.Com [blogs.com] Remaining Snoracle employees have until May to migrate their personal blogs to a non-Oracle-owned hosting service...but if even after such migration, anyone who mentions work on a personal blog forfeits their editorial self-determination, as Oracle believes the blog then becomes Oracle property subject to their draconian rules.That sounds a mite drama-queeny until you factor in that she helped to create Blogs.Sun.Com and probably cared a lot about the culture of her former employer.What you don't see in the picture behind the Borg ship is that giant cone thing that eats solar systems, and on the underside of the Borg ship, Ellison's personal executive-escape-yacht launch portal.On an engineering note, pretty obvious that the Borg ship was designed by a DBA for optimum table access efficiency.
This of course limits the scalability.
On a a planetary scale, starships come in any shape you like, so long as the shape is an oblate sphere.
Of the two, I'd say Darth had more vision.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31589368</id>
	<title>Sun has always done this...</title>
	<author>Skuld-Chan</author>
	<datestamp>1269339120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sun wouldn't let you into their support site without having a support contract - which included  hotfixes and service packs. Of course nothing prevented you from getting the files from a friend who did have a contract - maybe that is what they are enforcing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sun would n't let you into their support site without having a support contract - which included hotfixes and service packs .
Of course nothing prevented you from getting the files from a friend who did have a contract - maybe that is what they are enforcing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sun wouldn't let you into their support site without having a support contract - which included  hotfixes and service packs.
Of course nothing prevented you from getting the files from a friend who did have a contract - maybe that is what they are enforcing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585034</id>
	<title>Final Nail in the Coffin</title>
	<author>doublecuffs</author>
	<datestamp>1269364740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So long to Solaris as a viable alternative to Linux and so long to OpenSolaris. Who's going to bother using an operating system that you have to pay to ensure it's secure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So long to Solaris as a viable alternative to Linux and so long to OpenSolaris .
Who 's going to bother using an operating system that you have to pay to ensure it 's secure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So long to Solaris as a viable alternative to Linux and so long to OpenSolaris.
Who's going to bother using an operating system that you have to pay to ensure it's secure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584476</id>
	<title>Just like Redhat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269362400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't any different from what Redhat does.  They charge for security updates and no one has gone crying about it.  Can't all jump on Oracle for wanting to be paid for the development time put in for security updates ppl</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't any different from what Redhat does .
They charge for security updates and no one has gone crying about it .
Ca n't all jump on Oracle for wanting to be paid for the development time put in for security updates ppl</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't any different from what Redhat does.
They charge for security updates and no one has gone crying about it.
Can't all jump on Oracle for wanting to be paid for the development time put in for security updates ppl</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584652</id>
	<title>Re:Just like Redhat</title>
	<author>yossarianuk</author>
	<datestamp>1269363180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is a bit different, with Redhat at least ALL their code is open, thus allowing community distributions like Centos.<br> <br>
Personally I hate Centos, it has ancient software (php 5.1.6!!!!) that is not much use to anyone. It is always Centos servers that have issues with updates (never debian/ubuntu)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a bit different , with Redhat at least ALL their code is open , thus allowing community distributions like Centos .
Personally I hate Centos , it has ancient software ( php 5.1.6 ! ! ! !
) that is not much use to anyone .
It is always Centos servers that have issues with updates ( never debian/ubuntu )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a bit different, with Redhat at least ALL their code is open, thus allowing community distributions like Centos.
Personally I hate Centos, it has ancient software (php 5.1.6!!!!
) that is not much use to anyone.
It is always Centos servers that have issues with updates (never debian/ubuntu)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31586388</id>
	<title>Re:If you don't like the game, change the rules?</title>
	<author>Znork</author>
	<datestamp>1269369540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Oracle is changing the rules of the game in mid-stream.</i></p><p>Well, to be fair, it's not exactly Oracle that's changing the rules, it's Sun's stockholders who decided to sell to Oracle. That Oracle was going to do exactly what they're doing was pretty obvious to most who've followed these companies... the reason customers were dropping Sun during the pre-merger period was hardly the regulatory dragging, but rather the high power suction device snaking towards their wallet.</p><p><i>Sooner or later, you pay for what you get.</i></p><p>Probably. But either way, if it's not open source you basically hand someone else control over your costs. Which may later turn out to be a bad business decision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle is changing the rules of the game in mid-stream.Well , to be fair , it 's not exactly Oracle that 's changing the rules , it 's Sun 's stockholders who decided to sell to Oracle .
That Oracle was going to do exactly what they 're doing was pretty obvious to most who 've followed these companies... the reason customers were dropping Sun during the pre-merger period was hardly the regulatory dragging , but rather the high power suction device snaking towards their wallet.Sooner or later , you pay for what you get.Probably .
But either way , if it 's not open source you basically hand someone else control over your costs .
Which may later turn out to be a bad business decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle is changing the rules of the game in mid-stream.Well, to be fair, it's not exactly Oracle that's changing the rules, it's Sun's stockholders who decided to sell to Oracle.
That Oracle was going to do exactly what they're doing was pretty obvious to most who've followed these companies... the reason customers were dropping Sun during the pre-merger period was hardly the regulatory dragging, but rather the high power suction device snaking towards their wallet.Sooner or later, you pay for what you get.Probably.
But either way, if it's not open source you basically hand someone else control over your costs.
Which may later turn out to be a bad business decision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31592798</id>
	<title>Re:Sidestepping Nothing</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269356340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The GPL bits within the patch can be freely redistributed.</p></div><p>Wrong wording here. It&rsquo;s:<br>The GPL bits within the patch <strong>MUST</strong> be freely redistributed.</p><p>There is no choice in it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The GPL bits within the patch can be freely redistributed.Wrong wording here .
It    s : The GPL bits within the patch MUST be freely redistributed.There is no choice in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GPL bits within the patch can be freely redistributed.Wrong wording here.
It’s:The GPL bits within the patch MUST be freely redistributed.There is no choice in it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584646</id>
	<title>SUN has never been easy to deal with</title>
	<author>feenberg</author>
	<datestamp>1269363060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interestingly, we had support contracts for several SPARC machines until recently, but when the time<br>for renewal came around SUN didn't send any notice, and we let it go. I think of this as<br>"passive/aggressive" behavior on their part and seems typical of our experience with the administrative<br>side of SUN, although past adventures (such as wrong addresses on shipments) have been worse. .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly , we had support contracts for several SPARC machines until recently , but when the timefor renewal came around SUN did n't send any notice , and we let it go .
I think of this as " passive/aggressive " behavior on their part and seems typical of our experience with the administrativeside of SUN , although past adventures ( such as wrong addresses on shipments ) have been worse .
.</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly, we had support contracts for several SPARC machines until recently, but when the timefor renewal came around SUN didn't send any notice, and we let it go.
I think of this as"passive/aggressive" behavior on their part and seems typical of our experience with the administrativeside of SUN, although past adventures (such as wrong addresses on shipments) have been worse.
.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31592774</id>
	<title>Re:That's a nice server you got there</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1269356220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Actually, that brings up a point. Since this is about security flaws in their distribution, wouldn't this make them liable if something happened to your sever? "They gave me faulty software which THEY KNEW WAS FAULTY because they wanted to charge me $xx to get the fix"...?</i>
</p><p>Only if they knew that specific fault existed and would impact you before selling it - and even that assumes the standard "no liability" disclaimers could be circumvented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , that brings up a point .
Since this is about security flaws in their distribution , would n't this make them liable if something happened to your sever ?
" They gave me faulty software which THEY KNEW WAS FAULTY because they wanted to charge me $ xx to get the fix " ... ?
Only if they knew that specific fault existed and would impact you before selling it - and even that assumes the standard " no liability " disclaimers could be circumvented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Actually, that brings up a point.
Since this is about security flaws in their distribution, wouldn't this make them liable if something happened to your sever?
"They gave me faulty software which THEY KNEW WAS FAULTY because they wanted to charge me $xx to get the fix"...?
Only if they knew that specific fault existed and would impact you before selling it - and even that assumes the standard "no liability" disclaimers could be circumvented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31587552</id>
	<title>GPL has absolutely no impact on this.</title>
	<author>gbutler69</author>
	<datestamp>1269373500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What they are doing is perfectly permitted by the GPL. If you do not understand that, then you do not understand the GPL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What they are doing is perfectly permitted by the GPL .
If you do not understand that , then you do not understand the GPL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they are doing is perfectly permitted by the GPL.
