<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_30_1740205</id>
	<title>Harsh Words From Google On Linux Development</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1243709340000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.webmaster-forums.net/" rel="nofollow">jeevesbond</a> writes <i>"The <a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/05/hands-on-google-chromium-browser-alpha-for-linux.ars">alpha version of Google Chrome</a> is now available for GNU/Linux. Google Chrome developer and former Firefox lead Ben Goodger has some problems with the platform though. His complaints range from the lack of a standardised UI toolkit, inconsistencies across applications, the lack of a unified and comprehensive HIG, to GTK not being a very compelling toolkit. With Adobe getting <a href="http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2009/05/glibc\_fork.html">twitchy about the glibc fork</a> and previously describing the various audio systems as <a href="http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2007/05/welcome\_to\_the\_jungle.html">welcome to the jungle</a>, is it time to concentrate on consolidation and standardisation in GNU/Linux in general, and the desktop in particular?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>jeevesbond writes " The alpha version of Google Chrome is now available for GNU/Linux .
Google Chrome developer and former Firefox lead Ben Goodger has some problems with the platform though .
His complaints range from the lack of a standardised UI toolkit , inconsistencies across applications , the lack of a unified and comprehensive HIG , to GTK not being a very compelling toolkit .
With Adobe getting twitchy about the glibc fork and previously describing the various audio systems as welcome to the jungle , is it time to concentrate on consolidation and standardisation in GNU/Linux in general , and the desktop in particular ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jeevesbond writes "The alpha version of Google Chrome is now available for GNU/Linux.
Google Chrome developer and former Firefox lead Ben Goodger has some problems with the platform though.
His complaints range from the lack of a standardised UI toolkit, inconsistencies across applications, the lack of a unified and comprehensive HIG, to GTK not being a very compelling toolkit.
With Adobe getting twitchy about the glibc fork and previously describing the various audio systems as welcome to the jungle, is it time to concentrate on consolidation and standardisation in GNU/Linux in general, and the desktop in particular?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151401</id>
	<title>Re:Choice</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1243715160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if it was standardised and GTK was all there was and it didn't do the job? They'd be pretty fucked. They have multiple tools to choose from and pick the best one for the job.
<br> <br>
If they want to standardise then pick the best distro for their market and build it for that. Being that it's open source other can mod it to work on their distro if required.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if it was standardised and GTK was all there was and it did n't do the job ?
They 'd be pretty fucked .
They have multiple tools to choose from and pick the best one for the job .
If they want to standardise then pick the best distro for their market and build it for that .
Being that it 's open source other can mod it to work on their distro if required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if it was standardised and GTK was all there was and it didn't do the job?
They'd be pretty fucked.
They have multiple tools to choose from and pick the best one for the job.
If they want to standardise then pick the best distro for their market and build it for that.
Being that it's open source other can mod it to work on their distro if required.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156015</id>
	<title>Re:Um....</title>
	<author>lordSaurontheGreat</author>
	<datestamp>1243710720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Think about it: if Apple ported OS X to run on the NT Kernel, would it still be OS X or would it magically turn into Windows?</p></div><p>No, I'm pretty sure the universe would spontaneously combust destroying all life as we know it.  Either that or it would be treated by the compiler as one great big syntax error.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think about it : if Apple ported OS X to run on the NT Kernel , would it still be OS X or would it magically turn into Windows ? No , I 'm pretty sure the universe would spontaneously combust destroying all life as we know it .
Either that or it would be treated by the compiler as one great big syntax error .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think about it: if Apple ported OS X to run on the NT Kernel, would it still be OS X or would it magically turn into Windows?No, I'm pretty sure the universe would spontaneously combust destroying all life as we know it.
Either that or it would be treated by the compiler as one great big syntax error.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415</id>
	<title>it's why Windows took over in the first place</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243715280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At one point, serious computers ran Unix.  PCs were just toys, not useful for doing real work with.</p><p>But Unix fragmented.  You had AIX, HPUX, and around a dozen other different kinds.  They all behaved differently, stored things in different places in the filesystem, had different desktop environments.</p><p>Windows came along with a single environment and suddenly *that* was the attractive place to develop software.</p><p>Fast forward a few decades, and to a 0th order approximation, all apps are written for Windows, and Unix derivatives are dead on the desktop.  Ok, there are a handful of slashdotters using Linux in their basements, but from a desktop perspective it essentially doesn't exist.  And the software people need to run for real productivity purposes - Autocad, Photoshop, things like that - are all for Windows.</p><p>The only way Linux can hope to succeed is to present a unified environment to developers *and* users.  Period.  Yes, that means the over-complex KDE will have to die.  Yes, that means binary compatibility must stop being broken from OS update to OS update.  Yes, that means supporting DRM so that users can play their streaming videos from Netflix.</p><p>It's simply the arrogance of Linux developers that have crippled Linux adoption.</p><p>I'm sure I'll get modded as a troll, but the fact remains that Windows *owns* the desktop, and normal users are happy with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At one point , serious computers ran Unix .
PCs were just toys , not useful for doing real work with.But Unix fragmented .
You had AIX , HPUX , and around a dozen other different kinds .
They all behaved differently , stored things in different places in the filesystem , had different desktop environments.Windows came along with a single environment and suddenly * that * was the attractive place to develop software.Fast forward a few decades , and to a 0th order approximation , all apps are written for Windows , and Unix derivatives are dead on the desktop .
Ok , there are a handful of slashdotters using Linux in their basements , but from a desktop perspective it essentially does n't exist .
And the software people need to run for real productivity purposes - Autocad , Photoshop , things like that - are all for Windows.The only way Linux can hope to succeed is to present a unified environment to developers * and * users .
Period. Yes , that means the over-complex KDE will have to die .
Yes , that means binary compatibility must stop being broken from OS update to OS update .
Yes , that means supporting DRM so that users can play their streaming videos from Netflix.It 's simply the arrogance of Linux developers that have crippled Linux adoption.I 'm sure I 'll get modded as a troll , but the fact remains that Windows * owns * the desktop , and normal users are happy with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At one point, serious computers ran Unix.
PCs were just toys, not useful for doing real work with.But Unix fragmented.
You had AIX, HPUX, and around a dozen other different kinds.
They all behaved differently, stored things in different places in the filesystem, had different desktop environments.Windows came along with a single environment and suddenly *that* was the attractive place to develop software.Fast forward a few decades, and to a 0th order approximation, all apps are written for Windows, and Unix derivatives are dead on the desktop.
Ok, there are a handful of slashdotters using Linux in their basements, but from a desktop perspective it essentially doesn't exist.
And the software people need to run for real productivity purposes - Autocad, Photoshop, things like that - are all for Windows.The only way Linux can hope to succeed is to present a unified environment to developers *and* users.
Period.  Yes, that means the over-complex KDE will have to die.
Yes, that means binary compatibility must stop being broken from OS update to OS update.
Yes, that means supporting DRM so that users can play their streaming videos from Netflix.It's simply the arrogance of Linux developers that have crippled Linux adoption.I'm sure I'll get modded as a troll, but the fact remains that Windows *owns* the desktop, and normal users are happy with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151947</id>
	<title>And the dev team strikes back!</title>
	<author>pyrotas</author>
	<datestamp>1243675320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently, the crappy dev team of Chrome strike back. Mac is still waiting (oh well, not that one does not sleep at night) a port. And linux does not seem to live much better. Yet another masterpiece...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently , the crappy dev team of Chrome strike back .
Mac is still waiting ( oh well , not that one does not sleep at night ) a port .
And linux does not seem to live much better .
Yet another masterpiece.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently, the crappy dev team of Chrome strike back.
Mac is still waiting (oh well, not that one does not sleep at night) a port.
And linux does not seem to live much better.
Yet another masterpiece...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152883</id>
	<title>Re:Qt</title>
	<author>pembo13</author>
	<datestamp>1243681200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He made the wrong decision. Most of his complaints are with Gtk, and would not be a problem with Qt. From Webkit, to sound.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He made the wrong decision .
Most of his complaints are with Gtk , and would not be a problem with Qt .
From Webkit , to sound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He made the wrong decision.
Most of his complaints are with Gtk, and would not be a problem with Qt.
From Webkit, to sound.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152143</id>
	<title>Re:Yes.</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1243676520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to drop whole subsystems, ALSA would be a better choice than X. Modern Xorg (DRI2, KMS, UXA, evdev2, xcb, hal support/input hotplug and xrandr 1.2+/output hotplug) doesn't look much like Xfree86, and with this summer's release bringing xinput2 and the next Mesa release including Gallium3D for the first time, it will put X in a very good position.</p><p>Once all of the new technologies are in use across the board, and the fine tuning has begun, X will be very competitive with the Vista/7 GUI model and the OS X model. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to drop whole subsystems , ALSA would be a better choice than X. Modern Xorg ( DRI2 , KMS , UXA , evdev2 , xcb , hal support/input hotplug and xrandr 1.2 + /output hotplug ) does n't look much like Xfree86 , and with this summer 's release bringing xinput2 and the next Mesa release including Gallium3D for the first time , it will put X in a very good position.Once all of the new technologies are in use across the board , and the fine tuning has begun , X will be very competitive with the Vista/7 GUI model and the OS X model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to drop whole subsystems, ALSA would be a better choice than X. Modern Xorg (DRI2, KMS, UXA, evdev2, xcb, hal support/input hotplug and xrandr 1.2+/output hotplug) doesn't look much like Xfree86, and with this summer's release bringing xinput2 and the next Mesa release including Gallium3D for the first time, it will put X in a very good position.Once all of the new technologies are in use across the board, and the fine tuning has begun, X will be very competitive with the Vista/7 GUI model and the OS X model. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151873</id>
	<title>Re:Qt</title>
	<author>TyFoN</author>
	<datestamp>1243674840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bingo.<br>All my personal applications like bill management and phone listings, I have written in Qt.<br>My computers (and my gf's) all have windows or linux on them.<br>The bill management application uses both a database (postgres now but can be anything),<br>and networking. The porting of said application from its development environment (linux)<br>to windows 64 and 32 bit is a simple nmake. The only real diffrence comes if i want to include<br>an icon in my windows binary so that it will display it in windows explorer.</p><p>Writing portable code is not hard. It really comes down to what you decide before writing the application.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bingo.All my personal applications like bill management and phone listings , I have written in Qt.My computers ( and my gf 's ) all have windows or linux on them.The bill management application uses both a database ( postgres now but can be anything ) ,and networking .
The porting of said application from its development environment ( linux ) to windows 64 and 32 bit is a simple nmake .
The only real diffrence comes if i want to includean icon in my windows binary so that it will display it in windows explorer.Writing portable code is not hard .
It really comes down to what you decide before writing the application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bingo.All my personal applications like bill management and phone listings, I have written in Qt.My computers (and my gf's) all have windows or linux on them.The bill management application uses both a database (postgres now but can be anything),and networking.
The porting of said application from its development environment (linux)to windows 64 and 32 bit is a simple nmake.
The only real diffrence comes if i want to includean icon in my windows binary so that it will display it in windows explorer.Writing portable code is not hard.
It really comes down to what you decide before writing the application.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152579</id>
	<title>Re:apple</title>
	<author>douthat</author>
	<datestamp>1243679160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can download Chromium here: <a href="http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/sub-rel-mac/" title="chromium.org">http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/sub-rel-mac/</a> [chromium.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can download Chromium here : http : //build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/sub-rel-mac/ [ chromium.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can download Chromium here: http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/sub-rel-mac/ [chromium.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154677</id>
	<title>Are they willing to help?</title>
	<author>jvkjvk</author>
	<datestamp>1243695120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or was he just bitching?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or was he just bitching ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or was he just bitching?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156951</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>walshy007</author>
	<datestamp>1243768620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you mistook what your parent meant, in regards to pick one he was meaning for the developer to pick one, not the user. The user could have them all installed if they like.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Better hope it supports your package system, and better hope it was made for Gnome or GTK or whatever you're using</p></div><p>gtk and qt applications can run on the one machine simultaneously, so not an issue. As for sound if the distro has it's shit together it should support pretty much all of the different standards out there out of the box.</p><p>creating a simple tarball or zip file which has a linux program that runs on almost any distro that has the same cpu arch is a lot easier than many people make it out to be (yes I've done it).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you mistook what your parent meant , in regards to pick one he was meaning for the developer to pick one , not the user .
The user could have them all installed if they like.Better hope it supports your package system , and better hope it was made for Gnome or GTK or whatever you 're usinggtk and qt applications can run on the one machine simultaneously , so not an issue .
As for sound if the distro has it 's shit together it should support pretty much all of the different standards out there out of the box.creating a simple tarball or zip file which has a linux program that runs on almost any distro that has the same cpu arch is a lot easier than many people make it out to be ( yes I 've done it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you mistook what your parent meant, in regards to pick one he was meaning for the developer to pick one, not the user.
The user could have them all installed if they like.Better hope it supports your package system, and better hope it was made for Gnome or GTK or whatever you're usinggtk and qt applications can run on the one machine simultaneously, so not an issue.
As for sound if the distro has it's shit together it should support pretty much all of the different standards out there out of the box.creating a simple tarball or zip file which has a linux program that runs on almost any distro that has the same cpu arch is a lot easier than many people make it out to be (yes I've done it).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151253</id>
	<title>Yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243714440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And drop some legacy systems (X comes to mind) along the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And drop some legacy systems ( X comes to mind ) along the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And drop some legacy systems (X comes to mind) along the way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152391</id>
	<title>Re:Use Qt....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243678140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes! And I agree a lot about the GTK file picker. Is good to know I wasn't alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes !
And I agree a lot about the GTK file picker .
Is good to know I was n't alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes!
And I agree a lot about the GTK file picker.
Is good to know I wasn't alone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151897</id>
	<title>Re:Qt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243675020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only truly different interface decision is the use of Skia for rendering, if I'm not mistaken, and Skia runs reliably on Mac, Windows, and Linux already.</p><p>Other than that, it's just standard GUI toolkit controls, so I don't really see where that made porting hard, or even that it's "Windows-centric". And why just Qt? I personally think wxWidgets would be better suited to the task.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only truly different interface decision is the use of Skia for rendering , if I 'm not mistaken , and Skia runs reliably on Mac , Windows , and Linux already.Other than that , it 's just standard GUI toolkit controls , so I do n't really see where that made porting hard , or even that it 's " Windows-centric " .
And why just Qt ?
I personally think wxWidgets would be better suited to the task .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only truly different interface decision is the use of Skia for rendering, if I'm not mistaken, and Skia runs reliably on Mac, Windows, and Linux already.Other than that, it's just standard GUI toolkit controls, so I don't really see where that made porting hard, or even that it's "Windows-centric".
And why just Qt?
I personally think wxWidgets would be better suited to the task.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155375</id>
	<title>Cry Me A River</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1243702740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The guy though well experienced sounds like a crybaby.  I can't imagine how a programmer can't learn to make it work. Come on, he's got the tools, they are free.</p><p>Is this weak abled programmer not capable of making programs for various platforms?  Is he telling us that they haven't *ever* done a real program under Linux?  He's telling us this is new?  He's telling the hundreds of thousands of programmers world-wide that they are doing what he can't because they are less experienced and know no better?</p><p>Come on.  This guy is under pressure and he's caving.  He's making excuses and pulling a henny penny.</p><p>Get with it and make it happen.  We are tired of your excuses.  This isn't rocket science.  Use your brain you google employee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy though well experienced sounds like a crybaby .
I ca n't imagine how a programmer ca n't learn to make it work .
Come on , he 's got the tools , they are free.Is this weak abled programmer not capable of making programs for various platforms ?
Is he telling us that they have n't * ever * done a real program under Linux ?
He 's telling us this is new ?
He 's telling the hundreds of thousands of programmers world-wide that they are doing what he ca n't because they are less experienced and know no better ? Come on .
This guy is under pressure and he 's caving .
He 's making excuses and pulling a henny penny.Get with it and make it happen .
We are tired of your excuses .
This is n't rocket science .
Use your brain you google employee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy though well experienced sounds like a crybaby.
I can't imagine how a programmer can't learn to make it work.
Come on, he's got the tools, they are free.Is this weak abled programmer not capable of making programs for various platforms?
Is he telling us that they haven't *ever* done a real program under Linux?
He's telling us this is new?
He's telling the hundreds of thousands of programmers world-wide that they are doing what he can't because they are less experienced and know no better?Come on.
This guy is under pressure and he's caving.
He's making excuses and pulling a henny penny.Get with it and make it happen.
We are tired of your excuses.
This isn't rocket science.
Use your brain you google employee.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28184167</id>
	<title>Re:Um....</title>
	<author>some guy I know</author>
	<datestamp>1243964820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What if you used Linux with a BSD kernel? Is it still Linux?</p></div></blockquote><p>No, it's BSD.<br>You can't "use Linux with a BSD kernel", because it's not Linux if it's not Linux.<br>Now, if you ask "If I replace Debian's Linux kernel with with s BSD kernel, is it still Debian?", the answer is, "Yes.".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if you used Linux with a BSD kernel ?
Is it still Linux ? No , it 's BSD.You ca n't " use Linux with a BSD kernel " , because it 's not Linux if it 's not Linux.Now , if you ask " If I replace Debian 's Linux kernel with with s BSD kernel , is it still Debian ?
" , the answer is , " Yes .
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if you used Linux with a BSD kernel?
Is it still Linux?No, it's BSD.You can't "use Linux with a BSD kernel", because it's not Linux if it's not Linux.Now, if you ask "If I replace Debian's Linux kernel with with s BSD kernel, is it still Debian?
", the answer is, "Yes.
".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28162521</id>
	<title>Re:it's why Windows took over in the first place</title>
	<author>Bent Mind</author>
	<datestamp>1243776420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At one point, serious computers ran Unix. PCs were just toys, not useful for doing real work with.

But Unix fragmented. You had AIX, HPUX, and around a dozen other different kinds. They all behaved differently, stored things in different places in the filesystem, had different desktop environments.