If you do not understand that, then you do not understand the GPL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584528</id>
	<title>Mr. Opportunity</title>
	<author>abbynormal brain</author>
	<datestamp>1269362640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... is knocking on the door of the competition.</p><p>There are many ways to take news like this. For those invested, it's a blow. For the free market and those looking for marketing opportunities (cough<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I'm talking to the competition)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... this is your opportunity to do something good to us looking for solutions and yourself (in recapturing market share). Make me an offer I can't refuse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... is knocking on the door of the competition.There are many ways to take news like this .
For those invested , it 's a blow .
For the free market and those looking for marketing opportunities ( cough ... I 'm talking to the competition ) .... this is your opportunity to do something good to us looking for solutions and yourself ( in recapturing market share ) .
Make me an offer I ca n't refuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is knocking on the door of the competition.There are many ways to take news like this.
For those invested, it's a blow.
For the free market and those looking for marketing opportunities (cough ... I'm talking to the competition) .... this is your opportunity to do something good to us looking for solutions and yourself (in recapturing market share).
Make me an offer I can't refuse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585018</id>
	<title>Re:somewhere a bunch of Sparc boxes are....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269364620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I prefer Unbuntu!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer Unbuntu !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer Unbuntu!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31587942</id>
	<title>Re:Sidestep?</title>
	<author>!IH</author>
	<datestamp>1269375300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...and I quote (from gnu.org gpl-faq</p><p>If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.</p></div><p>Unfortunately you missed out the [vital] first part of the faq which is:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.</p></div><p>So, you are only required to make the source code available if your original distribution was in the form of binary+source offer. (3b of GPL)
If you made the source available with the binary (as per 3a) you would not have to include that offer, and the offer would not be there to pass on to any third party.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and I quote ( from gnu.org gpl-faqIf you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code , the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later .
When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you , they must pass along a copy of this written offer .
This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code , along with the written offer.Unfortunately you missed out the [ vital ] first part of the faq which is : If you choose to provide source through a written offer , then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.So , you are only required to make the source code available if your original distribution was in the form of binary + source offer .
( 3b of GPL ) If you made the source available with the binary ( as per 3a ) you would not have to include that offer , and the offer would not be there to pass on to any third party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and I quote (from gnu.org gpl-faqIf you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later.
When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer.
This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.Unfortunately you missed out the [vital] first part of the faq which is: If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.So, you are only required to make the source code available if your original distribution was in the form of binary+source offer.
(3b of GPL)
If you made the source available with the binary (as per 3a) you would not have to include that offer, and the offer would not be there to pass on to any third party.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31588106</id>
	<title>Re:That's a nice server you got there</title>
	<author>Z00L00K</author>
	<datestamp>1269376020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not very different from drug addiction then.</p><p>First fix may be free (free download of OS) but the following ones will cost you an arm and a leg.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not very different from drug addiction then.First fix may be free ( free download of OS ) but the following ones will cost you an arm and a leg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not very different from drug addiction then.First fix may be free (free download of OS) but the following ones will cost you an arm and a leg.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31588878</id>
	<title>Re:That's a nice server you got there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269336840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when you give something for free - other will use it and take money for it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... your fault, you should also have asked for money<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you will not convince them to give it to you for free<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... otherwise you would break capitalism and introduce communism<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when you give something for free - other will use it and take money for it ... your fault , you should also have asked for money ... you will not convince them to give it to you for free ... otherwise you would break capitalism and introduce communism .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when you give something for free - other will use it and take money for it ... your fault, you should also have asked for money ... you will not convince them to give it to you for free ... otherwise you would break capitalism and introduce communism ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585776</id>
	<title>Charging customers to fix your broken crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269367200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reminds me of all those PPL downloading IOS images from Russia because they are too poor to pay Cisco to prevent their routers from being 0wned.</p><p>Guess vendors will do whatever they can get away with even if their actions are morally questionable.  At least MS has a reasonable policy WRT paid support if the problem is caused by a defect in their software the fees can be waived.</p><p>Oracle is stuck in the dark ages.  Its security record is absolutely abysmal compared to its competition in the RDBMS space.  Unbreakable?  As a HPC cluster for botnets - certainly.</p><p>Yes I'm just pissed off at Oracle because I accidently forgot I had an instance of Oracle running and my system got rooted as a result.  Its really quite sad considering their first customers were three-letter-agency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of all those PPL downloading IOS images from Russia because they are too poor to pay Cisco to prevent their routers from being 0wned.Guess vendors will do whatever they can get away with even if their actions are morally questionable .
At least MS has a reasonable policy WRT paid support if the problem is caused by a defect in their software the fees can be waived.Oracle is stuck in the dark ages .
Its security record is absolutely abysmal compared to its competition in the RDBMS space .
Unbreakable ? As a HPC cluster for botnets - certainly.Yes I 'm just pissed off at Oracle because I accidently forgot I had an instance of Oracle running and my system got rooted as a result .
Its really quite sad considering their first customers were three-letter-agency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of all those PPL downloading IOS images from Russia because they are too poor to pay Cisco to prevent their routers from being 0wned.Guess vendors will do whatever they can get away with even if their actions are morally questionable.
At least MS has a reasonable policy WRT paid support if the problem is caused by a defect in their software the fees can be waived.Oracle is stuck in the dark ages.
Its security record is absolutely abysmal compared to its competition in the RDBMS space.
Unbreakable?  As a HPC cluster for botnets - certainly.Yes I'm just pissed off at Oracle because I accidently forgot I had an instance of Oracle running and my system got rooted as a result.
Its really quite sad considering their first customers were three-letter-agency.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31604884</id>
	<title>What enterprise wouldn't have a contract?</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1269430800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless your patching together something custom, like cheap commodity x86 hardware + solaris + a bunch of open source apps (tomcat/apache/whatever), in an enterprise setting, there would be zero chance of not having a support contract.</p><p>Sun hardware + Sun OS + most likely some enterprise sun software (ldap, email, identity management) = support contract required.  Not required by Sun, but required by any system administrator who has experience and is responsible.</p><p>Sun has never marketed to the guy who buys a bunch of x86 dells and tries to setup his own web/app cluster.  The market is large institutions, with tons of servers, professional sys admins, and a need for highly responsive enterprise support.  And in environments like that, you most likely have many layers of security, with the OS just being one of them.</p><p>So what incentive does Sun/Oracle have for maintaining the status quo of having a support contract for the latest patches?  Well most likely to reinforce that image that Sun Server+Sun Software = Enterprise Solution.  I imagine they'd rather not have tens of thousands of amateur solaris installs diluting the Sun/Solaris image, as they fail, get hacked, or don't perform well.</p><p>For the hordes that want to try Solaris, there's Open Solaris.  All the patches and open source code you want.  Personally, I think they are better than other OS makers, like say MS, in that you can download Enterprise Solaris free, install it, use it, whatever.  In fact, you can download almost all Sun Enterprise Software for free and play with it.  But if you are going to roll it out to the public, and want support+patches+on site help, etc... you need to pay.</p><p>This would be like Microsoft allowing the download of any of their OS or other products for free, unlimited, no time trial, but just charging for patches.  It basically would allow college students, hobbyists, and the curious to use, for as long as they want, all MS products.  But the day that user decides  to open a business supported by Microsoft servers, he knows he needs to pay to have support.</p><p>I wouldn't mind seeing Oracle/Sun becoming more open source over time, in that more and more software, including patches, are completely free.  But the current model isn't draconian by any means.  It is a balance between allowing a wide audience to explore your software, while retaining a guaranteed revenue stream from serious businesses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless your patching together something custom , like cheap commodity x86 hardware + solaris + a bunch of open source apps ( tomcat/apache/whatever ) , in an enterprise setting , there would be zero chance of not having a support contract.Sun hardware + Sun OS + most likely some enterprise sun software ( ldap , email , identity management ) = support contract required .
Not required by Sun , but required by any system administrator who has experience and is responsible.Sun has never marketed to the guy who buys a bunch of x86 dells and tries to setup his own web/app cluster .
The market is large institutions , with tons of servers , professional sys admins , and a need for highly responsive enterprise support .
And in environments like that , you most likely have many layers of security , with the OS just being one of them.So what incentive does Sun/Oracle have for maintaining the status quo of having a support contract for the latest patches ?
Well most likely to reinforce that image that Sun Server + Sun Software = Enterprise Solution .
I imagine they 'd rather not have tens of thousands of amateur solaris installs diluting the Sun/Solaris image , as they fail , get hacked , or do n't perform well.For the hordes that want to try Solaris , there 's Open Solaris .
All the patches and open source code you want .
Personally , I think they are better than other OS makers , like say MS , in that you can download Enterprise Solaris free , install it , use it , whatever .
In fact , you can download almost all Sun Enterprise Software for free and play with it .
But if you are going to roll it out to the public , and want support + patches + on site help , etc... you need to pay.This would be like Microsoft allowing the download of any of their OS or other products for free , unlimited , no time trial , but just charging for patches .