Windows came along with a single environment and suddenly *that* was the attractive place to develop software.</p></div><p>One would assume, from this quote, that PC were toys until Windows unified standards on the PC. However, this is not what happened. PCs were toys that didn't have the hardware to run Unix. CP/M was considered. However, due to cost and connections, MS-DOS/PC-DOS was chosen to run on them. Advances were made in the hardware and Windows came about. Windows was made by the same people that made MS-DOS. OS/2 tried to compete. However, Microsoft already had the market by that time. Windows didn't have competition on the PC platform again until Linux.
<br> <br>Were there other platforms? Sure. Apple did well in education and art. Atari and Commodore did well in the home markets. However, IBM had the business market and the PC was originally made by them. People used the PC at work and wanted it at home as well.<br> <br>
Windows dominance had nothing to do with Unix fragmentation. It had everything to do with cost and marketing.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And the software people need to run for real productivity purposes - Autocad, Photoshop, things like that - are all for Windows.</p></div><p>Autocad had a Unix version. Photoshop still runs on both Windows and OSX. Microstation runs on Windows, OSX, and Linux. Developers started favoring Windows because users favored Windows. Users favored Windows, at first because of the cost of hardware and latter because it was "What Everyone Uses".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At one point , serious computers ran Unix .
PCs were just toys , not useful for doing real work with .
But Unix fragmented .
You had AIX , HPUX , and around a dozen other different kinds .
They all behaved differently , stored things in different places in the filesystem , had different desktop environments .
Windows came along with a single environment and suddenly * that * was the attractive place to develop software.One would assume , from this quote , that PC were toys until Windows unified standards on the PC .
However , this is not what happened .
PCs were toys that did n't have the hardware to run Unix .
CP/M was considered .
However , due to cost and connections , MS-DOS/PC-DOS was chosen to run on them .
Advances were made in the hardware and Windows came about .
Windows was made by the same people that made MS-DOS .
OS/2 tried to compete .
However , Microsoft already had the market by that time .
Windows did n't have competition on the PC platform again until Linux .
Were there other platforms ?
Sure. Apple did well in education and art .
Atari and Commodore did well in the home markets .
However , IBM had the business market and the PC was originally made by them .
People used the PC at work and wanted it at home as well .
Windows dominance had nothing to do with Unix fragmentation .
It had everything to do with cost and marketing.And the software people need to run for real productivity purposes - Autocad , Photoshop , things like that - are all for Windows.Autocad had a Unix version .
Photoshop still runs on both Windows and OSX .
Microstation runs on Windows , OSX , and Linux .
Developers started favoring Windows because users favored Windows .
Users favored Windows , at first because of the cost of hardware and latter because it was " What Everyone Uses " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At one point, serious computers ran Unix.
PCs were just toys, not useful for doing real work with.
But Unix fragmented.
You had AIX, HPUX, and around a dozen other different kinds.
They all behaved differently, stored things in different places in the filesystem, had different desktop environments.
Windows came along with a single environment and suddenly *that* was the attractive place to develop software.One would assume, from this quote, that PC were toys until Windows unified standards on the PC.
However, this is not what happened.
PCs were toys that didn't have the hardware to run Unix.
CP/M was considered.
However, due to cost and connections, MS-DOS/PC-DOS was chosen to run on them.
Advances were made in the hardware and Windows came about.
Windows was made by the same people that made MS-DOS.
OS/2 tried to compete.
However, Microsoft already had the market by that time.
Windows didn't have competition on the PC platform again until Linux.
Were there other platforms?
Sure. Apple did well in education and art.
Atari and Commodore did well in the home markets.
However, IBM had the business market and the PC was originally made by them.
People used the PC at work and wanted it at home as well.
Windows dominance had nothing to do with Unix fragmentation.
It had everything to do with cost and marketing.And the software people need to run for real productivity purposes - Autocad, Photoshop, things like that - are all for Windows.Autocad had a Unix version.
Photoshop still runs on both Windows and OSX.
Microstation runs on Windows, OSX, and Linux.
Developers started favoring Windows because users favored Windows.
Users favored Windows, at first because of the cost of hardware and latter because it was "What Everyone Uses".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151643</id>
	<title>There is:</title>
	<author>pilsner.urquell</author>
	<datestamp>1243716720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> <a href="http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/lsb" title="linuxfoundation.org">Linux Standard Base (LSB)</a> [linuxfoundation.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux Standard Base ( LSB ) [ linuxfoundation.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Linux Standard Base (LSB) [linuxfoundation.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155053</id>
	<title>Re:Um....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243699740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, nobody gives a shit what the kernel is-- the OS is the UI, and the UI is the OS. (Think about it: if Apple ported OS X to run on the NT Kernel, would it still be OS X or would it magically turn into Windows?)</p></div><p>So by your reasoning, if you put KDE on Windows, it becomes Linux? Have fun trying to find a usable terminal.. or any stability.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , nobody gives a shit what the kernel is-- the OS is the UI , and the UI is the OS .
( Think about it : if Apple ported OS X to run on the NT Kernel , would it still be OS X or would it magically turn into Windows ?
) So by your reasoning , if you put KDE on Windows , it becomes Linux ?
Have fun trying to find a usable terminal.. or any stability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, nobody gives a shit what the kernel is-- the OS is the UI, and the UI is the OS.
(Think about it: if Apple ported OS X to run on the NT Kernel, would it still be OS X or would it magically turn into Windows?
)So by your reasoning, if you put KDE on Windows, it becomes Linux?
Have fun trying to find a usable terminal.. or any stability.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151217</id>
	<title>apple</title>
	<author>rubah</author>
	<datestamp>1243714140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Should've started on the osx version instead!</p><p>*impatient*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should 've started on the osx version instead !
* impatient *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should've started on the osx version instead!
*impatient*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28158903</id>
	<title>Re:GUI standard is a myth.</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1243790520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There is no universal standard GUI toolkit on Windows either. Firefox and Opera use their own.OpenOffice.org uses its own. Even Microsoft Office uses its own.</i></p><p>There is a universal standard GUI toolkit on Windows. You just happened to cherry-pick applications that don't use it.</p><p><i>On the Mac, there is even more GUI dissonance. Current Macs make the typical Linux environment look downright uniform.</i></p><p>WTF? Seriously. WTF? Either you've never used a Mac, or you've never used Linux-- I'm not sure which.</p><p><i>Why is this always considered a problem on Linux but not on Windows or on the Mac?</i></p><p>Because your first sentence was wrong. Windows and Mac have universal standard GUI toolkits. They both have visual IDEs that'll set up the menus and controls to be positioned correctly by default. (Does the Linux world even have visual IDEs for window layout... at all?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no universal standard GUI toolkit on Windows either .
Firefox and Opera use their own.OpenOffice.org uses its own .
Even Microsoft Office uses its own.There is a universal standard GUI toolkit on Windows .
You just happened to cherry-pick applications that do n't use it.On the Mac , there is even more GUI dissonance .
Current Macs make the typical Linux environment look downright uniform.WTF ?
Seriously. WTF ?
Either you 've never used a Mac , or you 've never used Linux-- I 'm not sure which.Why is this always considered a problem on Linux but not on Windows or on the Mac ? Because your first sentence was wrong .
Windows and Mac have universal standard GUI toolkits .
They both have visual IDEs that 'll set up the menus and controls to be positioned correctly by default .
( Does the Linux world even have visual IDEs for window layout... at all ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no universal standard GUI toolkit on Windows either.
Firefox and Opera use their own.OpenOffice.org uses its own.
Even Microsoft Office uses its own.There is a universal standard GUI toolkit on Windows.
You just happened to cherry-pick applications that don't use it.On the Mac, there is even more GUI dissonance.
Current Macs make the typical Linux environment look downright uniform.WTF?
Seriously. WTF?
Either you've never used a Mac, or you've never used Linux-- I'm not sure which.Why is this always considered a problem on Linux but not on Windows or on the Mac?Because your first sentence was wrong.
Windows and Mac have universal standard GUI toolkits.
They both have visual IDEs that'll set up the menus and controls to be positioned correctly by default.
(Does the Linux world even have visual IDEs for window layout... at all?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151341</id>
	<title>It's open source, google.  Fork it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243714920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to see a Goo/Linux distro.  In my experience as a user of several of their products, google really does a good job with user interfaces.  I bet if they put some effort into a google desktop environment, it'd be pretty darn good.</p><p>It could be related to Android, or not, whatever makes sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see a Goo/Linux distro .
In my experience as a user of several of their products , google really does a good job with user interfaces .
I bet if they put some effort into a google desktop environment , it 'd be pretty darn good.It could be related to Android , or not , whatever makes sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see a Goo/Linux distro.
In my experience as a user of several of their products, google really does a good job with user interfaces.
I bet if they put some effort into a google desktop environment, it'd be pretty darn good.It could be related to Android, or not, whatever makes sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154309</id>
	<title>noone would care if Linux had 95\% market share...</title>
	<author>Lazy Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1243691280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... everyone would scramble to support it. Do you see what the real issue is now? Companies (and individuals) feel it costs them too much for too little profit/reward. That's all there is to it and that's why certain companies should think really hard about why they are in the position to benefit from Free (Beer) Software all the time. It's because someone else put a lot of effort into it despite the lack of profit/reward. Who's evil now, eh?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... everyone would scramble to support it .
Do you see what the real issue is now ?
Companies ( and individuals ) feel it costs them too much for too little profit/reward .
That 's all there is to it and that 's why certain companies should think really hard about why they are in the position to benefit from Free ( Beer ) Software all the time .
It 's because someone else put a lot of effort into it despite the lack of profit/reward .
Who 's evil now , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... everyone would scramble to support it.
Do you see what the real issue is now?
Companies (and individuals) feel it costs them too much for too little profit/reward.
That's all there is to it and that's why certain companies should think really hard about why they are in the position to benefit from Free (Beer) Software all the time.
It's because someone else put a lot of effort into it despite the lack of profit/reward.
Who's evil now, eh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152265</id>
	<title>This is also why Linux gaming is substandard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243677420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love me some Linux, all my server boxes run it and I do do app and gui work on it, but the last time I tried to port a game to it I just gave up in disgust after hitting the sound stuff. And it wasn't just the sound, it was getting the mouse input, getting gamepad input, and a bunch of other things you don't even think about normally but have to work right to get a game running.</p><p>This is why my desktop runs Win7 - I like my games. The Direct X family (including Direct Sound, Direct Input, etc) was possibly the smartest thing Microsoft ever did. Yes, you can get it all working under Linux with enough work, but why bother except as a work of love? I write cross-platform stuff using PyGame now, which works pretty well, but since it's using SDL there are sound issues on Linux (the sound nightmare again).</p><p>I'm not sure I have a solution here, just whining. Really, you need a unified API for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/everything/ involved in making a game that doesn't care what mouse or sound card or sound drivers or gamepad or video card you're using. And I realize that's a big 'Good Luck With That' with open source. There are cases where a benevolent dictator is better than democracy - as long as they stay benevolent, which is another 'Good Luck'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love me some Linux , all my server boxes run it and I do do app and gui work on it , but the last time I tried to port a game to it I just gave up in disgust after hitting the sound stuff .
And it was n't just the sound , it was getting the mouse input , getting gamepad input , and a bunch of other things you do n't even think about normally but have to work right to get a game running.This is why my desktop runs Win7 - I like my games .
The Direct X family ( including Direct Sound , Direct Input , etc ) was possibly the smartest thing Microsoft ever did .
Yes , you can get it all working under Linux with enough work , but why bother except as a work of love ?
I write cross-platform stuff using PyGame now , which works pretty well , but since it 's using SDL there are sound issues on Linux ( the sound nightmare again ) .I 'm not sure I have a solution here , just whining .
Really , you need a unified API for /everything/ involved in making a game that does n't care what mouse or sound card or sound drivers or gamepad or video card you 're using .
And I realize that 's a big 'Good Luck With That ' with open source .
There are cases where a benevolent dictator is better than democracy - as long as they stay benevolent , which is another 'Good Luck' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love me some Linux, all my server boxes run it and I do do app and gui work on it, but the last time I tried to port a game to it I just gave up in disgust after hitting the sound stuff.
And it wasn't just the sound, it was getting the mouse input, getting gamepad input, and a bunch of other things you don't even think about normally but have to work right to get a game running.This is why my desktop runs Win7 - I like my games.
The Direct X family (including Direct Sound, Direct Input, etc) was possibly the smartest thing Microsoft ever did.
Yes, you can get it all working under Linux with enough work, but why bother except as a work of love?
I write cross-platform stuff using PyGame now, which works pretty well, but since it's using SDL there are sound issues on Linux (the sound nightmare again).I'm not sure I have a solution here, just whining.
Really, you need a unified API for /everything/ involved in making a game that doesn't care what mouse or sound card or sound drivers or gamepad or video card you're using.
And I realize that's a big 'Good Luck With That' with open source.
There are cases where a benevolent dictator is better than democracy - as long as they stay benevolent, which is another 'Good Luck'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151749</id>
	<title>Re:Yes.</title>
	<author>NewbieProgrammerMan</author>
	<datestamp>1243674180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must be really behind the times, because I thought X was under the hood of my Ubuntu desktops.   What took its place?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must be really behind the times , because I thought X was under the hood of my Ubuntu desktops .
What took its place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must be really behind the times, because I thought X was under the hood of my Ubuntu desktops.
What took its place?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153909</id>
	<title>Re:Article by Slashdot completely distorts reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243688400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a developer, just a dreamer so my knowledge of these things is slim.  but.....</p><p>Why is Google having so much trouble bringing out there web browser for Linux, when Mozilla have been able to produce a stable and consistent Firefox (and Thunderbird, Sunbird) for Linux for many years...  Dose Firefox require a single UI toolbox, or does it have it's own UI itself... Got to admit I've never looked at the dependencies of Firefox it just works (tm).</p><p>So if Firefox can be the same across all OS's why cant Chrome?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a developer , just a dreamer so my knowledge of these things is slim .
but.....Why is Google having so much trouble bringing out there web browser for Linux , when Mozilla have been able to produce a stable and consistent Firefox ( and Thunderbird , Sunbird ) for Linux for many years... Dose Firefox require a single UI toolbox , or does it have it 's own UI itself... Got to admit I 've never looked at the dependencies of Firefox it just works ( tm ) .So if Firefox can be the same across all OS 's why cant Chrome ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a developer, just a dreamer so my knowledge of these things is slim.
but.....Why is Google having so much trouble bringing out there web browser for Linux, when Mozilla have been able to produce a stable and consistent Firefox (and Thunderbird, Sunbird) for Linux for many years...  Dose Firefox require a single UI toolbox, or does it have it's own UI itself... Got to admit I've never looked at the dependencies of Firefox it just works (tm).So if Firefox can be the same across all OS's why cant Chrome?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28167023</id>
	<title>choices and what to do about them</title>
	<author>hany</author>
	<datestamp>1243866540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, yes. On Linux platform, there are usually choices. And it's not uncommon that the choices are unclear, no straight winner,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>But being and application developer and targeting Linux then one has responsibility or privilege - depending on how you look at the problem.</p><p>If I'm a user, its really quite hard or nearly impossible to choose say sound system. OSS? Pusle Audio? ALSA?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...? After all, I just want to hear something from my machine without hickups or any other distortions.</p><p>But if I'm application developer for say some sound oriented application? Well, I'm already on totally different level when it comes to competency to choose a sound system: I'm not only able to simply listen to what I hear from the machine, I'm also a programmer with some knowledge about this and that.</p><p>So <b>as developer, I have to (and should) choose</b> which sound system to target <b>thus helping end users</b> to decide which one to choose.</p><p>Of course, in short term it leads to some conflicts - you get the machine and one sound application wants OSS, another Pulse,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... But after some time (i.e. few iterations later) we will have a winner. Because:</p><ul>
  <li>user choose apps (thus usage scenarios,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)</li><li>application developers choose subsystems (which works best for the target user base and the developers building for them)</li><li>subsystem developers will try to provide as much BANG as possible to the app. developers and their users</li></ul><p>Thus, best susbsytem(s) will win. Because the best app. choose them and drive/help them. Because users want the best apps.</p><p>So, Google (and any other developer) should investigate options available and decide, which one to support based on what is best suited for the needs for their users and also best suited to be used for development. In that way, some options will get eliminated (by simple lack of attention), others get pushed up (additional attention will help them become better), some options will merge (and either strenghten or vanish).</p><p>So please, make a choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , yes .
On Linux platform , there are usually choices .
And it 's not uncommon that the choices are unclear , no straight winner , ...But being and application developer and targeting Linux then one has responsibility or privilege - depending on how you look at the problem.If I 'm a user , its really quite hard or nearly impossible to choose say sound system .
OSS ? Pusle Audio ?
ALSA ? ... ?
After all , I just want to hear something from my machine without hickups or any other distortions.But if I 'm application developer for say some sound oriented application ?
Well , I 'm already on totally different level when it comes to competency to choose a sound system : I 'm not only able to simply listen to what I hear from the machine , I 'm also a programmer with some knowledge about this and that.So as developer , I have to ( and should ) choose which sound system to target thus helping end users to decide which one to choose.Of course , in short term it leads to some conflicts - you get the machine and one sound application wants OSS , another Pulse , ... But after some time ( i.e .
few iterations later ) we will have a winner .
Because : user choose apps ( thus usage scenarios , ... ) application developers choose subsystems ( which works best for the target user base and the developers building for them ) subsystem developers will try to provide as much BANG as possible to the app .
developers and their usersThus , best susbsytem ( s ) will win .
Because the best app .
choose them and drive/help them .
Because users want the best apps.So , Google ( and any other developer ) should investigate options available and decide , which one to support based on what is best suited for the needs for their users and also best suited to be used for development .
In that way , some options will get eliminated ( by simple lack of attention ) , others get pushed up ( additional attention will help them become better ) , some options will merge ( and either strenghten or vanish ) .So please , make a choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, yes.
On Linux platform, there are usually choices.
And it's not uncommon that the choices are unclear, no straight winner, ...But being and application developer and targeting Linux then one has responsibility or privilege - depending on how you look at the problem.If I'm a user, its really quite hard or nearly impossible to choose say sound system.
OSS? Pusle Audio?
ALSA? ...?
After all, I just want to hear something from my machine without hickups or any other distortions.But if I'm application developer for say some sound oriented application?
Well, I'm already on totally different level when it comes to competency to choose a sound system: I'm not only able to simply listen to what I hear from the machine, I'm also a programmer with some knowledge about this and that.So as developer, I have to (and should) choose which sound system to target thus helping end users to decide which one to choose.Of course, in short term it leads to some conflicts - you get the machine and one sound application wants OSS, another Pulse, ... But after some time (i.e.
few iterations later) we will have a winner.
Because:
  user choose apps (thus usage scenarios, ...)application developers choose subsystems (which works best for the target user base and the developers building for them)subsystem developers will try to provide as much BANG as possible to the app.
developers and their usersThus, best susbsytem(s) will win.
Because the best app.
choose them and drive/help them.
Because users want the best apps.So, Google (and any other developer) should investigate options available and decide, which one to support based on what is best suited for the needs for their users and also best suited to be used for development.
In that way, some options will get eliminated (by simple lack of attention), others get pushed up (additional attention will help them become better), some options will merge (and either strenghten or vanish).So please, make a choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154261</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>alexandre\_ganso</author>
	<datestamp>1243690980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>again: <a href="http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/4962/linuxaudio.png" title="imageshack.us" rel="nofollow">http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/4962/linuxaudio.png</a> [imageshack.us]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>again : http : //img46.imageshack.us/img46/4962/linuxaudio.png [ imageshack.us ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>again: http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/4962/linuxaudio.png [imageshack.us]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151667</id>
	<title>Zero Time Machine</title>
	<author>Ektanoor</author>
	<datestamp>1243716840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sincerly, it seems I have been in a time machine for all these years.<br>Quite long ago I was an active<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./'tter. Some 8-9 years ago. We had lots of FUD, Flood and Flame around here.<br>And you know what is the most strinkgly thing I see now. Entered time machine. BRRRRRRR. Zero... I'm exactly in the same place at the very same time I left.</p><p>Back then, there were already tons of people claiming the Hell and the Tartarus for the way Linux is built. Well, apart of remarking that Linux is JUST a kernel, let me mention a few things. Just as 9 years ago.</p><p>1. GTK, KDE and alikes are probably not ideal code. But they are two standards well fixed and working on Linux environment. Don't like them, push for YOUR standard. Don't like anything at all, gather your team and MAKE your standard. I AM a KDE fan, I LIKE KDE and have been using it since it was a raw alpha stuff. Now my friends at one work, where I was the all-power BOfH LOVED GTK/Gnome and could not see KDE by 2 thousand miles. And that's what is GREAT on Linux - there is a CHOICE!</p><p>2. I use KDE on most of my desktops. But on my Eee PC I use Enlightenment as it is much more economic and has all the resources I need there. I have also a Zaurus (Linux, of course) and a server without graphical BLOAT on it. I also have a router with Linux on it. Now., are you telling me that all this hardware will work perfectly under a "standard"? Aren't you telling me that if I will have ONE desktop, then every dumb programmer will demand that the graphic system shall be EVERYWHERE? Look, I know what programmers are and how many of them think, specially the IDE crowd. If this thing goes this way, I am pretty sure that we end in a all-embedded, full-featured, completely geekish MONOLITH. And then, problems will not be only compatibility. It will be price... And probably my Zaurus will have a few kilos more... Besides, what will be the difference from Windows?</p><p>3. Frankly, only a dodo doesn't know that problems exist on the development of many libraries. But, what is a community for? People this stuff works and it will work while there is a community. It is not just a question of volunteerism but self-discipline. While I have been pretty inactive for these last years, still, when something was real wrong, I would knock the bugtrackers and developers. And without this, there is NO Linux. There is a product. Want to use it? Great, consume it. But then, don't blame for the bloat, monolitics and managers believing they are masters of the Universe. If you want to turn Linux systems into pure consumer products, you will have to be bound into what the seller thinks is best for you, not the contrary. You have only two choices - you either accept it or not. Considering what happened in the past, with IBM, Apple and Microsoft, I believe that such environment on Linux will be pretty damaging. And, frankly, it makes me wonder why the whinning is coming from Google.</p><p>People, don't give your freedoms. I know it is quite spicy for me to say this, I am in no way an american patriot, but the America's Founding Fathers had some true words about "giving up Freedom".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sincerly , it seems I have been in a time machine for all these years.Quite long ago I was an active ./'tter .
Some 8-9 years ago .
We had lots of FUD , Flood and Flame around here.And you know what is the most strinkgly thing I see now .
Entered time machine .
BRRRRRRR. Zero... I 'm exactly in the same place at the very same time I left.Back then , there were already tons of people claiming the Hell and the Tartarus for the way Linux is built .
Well , apart of remarking that Linux is JUST a kernel , let me mention a few things .
Just as 9 years ago.1 .
GTK , KDE and alikes are probably not ideal code .
But they are two standards well fixed and working on Linux environment .
Do n't like them , push for YOUR standard .
Do n't like anything at all , gather your team and MAKE your standard .
I AM a KDE fan , I LIKE KDE and have been using it since it was a raw alpha stuff .
Now my friends at one work , where I was the all-power BOfH LOVED GTK/Gnome and could not see KDE by 2 thousand miles .
And that 's what is GREAT on Linux - there is a CHOICE ! 2 .
I use KDE on most of my desktops .
But on my Eee PC I use Enlightenment as it is much more economic and has all the resources I need there .
I have also a Zaurus ( Linux , of course ) and a server without graphical BLOAT on it .
I also have a router with Linux on it .
Now. , are you telling me that all this hardware will work perfectly under a " standard " ?
Are n't you telling me that if I will have ONE desktop , then every dumb programmer will demand that the graphic system shall be EVERYWHERE ?
Look , I know what programmers are and how many of them think , specially the IDE crowd .
If this thing goes this way , I am pretty sure that we end in a all-embedded , full-featured , completely geekish MONOLITH .
And then , problems will not be only compatibility .
It will be price... And probably my Zaurus will have a few kilos more... Besides , what will be the difference from Windows ? 3 .
Frankly , only a dodo does n't know that problems exist on the development of many libraries .
But , what is a community for ?
People this stuff works and it will work while there is a community .
It is not just a question of volunteerism but self-discipline .
While I have been pretty inactive for these last years , still , when something was real wrong , I would knock the bugtrackers and developers .
And without this , there is NO Linux .
There is a product .
Want to use it ?
Great , consume it .
But then , do n't blame for the bloat , monolitics and managers believing they are masters of the Universe .
If you want to turn Linux systems into pure consumer products , you will have to be bound into what the seller thinks is best for you , not the contrary .
You have only two choices - you either accept it or not .
Considering what happened in the past , with IBM , Apple and Microsoft , I believe that such environment on Linux will be pretty damaging .
And , frankly , it makes me wonder why the whinning is coming from Google.People , do n't give your freedoms .
I know it is quite spicy for me to say this , I am in no way an american patriot , but the America 's Founding Fathers had some true words about " giving up Freedom " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sincerly, it seems I have been in a time machine for all these years.Quite long ago I was an active ./'tter.
Some 8-9 years ago.
We had lots of FUD, Flood and Flame around here.And you know what is the most strinkgly thing I see now.
Entered time machine.
BRRRRRRR. Zero... I'm exactly in the same place at the very same time I left.Back then, there were already tons of people claiming the Hell and the Tartarus for the way Linux is built.
Well, apart of remarking that Linux is JUST a kernel, let me mention a few things.
Just as 9 years ago.1.
GTK, KDE and alikes are probably not ideal code.
But they are two standards well fixed and working on Linux environment.
Don't like them, push for YOUR standard.
Don't like anything at all, gather your team and MAKE your standard.
I AM a KDE fan, I LIKE KDE and have been using it since it was a raw alpha stuff.
Now my friends at one work, where I was the all-power BOfH LOVED GTK/Gnome and could not see KDE by 2 thousand miles.
And that's what is GREAT on Linux - there is a CHOICE!2.
I use KDE on most of my desktops.
But on my Eee PC I use Enlightenment as it is much more economic and has all the resources I need there.
I have also a Zaurus (Linux, of course) and a server without graphical BLOAT on it.
I also have a router with Linux on it.
Now., are you telling me that all this hardware will work perfectly under a "standard"?
Aren't you telling me that if I will have ONE desktop, then every dumb programmer will demand that the graphic system shall be EVERYWHERE?
Look, I know what programmers are and how many of them think, specially the IDE crowd.
If this thing goes this way, I am pretty sure that we end in a all-embedded, full-featured, completely geekish MONOLITH.
And then, problems will not be only compatibility.
It will be price... And probably my Zaurus will have a few kilos more... Besides, what will be the difference from Windows?3.
Frankly, only a dodo doesn't know that problems exist on the development of many libraries.
But, what is a community for?
People this stuff works and it will work while there is a community.
It is not just a question of volunteerism but self-discipline.
While I have been pretty inactive for these last years, still, when something was real wrong, I would knock the bugtrackers and developers.
And without this, there is NO Linux.
There is a product.
Want to use it?
Great, consume it.
But then, don't blame for the bloat, monolitics and managers believing they are masters of the Universe.
If you want to turn Linux systems into pure consumer products, you will have to be bound into what the seller thinks is best for you, not the contrary.
You have only two choices - you either accept it or not.
Considering what happened in the past, with IBM, Apple and Microsoft, I believe that such environment on Linux will be pretty damaging.
And, frankly, it makes me wonder why the whinning is coming from Google.People, don't give your freedoms.
I know it is quite spicy for me to say this, I am in no way an american patriot, but the America's Founding Fathers had some true words about "giving up Freedom".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28168879</id>
	<title>Are they using the wrong tools?</title>
	<author>kwitters</author>
	<datestamp>1243874700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I developed my game <a href="http://www.mysticmine.com/" title="mysticmine.com" rel="nofollow">Mystic Mine</a> [mysticmine.com] on Kubuntu using nothing but Open Source tools: python/pygame, gVim, blender, the gimp, inkscape and audacity. I had no trouble getting it to work on any Linux (32-64bit), Windows and Mac OS X intel and ppc (installer packages included). Sound, graphics,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... no problem! I honestly don't know what they are complaining about, but they are probably doing something wrong or using the wrong tools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I developed my game Mystic Mine [ mysticmine.com ] on Kubuntu using nothing but Open Source tools : python/pygame , gVim , blender , the gimp , inkscape and audacity .
I had no trouble getting it to work on any Linux ( 32-64bit ) , Windows and Mac OS X intel and ppc ( installer packages included ) .
Sound , graphics , ... no problem !
I honestly do n't know what they are complaining about , but they are probably doing something wrong or using the wrong tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I developed my game Mystic Mine [mysticmine.com] on Kubuntu using nothing but Open Source tools: python/pygame, gVim, blender, the gimp, inkscape and audacity.
I had no trouble getting it to work on any Linux (32-64bit), Windows and Mac OS X intel and ppc (installer packages included).
Sound, graphics, ... no problem!
I honestly don't know what they are complaining about, but they are probably doing something wrong or using the wrong tools.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153415</id>
	<title>What a retribution party we have here</title>
	<author>Pecisk</author>
	<datestamp>1243684860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, those "harsh words" are somehow pulled out from context to prove that "Linux sucks". I don't know what you guys are trying to prove but:<br>1) There are two, serious, commercially used toolkits GTK+ and Qt. As far as I know it is much less than several tens of toolkits which rules Windows world. I prefer GTK+ and quite happy how Qt/KDE fanbois are pushed compete;<br>2) "inconsistencies across applications" - news at eleven. Are you talking about applications as general? Because it is kinda rule of numb;<br>3) "the lack of a unified and comprehensive HIG" - again, there are two toolkits and two HIGs. Actually there is no Microsoft or Windows HIG, only different ones for each application group in Windows. Same as for OS X. Maybe it indicates that such unified HIG is kinda impossible?<br>4) " GTK not being a very compelling toolkit" - bug reports with patches or whishes are welcome. Linus did it and his suggestions with patches were accepted in two weeks time;</p><p>Other parts of article indicates that Google guy has very strong anti Linux bias. For example: "Committing to any single toolkit could potentially marginalize other segments of the community, so it's not a decision that can be made easily."</p><p>What a heck? If they really think so, how Skype manages to be ran by thousands of casual Ubuntu users? It uses qt and it is not installed by default. Uhhh ohhh, dependencies man. Compile package with sane version of qt libs and you are set to go. Several years ago yes, there were kinda alien feeling running Qt app in GTK+ environment and vice versa. But now it's non-issue.</p><p>""First of all let me generally comment that this entire situation is a clusterf*ck. I am not happy with the technical constraints imposed by Linux and its assorted UIs on Chrome's UI and feature set," he wrote. "There isn't dominant consensus around toolkit and HIG, there seems to be variance in commonly used software as to how it's constructed and what it matches, and I've not heard anyone glow about how they can create the coolest looking UIs with GTK."</p><p>For those who are unaware, Ben Goodger is a former employee of Mozilla and used to be the lead developer of the Firefox project."</p><p>Wow hang on here. Isn't that the same Firefox which was for a moment developed for Windows only and Linux was just fucking afterthought? How they screwed everything under the sun doing FF 2 with GTK+? Ohhh, I see. Real answer is "I couldn't master it, because I tried to use toolkit to do as I want - instead of following HIG and toolkit coding practice.". And using nice terms and phrases like "clusterfuck", and "dominant consensus around toolkit and HIG" (Ben, let's be honest, everyone standardizes around GTK+. You don't like it, end of story.) indicates that there is something else going on here than honest evaluation of things.</p><p>So more or less - article or more concretely, Ben is a flamebat. And comments "Why not to use Qt instead?" and "Phono is so nice to use" from Slashdot crowd today indicates that it clearly works nothing such retribution magnet for KDE fanbois who loose their impact to market with each day. And that's what harsh.</p><p>Sorry for putting myself under karma flamethrower, but it was too much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , those " harsh words " are somehow pulled out from context to prove that " Linux sucks " .
I do n't know what you guys are trying to prove but : 1 ) There are two , serious , commercially used toolkits GTK + and Qt .
As far as I know it is much less than several tens of toolkits which rules Windows world .
I prefer GTK + and quite happy how Qt/KDE fanbois are pushed compete ; 2 ) " inconsistencies across applications " - news at eleven .
Are you talking about applications as general ?
Because it is kinda rule of numb ; 3 ) " the lack of a unified and comprehensive HIG " - again , there are two toolkits and two HIGs .
Actually there is no Microsoft or Windows HIG , only different ones for each application group in Windows .
Same as for OS X. Maybe it indicates that such unified HIG is kinda impossible ? 4 ) " GTK not being a very compelling toolkit " - bug reports with patches or whishes are welcome .
Linus did it and his suggestions with patches were accepted in two weeks time ; Other parts of article indicates that Google guy has very strong anti Linux bias .
For example : " Committing to any single toolkit could potentially marginalize other segments of the community , so it 's not a decision that can be made easily .
" What a heck ?
If they really think so , how Skype manages to be ran by thousands of casual Ubuntu users ?
It uses qt and it is not installed by default .
Uhhh ohhh , dependencies man .
Compile package with sane version of qt libs and you are set to go .
Several years ago yes , there were kinda alien feeling running Qt app in GTK + environment and vice versa .
But now it 's non-issue .
" " First of all let me generally comment that this entire situation is a clusterf * ck .
I am not happy with the technical constraints imposed by Linux and its assorted UIs on Chrome 's UI and feature set , " he wrote .
" There is n't dominant consensus around toolkit and HIG , there seems to be variance in commonly used software as to how it 's constructed and what it matches , and I 've not heard anyone glow about how they can create the coolest looking UIs with GTK .
" For those who are unaware , Ben Goodger is a former employee of Mozilla and used to be the lead developer of the Firefox project .
" Wow hang on here .
Is n't that the same Firefox which was for a moment developed for Windows only and Linux was just fucking afterthought ?
How they screwed everything under the sun doing FF 2 with GTK + ?
Ohhh , I see .
Real answer is " I could n't master it , because I tried to use toolkit to do as I want - instead of following HIG and toolkit coding practice. " .
And using nice terms and phrases like " clusterfuck " , and " dominant consensus around toolkit and HIG " ( Ben , let 's be honest , everyone standardizes around GTK + .
You do n't like it , end of story .
) indicates that there is something else going on here than honest evaluation of things.So more or less - article or more concretely , Ben is a flamebat .
And comments " Why not to use Qt instead ?
" and " Phono is so nice to use " from Slashdot crowd today indicates that it clearly works nothing such retribution magnet for KDE fanbois who loose their impact to market with each day .
And that 's what harsh.Sorry for putting myself under karma flamethrower , but it was too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, those "harsh words" are somehow pulled out from context to prove that "Linux sucks".
I don't know what you guys are trying to prove but:1) There are two, serious, commercially used toolkits GTK+ and Qt.
As far as I know it is much less than several tens of toolkits which rules Windows world.
I prefer GTK+ and quite happy how Qt/KDE fanbois are pushed compete;2) "inconsistencies across applications" - news at eleven.
Are you talking about applications as general?
Because it is kinda rule of numb;3) "the lack of a unified and comprehensive HIG" - again, there are two toolkits and two HIGs.
Actually there is no Microsoft or Windows HIG, only different ones for each application group in Windows.
Same as for OS X. Maybe it indicates that such unified HIG is kinda impossible?4) " GTK not being a very compelling toolkit" - bug reports with patches or whishes are welcome.
Linus did it and his suggestions with patches were accepted in two weeks time;Other parts of article indicates that Google guy has very strong anti Linux bias.
For example: "Committing to any single toolkit could potentially marginalize other segments of the community, so it's not a decision that can be made easily.
"What a heck?
If they really think so, how Skype manages to be ran by thousands of casual Ubuntu users?
It uses qt and it is not installed by default.
Uhhh ohhh, dependencies man.
Compile package with sane version of qt libs and you are set to go.
Several years ago yes, there were kinda alien feeling running Qt app in GTK+ environment and vice versa.
But now it's non-issue.
""First of all let me generally comment that this entire situation is a clusterf*ck.
I am not happy with the technical constraints imposed by Linux and its assorted UIs on Chrome's UI and feature set," he wrote.
"There isn't dominant consensus around toolkit and HIG, there seems to be variance in commonly used software as to how it's constructed and what it matches, and I've not heard anyone glow about how they can create the coolest looking UIs with GTK.
"For those who are unaware, Ben Goodger is a former employee of Mozilla and used to be the lead developer of the Firefox project.
"Wow hang on here.
Isn't that the same Firefox which was for a moment developed for Windows only and Linux was just fucking afterthought?
How they screwed everything under the sun doing FF 2 with GTK+?
Ohhh, I see.
Real answer is "I couldn't master it, because I tried to use toolkit to do as I want - instead of following HIG and toolkit coding practice.".
And using nice terms and phrases like "clusterfuck", and "dominant consensus around toolkit and HIG" (Ben, let's be honest, everyone standardizes around GTK+.
You don't like it, end of story.
) indicates that there is something else going on here than honest evaluation of things.So more or less - article or more concretely, Ben is a flamebat.
And comments "Why not to use Qt instead?
" and "Phono is so nice to use" from Slashdot crowd today indicates that it clearly works nothing such retribution magnet for KDE fanbois who loose their impact to market with each day.
And that's what harsh.Sorry for putting myself under karma flamethrower, but it was too much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155327</id>
	<title>Re:Use Qt....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243702320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Best Linux GUI toolkit in history maybe.  Both Mac and Windows have better.  Spit on Vista all you want, but WPF is one hell of a nice GUI toolkit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Best Linux GUI toolkit in history maybe .
Both Mac and Windows have better .
Spit on Vista all you want , but WPF is one hell of a nice GUI toolkit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best Linux GUI toolkit in history maybe.
Both Mac and Windows have better.
Spit on Vista all you want, but WPF is one hell of a nice GUI toolkit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154299</id>
	<title>Re:Um....</title>
	<author>MaskedSlacker</author>
	<datestamp>1243691220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sir, are a moron.</p><p>You may not care about the kernel, but many of us do.  Which is why we run Linux (or BSD as the case may be).</p><p>The OS is NOT the UI, that's why they are two different terms with COMPLETELY different definitions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sir , are a moron.You may not care about the kernel , but many of us do .
Which is why we run Linux ( or BSD as the case may be ) .The OS is NOT the UI , that 's why they are two different terms with COMPLETELY different definitions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sir, are a moron.You may not care about the kernel, but many of us do.
Which is why we run Linux (or BSD as the case may be).The OS is NOT the UI, that's why they are two different terms with COMPLETELY different definitions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156213</id>
	<title>What happened to</title>
	<author>floydman</author>
	<datestamp>1243712820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good old X code...sheesh.</p><p>On a more serious note however, I seriosly feel their pain. It is a mess.<br>Unless you are writing code to run in batch mode and user interactivity is not on your list of requrinments, you are fine.<br>The minute you say I need to add a button, or a window, you are presented with  the questions :<br>1) QT or GTK<br>2) Maybe I should just drop both and build the GUI in Java, so I do not have to get screwed across distributions and glibc updates.<br>3) Nah, java is limiting, I will use Python, but it looks ugly..</p><p>Been there, and its a mess, specially if you try to get into such a conversation with mangment.</p><p>As for the audio, dont get me started.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good old X code...sheesh.On a more serious note however , I seriosly feel their pain .
It is a mess.Unless you are writing code to run in batch mode and user interactivity is not on your list of requrinments , you are fine.The minute you say I need to add a button , or a window , you are presented with the questions : 1 ) QT or GTK2 ) Maybe I should just drop both and build the GUI in Java , so I do not have to get screwed across distributions and glibc updates.3 ) Nah , java is limiting , I will use Python , but it looks ugly..Been there , and its a mess , specially if you try to get into such a conversation with mangment.As for the audio , dont get me started .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good old X code...sheesh.On a more serious note however, I seriosly feel their pain.
It is a mess.Unless you are writing code to run in batch mode and user interactivity is not on your list of requrinments, you are fine.The minute you say I need to add a button, or a window, you are presented with  the questions :1) QT or GTK2) Maybe I should just drop both and build the GUI in Java, so I do not have to get screwed across distributions and glibc updates.3) Nah, java is limiting, I will use Python, but it looks ugly..Been there, and its a mess, specially if you try to get into such a conversation with mangment.As for the audio, dont get me started.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155223</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>Burz</author>
	<datestamp>1243701360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The reason we have so many choices is because....the users and developers want choices.</p></div><p>But the userbase has not moved much beyond the sysadmin and system developer circles. These developers are mostly doing wheelies trying to impress their peers, not their potential novice end-users. They code for themselves and take great care with, for instance, APIs used among their peers--- but UI's are handled very sloppily and they squirm out of maintaining UI feature stability for the user by calling for "freedom".</p><p>Funny that... When you get below a certain level (say, to the kernel + GNU) then preventing fragmentation and maintaining consistency suddenly becomes a constant driving force and the freedom rhetoric becomes muted.</p><p>Frankly, I've had it. Linux is not anything like a platform in the personal computing sense, and the community isn't interested in converging on one. Application developers (esp. ISVs) hardly ever enter the discussion and making a FOSS platform that is attractive to ISVs is not anywhere near a top priority.</p><p>But its the APPS that sell the system and this 'Linux' thing (community, phenomenon, whatever) is hard as heck for independant app developers to target and then provide support.</p><p>After all these years we've seen app developers come to Apple in droves but the same hasn't happened for this amorphous thing called 'Linux'. Well the uber-choice amorphous thing doesn't inspire app developers, it frightens them and clearly they've had the sense to mostly stay away. App developers are more concerned with birthing their big idea(s) which usually involve a lot of nuanced human factors than they are with cool OS features you can enable if-only-you-static-link-this-forked-library-and-enable-this-compiler-flag-only-on-certain-distros-and-not-others.</p><p>Even a non-OS, Firefox, is a more popular platform for development. It advocates say "Try Firefox!" not "Try-one-of-those-gecko-browsers!" With the latter 'Linux-like' approach, web traffic today would still be 95\% to Internet Explorer clients.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason we have so many choices is because....the users and developers want choices.But the userbase has not moved much beyond the sysadmin and system developer circles .
These developers are mostly doing wheelies trying to impress their peers , not their potential novice end-users .
They code for themselves and take great care with , for instance , APIs used among their peers--- but UI 's are handled very sloppily and they squirm out of maintaining UI feature stability for the user by calling for " freedom " .Funny that... When you get below a certain level ( say , to the kernel + GNU ) then preventing fragmentation and maintaining consistency suddenly becomes a constant driving force and the freedom rhetoric becomes muted.Frankly , I 've had it .
Linux is not anything like a platform in the personal computing sense , and the community is n't interested in converging on one .
Application developers ( esp .
ISVs ) hardly ever enter the discussion and making a FOSS platform that is attractive to ISVs is not anywhere near a top priority.But its the APPS that sell the system and this 'Linux ' thing ( community , phenomenon , whatever ) is hard as heck for independant app developers to target and then provide support.After all these years we 've seen app developers come to Apple in droves but the same has n't happened for this amorphous thing called 'Linux' .
Well the uber-choice amorphous thing does n't inspire app developers , it frightens them and clearly they 've had the sense to mostly stay away .
App developers are more concerned with birthing their big idea ( s ) which usually involve a lot of nuanced human factors than they are with cool OS features you can enable if-only-you-static-link-this-forked-library-and-enable-this-compiler-flag-only-on-certain-distros-and-not-others.Even a non-OS , Firefox , is a more popular platform for development .
It advocates say " Try Firefox !
" not " Try-one-of-those-gecko-browsers !
" With the latter 'Linux-like ' approach , web traffic today would still be 95 \ % to Internet Explorer clients .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason we have so many choices is because....the users and developers want choices.But the userbase has not moved much beyond the sysadmin and system developer circles.
These developers are mostly doing wheelies trying to impress their peers, not their potential novice end-users.
They code for themselves and take great care with, for instance, APIs used among their peers--- but UI's are handled very sloppily and they squirm out of maintaining UI feature stability for the user by calling for "freedom".Funny that... When you get below a certain level (say, to the kernel + GNU) then preventing fragmentation and maintaining consistency suddenly becomes a constant driving force and the freedom rhetoric becomes muted.Frankly, I've had it.
Linux is not anything like a platform in the personal computing sense, and the community isn't interested in converging on one.
Application developers (esp.
ISVs) hardly ever enter the discussion and making a FOSS platform that is attractive to ISVs is not anywhere near a top priority.But its the APPS that sell the system and this 'Linux' thing (community, phenomenon, whatever) is hard as heck for independant app developers to target and then provide support.After all these years we've seen app developers come to Apple in droves but the same hasn't happened for this amorphous thing called 'Linux'.
Well the uber-choice amorphous thing doesn't inspire app developers, it frightens them and clearly they've had the sense to mostly stay away.
App developers are more concerned with birthing their big idea(s) which usually involve a lot of nuanced human factors than they are with cool OS features you can enable if-only-you-static-link-this-forked-library-and-enable-this-compiler-flag-only-on-certain-distros-and-not-others.Even a non-OS, Firefox, is a more popular platform for development.
It advocates say "Try Firefox!
" not "Try-one-of-those-gecko-browsers!
" With the latter 'Linux-like' approach, web traffic today would still be 95\% to Internet Explorer clients.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152845</id>
	<title>Re:it's why Windows took over in the first place</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243680960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <strong>Linux is not an OS.</strong> </p><p>Targeting "Linux" is like targeting "Windows" and complaining that your app doesn't cleanly work on Windows 95 and Vista without changes. Consider Fedora or Ubunutu as your target. Not Linux. Then, support other major distros by <em>letting package maintainers do their jobs.</em></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux is not an OS .
Targeting " Linux " is like targeting " Windows " and complaining that your app does n't cleanly work on Windows 95 and Vista without changes .
Consider Fedora or Ubunutu as your target .
Not Linux .
Then , support other major distros by letting package maintainers do their jobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Linux is not an OS.
Targeting "Linux" is like targeting "Windows" and complaining that your app doesn't cleanly work on Windows 95 and Vista without changes.
Consider Fedora or Ubunutu as your target.
Not Linux.
Then, support other major distros by letting package maintainers do their jobs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152527</id>
	<title>Cry more</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243678800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
As a Linux user and software developer, I appreciate the flexibility and diversity available in Linux.  I think most Linux users appreciate it.
</p><p>
The impression I get is that it's mostly butthurt Microsoft haters calling for less flexibility and diversity.  Fortunately, that also seems to be the group that contributes the least actual work, so I don't see their dreams becoming reality any time soon.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a Linux user and software developer , I appreciate the flexibility and diversity available in Linux .
I think most Linux users appreciate it .
The impression I get is that it 's mostly butthurt Microsoft haters calling for less flexibility and diversity .
Fortunately , that also seems to be the group that contributes the least actual work , so I do n't see their dreams becoming reality any time soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
As a Linux user and software developer, I appreciate the flexibility and diversity available in Linux.
I think most Linux users appreciate it.
The impression I get is that it's mostly butthurt Microsoft haters calling for less flexibility and diversity.
Fortunately, that also seems to be the group that contributes the least actual work, so I don't see their dreams becoming reality any time soon.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152493</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>fsterman</author>
	<datestamp>1243678620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This sounds like trolling, I know, but neither does Ubuntu.  The package management system sounds great until you put someone in front of it who can screw it up- namely me!
<p>
Which is why I am a <a href="https://wiki.mozilla.org/Labs/Ubiquity/Usability/Usability\_Testing/Fall\_08\_1.2\_Tests" title="mozilla.org">usability engineer</a> [mozilla.org], and tried applying for the <a href="http://season.openusability.org/index.php/projects" title="openusability.org">Ubuntu Add/Remove</a> [openusability.org] usability testing internship : )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like trolling , I know , but neither does Ubuntu .
The package management system sounds great until you put someone in front of it who can screw it up- namely me !
Which is why I am a usability engineer [ mozilla.org ] , and tried applying for the Ubuntu Add/Remove [ openusability.org ] usability testing internship : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like trolling, I know, but neither does Ubuntu.
The package management system sounds great until you put someone in front of it who can screw it up- namely me!
Which is why I am a usability engineer [mozilla.org], and tried applying for the Ubuntu Add/Remove [openusability.org] usability testing internship : )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154361</id>
	<title>Cluestick</title>
	<author>Brandybuck</author>
	<datestamp>1243691760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Big cluestick: we are not your employees, we do not do your bidding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Big cluestick : we are not your employees , we do not do your bidding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big cluestick: we are not your employees, we do not do your bidding.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153439</id>
	<title>Re:Use Qt....</title>
	<author>Xabraxas</author>
	<datestamp>1243685040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People always say this like it is easy or even worthwhile to reprogram their entire application to work with QT instead of GTK.  It makes even less sense when you realize that Gnome is pretty much the default desktop now whether people like it or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People always say this like it is easy or even worthwhile to reprogram their entire application to work with QT instead of GTK .
It makes even less sense when you realize that Gnome is pretty much the default desktop now whether people like it or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People always say this like it is easy or even worthwhile to reprogram their entire application to work with QT instead of GTK.
It makes even less sense when you realize that Gnome is pretty much the default desktop now whether people like it or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156739</id>
	<title>GNU/Linux!!!???</title>
	<author>Sunnz</author>
	<datestamp>1243765380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't call it GNU/Linux, you got to give credit to all!!</p><p>It is GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't call it GNU/Linux , you got to give credit to all !
! It is GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't call it GNU/Linux, you got to give credit to all!
!It is GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151505</id>
	<title>Re:Just write your own widget toolkit :)</title>
	<author>FishWithAHammer</author>
	<datestamp>1243715880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe they should have just used Xlib/Xt instead and duplicated everything they did for Windows</p></div><p>And then you can cue the hardcore bitching from GNOME *and* KDE.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they should have just used Xlib/Xt instead and duplicated everything they did for WindowsAnd then you can cue the hardcore bitching from GNOME * and * KDE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they should have just used Xlib/Xt instead and duplicated everything they did for WindowsAnd then you can cue the hardcore bitching from GNOME *and* KDE.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28159493</id>
	<title>The usual clueless developer: Kernel != platform</title>
	<author>Mr. Picklesworth</author>
	<datestamp>1243795140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regarding the continual "I hate building for Linux because I have to figure out different toolkits" complaint, I feel I need to explain something really obvious.</p><p>The kernel does not define the platform for a web browser. If all you care about is making a program run on a kernel, you have already failed. When you are developing high level software, the kernel should not exist in your mind.</p><p>GNOME and KDE are software platforms. You target those. Now, you can either build Chromium for GNOME, or you can build it for KDE. Or, if you feel really generous, you can do both! One handy detail is they are compatible on some lower levels by being built on the same open source ecosystem and tending towards the same kernels. There, isn't that easy?</p><p>Ben Goodger, in his complaining, seems to have forgotten that Google themselves have a troublesome Linux platform: Android. Does porting to the Linux kernel mean we have to support Android and its GUI toolkit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regarding the continual " I hate building for Linux because I have to figure out different toolkits " complaint , I feel I need to explain something really obvious.The kernel does not define the platform for a web browser .
If all you care about is making a program run on a kernel , you have already failed .
When you are developing high level software , the kernel should not exist in your mind.GNOME and KDE are software platforms .
You target those .
Now , you can either build Chromium for GNOME , or you can build it for KDE .
Or , if you feel really generous , you can do both !
One handy detail is they are compatible on some lower levels by being built on the same open source ecosystem and tending towards the same kernels .
There , is n't that easy ? Ben Goodger , in his complaining , seems to have forgotten that Google themselves have a troublesome Linux platform : Android .
Does porting to the Linux kernel mean we have to support Android and its GUI toolkit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regarding the continual "I hate building for Linux because I have to figure out different toolkits" complaint, I feel I need to explain something really obvious.The kernel does not define the platform for a web browser.
If all you care about is making a program run on a kernel, you have already failed.
When you are developing high level software, the kernel should not exist in your mind.GNOME and KDE are software platforms.
You target those.
Now, you can either build Chromium for GNOME, or you can build it for KDE.
Or, if you feel really generous, you can do both!
One handy detail is they are compatible on some lower levels by being built on the same open source ecosystem and tending towards the same kernels.
There, isn't that easy?Ben Goodger, in his complaining, seems to have forgotten that Google themselves have a troublesome Linux platform: Android.
Does porting to the Linux kernel mean we have to support Android and its GUI toolkit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28157469</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>Anonymous Cowpat</author>
	<datestamp>1243776960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mod up! mod up!</p><p>When I download X piece of GPL software, I don't expect the documentation to tell me that it depends on Y piece of GPL software which they want me to go download myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mod up !
mod up ! When I download X piece of GPL software , I do n't expect the documentation to tell me that it depends on Y piece of GPL software which they want me to go download myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mod up!
mod up!When I download X piece of GPL software, I don't expect the documentation to tell me that it depends on Y piece of GPL software which they want me to go download myself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151057</id>
	<title>Um....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243713060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously Google how hard can it be? Just use GTK, its light, useful and even a weekend coder can use it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously Google how hard can it be ?
Just use GTK , its light , useful and even a weekend coder can use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously Google how hard can it be?
Just use GTK, its light, useful and even a weekend coder can use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153503</id>
	<title>Re:GUI standard is a myth.</title>
	<author>BenoitRen</author>
	<datestamp>1243685460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the hell are you talking about? Everything still translates to the Windows API, which the applications you mentioned also use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell are you talking about ?
Everything still translates to the Windows API , which the applications you mentioned also use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell are you talking about?
Everything still translates to the Windows API, which the applications you mentioned also use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151449</id>
	<title>Re:Choice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243715580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>cause they dont already do this?<br>http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/linux\_3x?c=us&amp;cs=19&amp;l=en&amp;s=dhs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>cause they dont already do this ? http : //www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/linux \ _3x ? c = us&amp;cs = 19&amp;l = en&amp;s = dhs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cause they dont already do this?http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/linux\_3x?c=us&amp;cs=19&amp;l=en&amp;s=dhs</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155467</id>
	<title>Chrome != Chromium</title>
	<author>Laebshade</author>
	<datestamp>1243703580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't believe no one else noticed this.  The summary is wrong.  The article is about Chromium, not Chrome.  Chrome is based on Chromium, and open-source project.  There is no official Google Chrome for linux.  There's Chromium, then there's crossover Chrome (or Chrome run through wine), but no Google Chrome for linux.</p><p>And, an alpha version of Chromium has been out for more than a month now.  It has just recently become somewhat usable (tabs started working a couple of weeks ago). The options menu isn't populated, although the framework appears to be there.  Rather annoyingly, it doesn't remember the size of the window when it was closed.</p><p>Running it on Ubuntu 9.04.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe no one else noticed this .
The summary is wrong .
The article is about Chromium , not Chrome .
Chrome is based on Chromium , and open-source project .
There is no official Google Chrome for linux .
There 's Chromium , then there 's crossover Chrome ( or Chrome run through wine ) , but no Google Chrome for linux.And , an alpha version of Chromium has been out for more than a month now .
It has just recently become somewhat usable ( tabs started working a couple of weeks ago ) .
The options menu is n't populated , although the framework appears to be there .
Rather annoyingly , it does n't remember the size of the window when it was closed.Running it on Ubuntu 9.04 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe no one else noticed this.
The summary is wrong.
The article is about Chromium, not Chrome.
Chrome is based on Chromium, and open-source project.
There is no official Google Chrome for linux.
There's Chromium, then there's crossover Chrome (or Chrome run through wine), but no Google Chrome for linux.And, an alpha version of Chromium has been out for more than a month now.
It has just recently become somewhat usable (tabs started working a couple of weeks ago).
The options menu isn't populated, although the framework appears to be there.
Rather annoyingly, it doesn't remember the size of the window when it was closed.Running it on Ubuntu 9.04.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152627</id>
	<title>Re:Um....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243679460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be a festering pile of shit, because all of the options that are ultimately made available to a user in the interface depend on the hardware, kernel and operating system to work. (well, or at all depending)</p><p>The problem exists everywhere but the developers in question know how to navigate around the problem in windows and OSX land. Apparently Linux is just to damn hard for Google<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...... despite running an estimated ~1 million Linux servers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be a festering pile of shit , because all of the options that are ultimately made available to a user in the interface depend on the hardware , kernel and operating system to work .
( well , or at all depending ) The problem exists everywhere but the developers in question know how to navigate around the problem in windows and OSX land .
Apparently Linux is just to damn hard for Google ...... despite running an estimated ~ 1 million Linux servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be a festering pile of shit, because all of the options that are ultimately made available to a user in the interface depend on the hardware, kernel and operating system to work.
(well, or at all depending)The problem exists everywhere but the developers in question know how to navigate around the problem in windows and OSX land.
Apparently Linux is just to damn hard for Google ...... despite running an estimated ~1 million Linux servers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152273</id>
	<title>Re:it's why Windows took over in the first place</title>
	<author>Ektanoor</author>
	<datestamp>1243677540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a pure twisted view of reality. First, the *nix environment was never supposed to go PC. Besides, the forkings were a pure necessity as you were dealing with systems for specific tasks. It was a hardware/software symbiosis and not selling computers to every freak on the street.</p><p>Windows came into force not because it was the attractive place to develop but the only one. IBM made a pretty good mess out of its OS/2 to be something workable for the lay user (not without the help of M$ btw).</p><p>Linux rose up in the end of the 90's, when Windows had the total and absolute monopoly on everything PC. So, in fact Windows IS loosing its position, not winning it. Yes, it lost 1\%. But lost it and Linux is still here.</p><p>About binary compatibility... That's pretty heavy one. Frankly, have you ever used Linux in a working basis? I haven't had no binary compatibilities for years and I am a Linux user since 1998 (and admin since 1994). What compatibility are you talking about?</p><p>Really I don't use Windows anymore, except for some pretty rare games I play once in a while. But just an year ago I had to deal with a horrible mess on a Windows server. I was pretty amazed to see the same problems, the very old same way, as I saw several years ago - upgrade and we go boom.</p><p>I don't know, maybe Microsoft finally solved this 20-year old problem for the last year I have not been touching Windows? Really? I doubt.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a pure twisted view of reality .
First , the * nix environment was never supposed to go PC .
Besides , the forkings were a pure necessity as you were dealing with systems for specific tasks .
It was a hardware/software symbiosis and not selling computers to every freak on the street.Windows came into force not because it was the attractive place to develop but the only one .
IBM made a pretty good mess out of its OS/2 to be something workable for the lay user ( not without the help of M $ btw ) .Linux rose up in the end of the 90 's , when Windows had the total and absolute monopoly on everything PC .
So , in fact Windows IS loosing its position , not winning it .
Yes , it lost 1 \ % .
But lost it and Linux is still here.About binary compatibility... That 's pretty heavy one .
Frankly , have you ever used Linux in a working basis ?
I have n't had no binary compatibilities for years and I am a Linux user since 1998 ( and admin since 1994 ) .
What compatibility are you talking about ? Really I do n't use Windows anymore , except for some pretty rare games I play once in a while .
But just an year ago I had to deal with a horrible mess on a Windows server .
I was pretty amazed to see the same problems , the very old same way , as I saw several years ago - upgrade and we go boom.I do n't know , maybe Microsoft finally solved this 20-year old problem for the last year I have not been touching Windows ?
Really ? I doubt .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a pure twisted view of reality.
First, the *nix environment was never supposed to go PC.
Besides, the forkings were a pure necessity as you were dealing with systems for specific tasks.
It was a hardware/software symbiosis and not selling computers to every freak on the street.Windows came into force not because it was the attractive place to develop but the only one.
IBM made a pretty good mess out of its OS/2 to be something workable for the lay user (not without the help of M$ btw).Linux rose up in the end of the 90's, when Windows had the total and absolute monopoly on everything PC.
So, in fact Windows IS loosing its position, not winning it.
Yes, it lost 1\%.
But lost it and Linux is still here.About binary compatibility... That's pretty heavy one.
Frankly, have you ever used Linux in a working basis?
I haven't had no binary compatibilities for years and I am a Linux user since 1998 (and admin since 1994).
What compatibility are you talking about?Really I don't use Windows anymore, except for some pretty rare games I play once in a while.
But just an year ago I had to deal with a horrible mess on a Windows server.
I was pretty amazed to see the same problems, the very old same way, as I saw several years ago - upgrade and we go boom.I don't know, maybe Microsoft finally solved this 20-year old problem for the last year I have not been touching Windows?
Really? I doubt.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152615</id>
	<title>Re:Can I ask the stupid question?</title>
	<author>Narishma</author>
	<datestamp>1243679340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes someone can but nobody seems to be interested enough to do it. Besides there are already Webkit-based browsers written with Qt (rekonq and arora).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes someone can but nobody seems to be interested enough to do it .
Besides there are already Webkit-based browsers written with Qt ( rekonq and arora ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes someone can but nobody seems to be interested enough to do it.
Besides there are already Webkit-based browsers written with Qt (rekonq and arora).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153393</id>
	<title>Standardize</title>
	<author>eldridgea</author>
	<datestamp>1243684620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why don't we have a standard (maybe like the LSB but better) with distros that follow it?
Perhaps it could be modeled after a popular distro such as Ubuntu?