It basically would allow college students , hobbyists , and the curious to use , for as long as they want , all MS products .
But the day that user decides to open a business supported by Microsoft servers , he knows he needs to pay to have support.I would n't mind seeing Oracle/Sun becoming more open source over time , in that more and more software , including patches , are completely free .
But the current model is n't draconian by any means .
It is a balance between allowing a wide audience to explore your software , while retaining a guaranteed revenue stream from serious businesses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless your patching together something custom, like cheap commodity x86 hardware + solaris + a bunch of open source apps (tomcat/apache/whatever), in an enterprise setting, there would be zero chance of not having a support contract.Sun hardware + Sun OS + most likely some enterprise sun software (ldap, email, identity management) = support contract required.
Not required by Sun, but required by any system administrator who has experience and is responsible.Sun has never marketed to the guy who buys a bunch of x86 dells and tries to setup his own web/app cluster.
The market is large institutions, with tons of servers, professional sys admins, and a need for highly responsive enterprise support.
And in environments like that, you most likely have many layers of security, with the OS just being one of them.So what incentive does Sun/Oracle have for maintaining the status quo of having a support contract for the latest patches?
Well most likely to reinforce that image that Sun Server+Sun Software = Enterprise Solution.
I imagine they'd rather not have tens of thousands of amateur solaris installs diluting the Sun/Solaris image, as they fail, get hacked, or don't perform well.For the hordes that want to try Solaris, there's Open Solaris.
All the patches and open source code you want.
Personally, I think they are better than other OS makers, like say MS, in that you can download Enterprise Solaris free, install it, use it, whatever.
In fact, you can download almost all Sun Enterprise Software for free and play with it.
But if you are going to roll it out to the public, and want support+patches+on site help, etc... you need to pay.This would be like Microsoft allowing the download of any of their OS or other products for free, unlimited, no time trial, but just charging for patches.
It basically would allow college students, hobbyists, and the curious to use, for as long as they want, all MS products.
But the day that user decides  to open a business supported by Microsoft servers, he knows he needs to pay to have support.I wouldn't mind seeing Oracle/Sun becoming more open source over time, in that more and more software, including patches, are completely free.
But the current model isn't draconian by any means.
It is a balance between allowing a wide audience to explore your software, while retaining a guaranteed revenue stream from serious businesses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31586292</id>
	<title>Re:somewhere a bunch of Sparc boxes are....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269369180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you dont have any sparc boxes do you?

*hint* you'll have to go back several years to even find a Ubuntu sparc64 release.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you dont have any sparc boxes do you ?
* hint * you 'll have to go back several years to even find a Ubuntu sparc64 release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you dont have any sparc boxes do you?
*hint* you'll have to go back several years to even find a Ubuntu sparc64 release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584580</id>
	<title>Re:Just like Redhat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269362880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's just a bunch of crying over nothing. Boo hoo I'm entitled and want everything MY way and if you don't give me my way then I'll use big words like EXTORTION.<br>If people don't like it then they don't have to use Solaris, plain and simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just a bunch of crying over nothing .
Boo hoo I 'm entitled and want everything MY way and if you do n't give me my way then I 'll use big words like EXTORTION.If people do n't like it then they do n't have to use Solaris , plain and simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just a bunch of crying over nothing.
Boo hoo I'm entitled and want everything MY way and if you don't give me my way then I'll use big words like EXTORTION.If people don't like it then they don't have to use Solaris, plain and simple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31589070</id>
	<title>Compare this to Microsoft</title>
	<author>lseltzer</author>
	<datestamp>1269337560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft makes critical security updates available even to users it knows are pirating the operating system.</p><p>And it's not because they're being nice. It's because it's bad for everyone to have unpatched users out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft makes critical security updates available even to users it knows are pirating the operating system.And it 's not because they 're being nice .
It 's because it 's bad for everyone to have unpatched users out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft makes critical security updates available even to users it knows are pirating the operating system.And it's not because they're being nice.
It's because it's bad for everyone to have unpatched users out there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31599238</id>
	<title>extortion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269451500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When your primary clients are<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gov and large enterprise, "extortion" is about he only way left to conduct business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When your primary clients are .gov and large enterprise , " extortion " is about he only way left to conduct business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When your primary clients are .gov and large enterprise, "extortion" is about he only way left to conduct business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584536</id>
	<title>Feature-Pack vs Security Fix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269362700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's one thing to hold back updates that add new features, it's entirely a different thing to prevent users from freely acquiring Security Updates.  Heck, the OS is a free download for both SPARC and x86...but you have to *pay* for security fixes?</p><p>Wait a second, isn't most of the development for Solaris driven by the OpenSolaris group?</p><p>/me goes off to RTFA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's one thing to hold back updates that add new features , it 's entirely a different thing to prevent users from freely acquiring Security Updates .
Heck , the OS is a free download for both SPARC and x86...but you have to * pay * for security fixes ? Wait a second , is n't most of the development for Solaris driven by the OpenSolaris group ? /me goes off to RTFA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's one thing to hold back updates that add new features, it's entirely a different thing to prevent users from freely acquiring Security Updates.
Heck, the OS is a free download for both SPARC and x86...but you have to *pay* for security fixes?Wait a second, isn't most of the development for Solaris driven by the OpenSolaris group?/me goes off to RTFA</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31587182</id>
	<title>Re:Was to be exepected</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1269372240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only Oracle had one of those data-thingamajigies that lets you search for information and retrieve it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only Oracle had one of those data-thingamajigies that lets you search for information and retrieve it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only Oracle had one of those data-thingamajigies that lets you search for information and retrieve it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31588628</id>
	<title>Re:Centos</title>
	<author>phliar</author>
	<datestamp>1269335520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexenta\_OS" title="wikipedia.org">Nexenta</a> [wikipedia.org] is Gnu libc and userland with the OpenSolaris kernel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nexenta [ wikipedia.org ] is Gnu libc and userland with the OpenSolaris kernel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nexenta [wikipedia.org] is Gnu libc and userland with the OpenSolaris kernel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31586950</id>
	<title>Re:As a industry best practice...</title>
	<author>ma3382</author>
	<datestamp>1269371460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>During the time frogs are submerged under water or buried in soil they breathe through their skin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>During the time frogs are submerged under water or buried in soil they breathe through their skin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During the time frogs are submerged under water or buried in soil they breathe through their skin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584576</id>
	<title>Linux</title>
	<author>pak9rabid</author>
	<datestamp>1269362820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is one of many reasons why I run GNU/Linux...</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of many reasons why I run GNU/Linux.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of many reasons why I run GNU/Linux...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584634</id>
	<title>GPL requirements</title>
	<author>Tet</author>
	<datestamp>1269363060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact that they're shipping GNU utilities is irrelevant here. The GPL compels you to distribute source and rights when you distribute a binary. There is no requirement to keep it up to date, and Sun/Oracle can do whatever they want with their Solaris cluster packs. What they can't do is distribute updates to paying customer and prevent those customers from passing the updates on to others (for the GPL-licensed parts, that is).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that they 're shipping GNU utilities is irrelevant here .
The GPL compels you to distribute source and rights when you distribute a binary .
There is no requirement to keep it up to date , and Sun/Oracle can do whatever they want with their Solaris cluster packs .
What they ca n't do is distribute updates to paying customer and prevent those customers from passing the updates on to others ( for the GPL-licensed parts , that is ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that they're shipping GNU utilities is irrelevant here.
The GPL compels you to distribute source and rights when you distribute a binary.
There is no requirement to keep it up to date, and Sun/Oracle can do whatever they want with their Solaris cluster packs.
What they can't do is distribute updates to paying customer and prevent those customers from passing the updates on to others (for the GPL-licensed parts, that is).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584542</id>
	<title>Sidestepping Nothing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269362700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're not sidestepping anything GPL-wise.  The OS patches contain some GPL binaries and some proprietary binaries.  They are side by side, which means the proprietary binaries are not subject to the GPL.  The entire patch package, therefor, can't be redistributed.  The GPL bits within the patch can be freely redistributed.  As can the source for those bits, which Sun/Oracle is (presumably) making available as they always have to comply with the GPL.</p><p>So, they are sidestepping nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not sidestepping anything GPL-wise .
The OS patches contain some GPL binaries and some proprietary binaries .
They are side by side , which means the proprietary binaries are not subject to the GPL .
The entire patch package , therefor , ca n't be redistributed .
The GPL bits within the patch can be freely redistributed .
As can the source for those bits , which Sun/Oracle is ( presumably ) making available as they always have to comply with the GPL.So , they are sidestepping nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're not sidestepping anything GPL-wise.