Other disros would be free to deviate, but major software manufacturers (Adobe, Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc.) would only be expected to produce software for the standards. If a distro didn't follow the standards it would be up to the maintainers to make it work if they wanted the software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't we have a standard ( maybe like the LSB but better ) with distros that follow it ?
Perhaps it could be modeled after a popular distro such as Ubuntu ?
Other disros would be free to deviate , but major software manufacturers ( Adobe , Google , Apple , Microsoft , etc .
) would only be expected to produce software for the standards .
If a distro did n't follow the standards it would be up to the maintainers to make it work if they wanted the software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't we have a standard (maybe like the LSB but better) with distros that follow it?
Perhaps it could be modeled after a popular distro such as Ubuntu?
Other disros would be free to deviate, but major software manufacturers (Adobe, Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc.
) would only be expected to produce software for the standards.
If a distro didn't follow the standards it would be up to the maintainers to make it work if they wanted the software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152601</id>
	<title>Is this really a surprise?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243679220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, I have been a heavy Linux user since 1995 and I have even attended and spoken at a few conferences... and I have been saying this for years. You know what it is met with every time? "Blah, blah, chaos, blah" or "blah, blah, choice, blah" or "blah, blah, STFU nub!1, blah" every time. I describe it as trying to build a mansion on a shifting and incomplete foundation... Linux NEEDS to be more than a kernel. It needs to be the entire basic framework (foundation) and it needs to include ONE of each basic app that is standardized in UI, look, and feel. Then you can still tweak, add, subtract, etc. from it and have your customized distros and apps... but we have 40 half-assed apps in one area in all manner of development and disarray with no cohesive vision or goal. it is destined for failure.</p><p>As it stands Asus (was, not now) or Ubuntu or some other corporation is the only hope of packaging a solid base system that is re-thought from the ground up. Everyone can keep fighting it for another 15 years and still be nowhere much further than we are now, or we could get our collective heads out of our asses and finally make it happen. OSX has beaten Linux in almost every area in short order due to a single, solid, vision... and it is time Linus steps up and takes some sort of control and direction back.</p><p>There's a reason the kernel is not handled like the rest of Linux, but why we are all so stubborn to insist that everything else does not apply. FFS hopefully Google is the voice that finally gets shit on the track again, mine surely hasn't despite my efforts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , I have been a heavy Linux user since 1995 and I have even attended and spoken at a few conferences... and I have been saying this for years .
You know what it is met with every time ?
" Blah , blah , chaos , blah " or " blah , blah , choice , blah " or " blah , blah , STFU nub ! 1 , blah " every time .
I describe it as trying to build a mansion on a shifting and incomplete foundation... Linux NEEDS to be more than a kernel .
It needs to be the entire basic framework ( foundation ) and it needs to include ONE of each basic app that is standardized in UI , look , and feel .
Then you can still tweak , add , subtract , etc .
from it and have your customized distros and apps... but we have 40 half-assed apps in one area in all manner of development and disarray with no cohesive vision or goal .
it is destined for failure.As it stands Asus ( was , not now ) or Ubuntu or some other corporation is the only hope of packaging a solid base system that is re-thought from the ground up .
Everyone can keep fighting it for another 15 years and still be nowhere much further than we are now , or we could get our collective heads out of our asses and finally make it happen .
OSX has beaten Linux in almost every area in short order due to a single , solid , vision... and it is time Linus steps up and takes some sort of control and direction back.There 's a reason the kernel is not handled like the rest of Linux , but why we are all so stubborn to insist that everything else does not apply .
FFS hopefully Google is the voice that finally gets shit on the track again , mine surely has n't despite my efforts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, I have been a heavy Linux user since 1995 and I have even attended and spoken at a few conferences... and I have been saying this for years.
You know what it is met with every time?
"Blah, blah, chaos, blah" or "blah, blah, choice, blah" or "blah, blah, STFU nub!1, blah" every time.
I describe it as trying to build a mansion on a shifting and incomplete foundation... Linux NEEDS to be more than a kernel.
It needs to be the entire basic framework (foundation) and it needs to include ONE of each basic app that is standardized in UI, look, and feel.
Then you can still tweak, add, subtract, etc.
from it and have your customized distros and apps... but we have 40 half-assed apps in one area in all manner of development and disarray with no cohesive vision or goal.
it is destined for failure.As it stands Asus (was, not now) or Ubuntu or some other corporation is the only hope of packaging a solid base system that is re-thought from the ground up.
Everyone can keep fighting it for another 15 years and still be nowhere much further than we are now, or we could get our collective heads out of our asses and finally make it happen.
OSX has beaten Linux in almost every area in short order due to a single, solid, vision... and it is time Linus steps up and takes some sort of control and direction back.There's a reason the kernel is not handled like the rest of Linux, but why we are all so stubborn to insist that everything else does not apply.
FFS hopefully Google is the voice that finally gets shit on the track again, mine surely hasn't despite my efforts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151371</id>
	<title>Re:Um....</title>
	<author>Bloater</author>
	<datestamp>1243715160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and I don't understand what's wrong with that.</p><p>It's like saying "There are so many different operating systems for so many different types of hardware that the computer market is too fragmented - so we won't produce any software"</p><p>It's silly. If you want those users then you make the software, if you don't then you don't. simple.</p><p>BTW, I'm in the throws of switching to Vista after being an Ubuntu user for many years. They don't like my bugs but Microsoft actually seems to care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and I do n't understand what 's wrong with that.It 's like saying " There are so many different operating systems for so many different types of hardware that the computer market is too fragmented - so we wo n't produce any software " It 's silly .
If you want those users then you make the software , if you do n't then you do n't .
simple.BTW , I 'm in the throws of switching to Vista after being an Ubuntu user for many years .
They do n't like my bugs but Microsoft actually seems to care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and I don't understand what's wrong with that.It's like saying "There are so many different operating systems for so many different types of hardware that the computer market is too fragmented - so we won't produce any software"It's silly.
If you want those users then you make the software, if you don't then you don't.
simple.BTW, I'm in the throws of switching to Vista after being an Ubuntu user for many years.
They don't like my bugs but Microsoft actually seems to care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28158503</id>
	<title>Re:Um....</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1243787220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the exact problem:</p><p><i>The solution is NOT to merge distros, but there needs to be some rigorous standards for how different implementations can communicate with each other.</i></p><p>You can't write a standard, no matter how rigorous, that allows applications to follow *both* KDE and GNOME's UI guidelines. (As a simple example, button order in dialogs.)</p><p>No more than you can write a standard that allows a native Windows look-and-feel on OS X and vice-versa. (For one thing, text boxes behave in many mutually-exclusive ways.)</p><p>The best solution is to think of KDE as an OS, and GNOME as a different OS, and then develop towards one or the other. The downside is that your application probably won't run (well at least) on some high percentage of Linux desktops, but the alternative is writing more UI front-ends for Linux than for every other OS combined.</p><p>It sounds like this is basically what Chrome is doing. And really, how can the Linux community fault it, considering how things are?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the exact problem : The solution is NOT to merge distros , but there needs to be some rigorous standards for how different implementations can communicate with each other.You ca n't write a standard , no matter how rigorous , that allows applications to follow * both * KDE and GNOME 's UI guidelines .
( As a simple example , button order in dialogs .
) No more than you can write a standard that allows a native Windows look-and-feel on OS X and vice-versa .
( For one thing , text boxes behave in many mutually-exclusive ways .
) The best solution is to think of KDE as an OS , and GNOME as a different OS , and then develop towards one or the other .
The downside is that your application probably wo n't run ( well at least ) on some high percentage of Linux desktops , but the alternative is writing more UI front-ends for Linux than for every other OS combined.It sounds like this is basically what Chrome is doing .
And really , how can the Linux community fault it , considering how things are ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the exact problem:The solution is NOT to merge distros, but there needs to be some rigorous standards for how different implementations can communicate with each other.You can't write a standard, no matter how rigorous, that allows applications to follow *both* KDE and GNOME's UI guidelines.
(As a simple example, button order in dialogs.
)No more than you can write a standard that allows a native Windows look-and-feel on OS X and vice-versa.
(For one thing, text boxes behave in many mutually-exclusive ways.
)The best solution is to think of KDE as an OS, and GNOME as a different OS, and then develop towards one or the other.
The downside is that your application probably won't run (well at least) on some high percentage of Linux desktops, but the alternative is writing more UI front-ends for Linux than for every other OS combined.It sounds like this is basically what Chrome is doing.
And really, how can the Linux community fault it, considering how things are?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151459</id>
	<title>Re:Choice</title>
	<author>dhavleak</author>
	<datestamp>1243715640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that they're <i>missing</i> an opportunity -- it's just that this opportunity doesn't necessarily mean anything for <i>them</i>.

</p><p>They're just in the business of selling computers. They'll put whatever OS they can, subject to the OS cost / customer support costs / customer demand equation falls in their favor. See netbooks as an example of that. PC vendors couldn't care less about FOSS/closed source/Windows/Linux etc. -- they just want to ship PCs and whatever works wherever will be what they go with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that they 're missing an opportunity -- it 's just that this opportunity does n't necessarily mean anything for them .
They 're just in the business of selling computers .
They 'll put whatever OS they can , subject to the OS cost / customer support costs / customer demand equation falls in their favor .
See netbooks as an example of that .
PC vendors could n't care less about FOSS/closed source/Windows/Linux etc .
-- they just want to ship PCs and whatever works wherever will be what they go with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that they're missing an opportunity -- it's just that this opportunity doesn't necessarily mean anything for them.
They're just in the business of selling computers.
They'll put whatever OS they can, subject to the OS cost / customer support costs / customer demand equation falls in their favor.
See netbooks as an example of that.
PC vendors couldn't care less about FOSS/closed source/Windows/Linux etc.
-- they just want to ship PCs and whatever works wherever will be what they go with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151397</id>
	<title>Unified standards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243715160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been using Kubuntu since December 2006, and it's been my opinion this whole time that the reason Linux isn't catching on is the lack of standards.  There are simply too many choices.  Granted, choice is good sometimes, but Linux just has too much.  It gets confusing.  For a new user who doesn't know Linux, simply choosing a distro is overwhelming.  That doesn't make Linux very open or friendly to the average person.  Not to mention the mess with installing programs.  If I want a program that isn't in my repositories, I have to go to the site and hope they have a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.deb package that's for my distro, which isn't always the case.  At which point I either have to learn how to install from source, attempt to convert an RPM (which isn't always provided, either), or give up and find an alternative.</p><p>Every Windows OS has one GUI and one installer/executable format that every Windows program uses.  Same with Mac.  But Linux gives you at least three GUIs and four or more installer formats, and it's up to you to figure out which one suits you best.</p><p>I like Linux.  But if it's going to become a serious alternative to Windows or Mac, it needs unified standards.  Especially in the desktop environment and package manager.  But I just don't see that happening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using Kubuntu since December 2006 , and it 's been my opinion this whole time that the reason Linux is n't catching on is the lack of standards .
There are simply too many choices .
Granted , choice is good sometimes , but Linux just has too much .
It gets confusing .
For a new user who does n't know Linux , simply choosing a distro is overwhelming .
That does n't make Linux very open or friendly to the average person .
Not to mention the mess with installing programs .
If I want a program that is n't in my repositories , I have to go to the site and hope they have a .deb package that 's for my distro , which is n't always the case .
At which point I either have to learn how to install from source , attempt to convert an RPM ( which is n't always provided , either ) , or give up and find an alternative.Every Windows OS has one GUI and one installer/executable format that every Windows program uses .
Same with Mac .
But Linux gives you at least three GUIs and four or more installer formats , and it 's up to you to figure out which one suits you best.I like Linux .
But if it 's going to become a serious alternative to Windows or Mac , it needs unified standards .
Especially in the desktop environment and package manager .
But I just do n't see that happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using Kubuntu since December 2006, and it's been my opinion this whole time that the reason Linux isn't catching on is the lack of standards.
There are simply too many choices.
Granted, choice is good sometimes, but Linux just has too much.
It gets confusing.
For a new user who doesn't know Linux, simply choosing a distro is overwhelming.
That doesn't make Linux very open or friendly to the average person.
Not to mention the mess with installing programs.
If I want a program that isn't in my repositories, I have to go to the site and hope they have a .deb package that's for my distro, which isn't always the case.
At which point I either have to learn how to install from source, attempt to convert an RPM (which isn't always provided, either), or give up and find an alternative.Every Windows OS has one GUI and one installer/executable format that every Windows program uses.
Same with Mac.
But Linux gives you at least three GUIs and four or more installer formats, and it's up to you to figure out which one suits you best.I like Linux.
But if it's going to become a serious alternative to Windows or Mac, it needs unified standards.
Especially in the desktop environment and package manager.
But I just don't see that happening.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156005</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>CrystalX</author>
	<datestamp>1243710540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you want standardization, you don't bitch about it - you make your platform of choice far superior to the other options.</p></div><p>An an individual (of the normal or the corporate variety) it is difficult to muster the effort needed to make a superior platform when you have to do it without compensation (i.e. for free).</p><p>This is especially the case for near OS-level services such as GUI toolkits and global sound APIs, which require an incredible amount of effort to develop and maintain.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want standardization , you do n't bitch about it - you make your platform of choice far superior to the other options.An an individual ( of the normal or the corporate variety ) it is difficult to muster the effort needed to make a superior platform when you have to do it without compensation ( i.e .
for free ) .This is especially the case for near OS-level services such as GUI toolkits and global sound APIs , which require an incredible amount of effort to develop and maintain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want standardization, you don't bitch about it - you make your platform of choice far superior to the other options.An an individual (of the normal or the corporate variety) it is difficult to muster the effort needed to make a superior platform when you have to do it without compensation (i.e.
for free).This is especially the case for near OS-level services such as GUI toolkits and global sound APIs, which require an incredible amount of effort to develop and maintain.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153847</id>
	<title>Re:it's why Windows took over in the first place</title>
	<author>ion.simon.c</author>
	<datestamp>1243687860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, that means binary compatibility must stop being broken from OS update to OS update.</p></div><p>Hi. I just installed version 25034 of Loki's Linux port of Tribes 2 on one of my Unstable X86 Gentoo Linux machine. This is a seven-year-old binary-only userspace application. It works just as well as when I first installed it those many years ago.</p><p><tt><br>$ uname -srmpi<br>Linux 2.6.29-tuxonice-r2 i686 Intel(R) Core(TM) Duo CPU L2400 @ 1.66GHz GenuineIntel<br></tt></p><p>Or were you talking about kernel-level ABI compatibility? Not gonna happen, ever. However, it's *not* hard for out-of-kernel module maintainers to recompile and redeliver their module for a new rev of the kernel. Hell, it's not hard for them to keep up with changes to the kernel A<b>P</b>I... I should know, I maintained my own local copy of pcc-acpi-0.8.4 for a little more than two years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that means binary compatibility must stop being broken from OS update to OS update.Hi .
I just installed version 25034 of Loki 's Linux port of Tribes 2 on one of my Unstable X86 Gentoo Linux machine .
This is a seven-year-old binary-only userspace application .
It works just as well as when I first installed it those many years ago. $ uname -srmpiLinux 2.6.29-tuxonice-r2 i686 Intel ( R ) Core ( TM ) Duo CPU L2400 @ 1.66GHz GenuineIntelOr were you talking about kernel-level ABI compatibility ?
Not gon na happen , ever .
However , it 's * not * hard for out-of-kernel module maintainers to recompile and redeliver their module for a new rev of the kernel .
Hell , it 's not hard for them to keep up with changes to the kernel API... I should know , I maintained my own local copy of pcc-acpi-0.8.4 for a little more than two years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, that means binary compatibility must stop being broken from OS update to OS update.Hi.
I just installed version 25034 of Loki's Linux port of Tribes 2 on one of my Unstable X86 Gentoo Linux machine.
This is a seven-year-old binary-only userspace application.
It works just as well as when I first installed it those many years ago.$ uname -srmpiLinux 2.6.29-tuxonice-r2 i686 Intel(R) Core(TM) Duo CPU L2400 @ 1.66GHz GenuineIntelOr were you talking about kernel-level ABI compatibility?
Not gonna happen, ever.
However, it's *not* hard for out-of-kernel module maintainers to recompile and redeliver their module for a new rev of the kernel.
Hell, it's not hard for them to keep up with changes to the kernel API... I should know, I maintained my own local copy of pcc-acpi-0.8.4 for a little more than two years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155569</id>
	<title>Re:It's open source, google. Fork it.</title>
	<author>ShanxT</author>
	<datestamp>1243704840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobuntu" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Goobuntu.</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Goobuntu .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goobuntu.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153073</id>
	<title>Re:Um....</title>
	<author>Jamie's Nightmare</author>
	<datestamp>1243682340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ahh, the typical Linux solution.  Try yet another distro.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh , the typical Linux solution .
Try yet another distro .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh, the typical Linux solution.
Try yet another distro.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152237</id>
	<title>go ahead call me a troll, give me bad karma --</title>
	<author>djfuq</author>
	<datestamp>1243677180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>simple answer -</p><p>yes</p><p>- duh.</p><p>I cant stand Linux's ecosystem of half implemented and conflicting multimedia features. Kde4 looks as fisher price as XP did on release, Gnome is still brown and featureless like the plains of Africa. I also cant anymore tolerate system folder structures that look like a network share at some company after all of the employees decided to dump unfinished and unorganized crap in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/tmp folder.<br>I would like to see a root / look like this (yes, with the full name of the folders!! If those are too big for you - use your tab key on the command line sissy! :</p><p>/<br>Boot<br>App Configs<br>Default Applications<br>LinuxOS<br>MediaSystem<br>User Installed Applications</p><p>Also<br>I cant stand how there are tons of hackers out there who dont bother porting directx to linux, so I cant play Windows games without the Kludge called WINE or some resource hogging VM with OpenGL support. I cant stand the multiple sound systems and the drivers for lots of multimedia devices (Such as my Audigy Card have WONKEY INTERFACES to adjust audio levels. If you want to take Windows market share you must make the interface look or work the same and then hide the nice extra extended Linux enabled driver features in a advanced sub-UI. This will make things intuitive. As it stands right now Linux is anything but intuitive for standard users looking to leave Winblows behind - unless you just plan on browsing the web.</p><p>Sure you could say: "Well its all community generated - go code your own xyzzy interfaces, or join the community and contribute you insensitive clod!" but in reality, I don't code and there are better qualified coders. What Linux is missing here the the regular user's point of view when apps are developed. It all looks like a typical PRE-QA Department, alpha code, coder's (an engineer's) with no proper standard user and UI testing mess.</p><p>And whats more the mess evolves into a bigger mess as time goes by....</p><p>I am not saying I don't love Linux by a longshot tho - These are just things that get under my skin<br>This OS has a long long way to go before consumers will touch it with a 10 ft pole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>simple answer -yes- duh.I cant stand Linux 's ecosystem of half implemented and conflicting multimedia features .
Kde4 looks as fisher price as XP did on release , Gnome is still brown and featureless like the plains of Africa .
I also cant anymore tolerate system folder structures that look like a network share at some company after all of the employees decided to dump unfinished and unorganized crap in the /tmp folder.I would like to see a root / look like this ( yes , with the full name of the folders ! !
If those are too big for you - use your tab key on the command line sissy !
: /BootApp ConfigsDefault ApplicationsLinuxOSMediaSystemUser Installed ApplicationsAlsoI cant stand how there are tons of hackers out there who dont bother porting directx to linux , so I cant play Windows games without the Kludge called WINE or some resource hogging VM with OpenGL support .
I cant stand the multiple sound systems and the drivers for lots of multimedia devices ( Such as my Audigy Card have WONKEY INTERFACES to adjust audio levels .
If you want to take Windows market share you must make the interface look or work the same and then hide the nice extra extended Linux enabled driver features in a advanced sub-UI .
This will make things intuitive .
As it stands right now Linux is anything but intuitive for standard users looking to leave Winblows behind - unless you just plan on browsing the web.Sure you could say : " Well its all community generated - go code your own xyzzy interfaces , or join the community and contribute you insensitive clod !
" but in reality , I do n't code and there are better qualified coders .
What Linux is missing here the the regular user 's point of view when apps are developed .
It all looks like a typical PRE-QA Department , alpha code , coder 's ( an engineer 's ) with no proper standard user and UI testing mess.And whats more the mess evolves into a bigger mess as time goes by....I am not saying I do n't love Linux by a longshot tho - These are just things that get under my skinThis OS has a long long way to go before consumers will touch it with a 10 ft pole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>simple answer -yes- duh.I cant stand Linux's ecosystem of half implemented and conflicting multimedia features.
Kde4 looks as fisher price as XP did on release, Gnome is still brown and featureless like the plains of Africa.
I also cant anymore tolerate system folder structures that look like a network share at some company after all of the employees decided to dump unfinished and unorganized crap in the /tmp folder.I would like to see a root / look like this (yes, with the full name of the folders!!
If those are too big for you - use your tab key on the command line sissy!
:/BootApp ConfigsDefault ApplicationsLinuxOSMediaSystemUser Installed ApplicationsAlsoI cant stand how there are tons of hackers out there who dont bother porting directx to linux, so I cant play Windows games without the Kludge called WINE or some resource hogging VM with OpenGL support.
I cant stand the multiple sound systems and the drivers for lots of multimedia devices (Such as my Audigy Card have WONKEY INTERFACES to adjust audio levels.
If you want to take Windows market share you must make the interface look or work the same and then hide the nice extra extended Linux enabled driver features in a advanced sub-UI.
This will make things intuitive.
As it stands right now Linux is anything but intuitive for standard users looking to leave Winblows behind - unless you just plan on browsing the web.Sure you could say: "Well its all community generated - go code your own xyzzy interfaces, or join the community and contribute you insensitive clod!
" but in reality, I don't code and there are better qualified coders.
What Linux is missing here the the regular user's point of view when apps are developed.
It all looks like a typical PRE-QA Department, alpha code, coder's (an engineer's) with no proper standard user and UI testing mess.And whats more the mess evolves into a bigger mess as time goes by....I am not saying I don't love Linux by a longshot tho - These are just things that get under my skinThis OS has a long long way to go before consumers will touch it with a 10 ft pole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153843</id>
	<title>Hang On..........</title>
	<author>segedunum</author>
	<datestamp>1243687800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this the guy who gave us a whole bunch of reasons as to why they weren't going to use a working cross-platform toolkit in Qt for a cross-platform browser and why they were going to use the, now inferior, GTK for Linux? Somehow 'I told you so' just doesn't quite say it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this the guy who gave us a whole bunch of reasons as to why they were n't going to use a working cross-platform toolkit in Qt for a cross-platform browser and why they were going to use the , now inferior , GTK for Linux ?
Somehow 'I told you so ' just does n't quite say it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this the guy who gave us a whole bunch of reasons as to why they weren't going to use a working cross-platform toolkit in Qt for a cross-platform browser and why they were going to use the, now inferior, GTK for Linux?
Somehow 'I told you so' just doesn't quite say it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152223</id>
	<title>There is a standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243677120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called xlib, if you use gtk, qt, what have you, it doesn't matter. If it uses xlib it will work and that's it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called xlib , if you use gtk , qt , what have you , it does n't matter .
If it uses xlib it will work and that 's it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called xlib, if you use gtk, qt, what have you, it doesn't matter.
If it uses xlib it will work and that's it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28158527</id>
	<title>Re:Um....</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1243787520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The UI is a layer of abstractions on top of the OS. Once a UI is ported to an OS, the differences between OSes are (hopefully) concealed from the end user.</i></p><p>That's the point. When I turn on my computer, everything I'm looking at, every piece of software I'm running, and every task I do, it's all the UI. I never see the kernel. I don't care what the kernel is. Not even slightly.</p><p>And why should I?</p><p><i>They are still there though. If you use GIMP or Pidgin on Windows, did your computer become Linux because you now have GTK libs? No.</i></p><p>Actually yes, GTK sucks ass on Windows. It doesn't even look close to Windows applications. Even the Open dialog is wrong.</p><p>I stopped using Pidgin because it had no support for Windows' tablet features, or voice control features.</p><p><i>And this is the problem, multiple OSes using multiple toolkits, witch each element having it's own quirks.</i></p><p>But none of that code is in the kernel. The kernel's interface is lower than the level your problem's at.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The UI is a layer of abstractions on top of the OS .
Once a UI is ported to an OS , the differences between OSes are ( hopefully ) concealed from the end user.That 's the point .
When I turn on my computer , everything I 'm looking at , every piece of software I 'm running , and every task I do , it 's all the UI .
I never see the kernel .
I do n't care what the kernel is .
Not even slightly.And why should I ? They are still there though .
If you use GIMP or Pidgin on Windows , did your computer become Linux because you now have GTK libs ?
No.Actually yes , GTK sucks ass on Windows .
It does n't even look close to Windows applications .
Even the Open dialog is wrong.I stopped using Pidgin because it had no support for Windows ' tablet features , or voice control features.And this is the problem , multiple OSes using multiple toolkits , witch each element having it 's own quirks.But none of that code is in the kernel .
The kernel 's interface is lower than the level your problem 's at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UI is a layer of abstractions on top of the OS.
Once a UI is ported to an OS, the differences between OSes are (hopefully) concealed from the end user.That's the point.
When I turn on my computer, everything I'm looking at, every piece of software I'm running, and every task I do, it's all the UI.
I never see the kernel.
I don't care what the kernel is.
Not even slightly.And why should I?They are still there though.
If you use GIMP or Pidgin on Windows, did your computer become Linux because you now have GTK libs?
No.Actually yes, GTK sucks ass on Windows.
It doesn't even look close to Windows applications.
Even the Open dialog is wrong.I stopped using Pidgin because it had no support for Windows' tablet features, or voice control features.And this is the problem, multiple OSes using multiple toolkits, witch each element having it's own quirks.But none of that code is in the kernel.
The kernel's interface is lower than the level your problem's at.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152795</id>
	<title>Re:Qt</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1243680540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In general, we've avoided cross platform UI toolkits because while<br>they may offer what superficially appears to be a quick path to native<br>looking UI on a variety of target platforms, once you go a bit deeper<br>it turns out to be a bit more problematic. As Amanda says, your app<br>ends up "speaking with a foreign accent".</p></div><p>Yeah, because we all know that all native mac apps and all native windows apps are totally consistent with each other. And anyway, most people don't care that much, *especially* with big, important apps. They are used to Office and browsers and other major apps looking different.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In general , we 've avoided cross platform UI toolkits because whilethey may offer what superficially appears to be a quick path to nativelooking UI on a variety of target platforms , once you go a bit deeperit turns out to be a bit more problematic .
As Amanda says , your appends up " speaking with a foreign accent " .Yeah , because we all know that all native mac apps and all native windows apps are totally consistent with each other .
And anyway , most people do n't care that much , * especially * with big , important apps .
They are used to Office and browsers and other major apps looking different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In general, we've avoided cross platform UI toolkits because whilethey may offer what superficially appears to be a quick path to nativelooking UI on a variety of target platforms, once you go a bit deeperit turns out to be a bit more problematic.
As Amanda says, your appends up "speaking with a foreign accent".Yeah, because we all know that all native mac apps and all native windows apps are totally consistent with each other.
And anyway, most people don't care that much, *especially* with big, important apps.
They are used to Office and browsers and other major apps looking different.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155791</id>
	<title>Build their own then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243707660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If google really cared, they could throw one billion with a b dollars at building their own OS, and just act like that is now the defacto "linux standard". However they wanted it to be.. Canonical did a similar project with a (relatively puny compared to a billion) few tens of millions. I know they are doing that with android sort of, but we are talking desktop OS here. They pick what flavor and version toolkit and compiler and so on they really like, fork wherever they feel they need to, and just go for it. They have a billion to spend on something like that, and not miss it, so if they don't, I don't see them having much to complain about at all. A THOUSAND devs at 100 grand a year, double that for office space and so on expenses, is 1000 x 100,000 x 2 or 200,000,000 ie 200 million dollars, so enough just with the initial outlay for five years of some serious kick ass operating system development work, which would build on already established good code, plus you know a project like that would get unlimited PR and press coverage.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; So they could swing it if they really wanted to as a pure investment. If google did it, every major and minor computer manufacturer would have a serious MS competitor that they *couldn't ignore* like they can now with all the other various linuxes. They could charge cash for it as well, whatever MS had, half price to the OEMs, because the bulk of it would still be free for them to take and use,so they'd get takers by the millions of machines shipped I bet, and the project would be self funding and be profitable from there on out once it started getting shipped as the installed default OS from some major brands.</p><p>
&nbsp; The built in OS combined with their online stuff...couldn't be ignored. Adobe with Flash and photoshop wouldn't ignore it, heck, maybe even autocad wouldn't ignore it. The big game makers sure wouldn't ignore it. The tax software/accounting apps folks wouldn't ignore it. So what's that now, about the bulk of the "why I stay stuck on MS" complaints out there now theoretically covered? And all those devs would be working obviously, so they'd be covering the rest of the complaints, exchange type server stuff, etc.</p><p>In other words, they gots the cash, so put up or shutup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If google really cared , they could throw one billion with a b dollars at building their own OS , and just act like that is now the defacto " linux standard " .
However they wanted it to be.. Canonical did a similar project with a ( relatively puny compared to a billion ) few tens of millions .
I know they are doing that with android sort of , but we are talking desktop OS here .
They pick what flavor and version toolkit and compiler and so on they really like , fork wherever they feel they need to , and just go for it .
They have a billion to spend on something like that , and not miss it , so if they do n't , I do n't see them having much to complain about at all .
A THOUSAND devs at 100 grand a year , double that for office space and so on expenses , is 1000 x 100,000 x 2 or 200,000,000 ie 200 million dollars , so enough just with the initial outlay for five years of some serious kick ass operating system development work , which would build on already established good code , plus you know a project like that would get unlimited PR and press coverage .
      So they could swing it if they really wanted to as a pure investment .
If google did it , every major and minor computer manufacturer would have a serious MS competitor that they * could n't ignore * like they can now with all the other various linuxes .
They could charge cash for it as well , whatever MS had , half price to the OEMs , because the bulk of it would still be free for them to take and use,so they 'd get takers by the millions of machines shipped I bet , and the project would be self funding and be profitable from there on out once it started getting shipped as the installed default OS from some major brands .
  The built in OS combined with their online stuff...could n't be ignored .
Adobe with Flash and photoshop would n't ignore it , heck , maybe even autocad would n't ignore it .
The big game makers sure would n't ignore it .
The tax software/accounting apps folks would n't ignore it .
So what 's that now , about the bulk of the " why I stay stuck on MS " complaints out there now theoretically covered ?
And all those devs would be working obviously , so they 'd be covering the rest of the complaints , exchange type server stuff , etc.In other words , they gots the cash , so put up or shutup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If google really cared, they could throw one billion with a b dollars at building their own OS, and just act like that is now the defacto "linux standard".
However they wanted it to be.. Canonical did a similar project with a (relatively puny compared to a billion) few tens of millions.
I know they are doing that with android sort of, but we are talking desktop OS here.
They pick what flavor and version toolkit and compiler and so on they really like, fork wherever they feel they need to, and just go for it.
They have a billion to spend on something like that, and not miss it, so if they don't, I don't see them having much to complain about at all.
A THOUSAND devs at 100 grand a year, double that for office space and so on expenses, is 1000 x 100,000 x 2 or 200,000,000 ie 200 million dollars, so enough just with the initial outlay for five years of some serious kick ass operating system development work, which would build on already established good code, plus you know a project like that would get unlimited PR and press coverage.
      So they could swing it if they really wanted to as a pure investment.
If google did it, every major and minor computer manufacturer would have a serious MS competitor that they *couldn't ignore* like they can now with all the other various linuxes.
They could charge cash for it as well, whatever MS had, half price to the OEMs, because the bulk of it would still be free for them to take and use,so they'd get takers by the millions of machines shipped I bet, and the project would be self funding and be profitable from there on out once it started getting shipped as the installed default OS from some major brands.
  The built in OS combined with their online stuff...couldn't be ignored.
Adobe with Flash and photoshop wouldn't ignore it, heck, maybe even autocad wouldn't ignore it.
The big game makers sure wouldn't ignore it.
The tax software/accounting apps folks wouldn't ignore it.
So what's that now, about the bulk of the "why I stay stuck on MS" complaints out there now theoretically covered?
And all those devs would be working obviously, so they'd be covering the rest of the complaints, exchange type server stuff, etc.In other words, they gots the cash, so put up or shutup.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153345</id>
	<title>Re:it's why Windows took over in the first place</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243684260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>all apps are written for Windows, and Unix derivatives are dead on the desktop</p></div><p>Oh? Last time I looked, Mac OS X was steadily approaching 10\% market share.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, that means supporting DRM so that users can play their streaming videos from Netflix.</p></div><p>Please explain how to do this with the source available. Personally, I think open source DRM is actually impossible. If you can see and modify the code, you can strip away the restrictions. DRM can only work with the source code remaining a secret locked up in some vault.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>all apps are written for Windows , and Unix derivatives are dead on the desktopOh ?
Last time I looked , Mac OS X was steadily approaching 10 \ % market share.Yes , that means supporting DRM so that users can play their streaming videos from Netflix.Please explain how to do this with the source available .
Personally , I think open source DRM is actually impossible .
If you can see and modify the code , you can strip away the restrictions .
DRM can only work with the source code remaining a secret locked up in some vault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all apps are written for Windows, and Unix derivatives are dead on the desktopOh?
Last time I looked, Mac OS X was steadily approaching 10\% market share.Yes, that means supporting DRM so that users can play their streaming videos from Netflix.Please explain how to do this with the source available.
Personally, I think open source DRM is actually impossible.
If you can see and modify the code, you can strip away the restrictions.
DRM can only work with the source code remaining a secret locked up in some vault.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152817</id>
	<title>Xlib</title>
	<author>jythie</author>
	<datestamp>1243680660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So why didn't they just use Xlib?  Sounds like it would have solved a lot of the problems they had... maybe it was not new and sexy enough?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why did n't they just use Xlib ?
Sounds like it would have solved a lot of the problems they had... maybe it was not new and sexy enough ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why didn't they just use Xlib?
Sounds like it would have solved a lot of the problems they had... maybe it was not new and sexy enough?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28157473</id>
	<title>Easy porting requires good architecture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243777020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When writing an application, you need to decide how to structure your code. GUI libraries like Qt and Gtk+ and MFC are difficult because they encourage spreading their patterns all over the application. Same happens with libraries like OpenGl and DirectX. So the porting problem is not unique the gui libraries. If you built your application to use one gui library only and did what they recommend -- spread the gui library's patterns all over your code, then porting will be difficult and ports will definitely be more limited than the original code.</p><p>But fortunately, experienced programmers know there is alternative way to build an application. Instead of choosing a platform and using it's services, you design your custom platform. This can be a single function that contains all dependencies to gui libraries or opengl libraries etc.</p><p>Next question that comes is that the GUI library's API is HUGE. If you go duplicating the api, you just waste time rewriting the apis and with no benefit. But fortunately this misses the point. You're designing your application, not a gui library! Your application's scope is considerably smaller than the gui library's scope. So the API that you need is considerably smaller than the whole gui library's api.</p><p>A good design makes a single function to your application which contains all dependencies to the gui library. The gui library is just one function! How the function will look is like this:<br>
&nbsp; class I { virtual void f()=0; virtual void g()=0; };<br>
&nbsp; void DisplayGui(I &amp;i);<br>One class and one function is all you're going to need. That one function will communicate with your program using f() and g() and display the gui. When you port your code to another toolkit, you just need to write DisplayGui() again. No other changes to your application are needed.</p><p>The Design of I class will determine how complex application you can build. But all gui library uses must be inside DisplayGui() function, and your program just implements I interface. So you'll have<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; void DisplayGuiGTK(I &amp;i);<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; void DisplayGuiQt(I &amp;i);<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; void DisplayGuiMFC(I &amp;i);<br>And then you're done with your portability. (btw, it's good idea that I class should not be larger than 10 member functions -- but it needs to capture nature of your application, so I cannot give stardard class to use since it's dependent of your application behaviour.)</p><p>Next question is probably that all the code is inside DisplayGui() functions! Well, then your application is not doing anything and you should start thinking how you can contribute. Common cases is that DisplayGui() is about 500 lines long and rest of the application is 50000 lines long. So porting is considerably easier than trying to modify 50000 lines of code to use different gui library.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When writing an application , you need to decide how to structure your code .
GUI libraries like Qt and Gtk + and MFC are difficult because they encourage spreading their patterns all over the application .
Same happens with libraries like OpenGl and DirectX .
So the porting problem is not unique the gui libraries .
If you built your application to use one gui library only and did what they recommend -- spread the gui library 's patterns all over your code , then porting will be difficult and ports will definitely be more limited than the original code.But fortunately , experienced programmers know there is alternative way to build an application .
Instead of choosing a platform and using it 's services , you design your custom platform .
This can be a single function that contains all dependencies to gui libraries or opengl libraries etc.Next question that comes is that the GUI library 's API is HUGE .
If you go duplicating the api , you just waste time rewriting the apis and with no benefit .
But fortunately this misses the point .
You 're designing your application , not a gui library !
Your application 's scope is considerably smaller than the gui library 's scope .
So the API that you need is considerably smaller than the whole gui library 's api.A good design makes a single function to your application which contains all dependencies to the gui library .
The gui library is just one function !
How the function will look is like this :   class I { virtual void f ( ) = 0 ; virtual void g ( ) = 0 ; } ;   void DisplayGui ( I &amp;i ) ; One class and one function is all you 're going to need .
That one function will communicate with your program using f ( ) and g ( ) and display the gui .
When you port your code to another toolkit , you just need to write DisplayGui ( ) again .
No other changes to your application are needed.The Design of I class will determine how complex application you can build .
But all gui library uses must be inside DisplayGui ( ) function , and your program just implements I interface .
So you 'll have     void DisplayGuiGTK ( I &amp;i ) ;     void DisplayGuiQt ( I &amp;i ) ;     void DisplayGuiMFC ( I &amp;i ) ; And then you 're done with your portability .
( btw , it 's good idea that I class should not be larger than 10 member functions -- but it needs to capture nature of your application , so I can not give stardard class to use since it 's dependent of your application behaviour .
) Next question is probably that all the code is inside DisplayGui ( ) functions !
Well , then your application is not doing anything and you should start thinking how you can contribute .
Common cases is that DisplayGui ( ) is about 500 lines long and rest of the application is 50000 lines long .
So porting is considerably easier than trying to modify 50000 lines of code to use different gui library .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When writing an application, you need to decide how to structure your code.
GUI libraries like Qt and Gtk+ and MFC are difficult because they encourage spreading their patterns all over the application.
Same happens with libraries like OpenGl and DirectX.
So the porting problem is not unique the gui libraries.
If you built your application to use one gui library only and did what they recommend -- spread the gui library's patterns all over your code, then porting will be difficult and ports will definitely be more limited than the original code.But fortunately, experienced programmers know there is alternative way to build an application.
Instead of choosing a platform and using it's services, you design your custom platform.
This can be a single function that contains all dependencies to gui libraries or opengl libraries etc.Next question that comes is that the GUI library's API is HUGE.
If you go duplicating the api, you just waste time rewriting the apis and with no benefit.
But fortunately this misses the point.
You're designing your application, not a gui library!
Your application's scope is considerably smaller than the gui library's scope.
So the API that you need is considerably smaller than the whole gui library's api.A good design makes a single function to your application which contains all dependencies to the gui library.
The gui library is just one function!
How the function will look is like this:
  class I { virtual void f()=0; virtual void g()=0; };
  void DisplayGui(I &amp;i);One class and one function is all you're going to need.
That one function will communicate with your program using f() and g() and display the gui.
When you port your code to another toolkit, you just need to write DisplayGui() again.
No other changes to your application are needed.The Design of I class will determine how complex application you can build.
But all gui library uses must be inside DisplayGui() function, and your program just implements I interface.
So you'll have
    void DisplayGuiGTK(I &amp;i);
    void DisplayGuiQt(I &amp;i);
    void DisplayGuiMFC(I &amp;i);And then you're done with your portability.
(btw, it's good idea that I class should not be larger than 10 member functions -- but it needs to capture nature of your application, so I cannot give stardard class to use since it's dependent of your application behaviour.
)Next question is probably that all the code is inside DisplayGui() functions!
Well, then your application is not doing anything and you should start thinking how you can contribute.
Common cases is that DisplayGui() is about 500 lines long and rest of the application is 50000 lines long.
So porting is considerably easier than trying to modify 50000 lines of code to use different gui library.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151639</id>
	<title>Agreed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243716660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed agreed agreed.<br>Please let us standardise!<br>It's the best OS in my opinion, this needs to be sorted out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed agreed agreed.Please let us standardise ! It 's the best OS in my opinion , this needs to be sorted out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed agreed agreed.Please let us standardise!It's the best OS in my opinion, this needs to be sorted out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152079</id>
	<title>Re:It's open source, google. Fork it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243676040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that Google has an internal flavor of Gentoo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that Google has an internal flavor of Gentoo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that Google has an internal flavor of Gentoo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155217</id>
	<title>Re:it's why Windows took over in the first place</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243701300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You're forgetting about OS X here</p></div><p>OK, about OS X.</p><p>NeXT figured out the "standard" (i.e. "open") way of building Unix applications was a complete shitty clusterfuck. So they developed their own proprietary frameworks, which received major developer support and were good enough that even Sun adopted them at one point.</p><p>Twenty years later, nothing's changed. Unix "open" desktop frameworks still are fragmented and suck shit, and Apple still pushes a superior proprietary framework. Which is pretty much exactly the OP's point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're forgetting about OS X hereOK , about OS X.NeXT figured out the " standard " ( i.e .
" open " ) way of building Unix applications was a complete shitty clusterfuck .
So they developed their own proprietary frameworks , which received major developer support and were good enough that even Sun adopted them at one point.Twenty years later , nothing 's changed .
Unix " open " desktop frameworks still are fragmented and suck shit , and Apple still pushes a superior proprietary framework .
Which is pretty much exactly the OP 's point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're forgetting about OS X hereOK, about OS X.NeXT figured out the "standard" (i.e.
"open") way of building Unix applications was a complete shitty clusterfuck.
So they developed their own proprietary frameworks, which received major developer support and were good enough that even Sun adopted them at one point.Twenty years later, nothing's changed.
Unix "open" desktop frameworks still are fragmented and suck shit, and Apple still pushes a superior proprietary framework.
Which is pretty much exactly the OP's point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152541</id>
	<title>Re:Use Qt....</title>
	<author>Daishiman</author>
	<datestamp>1243678920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Qt purists obviously have every reason to defend the superiority of the toolkit in technical terms, and they'd be right about that. Nontheless when making large projects there are more other variables in play which may be more important.