The OS patches contain some GPL binaries and some proprietary binaries.
They are side by side, which means the proprietary binaries are not subject to the GPL.
The entire patch package, therefor, can't be redistributed.
The GPL bits within the patch can be freely redistributed.
As can the source for those bits, which Sun/Oracle is (presumably) making available as they always have to comply with the GPL.So, they are sidestepping nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31586660</id>
	<title>Why do people misunderstand the GPL so?</title>
	<author>Anonymous Freak</author>
	<datestamp>1269370500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GPL does not mean they have to give their product away for free to anyone who asks.</p><p>It means that whatever pieces of code they use that are under the GPL, they cannot block re-distribution of; and they must provide "access to code to customers who ask".  *NOT* to "anyone".  And they are free to distribute said code however they want.  They can do it by insisting that the customer pay $9.95 shipping to receive just the GPL code on a CD-ROM, AND insist that only paid customers can even place this order.</p><p>But, once a customer has received their CD-ROM, they can't do anything to stop that customer from putting an ISO of that CD-ROM on the 'net.</p><p>Finally, they can encumber their code with trademark-encumbered pieces for which a user would have to acquire a trademark license, (at least, in GPL 2,) at whatever cost they want.  Yes, the customer could remove the trademarked bits and redistribute under another name all they want.  But that does prevent "straight out of the box" redistribution.</p><p>Just look at Red Hat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GPL does not mean they have to give their product away for free to anyone who asks.It means that whatever pieces of code they use that are under the GPL , they can not block re-distribution of ; and they must provide " access to code to customers who ask " .
* NOT * to " anyone " .
And they are free to distribute said code however they want .
They can do it by insisting that the customer pay $ 9.95 shipping to receive just the GPL code on a CD-ROM , AND insist that only paid customers can even place this order.But , once a customer has received their CD-ROM , they ca n't do anything to stop that customer from putting an ISO of that CD-ROM on the 'net.Finally , they can encumber their code with trademark-encumbered pieces for which a user would have to acquire a trademark license , ( at least , in GPL 2 , ) at whatever cost they want .
Yes , the customer could remove the trademarked bits and redistribute under another name all they want .
But that does prevent " straight out of the box " redistribution.Just look at Red Hat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GPL does not mean they have to give their product away for free to anyone who asks.It means that whatever pieces of code they use that are under the GPL, they cannot block re-distribution of; and they must provide "access to code to customers who ask".
*NOT* to "anyone".
And they are free to distribute said code however they want.
They can do it by insisting that the customer pay $9.95 shipping to receive just the GPL code on a CD-ROM, AND insist that only paid customers can even place this order.But, once a customer has received their CD-ROM, they can't do anything to stop that customer from putting an ISO of that CD-ROM on the 'net.Finally, they can encumber their code with trademark-encumbered pieces for which a user would have to acquire a trademark license, (at least, in GPL 2,) at whatever cost they want.
Yes, the customer could remove the trademarked bits and redistribute under another name all they want.
But that does prevent "straight out of the box" redistribution.Just look at Red Hat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31592768</id>
	<title>Software fitness?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269356160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I buy software, and it has a bug that allows cracking, that&rsquo;s the same thing as buying a car and then noticing that it accelerates to death.<br>It&rsquo;s the developer company&rsquo;s duty to fix it ASAP, or face a lawsuit. For not complying with the contract and for fraud.<br>Asking money for it will only make the standing weaker in front of the judge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I buy software , and it has a bug that allows cracking , that    s the same thing as buying a car and then noticing that it accelerates to death.It    s the developer company    s duty to fix it ASAP , or face a lawsuit .
For not complying with the contract and for fraud.Asking money for it will only make the standing weaker in front of the judge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I buy software, and it has a bug that allows cracking, that’s the same thing as buying a car and then noticing that it accelerates to death.It’s the developer company’s duty to fix it ASAP, or face a lawsuit.
For not complying with the contract and for fraud.Asking money for it will only make the standing weaker in front of the judge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584854</id>
	<title>from TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269364020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://wikis.sun.com/display/SunSolve/How+Entitlement+Works?focusedCommentId=199106033#comment-199106033</p><p>Looks like they just made a mistake with their product catalog</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //wikis.sun.com/display/SunSolve/How + Entitlement + Works ? focusedCommentId = 199106033 # comment-199106033Looks like they just made a mistake with their product catalog</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://wikis.sun.com/display/SunSolve/How+Entitlement+Works?focusedCommentId=199106033#comment-199106033Looks like they just made a mistake with their product catalog</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31587546</id>
	<title>Re:Was to be exepected</title>
	<author>Macrat</author>
	<datestamp>1269373500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't want to sound negative, but I was always worried about Oracle buying Sun, for how it would impact negatively on Sun's business.</p></div><p>Like the fact that Sun doesn't exist anymore?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to sound negative , but I was always worried about Oracle buying Sun , for how it would impact negatively on Sun 's business.Like the fact that Sun does n't exist anymore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want to sound negative, but I was always worried about Oracle buying Sun, for how it would impact negatively on Sun's business.Like the fact that Sun doesn't exist anymore?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585030</id>
	<title>Mistake</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269364740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The linked thread already points out that this was a mistake, not intentional, and provides a link to the Sun site with details.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The linked thread already points out that this was a mistake , not intentional , and provides a link to the Sun site with details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The linked thread already points out that this was a mistake, not intentional, and provides a link to the Sun site with details.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585170</id>
	<title>Industry-wide needs to pro-consumer policy</title>
	<author>discojohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1269365100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>All security updates should be free as in beer.  Patches that include features are for-pay.  It's not my fault they released a product with security holes.  I love car analogies, and it works pretty good here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All security updates should be free as in beer .
Patches that include features are for-pay .
It 's not my fault they released a product with security holes .
I love car analogies , and it works pretty good here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All security updates should be free as in beer.
Patches that include features are for-pay.
It's not my fault they released a product with security holes.
I love car analogies, and it works pretty good here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31589582</id>
	<title>Re:Was to be exepected</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269340380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>link?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>link ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>link?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584420</id>
	<title>That's a nice server you got there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269362160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would be a shame is something was to happen to it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be a shame is something was to happen to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be a shame is something was to happen to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31629336</id>
	<title>This is FUD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269629040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sun started doing paid for updates 3 years ago.  2 years before Oracle made the buy offer. Get your facts straight</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sun started doing paid for updates 3 years ago .
2 years before Oracle made the buy offer .
Get your facts straight</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sun started doing paid for updates 3 years ago.
2 years before Oracle made the buy offer.
Get your facts straight</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585554</id>
	<title>a case of programmed cell death - apoptosis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269366360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just want to congratulate Oracle on doing everything it can to <a href="http://wikis.sun.com/display/SunSolve/How+Entitlement+Works?focusedCommentId=199106033#comment-199106033" title="sun.com" rel="nofollow">kill off Solaris passively</a> [sun.com] so they don't have to admit what they're doing. I need a Solaris support contract in order to keep a few systems running specialized software in a compiance-audited environment up to date. This is software that is run in many environments where the inability to keep them patched is a showstopper. However, I can't seem to purchase a support contract. The only page that even lists the ability to purchase it is broken (see dpfloyd's comment), and I have not receved a call back from Oracle/Sun sales in nearly a week (and that was after getting bounced through 6 different people to a support person who at least knew to forward my info to a Sun-related salesperson, or so they said). Additionally, if you click the "How to Purchase a Contract" it provides no actual info on how to do that, and the link it has to "Learn More" takes you into an infinite loop of "click here, now click here, now click here - oh, wait, I'm back where I started" when you try to find out about Sun Solaris support.<br> <br>

I hope I'm wrong about what's happening, but I can't say that any of this gives me the warm fuzzies. I'd say that if I had control over the platform I'd migrate those systems off of Solaris to another OS, but I'm guessing that's exactly what Oracle wants...<br> <br>

Can SOMEONE at Oracle/Sun please tell me how to purchase a support contract to download OS patches? If not, can someone from Oracle/Sun officially tell me to bugger off so I can tell my boss that we're never going to be able to update those servers again and we can start planning on how we're going to get around that issues?<br> <br>

Thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just want to congratulate Oracle on doing everything it can to kill off Solaris passively [ sun.com ] so they do n't have to admit what they 're doing .
I need a Solaris support contract in order to keep a few systems running specialized software in a compiance-audited environment up to date .
This is software that is run in many environments where the inability to keep them patched is a showstopper .
However , I ca n't seem to purchase a support contract .
The only page that even lists the ability to purchase it is broken ( see dpfloyd 's comment ) , and I have not receved a call back from Oracle/Sun sales in nearly a week ( and that was after getting bounced through 6 different people to a support person who at least knew to forward my info to a Sun-related salesperson , or so they said ) .