Specifically, more people use a desktop with a GTK base than Qt. It's pretty much as simple as that. GTK may not be as shiny, but it doesn't preclude from being an extremely functional and consistent system that's well documented and tested.

Is Qt as well tested and documented? Probably, and likely much more integrated. But the fact is that if you use it on a GTK desktop, people will notice, and such is life that GTK is the de facto standard.

It's not as if this were an unusual situation. People program with the MFC in Windows for lack of a better alternative despite the fact that is an ancient, bug-ridden POS. Things were still being done in Carbon on OSX despite the availability of Cocoa.

The best course of action would be to take the most frequently used and best-documente libraries and use that. So your code may be more verbose and less orthogonal. Suck it up. All platforms have their own great software written in god-awful libraries and toolkits and somehow we manage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Qt purists obviously have every reason to defend the superiority of the toolkit in technical terms , and they 'd be right about that .
Nontheless when making large projects there are more other variables in play which may be more important .
Specifically , more people use a desktop with a GTK base than Qt .
It 's pretty much as simple as that .
GTK may not be as shiny , but it does n't preclude from being an extremely functional and consistent system that 's well documented and tested .
Is Qt as well tested and documented ?
Probably , and likely much more integrated .
But the fact is that if you use it on a GTK desktop , people will notice , and such is life that GTK is the de facto standard .
It 's not as if this were an unusual situation .
People program with the MFC in Windows for lack of a better alternative despite the fact that is an ancient , bug-ridden POS .
Things were still being done in Carbon on OSX despite the availability of Cocoa .
The best course of action would be to take the most frequently used and best-documente libraries and use that .
So your code may be more verbose and less orthogonal .
Suck it up .
All platforms have their own great software written in god-awful libraries and toolkits and somehow we manage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Qt purists obviously have every reason to defend the superiority of the toolkit in technical terms, and they'd be right about that.
Nontheless when making large projects there are more other variables in play which may be more important.
Specifically, more people use a desktop with a GTK base than Qt.
It's pretty much as simple as that.
GTK may not be as shiny, but it doesn't preclude from being an extremely functional and consistent system that's well documented and tested.
Is Qt as well tested and documented?
Probably, and likely much more integrated.
But the fact is that if you use it on a GTK desktop, people will notice, and such is life that GTK is the de facto standard.
It's not as if this were an unusual situation.
People program with the MFC in Windows for lack of a better alternative despite the fact that is an ancient, bug-ridden POS.
Things were still being done in Carbon on OSX despite the availability of Cocoa.
The best course of action would be to take the most frequently used and best-documente libraries and use that.
So your code may be more verbose and less orthogonal.
Suck it up.
All platforms have their own great software written in god-awful libraries and toolkits and somehow we manage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153467</id>
	<title>Maybe a wrapper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243685160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue at hand is that there is a jungle of toolkits, each having a different focus. So, to keep all those toolkits but eliminate the differences between them a toolkit which basically is a wrapper around the most popular toolkits is needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue at hand is that there is a jungle of toolkits , each having a different focus .
So , to keep all those toolkits but eliminate the differences between them a toolkit which basically is a wrapper around the most popular toolkits is needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue at hand is that there is a jungle of toolkits, each having a different focus.
So, to keep all those toolkits but eliminate the differences between them a toolkit which basically is a wrapper around the most popular toolkits is needed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152487</id>
	<title>Re:Qt</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1243678620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other words, the man is useless.</p><p>'we decided not to use the cross-platform QT because it wouldn't look right on Windows.". REally, who gives a ****, this is the port for Linux, QT looks right on Linux, what's the issue?</p><p>Also... "our experience is that using these frameworks also limits what you can do to a lowest common denominator" - we use Windows directly, and be limited to what that offers you. I'm not to impressed here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , the man is useless .
'we decided not to use the cross-platform QT because it would n't look right on Windows. " .
REally , who gives a * * * * , this is the port for Linux , QT looks right on Linux , what 's the issue ? Also... " our experience is that using these frameworks also limits what you can do to a lowest common denominator " - we use Windows directly , and be limited to what that offers you .
I 'm not to impressed here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, the man is useless.
'we decided not to use the cross-platform QT because it wouldn't look right on Windows.".
REally, who gives a ****, this is the port for Linux, QT looks right on Linux, what's the issue?Also... "our experience is that using these frameworks also limits what you can do to a lowest common denominator" - we use Windows directly, and be limited to what that offers you.
I'm not to impressed here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153251</id>
	<title>"Lack" of unification = GOOD!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1243683540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We always whine about the windows monoculture, but when it comes to Linux, there are always those pseudo-experts (similar to pundits), who still think everything has to be unified.<br>They would love to live in a world with only one desktop environment, one library per technology (eg audio), one userland, and one unpatchable kernel with a fixed config. In other words: They want it to become Windows.</p><p><strong>No thank you</strong>. I love my freedom more than anything in the world. I want many, many concurring libraries, kernels, desktop environments, and even "standards". I want to be able to choose and support my favorite one.<br>When Linux becomes a monoculture, Linux will be dead.</p><p>Luckily, that will never happen. Because we are no company, and do not walk in lockstep.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We always whine about the windows monoculture , but when it comes to Linux , there are always those pseudo-experts ( similar to pundits ) , who still think everything has to be unified.They would love to live in a world with only one desktop environment , one library per technology ( eg audio ) , one userland , and one unpatchable kernel with a fixed config .
In other words : They want it to become Windows.No thank you .
I love my freedom more than anything in the world .
I want many , many concurring libraries , kernels , desktop environments , and even " standards " .
I want to be able to choose and support my favorite one.When Linux becomes a monoculture , Linux will be dead.Luckily , that will never happen .
Because we are no company , and do not walk in lockstep .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We always whine about the windows monoculture, but when it comes to Linux, there are always those pseudo-experts (similar to pundits), who still think everything has to be unified.They would love to live in a world with only one desktop environment, one library per technology (eg audio), one userland, and one unpatchable kernel with a fixed config.
In other words: They want it to become Windows.No thank you.
I love my freedom more than anything in the world.
I want many, many concurring libraries, kernels, desktop environments, and even "standards".
I want to be able to choose and support my favorite one.When Linux becomes a monoculture, Linux will be dead.Luckily, that will never happen.
Because we are no company, and do not walk in lockstep.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154175</id>
	<title>Re:Linux's greatest strength = greatest weakness</title>
	<author>synthespian</author>
	<datestamp>1243690380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now, that was the stupidest comment in this whole discussion. How in the world someone modded you insightful is beyond my comprehension.<br>You actually like the mess we're in, don't you? Let me guess...a Debian developer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , that was the stupidest comment in this whole discussion .
How in the world someone modded you insightful is beyond my comprehension.You actually like the mess we 're in , do n't you ?
Let me guess...a Debian developer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, that was the stupidest comment in this whole discussion.
How in the world someone modded you insightful is beyond my comprehension.You actually like the mess we're in, don't you?
Let me guess...a Debian developer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152551</id>
	<title>Re:it's why Windows took over in the first place</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1243678920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>100\% agree. Thinking about it a little more, its also why Linux is popular on the server - you don't have to suffer this GUI fragmentation at all. Your hardest issue is finding where an app puts its config file, and then putting a hard link to it in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>100 \ % agree .
Thinking about it a little more , its also why Linux is popular on the server - you do n't have to suffer this GUI fragmentation at all .
Your hardest issue is finding where an app puts its config file , and then putting a hard link to it in /etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100\% agree.
Thinking about it a little more, its also why Linux is popular on the server - you don't have to suffer this GUI fragmentation at all.
Your hardest issue is finding where an app puts its config file, and then putting a hard link to it in /etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151579</id>
	<title>Re:Use Qt....</title>
	<author>sricetx</author>
	<datestamp>1243716240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>QT is probably the best GUI toolkit in history, in my opinion.  Since it's now available under the LGPL license, I have to assume that the development project the whiner from Google is talking about was done before the LGPL QT 4.5 version was released or is not written in C++.  Standardization is fine and all, but please, please don't standardize on GTK.  Take a look at the hideously ugly GTK file picker for an example of why the usability of GTK UIs leaves something to be desired.</htmltext>
<tokenext>QT is probably the best GUI toolkit in history , in my opinion .
Since it 's now available under the LGPL license , I have to assume that the development project the whiner from Google is talking about was done before the LGPL QT 4.5 version was released or is not written in C + + .
Standardization is fine and all , but please , please do n't standardize on GTK .
Take a look at the hideously ugly GTK file picker for an example of why the usability of GTK UIs leaves something to be desired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>QT is probably the best GUI toolkit in history, in my opinion.
Since it's now available under the LGPL license, I have to assume that the development project the whiner from Google is talking about was done before the LGPL QT 4.5 version was released or is not written in C++.
Standardization is fine and all, but please, please don't standardize on GTK.
Take a look at the hideously ugly GTK file picker for an example of why the usability of GTK UIs leaves something to be desired.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156537</id>
	<title>Zero Install feed for Chromium</title>
	<author>tal197</author>
	<datestamp>1243762140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've put up a Zero Install feed here, for those looking for an easy way to install it:

<p> <a href="http://0install.net/tests/Chromium.xml" title="0install.net">http://0install.net/tests/Chromium.xml</a> [0install.net]

</p><p>Tested on Ubuntu/Jaunty so far, but let me know if it doesn't work on other distributions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've put up a Zero Install feed here , for those looking for an easy way to install it : http : //0install.net/tests/Chromium.xml [ 0install.net ] Tested on Ubuntu/Jaunty so far , but let me know if it does n't work on other distributions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've put up a Zero Install feed here, for those looking for an easy way to install it:

 http://0install.net/tests/Chromium.xml [0install.net]

Tested on Ubuntu/Jaunty so far, but let me know if it doesn't work on other distributions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28159063</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>Amorya</author>
	<datestamp>1243791900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow! Someone gets it!</p><p>Statically linking libraries means I know that the vast majority of Mac apps will work without me needing to install anything else. (If an app needs support files, it is official best practice to bundle the files inside the app and have it install them on first run.)</p><p>I have no such guarantee on Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow !
Someone gets it ! Statically linking libraries means I know that the vast majority of Mac apps will work without me needing to install anything else .
( If an app needs support files , it is official best practice to bundle the files inside the app and have it install them on first run .
) I have no such guarantee on Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow!
Someone gets it!Statically linking libraries means I know that the vast majority of Mac apps will work without me needing to install anything else.
(If an app needs support files, it is official best practice to bundle the files inside the app and have it install them on first run.
)I have no such guarantee on Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156837</id>
	<title>Linux kernel under Affero GPLv3 license</title>
	<author>12357bd</author>
	<datestamp>1243766880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linus shpuld put the Linux kernel under Affero GPLv3 license, and force those big corporations to <strong>give back</strong> to the community a decent share of his wealth. Period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linus shpuld put the Linux kernel under Affero GPLv3 license , and force those big corporations to give back to the community a decent share of his wealth .
Period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linus shpuld put the Linux kernel under Affero GPLv3 license, and force those big corporations to give back to the community a decent share of his wealth.
Period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152087</id>
	<title>Re:Qt</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1243676040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those looking to port Chrome to Linux said it wasn't just a matter of a new UI design, that the entire codebase of Chrome/Chromium was exceedingly Windows-centric and difficult to port.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those looking to port Chrome to Linux said it was n't just a matter of a new UI design , that the entire codebase of Chrome/Chromium was exceedingly Windows-centric and difficult to port .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those looking to port Chrome to Linux said it wasn't just a matter of a new UI design, that the entire codebase of Chrome/Chromium was exceedingly Windows-centric and difficult to port.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151967</id>
	<title>Re:Use Qt....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243675440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not just use Qt instead? It's LGPL....why people still using GTK?</p></div><p>Because MOC sucks ass.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just use Qt instead ?
It 's LGPL....why people still using GTK ? Because MOC sucks ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just use Qt instead?
It's LGPL....why people still using GTK?Because MOC sucks ass.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155293</id>
	<title>Google is almost a hardware vendor here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243702080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an interesting case, because it's the reverse of the normal OS vs. Application development relationship. Usually there's an OS, and all the application developers have to write their application to suit the OS. Because the OS is king.</p><p>Here it could almost be seen as if Google is king, and should just write their application once for their preferred Linux distribution, and then challenge all the other distributions to make the application work for that flavor. Therefore making the application king.</p><p>That seems like what might happen, kind of like hardware drivers. Somebody puts out a video card, and then all the distributions write drivers to let their flavor use that video card.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an interesting case , because it 's the reverse of the normal OS vs. Application development relationship .
Usually there 's an OS , and all the application developers have to write their application to suit the OS .
Because the OS is king.Here it could almost be seen as if Google is king , and should just write their application once for their preferred Linux distribution , and then challenge all the other distributions to make the application work for that flavor .
Therefore making the application king.That seems like what might happen , kind of like hardware drivers .
Somebody puts out a video card , and then all the distributions write drivers to let their flavor use that video card .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an interesting case, because it's the reverse of the normal OS vs. Application development relationship.
Usually there's an OS, and all the application developers have to write their application to suit the OS.
Because the OS is king.Here it could almost be seen as if Google is king, and should just write their application once for their preferred Linux distribution, and then challenge all the other distributions to make the application work for that flavor.
Therefore making the application king.That seems like what might happen, kind of like hardware drivers.
Somebody puts out a video card, and then all the distributions write drivers to let their flavor use that video card.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151487</id>
	<title>Hum...</title>
	<author>yoshi\_mon</author>
	<datestamp>1243715820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Google with all it's resources want's to help standardize the FOSS tools then they should invest in making whatever tools they have issues with to make them the best.  It seems painfully obvious to me because if any given tool in the FOSS arena works best most distos will use that one.</p><p>That will make the big tools of importance to Google, and others, 'standardized' in effect.  There still would be obscure distros or people who might use forked and or alternative versions of major parts of the OS but that would be fine too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google with all it 's resources want 's to help standardize the FOSS tools then they should invest in making whatever tools they have issues with to make them the best .
It seems painfully obvious to me because if any given tool in the FOSS arena works best most distos will use that one.That will make the big tools of importance to Google , and others , 'standardized ' in effect .
There still would be obscure distros or people who might use forked and or alternative versions of major parts of the OS but that would be fine too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google with all it's resources want's to help standardize the FOSS tools then they should invest in making whatever tools they have issues with to make them the best.
It seems painfully obvious to me because if any given tool in the FOSS arena works best most distos will use that one.That will make the big tools of importance to Google, and others, 'standardized' in effect.
There still would be obscure distros or people who might use forked and or alternative versions of major parts of the OS but that would be fine too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153021</id>
	<title>google finally sees the truth.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243681980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>linux is shit out of a faggots dirty ass! linux needs to be flushed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>linux is shit out of a faggots dirty ass !
linux needs to be flushed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>linux is shit out of a faggots dirty ass!
linux needs to be flushed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28159413</id>
	<title>Re:Article by Slashdot completely distorts reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243794540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The amount of 'choice' in linux may limit your choices. The lack of standardization in the platform, may have put in the windows camp, developers who would otherwise make programs (or at least a version) for linux.<br>So you actually have less choice in terms of software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The amount of 'choice ' in linux may limit your choices .
The lack of standardization in the platform , may have put in the windows camp , developers who would otherwise make programs ( or at least a version ) for linux.So you actually have less choice in terms of software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The amount of 'choice' in linux may limit your choices.
The lack of standardization in the platform, may have put in the windows camp, developers who would otherwise make programs (or at least a version) for linux.So you actually have less choice in terms of software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151735</id>
	<title>Re:Linux needs to stop forking around</title>
	<author>tulcod</author>
	<datestamp>1243674060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's it with all these people thinking that focus is the issue here? There's a theoretically unlimited number of programmers out there in the FOSS world already. The problem isn't focus: if you put the same developers currently active on a smaller number of projects, the development speed will not increase. Heck, it might even slow down, because more people will want to give the bike shed a nice color. And in that sense, the huge amount of forks and pet projects actually speeds up development, because it quickly becomes clear what works and what does not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's it with all these people thinking that focus is the issue here ?
There 's a theoretically unlimited number of programmers out there in the FOSS world already .
The problem is n't focus : if you put the same developers currently active on a smaller number of projects , the development speed will not increase .
Heck , it might even slow down , because more people will want to give the bike shed a nice color .
And in that sense , the huge amount of forks and pet projects actually speeds up development , because it quickly becomes clear what works and what does not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's it with all these people thinking that focus is the issue here?
There's a theoretically unlimited number of programmers out there in the FOSS world already.
The problem isn't focus: if you put the same developers currently active on a smaller number of projects, the development speed will not increase.
Heck, it might even slow down, because more people will want to give the bike shed a nice color.
And in that sense, the huge amount of forks and pet projects actually speeds up development, because it quickly becomes clear what works and what does not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151497</id>
	<title>first phost</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243715880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">syeesion and join in</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>syeesion and join in [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>syeesion and join in [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153385</id>
	<title>YES!</title>
	<author>msgtomatt</author>
	<datestamp>1243684560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>YES! Linux needs standardization, without it no-one wants to develop for it and it will forever remain as an experimental OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>YES !
Linux needs standardization , without it no-one wants to develop for it and it will forever remain as an experimental OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YES!
Linux needs standardization, without it no-one wants to develop for it and it will forever remain as an experimental OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156995</id>
	<title>Re:Use Qt....</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1243769280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Take a look at the hideously ugly GTK file picker for an example of why the usability of GTK UIs leaves something to be desired.</p></div><p>True that - but the thing is so fugly that I often think it's actually a practical joke on the part of the guy who developed that POS. I think he's laughing his head off multiple times a day. Or maybe he's weeping: "I created a monster!!!" depending on his morals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a look at the hideously ugly GTK file picker for an example of why the usability of GTK UIs leaves something to be desired.True that - but the thing is so fugly that I often think it 's actually a practical joke on the part of the guy who developed that POS .
I think he 's laughing his head off multiple times a day .
Or maybe he 's weeping : " I created a monster ! ! !
" depending on his morals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a look at the hideously ugly GTK file picker for an example of why the usability of GTK UIs leaves something to be desired.True that - but the thing is so fugly that I often think it's actually a practical joke on the part of the guy who developed that POS.
I think he's laughing his head off multiple times a day.
Or maybe he's weeping: "I created a monster!!!
" depending on his morals.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154389</id>
	<title>Re:It's open source, google. Fork it.</title>
	<author>Statecraftsman</author>
	<datestamp>1243691940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah why doesn't Google reimplement GNU?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah why does n't Google reimplement GNU ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah why doesn't Google reimplement GNU?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155537</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see anything wrong</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1243704360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was one, it was called CDE and everyone other than Sun hated it.<br>People want things to look and behave differently if they think it would be easier if a certain widget does things differently - then eventually just about everything is different.  The Apple, KDE and gnome interface guides exist - but really I've liked the Netscape approach where you make your application behave the same way on every platform and why care about the rest of the desktop.  That was an advantage when users were logging onto multiple often unfamiliar platforms but netscape always looked the same.<br>As for toolkit problems in commercial software, you do what every half-professional software vendor in *nix space does and include the libraries on the install media in case the user doesn't have them or build them in staticly.  The only real sticking point in commercial linux software these days is abandonware licence checking software that expects an old libc and an old kernel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was one , it was called CDE and everyone other than Sun hated it.People want things to look and behave differently if they think it would be easier if a certain widget does things differently - then eventually just about everything is different .
The Apple , KDE and gnome interface guides exist - but really I 've liked the Netscape approach where you make your application behave the same way on every platform and why care about the rest of the desktop .
That was an advantage when users were logging onto multiple often unfamiliar platforms but netscape always looked the same.As for toolkit problems in commercial software , you do what every half-professional software vendor in * nix space does and include the libraries on the install media in case the user does n't have them or build them in staticly .
The only real sticking point in commercial linux software these days is abandonware licence checking software that expects an old libc and an old kernel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was one, it was called CDE and everyone other than Sun hated it.People want things to look and behave differently if they think it would be easier if a certain widget does things differently - then eventually just about everything is different.
The Apple, KDE and gnome interface guides exist - but really I've liked the Netscape approach where you make your application behave the same way on every platform and why care about the rest of the desktop.
That was an advantage when users were logging onto multiple often unfamiliar platforms but netscape always looked the same.As for toolkit problems in commercial software, you do what every half-professional software vendor in *nix space does and include the libraries on the install media in case the user doesn't have them or build them in staticly.
The only real sticking point in commercial linux software these days is abandonware licence checking software that expects an old libc and an old kernel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152037</id>
	<title>Well, yes..</title>
	<author>Seth Kriticos</author>
	<datestamp>1243675860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are basically 3 toolkits that come up for Linux GUI development:<br><br>- GTK+<br>- QT<br>- wxWidgets<br><br>and all have their own little flaws. GTK is nice and mature, but not overly flexible. QT is on the way of maturing, but it is still quite far from complete or usable (e.g. it takes some settings of my GNOME desktop and then plays with them so much that it ends with the correct colour scheme and for normal controls font size 24.. bold). Also only by looking at the syntax conventions of QT I get RSI in my fingers. wxWidgets is admittedly a horrible mess, but probably a good place to start writing a consolidation framework without forcing everyone to do the same. Probably the best choice would be to fix and clean up the internal mess of wx, add QT support and build a software development kit around it (sound, video, whatever). But mesmerising about it is quite useless. Unless someone takes one of the GUI frameworks and puts together a workable development kit on his own, there will be no good answer to the question.<br><br>To make it short: everybody is scratching their own itch, so either find some folks with the same itch or just develop it yourself and stop moaning about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are basically 3 toolkits that come up for Linux GUI development : - GTK + - QT- wxWidgetsand all have their own little flaws .
GTK is nice and mature , but not overly flexible .
QT is on the way of maturing , but it is still quite far from complete or usable ( e.g .
it takes some settings of my GNOME desktop and then plays with them so much that it ends with the correct colour scheme and for normal controls font size 24.. bold ) . Also only by looking at the syntax conventions of QT I get RSI in my fingers .
wxWidgets is admittedly a horrible mess , but probably a good place to start writing a consolidation framework without forcing everyone to do the same .
Probably the best choice would be to fix and clean up the internal mess of wx , add QT support and build a software development kit around it ( sound , video , whatever ) .
But mesmerising about it is quite useless .
Unless someone takes one of the GUI frameworks and puts together a workable development kit on his own , there will be no good answer to the question.To make it short : everybody is scratching their own itch , so either find some folks with the same itch or just develop it yourself and stop moaning about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are basically 3 toolkits that come up for Linux GUI development:- GTK+- QT- wxWidgetsand all have their own little flaws.
GTK is nice and mature, but not overly flexible.
QT is on the way of maturing, but it is still quite far from complete or usable (e.g.
it takes some settings of my GNOME desktop and then plays with them so much that it ends with the correct colour scheme and for normal controls font size 24.. bold). Also only by looking at the syntax conventions of QT I get RSI in my fingers.
wxWidgets is admittedly a horrible mess, but probably a good place to start writing a consolidation framework without forcing everyone to do the same.
Probably the best choice would be to fix and clean up the internal mess of wx, add QT support and build a software development kit around it (sound, video, whatever).
But mesmerising about it is quite useless.
Unless someone takes one of the GUI frameworks and puts together a workable development kit on his own, there will be no good answer to the question.To make it short: everybody is scratching their own itch, so either find some folks with the same itch or just develop it yourself and stop moaning about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156079</id>
	<title>Re:RTFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243711380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People like you make me sick.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>pick Gtk+ or Qt as your toolkit, Linux users really don't care that much</p></div><p>That's complete bollocks. There's been pages and pages of complaints, arguing and what-not when Google was making the choice between Qt and GTK. Maybe you don't care, but I don't like having random people putting words in my mouth.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>don't port to Linux; we don't really care all that much</p></div><p>Right. If you even read the comments above yours, you'd know a lot of people care about the linux port of Chrome.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>there are several great browsers on Linux already that pretty much do what Chrome does.</p></div><p>How are you modded informative and not troll?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People like you make me sick.pick Gtk + or Qt as your toolkit , Linux users really do n't care that muchThat 's complete bollocks .
There 's been pages and pages of complaints , arguing and what-not when Google was making the choice between Qt and GTK .
Maybe you do n't care , but I do n't like having random people putting words in my mouth.do n't port to Linux ; we do n't really care all that muchRight .
If you even read the comments above yours , you 'd know a lot of people care about the linux port of Chrome.there are several great browsers on Linux already that pretty much do what Chrome does.How are you modded informative and not troll ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People like you make me sick.pick Gtk+ or Qt as your toolkit, Linux users really don't care that muchThat's complete bollocks.
There's been pages and pages of complaints, arguing and what-not when Google was making the choice between Qt and GTK.
Maybe you don't care, but I don't like having random people putting words in my mouth.don't port to Linux; we don't really care all that muchRight.
If you even read the comments above yours, you'd know a lot of people care about the linux port of Chrome.there are several great browsers on Linux already that pretty much do what Chrome does.How are you modded informative and not troll?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152685</id>
	<title>GTK not compelling?</title>
	<author>Wolfger</author>
	<datestamp>1243679880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then use QT. It's much nicer.
<br> <br>
Problem is, they think they want to make a "Linux" app, but they really want to make a Gnome app or a KDE app. Mainstream projects need to pick a mainstream desktop and design for that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then use QT .
It 's much nicer .
Problem is , they think they want to make a " Linux " app , but they really want to make a Gnome app or a KDE app .
Mainstream projects need to pick a mainstream desktop and design for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then use QT.
It's much nicer.
Problem is, they think they want to make a "Linux" app, but they really want to make a Gnome app or a KDE app.
Mainstream projects need to pick a mainstream desktop and design for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154305</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243691280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only downside I can think of is that end-users need several GUI toolkits installed, for their multiple programs that use different toolkits</p></div><p>Even this is countered by the fact that Linux distributions provide great package managers which automatically pull in an dependencies (e.g. a GUI toolkit) if it is required.</p><p>The user doesn't really need to care what an app needs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only downside I can think of is that end-users need several GUI toolkits installed , for their multiple programs that use different toolkitsEven this is countered by the fact that Linux distributions provide great package managers which automatically pull in an dependencies ( e.g .
a GUI toolkit ) if it is required.The user does n't really need to care what an app needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only downside I can think of is that end-users need several GUI toolkits installed, for their multiple programs that use different toolkitsEven this is countered by the fact that Linux distributions provide great package managers which automatically pull in an dependencies (e.g.
a GUI toolkit) if it is required.The user doesn't really need to care what an app needs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153471</id>
	<title>Re:it's why Windows took over in the first place</title>
	<author>BenoitRen</author>
	<datestamp>1243685220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yes, that means supporting DRM so that users can play their streaming videos from Netflix.</p></div> </blockquote><p>I was with you until I read this. It doesn't have anything to do with having a standard on GNU/Linux.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that means supporting DRM so that users can play their streaming videos from Netflix .
I was with you until I read this .
It does n't have anything to do with having a standard on GNU/Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, that means supporting DRM so that users can play their streaming videos from Netflix.
I was with you until I read this.
It doesn't have anything to do with having a standard on GNU/Linux.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154399</id>
	<title>"Linux" is not an OS..</title>
	<author>Madsy</author>
	<datestamp>1243692060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>..It's a kernel. The different distributions are operative systems. Here's a list of distros: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Linux\_distributions" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Linux\_distributions</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
Yes, that is <i>a lot</i> of distros, and the very reason why simply <i>reaching consensus on which APIs to use</i> won't work and is against the whole point with the Linux kernel in the first place. Because there is not even a <i>potential</i> lowest common denominator for all of them. <b>The only one thing Linux distros have in common is a version of the kernel.</b> That is a slight exaggeration, but not too far from the truth. Again, this is one of Linux strengths, not weaknesses. <i>Anyone</i> can start their own distro, given enough persistency and time. Making client software which supports all the different distros is hard if not downright impossible, and not worth the hassle in my opinion.<br>
Doing what a lot of people do here and ask for a <i>streamlined API across distros</i> limits people's freedom, and misunderstands what Linux is. If you want to support "Linux", go for the big ones, Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora and Redhat. If you want to support the more obscure ones, then don't complain about too much choice, it makes you look like an idiot.<br>
Who ever complained that Mac and Windows have different ABIs, APIs and kernels?</htmltext>
<tokenext>..It 's a kernel .
The different distributions are operative systems .
Here 's a list of distros : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _Linux \ _distributions [ wikipedia.org ] Yes , that is a lot of distros , and the very reason why simply reaching consensus on which APIs to use wo n't work and is against the whole point with the Linux kernel in the first place .
Because there is not even a potential lowest common denominator for all of them .
The only one thing Linux distros have in common is a version of the kernel .
That is a slight exaggeration , but not too far from the truth .
Again , this is one of Linux strengths , not weaknesses .
Anyone can start their own distro , given enough persistency and time .
Making client software which supports all the different distros is hard if not downright impossible , and not worth the hassle in my opinion .
Doing what a lot of people do here and ask for a streamlined API across distros limits people 's freedom , and misunderstands what Linux is .
If you want to support " Linux " , go for the big ones , Ubuntu , Debian , Fedora and Redhat .
If you want to support the more obscure ones , then do n't complain about too much choice , it makes you look like an idiot .
Who ever complained that Mac and Windows have different ABIs , APIs and kernels ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..It's a kernel.
The different distributions are operative systems.
Here's a list of distros: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Linux\_distributions [wikipedia.org] 
Yes, that is a lot of distros, and the very reason why simply reaching consensus on which APIs to use won't work and is against the whole point with the Linux kernel in the first place.
Because there is not even a potential lowest common denominator for all of them.
The only one thing Linux distros have in common is a version of the kernel.
That is a slight exaggeration, but not too far from the truth.
Again, this is one of Linux strengths, not weaknesses.
Anyone can start their own distro, given enough persistency and time.
Making client software which supports all the different distros is hard if not downright impossible, and not worth the hassle in my opinion.
Doing what a lot of people do here and ask for a streamlined API across distros limits people's freedom, and misunderstands what Linux is.
If you want to support "Linux", go for the big ones, Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora and Redhat.
If you want to support the more obscure ones, then don't complain about too much choice, it makes you look like an idiot.
Who ever complained that Mac and Windows have different ABIs, APIs and kernels?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154827</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see anything wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243697040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think Chome will follow any UI or HIG standard, though, even if linux have one.<br>Even Chome on Windows looks and feels very different from any other application!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think Chome will follow any UI or HIG standard , though , even if linux have one.Even Chome on Windows looks and feels very different from any other application !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think Chome will follow any UI or HIG standard, though, even if linux have one.Even Chome on Windows looks and feels very different from any other application!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151135</id>
	<title>How is this even a problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243713600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is that even a problem if there web engine works then make it for several ui toolkits or just pick one. All the work is done it would just be a matter of how its shown. Id rather have something that possibly changes the way its displayed in the future than have nothing and sit around bitching.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is that even a problem if there web engine works then make it for several ui toolkits or just pick one .
All the work is done it would just be a matter of how its shown .
Id rather have something that possibly changes the way its displayed in the future than have nothing and sit around bitching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is that even a problem if there web engine works then make it for several ui toolkits or just pick one.
All the work is done it would just be a matter of how its shown.
Id rather have something that possibly changes the way its displayed in the future than have nothing and sit around bitching.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151699</id>
	<title>Re:Use Qt....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243716960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ubuntu is the biggest example of what you might consider a "desktop standard" in the wild and crazy Linux world, and Ubuntu uses GNOME and GTK+.  It's not surprising Google went with it.  It's amusing you asked why people are "still using GTK," as if Qt has somehow surpassed it or rendered it obsolete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu is the biggest example of what you might consider a " desktop standard " in the wild and crazy Linux world , and Ubuntu uses GNOME and GTK + .
It 's not surprising Google went with it .
It 's amusing you asked why people are " still using GTK , " as if Qt has somehow surpassed it or rendered it obsolete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu is the biggest example of what you might consider a "desktop standard" in the wild and crazy Linux world, and Ubuntu uses GNOME and GTK+.
It's not surprising Google went with it.
It's amusing you asked why people are "still using GTK," as if Qt has somehow surpassed it or rendered it obsolete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151237</id>
	<title>lack of standardised UI toolkit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243714380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?<br>and I thought Google Chrome was going out of its way to feel as foreign as possible on windows...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ? and I thought Google Chrome was going out of its way to feel as foreign as possible on windows.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?and I thought Google Chrome was going out of its way to feel as foreign as possible on windows...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151687</id>
	<title>Goodger has previous</title>
	<author>heffrey</author>
	<datestamp>1243716900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox doesn't use native widgets.  Goodger was formerly lead dev on Firefox.  How can he complain about lack of standards on Linux when his track record is not to follow them.</p><p>And then of course there is Chrome's installer which does per user installations of program files into the user's local profile.  Just what standard does that follow?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox does n't use native widgets .
Goodger was formerly lead dev on Firefox .
How can he complain about lack of standards on Linux when his track record is not to follow them.And then of course there is Chrome 's installer which does per user installations of program files into the user 's local profile .
Just what standard does that follow ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox doesn't use native widgets.
Goodger was formerly lead dev on Firefox.
How can he complain about lack of standards on Linux when his track record is not to follow them.And then of course there is Chrome's installer which does per user installations of program files into the user's local profile.
Just what standard does that follow?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153435</id>
	<title>Will never happen, and that's a good thing.</title>
	<author>Lalo Martins</author>
	<datestamp>1243685040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here I go for the troll mod, but oh well.

<p>First, the article says nothing of the sort.  As usual, the summary is completely off the point.

</p><p>But to address the summary and the other comments, rather than the article:

</p><p>The Free OS world (whether you call yours Linux, GNU, GNU/Linux, OpenBSD, NetBSD, OpenSolaris, etc etc) does <b>NOT</b> suffer from a lack of standardization.  I've been hearing this for 13 years (people who are in the community longer than me have been hearing it for longer) and I'm sick of it.  It wasn't true then and it wasn't true now.  We have lots of standards, maybe more than I would prefer.  We have standards for a lot of things that other OSes don't.

</p><p>And we also have a lot of people who choose not to follow them.  It's a freedom we have and it's one of the things that makes it so great.

</p><p>Standard UI toolkit?  We had one in the 90s, and it sucked.  So people decided to write Qt and GTK+ and we're much better off now.  Standard HIG?  KDE has one, GNOME has one, and XFCE has one, take your pick.  Standards for binary compatibility?  Yes we can, and as another commenter mentioned, Skype uses it rather effectively for their crapware.

</p><p>Now, does all that choice pose a minor problem to proprietary vendors who want to offer non-free, closed-source software in our platform(s)?  Yes, it does.  However, <b>I don't care</b>.  They have a very simple solution: give us the source, and if the product is good, the people who care will help you port.  You can provide one, bare-bones port, and the GNOME/XFCE/KDE/portable/etc people will work out the customisation and integration for you.  Don't want to give us the source?  Then I'm sorry, it's going to be your problem.

</p><p>Incidentally, this is exactly Google's solution, well, almost exactly.  I doubt there's going to be, say, a XFCE port of Chrome, but chances are there will be a XFCE-integration version of Chromium (or an add-on that does it).  Everybody wins, nothing to bitch about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here I go for the troll mod , but oh well .
First , the article says nothing of the sort .
As usual , the summary is completely off the point .
But to address the summary and the other comments , rather than the article : The Free OS world ( whether you call yours Linux , GNU , GNU/Linux , OpenBSD , NetBSD , OpenSolaris , etc etc ) does NOT suffer from a lack of standardization .
I 've been hearing this for 13 years ( people who are in the community longer than me have been hearing it for longer ) and I 'm sick of it .
It was n't true then and it was n't true now .
We have lots of standards , maybe more than I would prefer .
We have standards for a lot of things that other OSes do n't .
And we also have a lot of people who choose not to follow them .
It 's a freedom we have and it 's one of the things that makes it so great .
Standard UI toolkit ?
We had one in the 90s , and it sucked .
So people decided to write Qt and GTK + and we 're much better off now .
Standard HIG ?
KDE has one , GNOME has one , and XFCE has one , take your pick .
Standards for binary compatibility ?
Yes we can , and as another commenter mentioned , Skype uses it rather effectively for their crapware .
Now , does all that choice pose a minor problem to proprietary vendors who want to offer non-free , closed-source software in our platform ( s ) ?
Yes , it does .
However , I do n't care .
They have a very simple solution : give us the source , and if the product is good , the people who care will help you port .
You can provide one , bare-bones port , and the GNOME/XFCE/KDE/portable/etc people will work out the customisation and integration for you .
Do n't want to give us the source ?
Then I 'm sorry , it 's going to be your problem .
Incidentally , this is exactly Google 's solution , well , almost exactly .
I doubt there 's going to be , say , a XFCE port of Chrome , but chances are there will be a XFCE-integration version of Chromium ( or an add-on that does it ) .
Everybody wins , nothing to bitch about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here I go for the troll mod, but oh well.
First, the article says nothing of the sort.
As usual, the summary is completely off the point.
But to address the summary and the other comments, rather than the article:

The Free OS world (whether you call yours Linux, GNU, GNU/Linux, OpenBSD, NetBSD, OpenSolaris, etc etc) does NOT suffer from a lack of standardization.
I've been hearing this for 13 years (people who are in the community longer than me have been hearing it for longer) and I'm sick of it.
It wasn't true then and it wasn't true now.
We have lots of standards, maybe more than I would prefer.
We have standards for a lot of things that other OSes don't.
And we also have a lot of people who choose not to follow them.
It's a freedom we have and it's one of the things that makes it so great.
Standard UI toolkit?
We had one in the 90s, and it sucked.
So people decided to write Qt and GTK+ and we're much better off now.
Standard HIG?
KDE has one, GNOME has one, and XFCE has one, take your pick.
Standards for binary compatibility?
Yes we can, and as another commenter mentioned, Skype uses it rather effectively for their crapware.
Now, does all that choice pose a minor problem to proprietary vendors who want to offer non-free, closed-source software in our platform(s)?
Yes, it does.
However, I don't care.
They have a very simple solution: give us the source, and if the product is good, the people who care will help you port.
You can provide one, bare-bones port, and the GNOME/XFCE/KDE/portable/etc people will work out the customisation and integration for you.
Don't want to give us the source?
Then I'm sorry, it's going to be your problem.
Incidentally, this is exactly Google's solution, well, almost exactly.
I doubt there's going to be, say, a XFCE port of Chrome, but chances are there will be a XFCE-integration version of Chromium (or an add-on that does it).
Everybody wins, nothing to bitch about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156019</id>
	<title>Re:Use Qt....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243710780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean it hasn't?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean it has n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean it hasn't?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151581</id>
	<title>Re:Yes!</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1243716240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only the Linux Standard Base existed!  Oh, wait, it does!</p><p><a href="http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/lsb" title="linuxfoundation.org">http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/lsb</a> [linuxfoundation.org]</p><p>That is why Skype can build a distro-agnostic package with static linked libraries that just works on every distro, even though they also make distro-specific packages as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only the Linux Standard Base existed !
Oh , wait , it does ! http : //www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/lsb [ linuxfoundation.org ] That is why Skype can build a distro-agnostic package with static linked libraries that just works on every distro , even though they also make distro-specific packages as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only the Linux Standard Base existed!
Oh, wait, it does!http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/lsb [linuxfoundation.org]That is why Skype can build a distro-agnostic package with static linked libraries that just works on every distro, even though they also make distro-specific packages as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151939</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1243675260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Where are the downsides? </i>
<br>
<br>
Are you smoking some form of new, experimental, highly-potent form of crack?  Are you seriously asking this?
<br>
<br>
It's not an issue of "omg too many choices," it's an issue of lack of standardization.  Want to download software you need?  Better hope it supports your package system, and better hope it was made for Gnome or GTK or whatever you're using.  The messed up patchwork of packages that constitutes sound on linux is an embarassment, and sure, pick 1, then hope the software you downloaded uses it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where are the downsides ?
Are you smoking some form of new , experimental , highly-potent form of crack ?
Are you seriously asking this ?
It 's not an issue of " omg too many choices , " it 's an issue of lack of standardization .
Want to download software you need ?
Better hope it supports your package system , and better hope it was made for Gnome or GTK or whatever you 're using .
The messed up patchwork of packages that constitutes sound on linux is an embarassment , and sure , pick 1 , then hope the software you downloaded uses it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where are the downsides?
Are you smoking some form of new, experimental, highly-potent form of crack?
Are you seriously asking this?
It's not an issue of "omg too many choices," it's an issue of lack of standardization.
Want to download software you need?
Better hope it supports your package system, and better hope it was made for Gnome or GTK or whatever you're using.
The messed up patchwork of packages that constitutes sound on linux is an embarassment, and sure, pick 1, then hope the software you downloaded uses it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28194053</id>
	<title>Browser standars</title>
	<author>ubersoldat2k7</author>
	<datestamp>1244035020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh! why can't the mighty Google do something that Mozilla and Opera have been doing for so long. Maybe this guys aren't as bright as they want you to believe.</p><p>Anyway, you want standards? maybe we should just start with the browser, and not only on Linux, but also on your beloved, closed source Windows. Yeeee! MSIE for everyone bitches!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh !
why ca n't the mighty Google do something that Mozilla and Opera have been doing for so long .
Maybe this guys are n't as bright as they want you to believe.Anyway , you want standards ?
maybe we should just start with the browser , and not only on Linux , but also on your beloved , closed source Windows .
Yeeee ! MSIE for everyone bitches !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh!
why can't the mighty Google do something that Mozilla and Opera have been doing for so long.
Maybe this guys aren't as bright as they want you to believe.Anyway, you want standards?
maybe we should just start with the browser, and not only on Linux, but also on your beloved, closed source Windows.
Yeeee! MSIE for everyone bitches!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28160283</id>
	<title>Re:and this is different from other platforms... h</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1243801080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hence there's still one standard: the Windows API. Everything else just builds on top of it.</p></div><p>That used to be the case, but GP forgot to list yet another "official UI API" newcomer, which is WPF.</p><p>And that thing does not use Win32 UI API. It draws native-looking widgets, yes (though it fails utterly because of font rendering differences - something that will only be fixed in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET 4.0), but it draws them itself, just like Qt does.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hence there 's still one standard : the Windows API .
Everything else just builds on top of it.That used to be the case , but GP forgot to list yet another " official UI API " newcomer , which is WPF.And that thing does not use Win32 UI API .
It draws native-looking widgets , yes ( though it fails utterly because of font rendering differences - something that will only be fixed in .NET 4.0 ) , but it draws them itself , just like Qt does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hence there's still one standard: the Windows API.
Everything else just builds on top of it.That used to be the case, but GP forgot to list yet another "official UI API" newcomer, which is WPF.And that thing does not use Win32 UI API.
It draws native-looking widgets, yes (though it fails utterly because of font rendering differences - something that will only be fixed in .NET 4.0), but it draws them itself, just like Qt does.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152533</id>
	<title>Re:Um....</title>
	<author>binaryseraph</author>
	<datestamp>1243678860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Frankly, I demand BeOS be supported.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , I demand BeOS be supported .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, I demand BeOS be supported.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151709</id>
	<title>Re:Linux needs to stop forking around</title>
	<author>NewbieProgrammerMan</author>
	<datestamp>1243717140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is going to require the majority of backend developers choosing one API/toolkit/etc to add features to, test for bugs and release on a predictable schedule.  Yes, Gnome or KDE may whither or die, too bad.  If we do not these steps now, Linux will continue receiving ports of projects developed on other platforms and not real development time.</p></div><p>I wish I could think of something really clever and snarky to say about maturity == conformity, but I can't. </p><p>Anyway, this sort of universal coordination is probably never going to happen, because you're dealing with tens or hundreds of thousands of developers that are going to do what they think is best for their particular library/application/framework/distro/etc., and not what some external collective tells them is best.  Most of them do what they do solely because it interests them, and many probably don't give a damn whether Linux "succeeds on the desktop" or not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is going to require the majority of backend developers choosing one API/toolkit/etc to add features to , test for bugs and release on a predictable schedule .
Yes , Gnome or KDE may whither or die , too bad .
If we do not these steps now , Linux will continue receiving ports of projects developed on other platforms and not real development time.I wish I could think of something really clever and snarky to say about maturity = = conformity , but I ca n't .
Anyway , this sort of universal coordination is probably never going to happen , because you 're dealing with tens or hundreds of thousands of developers that are going to do what they think is best for their particular library/application/framework/distro/etc. , and not what some external collective tells them is best .
Most of them do what they do solely because it interests them , and many probably do n't give a damn whether Linux " succeeds on the desktop " or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is going to require the majority of backend developers choosing one API/toolkit/etc to add features to, test for bugs and release on a predictable schedule.
Yes, Gnome or KDE may whither or die, too bad.
If we do not these steps now, Linux will continue receiving ports of projects developed on other platforms and not real development time.I wish I could think of something really clever and snarky to say about maturity == conformity, but I can't.
Anyway, this sort of universal coordination is probably never going to happen, because you're dealing with tens or hundreds of thousands of developers that are going to do what they think is best for their particular library/application/framework/distro/etc., and not what some external collective tells them is best.
Most of them do what they do solely because it interests them, and many probably don't give a damn whether Linux "succeeds on the desktop" or not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151501</id>
	<title>Google OS?</title>
	<author>DutchMasterKiller</author>
	<datestamp>1243715880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First they create a browser that works with their applications.

What's next? An operating system where they can run their browser on?</htmltext>
<tokenext>First they create a browser that works with their applications .
What 's next ?
An operating system where they can run their browser on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First they create a browser that works with their applications.
What's next?
An operating system where they can run their browser on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152861</id>
	<title>Re:Use Qt....</title>
	<author>pembo13</author>
	<datestamp>1243681020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Qt support Gtk, Win32 and Coca.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Qt support Gtk , Win32 and Coca .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Qt support Gtk, Win32 and Coca.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28159831</id>
	<title>Re:What Linux needs</title>
	<author>ion.simon.c</author>
	<datestamp>1243797600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>h)  If the desktop is where the Linux community has decided it wants to go, Linus needs to be brought into line with that vision.</p></div><p>Tell me again why the preemptive kernel patches were merged into mainline? How about the kernel modesetting patches? Why is the CFQ scheduler set as the default, rather than the deadline scheduler?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you want the i386 client desktop, that is where you need to put the entirety of your focus. Forget portability, forget the server, and focus purely on being an i386 client desktop.</p></div><p>Thank $DEITY that this isn't a priority of the kernel.org folks. 'Cause if it was, Linux would not run on AMD64 systems in 64-bit mode. IDK about you, but I see a day that's not too far off where the vast majority of desktop systems are AMD64 based.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>h ) If the desktop is where the Linux community has decided it wants to go , Linus needs to be brought into line with that vision.Tell me again why the preemptive kernel patches were merged into mainline ?
How about the kernel modesetting patches ?
Why is the CFQ scheduler set as the default , rather than the deadline scheduler ? If you want the i386 client desktop , that is where you need to put the entirety of your focus .
Forget portability , forget the server , and focus purely on being an i386 client desktop.Thank $ DEITY that this is n't a priority of the kernel.org folks .
'Cause if it was , Linux would not run on AMD64 systems in 64-bit mode .
IDK about you , but I see a day that 's not too far off where the vast majority of desktop systems are AMD64 based .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>h)  If the desktop is where the Linux community has decided it wants to go, Linus needs to be brought into line with that vision.Tell me again why the preemptive kernel patches were merged into mainline?
How about the kernel modesetting patches?
Why is the CFQ scheduler set as the default, rather than the deadline scheduler?If you want the i386 client desktop, that is where you need to put the entirety of your focus.
Forget portability, forget the server, and focus purely on being an i386 client desktop.Thank $DEITY that this isn't a priority of the kernel.org folks.
'Cause if it was, Linux would not run on AMD64 systems in 64-bit mode.
IDK about you, but I see a day that's not too far off where the vast majority of desktop systems are AMD64 based.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28157459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151841</id>
	<title>Re:It's open source, google. Fork it.</title>
	<author>raddan</author>
	<datestamp>1243674720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, I'd love to see a Google UI, too.  I can't wait for context-sensitive ads about shirt buttons when I'm trying to click a button<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^P
<br> <br>
To all of these people who are bitching about the UI in Linux-- are you actually using Linux?  Maybe I'm an old-timer, but Ubuntu 9.04 looks a lot nicer to me than my Windows box at work.  The MacOS is pretty slick, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is "consistent" or "intuitive".  And the Expose pretty much blows compared to your bog-standard workspace switchers on Linux.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I 'd love to see a Google UI , too .
I ca n't wait for context-sensitive ads about shirt buttons when I 'm trying to click a button : ^ P To all of these people who are bitching about the UI in Linux-- are you actually using Linux ?
Maybe I 'm an old-timer , but Ubuntu 9.04 looks a lot nicer to me than my Windows box at work .
The MacOS is pretty slick , but I would n't go so far as to say it is " consistent " or " intuitive " .
And the Expose pretty much blows compared to your bog-standard workspace switchers on Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I'd love to see a Google UI, too.
I can't wait for context-sensitive ads about shirt buttons when I'm trying to click a button :^P
 