Additionally , if you click the " How to Purchase a Contract " it provides no actual info on how to do that , and the link it has to " Learn More " takes you into an infinite loop of " click here , now click here , now click here - oh , wait , I 'm back where I started " when you try to find out about Sun Solaris support .
I hope I 'm wrong about what 's happening , but I ca n't say that any of this gives me the warm fuzzies .
I 'd say that if I had control over the platform I 'd migrate those systems off of Solaris to another OS , but I 'm guessing that 's exactly what Oracle wants.. . Can SOMEONE at Oracle/Sun please tell me how to purchase a support contract to download OS patches ?
If not , can someone from Oracle/Sun officially tell me to bugger off so I can tell my boss that we 're never going to be able to update those servers again and we can start planning on how we 're going to get around that issues ?
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just want to congratulate Oracle on doing everything it can to kill off Solaris passively [sun.com] so they don't have to admit what they're doing.
I need a Solaris support contract in order to keep a few systems running specialized software in a compiance-audited environment up to date.
This is software that is run in many environments where the inability to keep them patched is a showstopper.
However, I can't seem to purchase a support contract.
The only page that even lists the ability to purchase it is broken (see dpfloyd's comment), and I have not receved a call back from Oracle/Sun sales in nearly a week (and that was after getting bounced through 6 different people to a support person who at least knew to forward my info to a Sun-related salesperson, or so they said).
Additionally, if you click the "How to Purchase a Contract" it provides no actual info on how to do that, and the link it has to "Learn More" takes you into an infinite loop of "click here, now click here, now click here - oh, wait, I'm back where I started" when you try to find out about Sun Solaris support.
I hope I'm wrong about what's happening, but I can't say that any of this gives me the warm fuzzies.
I'd say that if I had control over the platform I'd migrate those systems off of Solaris to another OS, but I'm guessing that's exactly what Oracle wants... 

Can SOMEONE at Oracle/Sun please tell me how to purchase a support contract to download OS patches?
If not, can someone from Oracle/Sun officially tell me to bugger off so I can tell my boss that we're never going to be able to update those servers again and we can start planning on how we're going to get around that issues?
Thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585286</id>
	<title>Re:Was to be exepected</title>
	<author>brit74</author>
	<datestamp>1269365520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't want to sound negative, but I was always worried about Oracle buying Sun, for how it would impact negatively on Sun's business.</p></div><p>Sun's business was already in the negative.  At this point, I can't blame them for trying something new to turn-around Sun's profit/loss statement:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>For the quarter that ended March 29 [2009], Sun posted a net loss of $201 million, or 27 cents a share. That&rsquo;s a sharp downturn from the loss of $34 million, or 4 cents a share, it reported the same period last year.<br>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/technology/companies/29sun.html" title="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/technology/companies/29sun.html</a> [nytimes.com]</p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to sound negative , but I was always worried about Oracle buying Sun , for how it would impact negatively on Sun 's business.Sun 's business was already in the negative .
At this point , I ca n't blame them for trying something new to turn-around Sun 's profit/loss statement : For the quarter that ended March 29 [ 2009 ] , Sun posted a net loss of $ 201 million , or 27 cents a share .
That    s a sharp downturn from the loss of $ 34 million , or 4 cents a share , it reported the same period last year .
http : //www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/technology/companies/29sun.html [ nytimes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want to sound negative, but I was always worried about Oracle buying Sun, for how it would impact negatively on Sun's business.Sun's business was already in the negative.
At this point, I can't blame them for trying something new to turn-around Sun's profit/loss statement:For the quarter that ended March 29 [2009], Sun posted a net loss of $201 million, or 27 cents a share.
That’s a sharp downturn from the loss of $34 million, or 4 cents a share, it reported the same period last year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/technology/companies/29sun.html [nytimes.com] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31622242</id>
	<title>No, this was in place LONG before Oracle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269541200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, this was in place LONG before Oracle bought sun, at least October 2007.  They switched from 'Pay for the software and updates are free' to 'Software is free, pay for updates'</p><p>Do some research and stop spreading FUD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , this was in place LONG before Oracle bought sun , at least October 2007 .
They switched from 'Pay for the software and updates are free ' to 'Software is free , pay for updates'Do some research and stop spreading FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, this was in place LONG before Oracle bought sun, at least October 2007.
They switched from 'Pay for the software and updates are free' to 'Software is free, pay for updates'Do some research and stop spreading FUD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31589684</id>
	<title>Re:Just another step...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269340800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may have something here. We have been told that we can only get a software support contract for the OS if we have a hardware support contract through Sun/Oracle and those things ain't cheap. I heard some other organisations in our field now have two hardware support contracts one through a third party who can no longer source software ony support and one through 'official' channels. Needless to say it was the changing of the goalposts at short notice that has upset many.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may have something here .
We have been told that we can only get a software support contract for the OS if we have a hardware support contract through Sun/Oracle and those things ai n't cheap .
I heard some other organisations in our field now have two hardware support contracts one through a third party who can no longer source software ony support and one through 'official ' channels .
Needless to say it was the changing of the goalposts at short notice that has upset many .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may have something here.
We have been told that we can only get a software support contract for the OS if we have a hardware support contract through Sun/Oracle and those things ain't cheap.
I heard some other organisations in our field now have two hardware support contracts one through a third party who can no longer source software ony support and one through 'official' channels.
Needless to say it was the changing of the goalposts at short notice that has upset many.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31598450</id>
	<title>Re:Just another step...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269448800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That doesn't make any sense. Oracle kept the Solaris engineering team intact when many other groups were let go. Oracle is hiring new Solaris engineers. How is that a "plan to kill off Solaris, and force Linux as their high-end product."? Not to mention that they have the same policy about patches for their Linux product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That does n't make any sense .
Oracle kept the Solaris engineering team intact when many other groups were let go .
Oracle is hiring new Solaris engineers .
How is that a " plan to kill off Solaris , and force Linux as their high-end product. " ?
Not to mention that they have the same policy about patches for their Linux product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That doesn't make any sense.
Oracle kept the Solaris engineering team intact when many other groups were let go.
Oracle is hiring new Solaris engineers.
How is that a "plan to kill off Solaris, and force Linux as their high-end product."?
Not to mention that they have the same policy about patches for their Linux product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31588932</id>
	<title>Re:Was to be exepected</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269337080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I don't want to sound negative, but I was always worried about Oracle buying Sun, for how it would impact negatively on Sun's business" - what, you mean more negatively than loosing millions of dollars a month with Scott McNealy running the show?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I do n't want to sound negative , but I was always worried about Oracle buying Sun , for how it would impact negatively on Sun 's business " - what , you mean more negatively than loosing millions of dollars a month with Scott McNealy running the show ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I don't want to sound negative, but I was always worried about Oracle buying Sun, for how it would impact negatively on Sun's business" - what, you mean more negatively than loosing millions of dollars a month with Scott McNealy running the show?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31586452</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1269369840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oracle has a profit motive to release buggy products?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle has a profit motive to release buggy products ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle has a profit motive to release buggy products?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31588868</id>
	<title>Way to kill a brand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269336780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oracle/Sun -</p><p>If you're reading this, this is a monumentally stupid idea from a brand management perspective.<br>Do you really want to be the vendor known for cracked boxes?</p><p>When the incident reports go up and "OS: Solaris" is moving to the top, I know what most execs would say.<br>It won't be "we should pay more for support", it'll be "switch operating systems".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle/Sun -If you 're reading this , this is a monumentally stupid idea from a brand management perspective.Do you really want to be the vendor known for cracked boxes ? When the incident reports go up and " OS : Solaris " is moving to the top , I know what most execs would say.It wo n't be " we should pay more for support " , it 'll be " switch operating systems " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle/Sun -If you're reading this, this is a monumentally stupid idea from a brand management perspective.Do you really want to be the vendor known for cracked boxes?When the incident reports go up and "OS: Solaris" is moving to the top, I know what most execs would say.It won't be "we should pay more for support", it'll be "switch operating systems".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584494</id>
	<title>Oracle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269362460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We have no morals."</p><p>CAPTCHA: Deplore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We have no morals .
" CAPTCHA : Deplore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We have no morals.
"CAPTCHA: Deplore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584606</id>
	<title>Was to be exepected</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1269362940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't want to sound negative, but I was always worried about Oracle buying Sun, for how it would impact negatively on Sun's business. For me the Oracle web site is so convoluted that it stinks of 'we designed this so that you to pay use to find it'. Everything feels designed to nickle and dime everything you try doing with them. This is based on experience of having get specific updates to fix certain known issues. If you don't agree with my perspective, I would gladly appreciate hearing about your experience.</p><p>I am a Java developer and I hope that they don't extend this to Java or any other Sun technologies with a more 'open' culture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to sound negative , but I was always worried about Oracle buying Sun , for how it would impact negatively on Sun 's business .
For me the Oracle web site is so convoluted that it stinks of 'we designed this so that you to pay use to find it' .
Everything feels designed to nickle and dime everything you try doing with them .
This is based on experience of having get specific updates to fix certain known issues .
If you do n't agree with my perspective , I would gladly appreciate hearing about your experience.I am a Java developer and I hope that they do n't extend this to Java or any other Sun technologies with a more 'open ' culture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want to sound negative, but I was always worried about Oracle buying Sun, for how it would impact negatively on Sun's business.
For me the Oracle web site is so convoluted that it stinks of 'we designed this so that you to pay use to find it'.
Everything feels designed to nickle and dime everything you try doing with them.
This is based on experience of having get specific updates to fix certain known issues.
If you don't agree with my perspective, I would gladly appreciate hearing about your experience.I am a Java developer and I hope that they don't extend this to Java or any other Sun technologies with a more 'open' culture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585192</id>
	<title>Re:Just like Redhat</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1269365160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most certainly can jump on Oracle!  Redhate is friend of GPL.  Oracle is commercial company who doesn't give everything away for free.</p><p>Oracle is evil because they don't want to give everyone a free ride.  Redhat is good because<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, because GPL and Linux fan boys are generally fucking retarded, I can't come up with any other reason people are salivating to give them blowjobs.</p><p>The reality of it is, Oracle is just putting the nails in the Solaris coffin without actually saying thats what they are doing.</p><p>Yes, Oracle is cutting lots of 'free' as in money things out of Sun<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... in case you didn't notice Sun wasn't going to survive for long the way it was going, if Oracle doesn't do something to stem the flow of cash out of Sun then Oracle will simply be next.  While I'm sure there are plenty of idiots here who think that would be a good thing, you'd be wrong for a number of reasons.</p><p>Of course, the only way this is acceptable to me is if they start releasing versions of Solaris that they put the time and effort into testing and securing before release.  The worlds current software development model is 'sell the customer a beta app, patch it over time, and when its finally at a 'release ready' point you EOL it, release the NEXT beta version of the software and get everyone to upgrade!'</p><p>If they continue to sell incomplete/untested software and then start charging you to finish the beta program  well, they'll get by with it for a while, but it'll just be known as the start of the final nail in the solaris coffin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most certainly can jump on Oracle !
Redhate is friend of GPL .
Oracle is commercial company who does n't give everything away for free.Oracle is evil because they do n't want to give everyone a free ride .
Redhat is good because ... well , because GPL and Linux fan boys are generally fucking retarded , I ca n't come up with any other reason people are salivating to give them blowjobs.The reality of it is , Oracle is just putting the nails in the Solaris coffin without actually saying thats what they are doing.Yes , Oracle is cutting lots of 'free ' as in money things out of Sun ... in case you did n't notice Sun was n't going to survive for long the way it was going , if Oracle does n't do something to stem the flow of cash out of Sun then Oracle will simply be next .
While I 'm sure there are plenty of idiots here who think that would be a good thing , you 'd be wrong for a number of reasons.Of course , the only way this is acceptable to me is if they start releasing versions of Solaris that they put the time and effort into testing and securing before release .
The worlds current software development model is 'sell the customer a beta app , patch it over time , and when its finally at a 'release ready ' point you EOL it , release the NEXT beta version of the software and get everyone to upgrade !
'If they continue to sell incomplete/untested software and then start charging you to finish the beta program well , they 'll get by with it for a while , but it 'll just be known as the start of the final nail in the solaris coffin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most certainly can jump on Oracle!
Redhate is friend of GPL.
Oracle is commercial company who doesn't give everything away for free.Oracle is evil because they don't want to give everyone a free ride.
Redhat is good because ... well, because GPL and Linux fan boys are generally fucking retarded, I can't come up with any other reason people are salivating to give them blowjobs.The reality of it is, Oracle is just putting the nails in the Solaris coffin without actually saying thats what they are doing.Yes, Oracle is cutting lots of 'free' as in money things out of Sun ... in case you didn't notice Sun wasn't going to survive for long the way it was going, if Oracle doesn't do something to stem the flow of cash out of Sun then Oracle will simply be next.
While I'm sure there are plenty of idiots here who think that would be a good thing, you'd be wrong for a number of reasons.Of course, the only way this is acceptable to me is if they start releasing versions of Solaris that they put the time and effort into testing and securing before release.
The worlds current software development model is 'sell the customer a beta app, patch it over time, and when its finally at a 'release ready' point you EOL it, release the NEXT beta version of the software and get everyone to upgrade!
'If they continue to sell incomplete/untested software and then start charging you to finish the beta program  well, they'll get by with it for a while, but it'll just be known as the start of the final nail in the solaris coffin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584718</id>
	<title>The GPL does not apply here</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1269363420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Presumably if you obtained the GPL binaries/source from SUN, its legal to redistribute those patches. But there is nothing in the GPL requiring SUN to give you those patches, code or binaries.</p><p>If they give you the binaries, they need to give you the source. But if they choose not to give you the binaries (i.e. you elect not to pay for a Solaris contract), they are not obligated to give you anything (binaries or source)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Presumably if you obtained the GPL binaries/source from SUN , its legal to redistribute those patches .
But there is nothing in the GPL requiring SUN to give you those patches , code or binaries.If they give you the binaries , they need to give you the source .
But if they choose not to give you the binaries ( i.e .
you elect not to pay for a Solaris contract ) , they are not obligated to give you anything ( binaries or source )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presumably if you obtained the GPL binaries/source from SUN, its legal to redistribute those patches.
But there is nothing in the GPL requiring SUN to give you those patches, code or binaries.If they give you the binaries, they need to give you the source.
But if they choose not to give you the binaries (i.e.
you elect not to pay for a Solaris contract), they are not obligated to give you anything (binaries or source)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31586172</id>
	<title>Re:somewhere a bunch of Sparc boxes are....</title>
	<author>Capt.DrumkenBum</author>
	<datestamp>1269368700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are right. One of them is in my server room, and a new box that is showing up next week is now NOT getting Solaris on it, but will be getting Debian instead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are right .
One of them is in my server room , and a new box that is showing up next week is now NOT getting Solaris on it , but will be getting Debian instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are right.
One of them is in my server room, and a new box that is showing up next week is now NOT getting Solaris on it, but will be getting Debian instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585508</id>
	<title>Re:Just like Redhat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269366240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cent OS ship the same versions of the source that are released by the 'upstream vendor'.</p><p>Redhat Enterprise 5 comes with PHP 5.1.6 as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cent OS ship the same versions of the source that are released by the 'upstream vendor'.Redhat Enterprise 5 comes with PHP 5.1.6 as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cent OS ship the same versions of the source that are released by the 'upstream vendor'.Redhat Enterprise 5 comes with PHP 5.1.6 as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585778</id>
	<title>Re:That's a nice server you got there</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1269367200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really.<br>Nothing is perfect including security. If you bought a lock and three years later someone found a way to pick it would you expect the company to give you a new lock?<br>I am not a FOSS zealot but if you buy a closed source OS that comes with a support system then you are silly if you expect updates for free for anything.<br>Even if the company you bought from does provide free security patches eventually the OS will be EOL and those will stop.<br>It takes money to patch security issues and issue updates that money has to come from somewhere.<br>So if you do not like it use FOSS and deal with it's issues or pick closed source and deal with it's issues. You have the freedom to pick your problems.</p><p>Now if could just kill software patents because they are as dumb as patenting a story, song, movie, or equation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really.Nothing is perfect including security .
If you bought a lock and three years later someone found a way to pick it would you expect the company to give you a new lock ? I am not a FOSS zealot but if you buy a closed source OS that comes with a support system then you are silly if you expect updates for free for anything.Even if the company you bought from does provide free security patches eventually the OS will be EOL and those will stop.It takes money to patch security issues and issue updates that money has to come from somewhere.So if you do not like it use FOSS and deal with it 's issues or pick closed source and deal with it 's issues .
You have the freedom to pick your problems.Now if could just kill software patents because they are as dumb as patenting a story , song , movie , or equation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.Nothing is perfect including security.
If you bought a lock and three years later someone found a way to pick it would you expect the company to give you a new lock?I am not a FOSS zealot but if you buy a closed source OS that comes with a support system then you are silly if you expect updates for free for anything.Even if the company you bought from does provide free security patches eventually the OS will be EOL and those will stop.It takes money to patch security issues and issue updates that money has to come from somewhere.So if you do not like it use FOSS and deal with it's issues or pick closed source and deal with it's issues.