To all of these people who are bitching about the UI in Linux-- are you actually using Linux?
Maybe I'm an old-timer, but Ubuntu 9.04 looks a lot nicer to me than my Windows box at work.
The MacOS is pretty slick, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is "consistent" or "intuitive".
And the Expose pretty much blows compared to your bog-standard workspace switchers on Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153029</id>
	<title>Google could *PAY* for a standardized UI in Linux</title>
	<author>stoicio</author>
	<datestamp>1243682040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We hear complaints from Google but where's the<br>resources?</p><p>Certainly Google could provide some direction<br>to one or more of the UI toolkits in Linux<br>by either joining or helping to set up a standards<br>consortium.</p><p>The only way software can be designed is by setting down<br>requirements, guiding the development with solid standards,<br>and actively participating in all levels of the process.</p><p>Standing back and saying "Whoa! Linux is a mess there are no standards...etc"<br>is a bit if a lark. When we recall all the workarounds we still have to do<br>
&nbsp; with other operating systems simply because they don't follow standards,<br>or disregard them to control the marketplace, there is no difference<br>in the level of additional work that is required.</p><p>So, I spend money using/learning QT or build my own GUI toolkit, or use something stable<br>
&nbsp; and homely like lestif. On the other hand I spend my money on licenses for build tools<br>on some other operating system. Either way I have to spend time and/or money<br>to get the job done.</p><p>I get the feeling that Google has been hiring too many Microsoft campus<br>programmers who just can't get their heads around anything outside<br>directX.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We hear complaints from Google but where 's theresources ? Certainly Google could provide some directionto one or more of the UI toolkits in Linuxby either joining or helping to set up a standardsconsortium.The only way software can be designed is by setting downrequirements , guiding the development with solid standards,and actively participating in all levels of the process.Standing back and saying " Whoa !
Linux is a mess there are no standards...etc " is a bit if a lark .
When we recall all the workarounds we still have to do   with other operating systems simply because they do n't follow standards,or disregard them to control the marketplace , there is no differencein the level of additional work that is required.So , I spend money using/learning QT or build my own GUI toolkit , or use something stable   and homely like lestif .
On the other hand I spend my money on licenses for build toolson some other operating system .
Either way I have to spend time and/or moneyto get the job done.I get the feeling that Google has been hiring too many Microsoft campusprogrammers who just ca n't get their heads around anything outsidedirectX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We hear complaints from Google but where's theresources?Certainly Google could provide some directionto one or more of the UI toolkits in Linuxby either joining or helping to set up a standardsconsortium.The only way software can be designed is by setting downrequirements, guiding the development with solid standards,and actively participating in all levels of the process.Standing back and saying "Whoa!
Linux is a mess there are no standards...etc"is a bit if a lark.
When we recall all the workarounds we still have to do
  with other operating systems simply because they don't follow standards,or disregard them to control the marketplace, there is no differencein the level of additional work that is required.So, I spend money using/learning QT or build my own GUI toolkit, or use something stable
  and homely like lestif.
On the other hand I spend my money on licenses for build toolson some other operating system.
Either way I have to spend time and/or moneyto get the job done.I get the feeling that Google has been hiring too many Microsoft campusprogrammers who just can't get their heads around anything outsidedirectX.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151991</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see anything wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243675560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is already Gnome HIG (which is pretty good IMO), and KDE came up with something too in the recent years (for KDE3 at least that I know of).</p><p>You can not write a tool for the Gnome, KDE, MacOS and Windows platform just because you have a toolkit that supports the widget elements. Many more subtleties have to be considered since all the platforms have a different concept of user interaction (granted, MacOS&amp;Gnome and Windows&amp;KDE3 are closer together).</p><p>We recently developed a cross-platform tool* that we wanted to make very native and learned that it is probably easier to develop for each platform a native frontend program.</p><p>Just because all are use the Paper Paradigm, doesn't mean you can standardize it to one.</p><p>* <a href="http://jakeapp.com/" title="jakeapp.com">http://jakeapp.com/</a> [jakeapp.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is already Gnome HIG ( which is pretty good IMO ) , and KDE came up with something too in the recent years ( for KDE3 at least that I know of ) .You can not write a tool for the Gnome , KDE , MacOS and Windows platform just because you have a toolkit that supports the widget elements .
Many more subtleties have to be considered since all the platforms have a different concept of user interaction ( granted , MacOS&amp;Gnome and Windows&amp;KDE3 are closer together ) .We recently developed a cross-platform tool * that we wanted to make very native and learned that it is probably easier to develop for each platform a native frontend program.Just because all are use the Paper Paradigm , does n't mean you can standardize it to one .
* http : //jakeapp.com/ [ jakeapp.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is already Gnome HIG (which is pretty good IMO), and KDE came up with something too in the recent years (for KDE3 at least that I know of).You can not write a tool for the Gnome, KDE, MacOS and Windows platform just because you have a toolkit that supports the widget elements.
Many more subtleties have to be considered since all the platforms have a different concept of user interaction (granted, MacOS&amp;Gnome and Windows&amp;KDE3 are closer together).We recently developed a cross-platform tool* that we wanted to make very native and learned that it is probably easier to develop for each platform a native frontend program.Just because all are use the Paper Paradigm, doesn't mean you can standardize it to one.
* http://jakeapp.com/ [jakeapp.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152633</id>
	<title>Re:Qt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243679460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh? Google already uses qt for google maps. I don't think I would call that lowest common denominator. Adobe uses qt for photoshop elements, also not a super light program.</p><p>I have seen the chrome team use this excuse before, but they've not managed to defend it as anything more than just an excuse. KDE is not exactly super lacking in functionality, even it is not-finished window's state.</p><p>Sounds mostly like a preconceived notion they are not willing to explore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
Google already uses qt for google maps .
I do n't think I would call that lowest common denominator .
Adobe uses qt for photoshop elements , also not a super light program.I have seen the chrome team use this excuse before , but they 've not managed to defend it as anything more than just an excuse .
KDE is not exactly super lacking in functionality , even it is not-finished window 's state.Sounds mostly like a preconceived notion they are not willing to explore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
Google already uses qt for google maps.
I don't think I would call that lowest common denominator.
Adobe uses qt for photoshop elements, also not a super light program.I have seen the chrome team use this excuse before, but they've not managed to defend it as anything more than just an excuse.
KDE is not exactly super lacking in functionality, even it is not-finished window's state.Sounds mostly like a preconceived notion they are not willing to explore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152383</id>
	<title>Re:Um....</title>
	<author>Celeste R</author>
	<datestamp>1243678080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Developers != Managers.</p><p>Sure, they're different, but you're forgetting that Linux is made by developers paid (or not paid) by big companies.  Managers don't usually draw their battle lines within the many sides of Linux, their battle lines are along corporate lines.</p><p>Tell me, why should I stick to only one toolkit when a specific job can be done so much better with products developed with another toolkit?  It doesn't make sense from any point of view, except for someone who just wants do draw lines in the sand for the sake of picking a fight.</p><p>Google isn't porting to Ubuntu, they're porting to Linux.  It's the kindness of a single developer that makes it so we can apt-get it at all.  If you want more than what's currently available, then either stop complaining and wait or contribute.</p><p>What if you used Linux with a BSD kernel?  Is it still Linux?  The OS is -not- the UI, it is a foundation for the software that runs the UI.  What UI's are available depends on the connecting software (GTK+ and QT for Windows do exist, did you know that?)</p><p>Thank you for modding the parent funny, because sometimes that's all you can do!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Developers ! = Managers.Sure , they 're different , but you 're forgetting that Linux is made by developers paid ( or not paid ) by big companies .
Managers do n't usually draw their battle lines within the many sides of Linux , their battle lines are along corporate lines.Tell me , why should I stick to only one toolkit when a specific job can be done so much better with products developed with another toolkit ?
It does n't make sense from any point of view , except for someone who just wants do draw lines in the sand for the sake of picking a fight.Google is n't porting to Ubuntu , they 're porting to Linux .
It 's the kindness of a single developer that makes it so we can apt-get it at all .
If you want more than what 's currently available , then either stop complaining and wait or contribute.What if you used Linux with a BSD kernel ?
Is it still Linux ?
The OS is -not- the UI , it is a foundation for the software that runs the UI .
What UI 's are available depends on the connecting software ( GTK + and QT for Windows do exist , did you know that ?
) Thank you for modding the parent funny , because sometimes that 's all you can do !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Developers != Managers.Sure, they're different, but you're forgetting that Linux is made by developers paid (or not paid) by big companies.
Managers don't usually draw their battle lines within the many sides of Linux, their battle lines are along corporate lines.Tell me, why should I stick to only one toolkit when a specific job can be done so much better with products developed with another toolkit?
It doesn't make sense from any point of view, except for someone who just wants do draw lines in the sand for the sake of picking a fight.Google isn't porting to Ubuntu, they're porting to Linux.
It's the kindness of a single developer that makes it so we can apt-get it at all.
If you want more than what's currently available, then either stop complaining and wait or contribute.What if you used Linux with a BSD kernel?
Is it still Linux?
The OS is -not- the UI, it is a foundation for the software that runs the UI.
What UI's are available depends on the connecting software (GTK+ and QT for Windows do exist, did you know that?
)Thank you for modding the parent funny, because sometimes that's all you can do!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151065</id>
	<title>Right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243713180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>'...is it time to concentrate on consolidation and standardisation in GNU/Linux in general, and the desktop in particular?'</i></p><p>Good luck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'...is it time to concentrate on consolidation and standardisation in GNU/Linux in general , and the desktop in particular ?
'Good luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'...is it time to concentrate on consolidation and standardisation in GNU/Linux in general, and the desktop in particular?
'Good luck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154321</id>
	<title>But that's not the case</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1243691400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are issues any time you make a choice. As an example, take audio on Windows which is in a vastly better state, and something I understand quite well. Windows itself provides APIs for audio you can use. Any soundcard with a Windows driver will by definition support these. However Windows allows for other APIs to be installed. There are two major ones you'll run across:</p><p>1) OpenAL. This was developed by Creative Labs because they wanted better support for hardware sound acceleration, which is something that few companies do.</p><p>2) ASIO. This was developed by Steinberg for professional audio to provide a multi-channel, low latency, cross platform interface.</p><p>Now, suppose you like one of those formats and want to use them in your app. Ok, great, but your app will suddenly not work on a whole bunch of systems. Most soundcards don't support OpenAL or ASIO. They support MME, DS, and WDM/KS because those are the Windows formats and by having a Windows drier you'll support them, but they don't support the others. In fact the Creative Labs X-Fi are the only series of cards I'm aware of that support both OpenAL and ASIO. You can find other cards that support one or the other but not both.</p><p>So then what to do? Well you can go for the software shim idea. This is usually what OpenAL games do. They have an openal32.dll in their directory that performs conversion from OpenAL to one of the Windows formats (DirectSound usually). However this has numerous problems in that you lose functionality, it takes more resources, is another area for problems, etc. If you sniff around online you can find all kinds of problems related to this with games and various hack solutions form gamers for it.</p><p>In the case of ASIO there is a very nice 3rd party program, ASIO4ALL that does a good job of translating from ASIO to WDM/KS. Works in almost all cases, it's grade A stuff and is free. However, you lose any special features ASIO would get you. You are interfacing with a soundcard in KS mode effectively if you do that. So why not just have your program support that anyhow?</p><p>Now take that mess, and then go the Linux route where there isn't a guaranteed standard. It is a whole bunch of different shit and you don't know what you will and won't have on any given system or piece of hardware. There's isn't the "MME" option like in Windows that is universally supported.</p><p>These multiple, competing and sometimes conflicting standards really do make shit hard. I'm not saying that it should be a situation of "There is only one way to do things, everything else is banned." No that's not the case even on Windows. However there needs to be a default that ALL Linux distros support. Everything can use the default, and then you can have support for others as well if you like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are issues any time you make a choice .
As an example , take audio on Windows which is in a vastly better state , and something I understand quite well .
Windows itself provides APIs for audio you can use .
Any soundcard with a Windows driver will by definition support these .
However Windows allows for other APIs to be installed .
There are two major ones you 'll run across : 1 ) OpenAL .
This was developed by Creative Labs because they wanted better support for hardware sound acceleration , which is something that few companies do.2 ) ASIO .
This was developed by Steinberg for professional audio to provide a multi-channel , low latency , cross platform interface.Now , suppose you like one of those formats and want to use them in your app .
Ok , great , but your app will suddenly not work on a whole bunch of systems .
Most soundcards do n't support OpenAL or ASIO .
They support MME , DS , and WDM/KS because those are the Windows formats and by having a Windows drier you 'll support them , but they do n't support the others .
In fact the Creative Labs X-Fi are the only series of cards I 'm aware of that support both OpenAL and ASIO .
You can find other cards that support one or the other but not both.So then what to do ?
Well you can go for the software shim idea .
This is usually what OpenAL games do .
They have an openal32.dll in their directory that performs conversion from OpenAL to one of the Windows formats ( DirectSound usually ) .
However this has numerous problems in that you lose functionality , it takes more resources , is another area for problems , etc .
If you sniff around online you can find all kinds of problems related to this with games and various hack solutions form gamers for it.In the case of ASIO there is a very nice 3rd party program , ASIO4ALL that does a good job of translating from ASIO to WDM/KS .
Works in almost all cases , it 's grade A stuff and is free .
However , you lose any special features ASIO would get you .
You are interfacing with a soundcard in KS mode effectively if you do that .
So why not just have your program support that anyhow ? Now take that mess , and then go the Linux route where there is n't a guaranteed standard .
It is a whole bunch of different shit and you do n't know what you will and wo n't have on any given system or piece of hardware .
There 's is n't the " MME " option like in Windows that is universally supported.These multiple , competing and sometimes conflicting standards really do make shit hard .
I 'm not saying that it should be a situation of " There is only one way to do things , everything else is banned .
" No that 's not the case even on Windows .
However there needs to be a default that ALL Linux distros support .
Everything can use the default , and then you can have support for others as well if you like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are issues any time you make a choice.
As an example, take audio on Windows which is in a vastly better state, and something I understand quite well.
Windows itself provides APIs for audio you can use.
Any soundcard with a Windows driver will by definition support these.
However Windows allows for other APIs to be installed.
There are two major ones you'll run across:1) OpenAL.
This was developed by Creative Labs because they wanted better support for hardware sound acceleration, which is something that few companies do.2) ASIO.
This was developed by Steinberg for professional audio to provide a multi-channel, low latency, cross platform interface.Now, suppose you like one of those formats and want to use them in your app.
Ok, great, but your app will suddenly not work on a whole bunch of systems.
Most soundcards don't support OpenAL or ASIO.
They support MME, DS, and WDM/KS because those are the Windows formats and by having a Windows drier you'll support them, but they don't support the others.
In fact the Creative Labs X-Fi are the only series of cards I'm aware of that support both OpenAL and ASIO.
You can find other cards that support one or the other but not both.So then what to do?
Well you can go for the software shim idea.
This is usually what OpenAL games do.
They have an openal32.dll in their directory that performs conversion from OpenAL to one of the Windows formats (DirectSound usually).
However this has numerous problems in that you lose functionality, it takes more resources, is another area for problems, etc.
If you sniff around online you can find all kinds of problems related to this with games and various hack solutions form gamers for it.In the case of ASIO there is a very nice 3rd party program, ASIO4ALL that does a good job of translating from ASIO to WDM/KS.
Works in almost all cases, it's grade A stuff and is free.
However, you lose any special features ASIO would get you.
You are interfacing with a soundcard in KS mode effectively if you do that.
So why not just have your program support that anyhow?Now take that mess, and then go the Linux route where there isn't a guaranteed standard.
It is a whole bunch of different shit and you don't know what you will and won't have on any given system or piece of hardware.
There's isn't the "MME" option like in Windows that is universally supported.These multiple, competing and sometimes conflicting standards really do make shit hard.
I'm not saying that it should be a situation of "There is only one way to do things, everything else is banned.
" No that's not the case even on Windows.
However there needs to be a default that ALL Linux distros support.
Everything can use the default, and then you can have support for others as well if you like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155801</id>
	<title>Re:Use Qt....</title>
	<author>mixmasta</author>
	<datestamp>1243707900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The file picker is not ugly per se<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... rather I think you mean that it is a poor design.  That may be true, but I suspect it has little to do with the underlying toolkit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The file picker is not ugly per se ... rather I think you mean that it is a poor design .
That may be true , but I suspect it has little to do with the underlying toolkit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The file picker is not ugly per se ... rather I think you mean that it is a poor design.
That may be true, but I suspect it has little to do with the underlying toolkit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151521</id>
	<title>Re:Um....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243716000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So let me ask you this, if Chrome treated each Linux distribution as an OS, would you be happy when Chrome was ported to Ubuntu and not Fedora or SUSE?</p><p>Personally I think the whole situation is fubar. There should be three distributions, different-enough to be treated as independent OSes: GNOME, KDE, "Other/Build Your Own".</p><p>No, nobody gives a shit what the kernel is-- the OS is the UI, and the UI is the OS. (Think about it: if Apple ported OS X to run on the NT Kernel, would it still be OS X or would it magically turn into Windows?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So let me ask you this , if Chrome treated each Linux distribution as an OS , would you be happy when Chrome was ported to Ubuntu and not Fedora or SUSE ? Personally I think the whole situation is fubar .
There should be three distributions , different-enough to be treated as independent OSes : GNOME , KDE , " Other/Build Your Own " .No , nobody gives a shit what the kernel is-- the OS is the UI , and the UI is the OS .
( Think about it : if Apple ported OS X to run on the NT Kernel , would it still be OS X or would it magically turn into Windows ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So let me ask you this, if Chrome treated each Linux distribution as an OS, would you be happy when Chrome was ported to Ubuntu and not Fedora or SUSE?Personally I think the whole situation is fubar.
There should be three distributions, different-enough to be treated as independent OSes: GNOME, KDE, "Other/Build Your Own".No, nobody gives a shit what the kernel is-- the OS is the UI, and the UI is the OS.
(Think about it: if Apple ported OS X to run on the NT Kernel, would it still be OS X or would it magically turn into Windows?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151269</id>
	<title>Linux's greatest strength = greatest weakness</title>
	<author>CyberK</author>
	<datestamp>1243714560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's face it, one of the things all Linux evangelists like to emphasise is the opportunity to use whatever you want and even build it yourself if you want to. But it's maddening for developers to create something that will work on every kind of linux desktop in existence. From political choices of free vs. non-free, to preferred distribution, version numbers, favourite window manager and a host of other choices, no two desktops will be the same. Linux isn't an operating system, it's an operating eco-system. Taking Google as an example, today I tried to install Google Earth on my Ubuntu 9.04 laptop to no avail, despite it having installed without a hitch on my Xubuntu 7.04  Pentium III plaything in my room back in my parent's house. The exact same version of the program with dramatic differences depending on where you try it, that quickly becomes a support nightmare.
<br> <br>
Now for the dedicated GNOME/KDE/xfce/whatever volunteer this does not pose much of a problem because your target audience has broadly the same machine makeup as you do, but for a commercial developer  looking for a good ROI it quickly becomes untenable. Windows and Mac OS provide a devoloper with a guaranteed stable platform development-wise, and as such are much safer bets.
<br> <br>
I agree that the only way Linux can make itself more attractive to commercial desktop program developers is with a mighty amount of consolidation, but the problem is that I don't think it will happen. The great OS wars that went before the dominance of Windows had winners and losers because they were systems of a closed nature, and so if you held with a losing team they closed down because it wasn't economically viable and you had to move to something more mainstream, thus consolidating the market. With Linux a project will never close down as long as someone like it more than something else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's face it , one of the things all Linux evangelists like to emphasise is the opportunity to use whatever you want and even build it yourself if you want to .
But it 's maddening for developers to create something that will work on every kind of linux desktop in existence .
From political choices of free vs. non-free , to preferred distribution , version numbers , favourite window manager and a host of other choices , no two desktops will be the same .
Linux is n't an operating system , it 's an operating eco-system .
Taking Google as an example , today I tried to install Google Earth on my Ubuntu 9.04 laptop to no avail , despite it having installed without a hitch on my Xubuntu 7.04 Pentium III plaything in my room back in my parent 's house .
The exact same version of the program with dramatic differences depending on where you try it , that quickly becomes a support nightmare .
Now for the dedicated GNOME/KDE/xfce/whatever volunteer this does not pose much of a problem because your target audience has broadly the same machine makeup as you do , but for a commercial developer looking for a good ROI it quickly becomes untenable .
Windows and Mac OS provide a devoloper with a guaranteed stable platform development-wise , and as such are much safer bets .
I agree that the only way Linux can make itself more attractive to commercial desktop program developers is with a mighty amount of consolidation , but the problem is that I do n't think it will happen .
The great OS wars that went before the dominance of Windows had winners and losers because they were systems of a closed nature , and so if you held with a losing team they closed down because it was n't economically viable and you had to move to something more mainstream , thus consolidating the market .
With Linux a project will never close down as long as someone like it more than something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's face it, one of the things all Linux evangelists like to emphasise is the opportunity to use whatever you want and even build it yourself if you want to.
But it's maddening for developers to create something that will work on every kind of linux desktop in existence.
From political choices of free vs. non-free, to preferred distribution, version numbers, favourite window manager and a host of other choices, no two desktops will be the same.
Linux isn't an operating system, it's an operating eco-system.
Taking Google as an example, today I tried to install Google Earth on my Ubuntu 9.04 laptop to no avail, despite it having installed without a hitch on my Xubuntu 7.04  Pentium III plaything in my room back in my parent's house.
The exact same version of the program with dramatic differences depending on where you try it, that quickly becomes a support nightmare.
Now for the dedicated GNOME/KDE/xfce/whatever volunteer this does not pose much of a problem because your target audience has broadly the same machine makeup as you do, but for a commercial developer  looking for a good ROI it quickly becomes untenable.
Windows and Mac OS provide a devoloper with a guaranteed stable platform development-wise, and as such are much safer bets.
I agree that the only way Linux can make itself more attractive to commercial desktop program developers is with a mighty amount of consolidation, but the problem is that I don't think it will happen.
The great OS wars that went before the dominance of Windows had winners and losers because they were systems of a closed nature, and so if you held with a losing team they closed down because it wasn't economically viable and you had to move to something more mainstream, thus consolidating the market.
With Linux a project will never close down as long as someone like it more than something else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151851</id>
	<title>Re:it's why Windows took over in the first place</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1243674780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Fast forward a few decades, and to a 0th order approximation, all apps are written for Windows, and Unix derivatives are dead on the desktop.</p></div></blockquote><p>You're forgetting about OS X here.</p><blockquote><div><p>The only way Linux can hope to succeed is to present a unified environment to developers *and* users. Period. Yes, that means the over-complex KDE will have to die. Yes, that means binary compatibility must stop being broken from OS update to OS update. Yes, that means supporting DRM so that users can play their streaming videos from Netflix.</p></div></blockquote><p>Won't happen. Period.</p><p>What you're saying is along the lines of "The EU will have to die, and all countries will have to become states of the USA". Nice ideal maybe, except for all those people who want to have nothing to do with the american government. And things will go exactly the same way if phrased as "America will have to die, and all countries will have to become members of the EU".</p><p>KDE won't die so long there are people interested in working on it. It doens't matter how many people proclaim that it, or Gnome, or whatever else must go in the name of unification.</p><p>Even if what you said is the complete undisputable truth, the fact is that in the absence of any effective pressure nobody really gives a damn about what you or anybody else thinks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fast forward a few decades , and to a 0th order approximation , all apps are written for Windows , and Unix derivatives are dead on the desktop.You 're forgetting about OS X here.The only way Linux can hope to succeed is to present a unified environment to developers * and * users .
Period. Yes , that means the over-complex KDE will have to die .
Yes , that means binary compatibility must stop being broken from OS update to OS update .
Yes , that means supporting DRM so that users can play their streaming videos from Netflix.Wo n't happen .
Period.What you 're saying is along the lines of " The EU will have to die , and all countries will have to become states of the USA " .
Nice ideal maybe , except for all those people who want to have nothing to do with the american government .
And things will go exactly the same way if phrased as " America will have to die , and all countries will have to become members of the EU " .KDE wo n't die so long there are people interested in working on it .
It doens't matter how many people proclaim that it , or Gnome , or whatever else must go in the name of unification.Even if what you said is the complete undisputable truth , the fact is that in the absence of any effective pressure nobody really gives a damn about what you or anybody else thinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fast forward a few decades, and to a 0th order approximation, all apps are written for Windows, and Unix derivatives are dead on the desktop.You're forgetting about OS X here.The only way Linux can hope to succeed is to present a unified environment to developers *and* users.
Period. Yes, that means the over-complex KDE will have to die.
Yes, that means binary compatibility must stop being broken from OS update to OS update.
Yes, that means supporting DRM so that users can play their streaming videos from Netflix.Won't happen.
Period.What you're saying is along the lines of "The EU will have to die, and all countries will have to become states of the USA".
Nice ideal maybe, except for all those people who want to have nothing to do with the american government.
And things will go exactly the same way if phrased as "America will have to die, and all countries will have to become members of the EU".KDE won't die so long there are people interested in working on it.
It doens't matter how many people proclaim that it, or Gnome, or whatever else must go in the name of unification.Even if what you said is the complete undisputable truth, the fact is that in the absence of any effective pressure nobody really gives a damn about what you or anybody else thinks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152713</id>
	<title>Next poll</title>
	<author>slackoon</author>
	<datestamp>1243680000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's more likely: Standardization (which involves Microsoft working in cooperation with apple and Linux developers) or North Korea just saying "oh sorry, my bad, here's the nukes". Not too sure where I'd vote!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's more likely : Standardization ( which involves Microsoft working in cooperation with apple and Linux developers ) or North Korea just saying " oh sorry , my bad , here 's the nukes " .
Not too sure where I 'd vote !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's more likely: Standardization (which involves Microsoft working in cooperation with apple and Linux developers) or North Korea just saying "oh sorry, my bad, here's the nukes".
Not too sure where I'd vote!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152233</id>
	<title>monopolies</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1243677180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There ARE advantages to monopolies. They are more than happy to standardize things and make life easier. Of course, in the end, it is what is easiest, and most profitable in the long run, for the monopoly, not the other companies. So yes. Google will find it MUCH easier to develop on MS. Of course, so did AOL, Stacker, Netscape, Word Perfect, etc.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>There ARE advantages to monopolies .
They are more than happy to standardize things and make life easier .
Of course , in the end , it is what is easiest , and most profitable in the long run , for the monopoly , not the other companies .
So yes .
Google will find it MUCH easier to develop on MS. Of course , so did AOL , Stacker , Netscape , Word Perfect , etc.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There ARE advantages to monopolies.
They are more than happy to standardize things and make life easier.
Of course, in the end, it is what is easiest, and most profitable in the long run, for the monopoly, not the other companies.
So yes.
Google will find it MUCH easier to develop on MS. Of course, so did AOL, Stacker, Netscape, Word Perfect, etc.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151479</id>
	<title>RTFA</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1243715760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is really going on is that they have wrapped a new layout engine ("views") and other tools around the "impoverished" (their words) Windows toolkits.  Then, they started depending on their wrapper for features they added to Chrome.  Now, when porting to Linux, they are suddenly discovering that, geez, both Gtk+ and Qt already does what "views" is doing, they just do it differently and in a way that doesn't connect well with the rest of Chrome.  That's what they are complaining about.</p><p>Ben Goodger, here's a hint: pick Gtk+ or Qt as your toolkit, Linux users really don't care that much.  And both of them are much better toolkits than what Windows offers.  I'm sorry that the completeness of Linux GUI toolkits inconveniences you, but, well, too bad.</p><p>Or, if you like, don't port to Linux; we don't really care all that much, since there are several great browsers on Linux already that pretty much do what Chrome does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is really going on is that they have wrapped a new layout engine ( " views " ) and other tools around the " impoverished " ( their words ) Windows toolkits .
Then , they started depending on their wrapper for features they added to Chrome .
Now , when porting to Linux , they are suddenly discovering that , geez , both Gtk + and Qt already does what " views " is doing , they just do it differently and in a way that does n't connect well with the rest of Chrome .
That 's what they are complaining about.Ben Goodger , here 's a hint : pick Gtk + or Qt as your toolkit , Linux users really do n't care that much .
And both of them are much better toolkits than what Windows offers .
I 'm sorry that the completeness of Linux GUI toolkits inconveniences you , but , well , too bad.Or , if you like , do n't port to Linux ; we do n't really care all that much , since there are several great browsers on Linux already that pretty much do what Chrome does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is really going on is that they have wrapped a new layout engine ("views") and other tools around the "impoverished" (their words) Windows toolkits.
Then, they started depending on their wrapper for features they added to Chrome.
Now, when porting to Linux, they are suddenly discovering that, geez, both Gtk+ and Qt already does what "views" is doing, they just do it differently and in a way that doesn't connect well with the rest of Chrome.
That's what they are complaining about.Ben Goodger, here's a hint: pick Gtk+ or Qt as your toolkit, Linux users really don't care that much.
And both of them are much better toolkits than what Windows offers.
I'm sorry that the completeness of Linux GUI toolkits inconveniences you, but, well, too bad.Or, if you like, don't port to Linux; we don't really care all that much, since there are several great browsers on Linux already that pretty much do what Chrome does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153681</id>
	<title>Christ, everybody just shut up about look and feel</title>
	<author>Master of Transhuman</author>
	<datestamp>1243686600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am sick to death of hearing developers bitch about "native look and feel". Grow up! Get a fucking life! I couldn't care less how the goddamn app looks COMPARED TO OTHER APPS as long as the look enables the FUNCTIONALITY to be performed correctly.</p><p>What matters is that the program does it's job - not that the widgets look the same as some other app on the system.</p><p>Christ, what a fucking waste of millions of man hours farting around with bullshit cosmetic issues! Fucking programmers think they're goddamn "artistes" when they can't even get their shit to RUN PROPERLY, NOT CRASH, BE FUCKING USABLE, and BE SECURE!</p><p>Shut the fuck up about look and feel and concentrate on making the thing fucking usable, reliable, and secure.</p><p>You want to be Picasso, get a fucking paintbrush!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sick to death of hearing developers bitch about " native look and feel " .
Grow up !
Get a fucking life !
I could n't care less how the goddamn app looks COMPARED TO OTHER APPS as long as the look enables the FUNCTIONALITY to be performed correctly.What matters is that the program does it 's job - not that the widgets look the same as some other app on the system.Christ , what a fucking waste of millions of man hours farting around with bullshit cosmetic issues !
Fucking programmers think they 're goddamn " artistes " when they ca n't even get their shit to RUN PROPERLY , NOT CRASH , BE FUCKING USABLE , and BE SECURE ! Shut the fuck up about look and feel and concentrate on making the thing fucking usable , reliable , and secure.You want to be Picasso , get a fucking paintbrush !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sick to death of hearing developers bitch about "native look and feel".
Grow up!
Get a fucking life!
I couldn't care less how the goddamn app looks COMPARED TO OTHER APPS as long as the look enables the FUNCTIONALITY to be performed correctly.What matters is that the program does it's job - not that the widgets look the same as some other app on the system.Christ, what a fucking waste of millions of man hours farting around with bullshit cosmetic issues!
Fucking programmers think they're goddamn "artistes" when they can't even get their shit to RUN PROPERLY, NOT CRASH, BE FUCKING USABLE, and BE SECURE!Shut the fuck up about look and feel and concentrate on making the thing fucking usable, reliable, and secure.You want to be Picasso, get a fucking paintbrush!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151545</id>
	<title>Chromium != Chrome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243716060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're two very different things. One is the open source PART of the chrome browser, the other is a browser binary, built in part on the Chromium source, that reports usage information back to Google, one subset of this being non-optional. Please don't get these two confused, no matter how much clueless reporting there is on the relationship between the two. The latter is, in my opinion, a privacy leakage too far.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're two very different things .
One is the open source PART of the chrome browser , the other is a browser binary , built in part on the Chromium source , that reports usage information back to Google , one subset of this being non-optional .
Please do n't get these two confused , no matter how much clueless reporting there is on the relationship between the two .
The latter is , in my opinion , a privacy leakage too far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're two very different things.
One is the open source PART of the chrome browser, the other is a browser binary, built in part on the Chromium source, that reports usage information back to Google, one subset of this being non-optional.
Please don't get these two confused, no matter how much clueless reporting there is on the relationship between the two.
The latter is, in my opinion, a privacy leakage too far.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151151</id>
	<title>Just write your own widget toolkit :)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243713720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I'm sorta serious... in the original thread, Ben mentions that the Windows APIs are "kinda impoverished" and they wound up doing a lot of work that the higher-level widget toolkits (like GTK+, Qt, MFC or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET) would do.  Maybe they should have just used Xlib/Xt instead and duplicated everything they did for Windows, especially if they want a completely consistent cross-platform look and feel, BUT don't want to be hamstrung by any single UI library's way of doing things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'm sorta serious... in the original thread , Ben mentions that the Windows APIs are " kinda impoverished " and they wound up doing a lot of work that the higher-level widget toolkits ( like GTK + , Qt , MFC or .NET ) would do .
Maybe they should have just used Xlib/Xt instead and duplicated everything they did for Windows , especially if they want a completely consistent cross-platform look and feel , BUT do n't want to be hamstrung by any single UI library 's way of doing things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'm sorta serious... in the original thread, Ben mentions that the Windows APIs are "kinda impoverished" and they wound up doing a lot of work that the higher-level widget toolkits (like GTK+, Qt, MFC or .NET) would do.
Maybe they should have just used Xlib/Xt instead and duplicated everything they did for Windows, especially if they want a completely consistent cross-platform look and feel, BUT don't want to be hamstrung by any single UI library's way of doing things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28164539</id>
	<title>Re:and this is different from other platforms... h</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243794000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"there are several native toolkits there (Win32, MFC,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)"</p><p>wrong, is the same toolkit wrapped, not three different toolkits</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" there are several native toolkits there ( Win32 , MFC , .NET , ... ) " wrong , is the same toolkit wrapped , not three different toolkits</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"there are several native toolkits there (Win32, MFC, .NET, ...)"wrong, is the same toolkit wrapped, not three different toolkits</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152257</id>
	<title>Re:Use Qt....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243677360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GTK is faster, but that's pretty much all it has on QT.<br>QT's use of string based sig-slot adds a bit of overhead. For most gui apps this wont matter.</p><p>(But if you want an example: load up a 1000 line text file in Kate, and in Geany side by side. Then try to select a large chunk of the text with the mouse. See how well the selection keeps up with the mouse movements. Kate is way slower than Geany.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GTK is faster , but that 's pretty much all it has on QT.QT 's use of string based sig-slot adds a bit of overhead .
For most gui apps this wont matter .
( But if you want an example : load up a 1000 line text file in Kate , and in Geany side by side .
Then try to select a large chunk of the text with the mouse .
See how well the selection keeps up with the mouse movements .
Kate is way slower than Geany .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GTK is faster, but that's pretty much all it has on QT.QT's use of string based sig-slot adds a bit of overhead.
For most gui apps this wont matter.
(But if you want an example: load up a 1000 line text file in Kate, and in Geany side by side.
Then try to select a large chunk of the text with the mouse.
See how well the selection keeps up with the mouse movements.
Kate is way slower than Geany.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152813</id>
	<title>Whereas if Google were in charge of  Linux . . .</title>
	<author>Cyberllama</author>
	<datestamp>1243680660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would still be in beta.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would still be in beta .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would still be in beta.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151279</id>
	<title>Article by Slashdot completely distorts reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243714620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Follow the discussion, and you'll find it's not about complaints at all, at all, at all. Google is trying to figure out the best way to do Chrome for Linux, while making it something that Linux users will actually like, and that means more choices.  That's all.  No, it's not about needing to standardize, so could someone at Slashdot quit with that FUD? GNU/Linux is about choice, and it always will be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Follow the discussion , and you 'll find it 's not about complaints at all , at all , at all .
Google is trying to figure out the best way to do Chrome for Linux , while making it something that Linux users will actually like , and that means more choices .
That 's all .
No , it 's not about needing to standardize , so could someone at Slashdot quit with that FUD ?
GNU/Linux is about choice , and it always will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Follow the discussion, and you'll find it's not about complaints at all, at all, at all.
Google is trying to figure out the best way to do Chrome for Linux, while making it something that Linux users will actually like, and that means more choices.
That's all.
No, it's not about needing to standardize, so could someone at Slashdot quit with that FUD?
GNU/Linux is about choice, and it always will be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151635</id>
	<title>Re:Use Qt....</title>
	<author>arth1</author>
	<datestamp>1243716660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because for large projects, porting from C to C++ can be non-trivial?</p><p>Anyhow, I don't see the need to polarize it between the two.  The beauty of the open source movement is that there is room for an <i>endless</i> amount of forks.  It's called evolution.  The weaker ones die out, while the stronger ones grow and fork.  "But how am I to choose what to use then?" I hear the closed source advocates cry.  Simply put, you too have to evolve, and be able to adapt to the APIs that are there tomorrow.  If you can't, <i>your</i> product will fail, and it isn't due to what you chose to interface with -- it's because you're a dinosaur who couldn't adapt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because for large projects , porting from C to C + + can be non-trivial ? Anyhow , I do n't see the need to polarize it between the two .
The beauty of the open source movement is that there is room for an endless amount of forks .
It 's called evolution .
The weaker ones die out , while the stronger ones grow and fork .
" But how am I to choose what to use then ?
" I hear the closed source advocates cry .
Simply put , you too have to evolve , and be able to adapt to the APIs that are there tomorrow .
If you ca n't , your product will fail , and it is n't due to what you chose to interface with -- it 's because you 're a dinosaur who could n't adapt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because for large projects, porting from C to C++ can be non-trivial?Anyhow, I don't see the need to polarize it between the two.
The beauty of the open source movement is that there is room for an endless amount of forks.
It's called evolution.
The weaker ones die out, while the stronger ones grow and fork.
"But how am I to choose what to use then?
" I hear the closed source advocates cry.
Simply put, you too have to evolve, and be able to adapt to the APIs that are there tomorrow.
If you can't, your product will fail, and it isn't due to what you chose to interface with -- it's because you're a dinosaur who couldn't adapt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155031</id>
	<title>Re:it's why Windows took over in the first place</title>
	<author>Spit</author>
	<datestamp>1243699500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know what you're talking about, I've got Loki games from 2000/01 which work perfectly on my current system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what you 're talking about , I 've got Loki games from 2000/01 which work perfectly on my current system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what you're talking about, I've got Loki games from 2000/01 which work perfectly on my current system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153555</id>
	<title>Re:Qt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243685760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OP didn't ask "why didn't they use Qt", he stated that they *should* have used it.  Your pointing out Ben Goodger's ridiculous response has nothing to do with that statement.</p><p>Personally, I read Goodger's response and I get the feeling he knows deep down that they chose the wrong tech, and are trying to justify their choice.  Sad to see Google do that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OP did n't ask " why did n't they use Qt " , he stated that they * should * have used it .
Your pointing out Ben Goodger 's ridiculous response has nothing to do with that statement.Personally , I read Goodger 's response and I get the feeling he knows deep down that they chose the wrong tech , and are trying to justify their choice .
Sad to see Google do that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OP didn't ask "why didn't they use Qt", he stated that they *should* have used it.
Your pointing out Ben Goodger's ridiculous response has nothing to do with that statement.Personally, I read Goodger's response and I get the feeling he knows deep down that they chose the wrong tech, and are trying to justify their choice.
Sad to see Google do that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154219</id>
	<title>Forget GTK, use QT</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1243690560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since Google is using Webkit for the rendering engine, using QT for the linux version makes sense (especially now that its LGPL)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since Google is using Webkit for the rendering engine , using QT for the linux version makes sense ( especially now that its LGPL )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since Google is using Webkit for the rendering engine, using QT for the linux version makes sense (especially now that its LGPL)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152029</id>
	<title>Re:it's why Windows took over in the first place</title>
	<author>Limerent Oil</author>
	<datestamp>1243675800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... that means binary compatibility must stop being broken from OS update to OS update.</p><p>It's simply the arrogance of Linux developers that have crippled Linux adoption.</p></div><p>IMHO, this is the biggest barrier that keeps commercial development out of Linux. Basically, the Linux philosophy assumes that all applications are open source, so it doesn't matter if the ABI changes with every point release of the kernel, since the distros can just recompile all their binaries when packaging. This philosophy is incompatible with the commercial software method of distributing apps as binary blobs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... that means binary compatibility must stop being broken from OS update to OS update.It 's simply the arrogance of Linux developers that have crippled Linux adoption.IMHO , this is the biggest barrier that keeps commercial development out of Linux .
Basically , the Linux philosophy assumes that all applications are open source , so it does n't matter if the ABI changes with every point release of the kernel , since the distros can just recompile all their binaries when packaging .
This philosophy is incompatible with the commercial software method of distributing apps as binary blobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... that means binary compatibility must stop being broken from OS update to OS update.It's simply the arrogance of Linux developers that have crippled Linux adoption.IMHO, this is the biggest barrier that keeps commercial development out of Linux.
Basically, the Linux philosophy assumes that all applications are open source, so it doesn't matter if the ABI changes with every point release of the kernel, since the distros can just recompile all their binaries when packaging.
This philosophy is incompatible with the commercial software method of distributing apps as binary blobs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153749</id>
	<title>Re:it's why Windows took over in the first place</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243687200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm sure I'll get modded as a troll</p></div><p>I wish people who had things to say would stop suffixing their comments with stupid shit like this.</p><p>"You're not going to like my opinion blah"</p><p>It sounds so stupid. Just say what you think and don't bother with this "ah you're not going to like this which implies somehow that it is true or something"</p><p>Of course Windows owns the desktop. Their market share makes that clear.<br>As for DRM, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Is it literally impossible to run something that requires DRM on a Linux system? This kind of amazes me. It would seem that Linux is a magical DRM-breaker now.</p><p>And the streaming videos... I'm guessing it's based on Flash, right? The only people you can blame for poor Flash support on Linux is Adobe themselves, for not supporting it.</p><p>Adobe wants to target the majority of people, so understandably, they focus on Windows and Mac development.<br>But their code is closed. Linux just kinda sits there whining at them while they make terrible plugins and keep their code too closed for any alternatives to replace them.</p><p>I would argue against your KDE comment, if only you'd explained it enough. Which parts are complex?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure I 'll get modded as a trollI wish people who had things to say would stop suffixing their comments with stupid shit like this .
" You 're not going to like my opinion blah " It sounds so stupid .
Just say what you think and do n't bother with this " ah you 're not going to like this which implies somehow that it is true or something " Of course Windows owns the desktop .
Their market share makes that clear.As for DRM , I 'm not sure what you 're getting at .
Is it literally impossible to run something that requires DRM on a Linux system ?
This kind of amazes me .
It would seem that Linux is a magical DRM-breaker now.And the streaming videos... I 'm guessing it 's based on Flash , right ?
The only people you can blame for poor Flash support on Linux is Adobe themselves , for not supporting it.Adobe wants to target the majority of people , so understandably , they focus on Windows and Mac development.But their code is closed .
Linux just kinda sits there whining at them while they make terrible plugins and keep their code too closed for any alternatives to replace them.I would argue against your KDE comment , if only you 'd explained it enough .
Which parts are complex ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure I'll get modded as a trollI wish people who had things to say would stop suffixing their comments with stupid shit like this.
"You're not going to like my opinion blah"It sounds so stupid.
Just say what you think and don't bother with this "ah you're not going to like this which implies somehow that it is true or something"Of course Windows owns the desktop.
Their market share makes that clear.As for DRM, I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Is it literally impossible to run something that requires DRM on a Linux system?
This kind of amazes me.
It would seem that Linux is a magical DRM-breaker now.And the streaming videos... I'm guessing it's based on Flash, right?
The only people you can blame for poor Flash support on Linux is Adobe themselves, for not supporting it.Adobe wants to target the majority of people, so understandably, they focus on Windows and Mac development.But their code is closed.
Linux just kinda sits there whining at them while they make terrible plugins and keep their code too closed for any alternatives to replace them.I would argue against your KDE comment, if only you'd explained it enough.
Which parts are complex?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152947</id>
	<title>Re:RTFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243681560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We did pick a toolkit.  We picked GTK+.  It is not "more complete" or "better" than on Windows.  Our problems did not stem from not planning for portability, since we intended to port from day 1, and most of us are former Linux developers, not Windows developers.  And the amount of whining from the Slashdot etc. crowd regarding the lack of a Linux version duggests you're wrong about no one caring too.</p><p>Four strikes, you're out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We did pick a toolkit .
We picked GTK + .
It is not " more complete " or " better " than on Windows .
Our problems did not stem from not planning for portability , since we intended to port from day 1 , and most of us are former Linux developers , not Windows developers .
And the amount of whining from the Slashdot etc .
crowd regarding the lack of a Linux version duggests you 're wrong about no one caring too.Four strikes , you 're out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We did pick a toolkit.
We picked GTK+.
It is not "more complete" or "better" than on Windows.
Our problems did not stem from not planning for portability, since we intended to port from day 1, and most of us are former Linux developers, not Windows developers.
And the amount of whining from the Slashdot etc.
crowd regarding the lack of a Linux version duggests you're wrong about no one caring too.Four strikes, you're out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152823</id>
	<title>Efficient development and a consistent desktop</title>
	<author>janwedekind</author>
	<datestamp>1243680720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Myself I use Kubuntu and Firefox as a browser. While the GTK look and feel of Firefox does not blend well with KDE, it offers compelling functionality (free software, addons, browser history, spell checking,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...).<br>In my opinion they should use Ruby or Python and the corresponding Qt- and GTK-bindings. By leveraging the power of a scripting language, it should be possible to efficiently develop customised GUIs for each desktop and platform. I currently use Ruby and Qt4-QtRuby and I must say that I can work much faster than with C++ and Qt4 as I did previously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Myself I use Kubuntu and Firefox as a browser .
While the GTK look and feel of Firefox does not blend well with KDE , it offers compelling functionality ( free software , addons , browser history , spell checking , ... ) .In my opinion they should use Ruby or Python and the corresponding Qt- and GTK-bindings .
By leveraging the power of a scripting language , it should be possible to efficiently develop customised GUIs for each desktop and platform .
I currently use Ruby and Qt4-QtRuby and I must say that I can work much faster than with C + + and Qt4 as I did previously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Myself I use Kubuntu and Firefox as a browser.
While the GTK look and feel of Firefox does not blend well with KDE, it offers compelling functionality (free software, addons, browser history, spell checking, ...).In my opinion they should use Ruby or Python and the corresponding Qt- and GTK-bindings.
By leveraging the power of a scripting language, it should be possible to efficiently develop customised GUIs for each desktop and platform.
I currently use Ruby and Qt4-QtRuby and I must say that I can work much faster than with C++ and Qt4 as I did previously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28177147</id>
	<title>Re:Is this really a surprise?</title>
	<author>Homer1946</author>
	<datestamp>1243871820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's a reason the kernel is not handled like the rest of Linux, but why we are all so stubborn to insist that everything else does not apply.</p></div><p>I think this is a critical point. The fact that the kernel is standardized and (mostly) not fractured over a number of forks seems to be the glue holding Linux together. Imagine where Linux would be without that stable foundation and imagine where it might be if some of the higher level parts were to become more standard.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a reason the kernel is not handled like the rest of Linux , but why we are all so stubborn to insist that everything else does not apply.I think this is a critical point .
The fact that the kernel is standardized and ( mostly ) not fractured over a number of forks seems to be the glue holding Linux together .
Imagine where Linux would be without that stable foundation and imagine where it might be if some of the higher level parts were to become more standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a reason the kernel is not handled like the rest of Linux, but why we are all so stubborn to insist that everything else does not apply.I think this is a critical point.
The fact that the kernel is standardized and (mostly) not fractured over a number of forks seems to be the glue holding Linux together.
Imagine where Linux would be without that stable foundation and imagine where it might be if some of the higher level parts were to become more standard.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154751</id>
	<title>Corporate freeloaders</title>
	<author>bug1</author>
	<datestamp>1243696080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So corporations are complaining that the software that they get for free and use to make truck loads of money isnt exactly what they want.</p><p>Ive got an idea, WRITE YOUR OWN DAMNED SOFTWARE, or maybe participate constructively in the community. Dont just complain, do some work yourself on the same terms as the work you received.</p><p>"Did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has no body to be kicked and no soul to be damned?" - Edward Thurlow</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So corporations are complaining that the software that they get for free and use to make truck loads of money isnt exactly what they want.Ive got an idea , WRITE YOUR OWN DAMNED SOFTWARE , or maybe participate constructively in the community .
Dont just complain , do some work yourself on the same terms as the work you received .
" Did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience , when it has no body to be kicked and no soul to be damned ?
" - Edward Thurlow</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So corporations are complaining that the software that they get for free and use to make truck loads of money isnt exactly what they want.Ive got an idea, WRITE YOUR OWN DAMNED SOFTWARE, or maybe participate constructively in the community.
Dont just complain, do some work yourself on the same terms as the work you received.
"Did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has no body to be kicked and no soul to be damned?
" - Edward Thurlow</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151367</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see anything wrong</title>
	<author>Rotonen</author>
	<datestamp>1243715100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Make the low end - GUI toolkits, audio subsystems, graphic subsystems - coherent and leave the user experience to the users.</p></div><p>Exactly the thing making people not use open source. The so called "out of the box experience" makes or breaks the product in question for most people. Especially if they are expecting something based on past experience. (Which at least in my universe is most likely to come from Microsoftian solutions.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Make the low end - GUI toolkits , audio subsystems , graphic subsystems - coherent and leave the user experience to the users.Exactly the thing making people not use open source .
The so called " out of the box experience " makes or breaks the product in question for most people .
Especially if they are expecting something based on past experience .
( Which at least in my universe is most likely to come from Microsoftian solutions .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make the low end - GUI toolkits, audio subsystems, graphic subsystems - coherent and leave the user experience to the users.Exactly the thing making people not use open source.
The so called "out of the box experience" makes or breaks the product in question for most people.
Especially if they are expecting something based on past experience.
(Which at least in my universe is most likely to come from Microsoftian solutions.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153897</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243688280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Here is the great thing about having dozens of GUI toolkits, multiple libc, and several audio APIs. You only have to choose 1! </i>
<br> <br>
Not really so.  I, for example, prefer using Awesome WM for my window manager.  However, if I want to run the majority of useful software out there, I need to install a good portion of Gnome and/or KDE. You can tell me to settle on one, but then I'm giving up functionality I want or need.  I need to have at least three in order for the OS to be useful.
<br> <br>
<i>Every time somebody complains about the "mess" of GUI toolkits, it just comes off as senseless whining. Where are the downsides?</i>
<br> <br>
There's no standard to which a commercial company wishing to produce software for the market to code for.  The LSB was an awesomely bad attempt that never really went anywhere...aside to providing yet another incompatible compatibility layer in the mix.  You can follow that argument up with "well, it's Linux, I don't want to run commercial software.  That's the point of Linux!"  No, the point, so I've been told is: I don't have to worry about security or viruses or hackers as much with Linux.  It's more stable, it's faster, blah, blah, blah...but, believe it or not, free software doesn't provide me with 100\% of the FUNCTIONALITYI want/need, and I have to turn to commercial software to get it.  That, however, becomes difficult because commercial vendors don't want to write to it (RTFA, for example) because in order for them to say "It works on Linux" it really has to say "It works on Fedora and Gentoo and Ubuntu and ArchLinux and Linux from Scratch and Puppy Linux and...so on and so on and so on."  Is it possible to do write software that can do so?  Absolutely.  Is it fiscally responsible to try to put enough effort into doing so?  Is the potential base large enough to make it worth my while?  Well, I think the companies have spoken on that point.
<br> <br>
<i>There are only 2 major ones, and if you don't have experience in either, just pick one.</i>
<br> <br>
I pick neither...now I can't run much in the way of commercial software.  Thanks for making the choice for me...
<br> <br>
<i>The only downside I can think of is that end-users need several GUI toolkits installed, for their multiple programs that use different toolkits</i>
<br> <br>
Because, when you want a light, lean, fast OS that's really the best way to do things.  That's a huge downside for you to just gloss over.
<br> <br>
<i>Linux still has a better features/size ratio than any other major OS,</i>
<br> <br>
Really?  How so?  Since, for the most part, most of the apps I use daily are Open Source and therefore available for every other major OS AND those OSes also have a wealth of choices of commercial vendors, which Linux does not have...how is it that it has MORE?
<br> <br>
<i>Windows and Mac have the same problem (SDL, GTK+, etc</i>
<br> <br>
They do?  SDL is a port of graphics capabilities that already have APIs in Windows...it's just someone wanted to port their Linux software to Windows, but didn't want to have to use Windows APIs for some reason.  GTK is similar.  Those problems were introduced TO the OS, they don't come WITH the OS.
<br> <br>
<i>the dlls have to be included with the binary downloads because Windows/Mac don't have an easy to use package manager</i>
<br> <br>
This is the point: Windows doesn't NEED a package manager.  The reason you need a package manager is because it's almost impossible for someone to know they've got every single dependency a given piece of software might need.  The INSTALL and README files don't always include every dependency and even if they do, you often then have to go find the dependency THOSE packages have, too.  Proof?  Install Ubuntu Server on a machine.  Then, run "apt-get install firefox" and look at everything that needs to be installed in order for that to work.  See any in there you might not have imagined?  A lot of people try Linux From Scratch.  Most will probably succeed in building an OS, very few can use it as their daily OS because without a package mana</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the great thing about having dozens of GUI toolkits , multiple libc , and several audio APIs .
You only have to choose 1 !
Not really so .
I , for example , prefer using Awesome WM for my window manager .
However , if I want to run the majority of useful software out there , I need to install a good portion of Gnome and/or KDE .
You can tell me to settle on one , but then I 'm giving up functionality I want or need .
I need to have at least three in order for the OS to be useful .
Every time somebody complains about the " mess " of GUI toolkits , it just comes off as senseless whining .
Where are the downsides ?
There 's no standard to which a commercial company wishing to produce software for the market to code for .
The LSB was an awesomely bad attempt that never really went anywhere...aside to providing yet another incompatible compatibility layer in the mix .
You can follow that argument up with " well , it 's Linux , I do n't want to run commercial software .
That 's the point of Linux !
" No , the point , so I 've been told is : I do n't have to worry about security or viruses or hackers as much with Linux .
It 's more stable , it 's faster , blah , blah , blah...but , believe it or not , free software does n't provide me with 100 \ % of the FUNCTIONALITYI want/need , and I have to turn to commercial software to get it .
That , however , becomes difficult because commercial vendors do n't want to write to it ( RTFA , for example ) because in order for them to say " It works on Linux " it really has to say " It works on Fedora and Gentoo and Ubuntu and ArchLinux and Linux from Scratch and Puppy Linux and...so on and so on and so on .
" Is it possible to do write software that can do so ?
Absolutely. Is it fiscally responsible to try to put enough effort into doing so ?
Is the potential base large enough to make it worth my while ?
Well , I think the companies have spoken on that point .
There are only 2 major ones , and if you do n't have experience in either , just pick one .
I pick neither...now I ca n't run much in the way of commercial software .
Thanks for making the choice for me.. . The only downside I can think of is that end-users need several GUI toolkits installed , for their multiple programs that use different toolkits Because , when you want a light , lean , fast OS that 's really the best way to do things .
That 's a huge downside for you to just gloss over .
Linux still has a better features/size ratio than any other major OS , Really ?
How so ?
Since , for the most part , most of the apps I use daily are Open Source and therefore available for every other major OS AND those OSes also have a wealth of choices of commercial vendors , which Linux does not have...how is it that it has MORE ?
Windows and Mac have the same problem ( SDL , GTK + , etc They do ?
SDL is a port of graphics capabilities that already have APIs in Windows...it 's just someone wanted to port their Linux software to Windows , but did n't want to have to use Windows APIs for some reason .
GTK is similar .
Those problems were introduced TO the OS , they do n't come WITH the OS .
the dlls have to be included with the binary downloads because Windows/Mac do n't have an easy to use package manager This is the point : Windows does n't NEED a package manager .
The reason you need a package manager is because it 's almost impossible for someone to know they 've got every single dependency a given piece of software might need .
The INSTALL and README files do n't always include every dependency and even if they do , you often then have to go find the dependency THOSE packages have , too .
Proof ? Install Ubuntu Server on a machine .
Then , run " apt-get install firefox " and look at everything that needs to be installed in order for that to work .
See any in there you might not have imagined ?
A lot of people try Linux From Scratch .
Most will probably succeed in building an OS , very few can use it as their daily OS because without a package mana</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the great thing about having dozens of GUI toolkits, multiple libc, and several audio APIs.
You only have to choose 1!
Not really so.
I, for example, prefer using Awesome WM for my window manager.
However, if I want to run the majority of useful software out there, I need to install a good portion of Gnome and/or KDE.
You can tell me to settle on one, but then I'm giving up functionality I want or need.
I need to have at least three in order for the OS to be useful.
Every time somebody complains about the "mess" of GUI toolkits, it just comes off as senseless whining.
Where are the downsides?
There's no standard to which a commercial company wishing to produce software for the market to code for.
The LSB was an awesomely bad attempt that never really went anywhere...aside to providing yet another incompatible compatibility layer in the mix.
You can follow that argument up with "well, it's Linux, I don't want to run commercial software.
That's the point of Linux!
"  No, the point, so I've been told is: I don't have to worry about security or viruses or hackers as much with Linux.
It's more stable, it's faster, blah, blah, blah...but, believe it or not, free software doesn't provide me with 100\% of the FUNCTIONALITYI want/need, and I have to turn to commercial software to get it.
That, however, becomes difficult because commercial vendors don't want to write to it (RTFA, for example) because in order for them to say "It works on Linux" it really has to say "It works on Fedora and Gentoo and Ubuntu and ArchLinux and Linux from Scratch and Puppy Linux and...so on and so on and so on.
"  Is it possible to do write software that can do so?
Absolutely.  Is it fiscally responsible to try to put enough effort into doing so?
Is the potential base large enough to make it worth my while?
Well, I think the companies have spoken on that point.
There are only 2 major ones, and if you don't have experience in either, just pick one.
I pick neither...now I can't run much in the way of commercial software.
Thanks for making the choice for me...
 