You have the freedom to pick your problems.Now if could just kill software patents because they are as dumb as patenting a story, song, movie, or equation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31586186</id>
	<title>Re:As a industry best practice...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269368700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is a nice story...but can you rephrase it as a car analogy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a nice story...but can you rephrase it as a car analogy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a nice story...but can you rephrase it as a car analogy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31603740</id>
	<title>A lot of companies use Oracle as database servers</title>
	<author>BoSanad</author>
	<datestamp>1269425580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Oracle is forcing other companies to pay money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Oracle is forcing other companies to pay money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Oracle is forcing other companies to pay money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31588914</id>
	<title>The Sun is setting on Solaris</title>
	<author>griffo</author>
	<datestamp>1269336960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Oracle wants to rid the world of Solaris.  That's the intent I get from this gesture. I was considering Solaris for some servers, but this nails the coffin firmly shut.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Oracle wants to rid the world of Solaris .
That 's the intent I get from this gesture .
I was considering Solaris for some servers , but this nails the coffin firmly shut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Oracle wants to rid the world of Solaris.
That's the intent I get from this gesture.
I was considering Solaris for some servers, but this nails the coffin firmly shut.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584908</id>
	<title>Re:Was to be exepected</title>
	<author>MMC Monster</author>
	<datestamp>1269364260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't want to sound negative, but I was always worried about Oracle buying Sun, for how it would impact negatively on Sun's business.</p></div><p>The Sun's business is keeping me warm during the day, providing a free energy source, and an excuse for me to wear sun glasses.</p><p>So long as it does that, I couldn't care less what any Oracle does with it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to sound negative , but I was always worried about Oracle buying Sun , for how it would impact negatively on Sun 's business.The Sun 's business is keeping me warm during the day , providing a free energy source , and an excuse for me to wear sun glasses.So long as it does that , I could n't care less what any Oracle does with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want to sound negative, but I was always worried about Oracle buying Sun, for how it would impact negatively on Sun's business.The Sun's business is keeping me warm during the day, providing a free energy source, and an excuse for me to wear sun glasses.So long as it does that, I couldn't care less what any Oracle does with it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585270</id>
	<title>Re:Just like Redhat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269365400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>really all of their code is open ?</p><p>where is the source code for RHVE ?<br>where is the source code for the zstream errata ?<br>where is the source code for Real time ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>really all of their code is open ? where is the source code for RHVE ? where is the source code for the zstream errata ? where is the source code for Real time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>really all of their code is open ?where is the source code for RHVE ?where is the source code for the zstream errata ?where is the source code for Real time ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31586302</id>
	<title>Re:As a industry best practice...</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1269369180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why the day the deal was announced we started migrating everything we could to PostgreSQL and FreeBSD (ZFS &amp; DTrace Support).  I had decent respect for Sun and have had some damn good products and service over the past 15 years or so.  Oracle is a company that I absolutely had dealing with as a vender.  We *have* to support Oracle because that is what some of our clients deploy on.  Doesn't mean we have to like it.  Honestly, for what we do, we've only had one client that had a HA requirement and they were already running Oracle.  For all our other clients PostgreSQL has been able to handle everything we can throw at it and with the new cluster/replication/HA hot standby support in PostgreSQL 9, it looks like it will fill in those gaps that we currently use DB2 or Oracle for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why the day the deal was announced we started migrating everything we could to PostgreSQL and FreeBSD ( ZFS &amp; DTrace Support ) .
I had decent respect for Sun and have had some damn good products and service over the past 15 years or so .
Oracle is a company that I absolutely had dealing with as a vender .
We * have * to support Oracle because that is what some of our clients deploy on .
Does n't mean we have to like it .
Honestly , for what we do , we 've only had one client that had a HA requirement and they were already running Oracle .
For all our other clients PostgreSQL has been able to handle everything we can throw at it and with the new cluster/replication/HA hot standby support in PostgreSQL 9 , it looks like it will fill in those gaps that we currently use DB2 or Oracle for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why the day the deal was announced we started migrating everything we could to PostgreSQL and FreeBSD (ZFS &amp; DTrace Support).
I had decent respect for Sun and have had some damn good products and service over the past 15 years or so.
Oracle is a company that I absolutely had dealing with as a vender.
We *have* to support Oracle because that is what some of our clients deploy on.
Doesn't mean we have to like it.
Honestly, for what we do, we've only had one client that had a HA requirement and they were already running Oracle.
For all our other clients PostgreSQL has been able to handle everything we can throw at it and with the new cluster/replication/HA hot standby support in PostgreSQL 9, it looks like it will fill in those gaps that we currently use DB2 or Oracle for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585224</id>
	<title>As a industry best practice...</title>
	<author>Mr.Fork</author>
	<datestamp>1269365280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This goes back to the story of the Scorpion and the Frog. A scorpion was travelling across the land when he came to a river.  Wanting to get across, he approached a frog to help him get across.  <br>The frog replied "Why should I help you across because you will sting me and we will both drown." <br> <br>The scorpion said "I promise not to sting you."

<br> <br>They are half-way across the river then the scorpion is startled by a splash of water and stings the frog.  The frog cries out as his body begins to paralyze "Fool! You have doomed us both as I predicted."  <br> <br>The scorpion replies "Fool? What did you expect Frog?  I am a scorpion."<br> <br>Oracle is a Scorpion.  Anyone who thought otherwise when they purchased SUN is a fool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This goes back to the story of the Scorpion and the Frog .
A scorpion was travelling across the land when he came to a river .
Wanting to get across , he approached a frog to help him get across .
The frog replied " Why should I help you across because you will sting me and we will both drown .
" The scorpion said " I promise not to sting you .
" They are half-way across the river then the scorpion is startled by a splash of water and stings the frog .
The frog cries out as his body begins to paralyze " Fool !
You have doomed us both as I predicted .
" The scorpion replies " Fool ?
What did you expect Frog ?
I am a scorpion .
" Oracle is a Scorpion .
Anyone who thought otherwise when they purchased SUN is a fool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This goes back to the story of the Scorpion and the Frog.
A scorpion was travelling across the land when he came to a river.
Wanting to get across, he approached a frog to help him get across.
The frog replied "Why should I help you across because you will sting me and we will both drown.
"  The scorpion said "I promise not to sting you.
"

 They are half-way across the river then the scorpion is startled by a splash of water and stings the frog.
The frog cries out as his body begins to paralyze "Fool!
You have doomed us both as I predicted.
"   The scorpion replies "Fool?
What did you expect Frog?
I am a scorpion.
" Oracle is a Scorpion.
Anyone who thought otherwise when they purchased SUN is a fool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585388</id>
	<title>Internal Conversation</title>
	<author>KiwiCanuck</author>
	<datestamp>1269365820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sale rep to programmer: "Put more bugs in the software, I'm making a killing here!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sale rep to programmer : " Put more bugs in the software , I 'm making a killing here !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sale rep to programmer: "Put more bugs in the software, I'm making a killing here!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31586804</id>
	<title>In the wake of Toyota's trouble they pull this??</title>
	<author>cshamis</author>
	<datestamp>1269370920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Feature updates (or upgrades) aside, how can they produce a fix to a known problem and then demand that the customer pay to get the fix?  In the midst of Toyota's recall PR disaster you would think that maybe somebody at Oracle would have a clue that maybe this is a bad idea.

As for comparisons to Linux distro's those arguments don't apply because you're paying for the convienience of the distro in collecting all the updates and packaging them for their OS.  In Linux, you can always go out and get the updates yourself directly from the package maintainers directly.  --That's simply not possible with Solaris security patches.  The only place to get them is from Sun.

If they want to charge for "feature" upgrades, fine.  But to deliberately withhold security patches is irresponsible and bad business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Feature updates ( or upgrades ) aside , how can they produce a fix to a known problem and then demand that the customer pay to get the fix ?
In the midst of Toyota 's recall PR disaster you would think that maybe somebody at Oracle would have a clue that maybe this is a bad idea .
As for comparisons to Linux distro 's those arguments do n't apply because you 're paying for the convienience of the distro in collecting all the updates and packaging them for their OS .
In Linux , you can always go out and get the updates yourself directly from the package maintainers directly .
--That 's simply not possible with Solaris security patches .
The only place to get them is from Sun .
If they want to charge for " feature " upgrades , fine .
But to deliberately withhold security patches is irresponsible and bad business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Feature updates (or upgrades) aside, how can they produce a fix to a known problem and then demand that the customer pay to get the fix?
In the midst of Toyota's recall PR disaster you would think that maybe somebody at Oracle would have a clue that maybe this is a bad idea.
As for comparisons to Linux distro's those arguments don't apply because you're paying for the convienience of the distro in collecting all the updates and packaging them for their OS.
In Linux, you can always go out and get the updates yourself directly from the package maintainers directly.
--That's simply not possible with Solaris security patches.
The only place to get them is from Sun.
If they want to charge for "feature" upgrades, fine.
But to deliberately withhold security patches is irresponsible and bad business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584984</id>
	<title>"de rigueur for enterprise"? Not for DB2</title>
	<author>Kenneth Stephen</author>
	<datestamp>1269364500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't think of any IBM product on the "distributed platforms" (i.e not mainframe or i5OS) where the fixpacks are not available for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't think of any IBM product on the " distributed platforms " ( i.e not mainframe or i5OS ) where the fixpacks are not available for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't think of any IBM product on the "distributed platforms" (i.e not mainframe or i5OS) where the fixpacks are not available for free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31587226</id>
	<title>My Solaris dream just died</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269372360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's got to be the thing that finally makes me ditch Solaris and OpenSolaris. As much as I hoped to have built my next system based on that true Unix, but it won't happen now. This is it for me and I'm sure I'm not the only one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's got to be the thing that finally makes me ditch Solaris and OpenSolaris .
As much as I hoped to have built my next system based on that true Unix , but it wo n't happen now .
This is it for me and I 'm sure I 'm not the only one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's got to be the thing that finally makes me ditch Solaris and OpenSolaris.
As much as I hoped to have built my next system based on that true Unix, but it won't happen now.
This is it for me and I'm sure I'm not the only one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585882</id>
	<title>Re:Sidestepping Nothing</title>
	<author>mounthood</author>
	<datestamp>1269367560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They're not sidestepping anything GPL-wise.  The OS patches contain some GPL binaries and some proprietary binaries.  They are side by side, which means the proprietary binaries are not subject to the GPL.  The entire patch package, therefor, can't be redistributed.  The GPL bits within the patch can be freely redistributed.</p>  </div><p>They're not side-stepping the GPL because the GPL is not viral. The idea that Oracle is doing something wrong really only makes sense if you think of the GPL as viral. (flame on!)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not sidestepping anything GPL-wise .
The OS patches contain some GPL binaries and some proprietary binaries .
They are side by side , which means the proprietary binaries are not subject to the GPL .
The entire patch package , therefor , ca n't be redistributed .
The GPL bits within the patch can be freely redistributed .
They 're not side-stepping the GPL because the GPL is not viral .
The idea that Oracle is doing something wrong really only makes sense if you think of the GPL as viral .
( flame on !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're not sidestepping anything GPL-wise.
The OS patches contain some GPL binaries and some proprietary binaries.
They are side by side, which means the proprietary binaries are not subject to the GPL.
The entire patch package, therefor, can't be redistributed.
The GPL bits within the patch can be freely redistributed.
They're not side-stepping the GPL because the GPL is not viral.
The idea that Oracle is doing something wrong really only makes sense if you think of the GPL as viral.
(flame on!
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31589182</id>
	<title>Re:Just like Redhat</title>
	<author>ToasterMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1269338100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More significantly, this isn't any different from what Oracle does with Oracle Enterprise Linux either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More significantly , this is n't any different from what Oracle does with Oracle Enterprise Linux either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More significantly, this isn't any different from what Oracle does with Oracle Enterprise Linux either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584762</id>
	<title>Re:That's a nice server you got there</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1269363660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, that brings up a point.  Since this is about security flaws in their distribution, wouldn't this make them liable if something happened to your sever?  "They gave me faulty software which THEY KNEW WAS FAULTY because they wanted to charge me $xx to get the fix"...?  This isn't about feature updates (which they could justify charging for), it's about flaws in what they gave out...  Now sure, you could say that the flaws were outside of their control because they came from upstream.  But if that was the case, how in the world could they justify charging for those updates as not being extortion?...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , that brings up a point .
Since this is about security flaws in their distribution , would n't this make them liable if something happened to your sever ?
" They gave me faulty software which THEY KNEW WAS FAULTY because they wanted to charge me $ xx to get the fix " ... ?
This is n't about feature updates ( which they could justify charging for ) , it 's about flaws in what they gave out... Now sure , you could say that the flaws were outside of their control because they came from upstream .
But if that was the case , how in the world could they justify charging for those updates as not being extortion ? .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, that brings up a point.
Since this is about security flaws in their distribution, wouldn't this make them liable if something happened to your sever?
"They gave me faulty software which THEY KNEW WAS FAULTY because they wanted to charge me $xx to get the fix"...?
This isn't about feature updates (which they could justify charging for), it's about flaws in what they gave out...  Now sure, you could say that the flaws were outside of their control because they came from upstream.
But if that was the case, how in the world could they justify charging for those updates as not being extortion?...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585794</id>
	<title>Re:As a industry best practice...</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1269367260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uh...I thought that this was how Sun had things set up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh...I thought that this was how Sun had things set up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh...I thought that this was how Sun had things set up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31587122</id>
	<title>Absurd!</title>
	<author>tinker\_taylor</author>
	<datestamp>1269372000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the most absurd piece of news I've come across this year! Why on earth should I pay to have Oracle/Sun fix their own bugs?<br>Obviously Security flaws are bugs. If any security vulnerabilities are identified, they should be ethically and morally obligated (ie assuming that the legal angle is unenforceable) to fix these and distribute the patches for free.</p><p>Isn't there anything called accountability/responsibility left any more?!? We are a huge Sun shop and one of the reasons we loved Sun so much is the fact that it was not a blood-sucker when it came to things like patches, software, etc. Unlike a company like HP, who charged for everything from multipathing software to UNIX resource mgt tools (which should be defacto standard of any mature OS).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the most absurd piece of news I 've come across this year !
Why on earth should I pay to have Oracle/Sun fix their own bugs ? Obviously Security flaws are bugs .
If any security vulnerabilities are identified , they should be ethically and morally obligated ( ie assuming that the legal angle is unenforceable ) to fix these and distribute the patches for free.Is n't there anything called accountability/responsibility left any more ? ! ?
We are a huge Sun shop and one of the reasons we loved Sun so much is the fact that it was not a blood-sucker when it came to things like patches , software , etc .
Unlike a company like HP , who charged for everything from multipathing software to UNIX resource mgt tools ( which should be defacto standard of any mature OS ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the most absurd piece of news I've come across this year!
Why on earth should I pay to have Oracle/Sun fix their own bugs?Obviously Security flaws are bugs.
If any security vulnerabilities are identified, they should be ethically and morally obligated (ie assuming that the legal angle is unenforceable) to fix these and distribute the patches for free.Isn't there anything called accountability/responsibility left any more?!?
We are a huge Sun shop and one of the reasons we loved Sun so much is the fact that it was not a blood-sucker when it came to things like patches, software, etc.
Unlike a company like HP, who charged for everything from multipathing software to UNIX resource mgt tools (which should be defacto standard of any mature OS).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584852</id>
	<title>somewhere a bunch of Sparc boxes are....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269364020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>getting fdisked and Debian GNU/Linux is getting installed on them as we speak.</htmltext>
<tokenext>getting fdisked and Debian GNU/Linux is getting installed on them as we speak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>getting fdisked and Debian GNU/Linux is getting installed on them as we speak.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31588912</id>
	<title>Solaris vs Windows in cost</title>
	<author>Zubby</author>
	<datestamp>1269336960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows- Pay money upfront and get security updates for free.

Solaris   - Pay no money upfront then pay for security updates.

While its initially a bit of a surprise its not outrageous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows- Pay money upfront and get security updates for free .
Solaris - Pay no money upfront then pay for security updates .
While its initially a bit of a surprise its not outrageous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows- Pay money upfront and get security updates for free.
Solaris   - Pay no money upfront then pay for security updates.
While its initially a bit of a surprise its not outrageous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31587390</id>
	<title>Wahh open sores losers.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269372840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cry to mommy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cry to mommy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cry to mommy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31587110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31592774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31589684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31589582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31586388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31588628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31586292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31587942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31587546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31586172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31586302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31598450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31588932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31587182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31586186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31589182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31586950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31588878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31588106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31589588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31588462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_1422215_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31592798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1422215.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1422215.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31586660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1422215.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1422215.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31588914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1422215.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31598450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31589684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1422215.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1422215.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1422215.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31592774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31588106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31588878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31587110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1422215.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1422215.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31586172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31586292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1422215.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1422215.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584594
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31587942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31588462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1422215.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31592798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1422215.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1422215.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31587122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1422215.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31587182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31589582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31588932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31587546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1422215.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31589588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31589182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31588628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31586388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31584652
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_1422215.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31586950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31586302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31585794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_1422215.31586186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