The only downside I can think of is that end-users need several GUI toolkits installed, for their multiple programs that use different toolkits
 
Because, when you want a light, lean, fast OS that's really the best way to do things.
That's a huge downside for you to just gloss over.
Linux still has a better features/size ratio than any other major OS,
 
Really?
How so?
Since, for the most part, most of the apps I use daily are Open Source and therefore available for every other major OS AND those OSes also have a wealth of choices of commercial vendors, which Linux does not have...how is it that it has MORE?
Windows and Mac have the same problem (SDL, GTK+, etc
 
They do?
SDL is a port of graphics capabilities that already have APIs in Windows...it's just someone wanted to port their Linux software to Windows, but didn't want to have to use Windows APIs for some reason.
GTK is similar.
Those problems were introduced TO the OS, they don't come WITH the OS.
the dlls have to be included with the binary downloads because Windows/Mac don't have an easy to use package manager
 
This is the point: Windows doesn't NEED a package manager.
The reason you need a package manager is because it's almost impossible for someone to know they've got every single dependency a given piece of software might need.
The INSTALL and README files don't always include every dependency and even if they do, you often then have to go find the dependency THOSE packages have, too.
Proof?  Install Ubuntu Server on a machine.
Then, run "apt-get install firefox" and look at everything that needs to be installed in order for that to work.
See any in there you might not have imagined?
A lot of people try Linux From Scratch.
Most will probably succeed in building an OS, very few can use it as their daily OS because without a package mana</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152599</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see anything wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243679220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is absolutely nothing wrong with a standardized HIG.</p><p>There is something wrong with having multiple conflicting HIGs, where following any particular one will meet with vocal opposition from people who follow a different one.  That's not standardized at all, that's just a trap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is absolutely nothing wrong with a standardized HIG.There is something wrong with having multiple conflicting HIGs , where following any particular one will meet with vocal opposition from people who follow a different one .
That 's not standardized at all , that 's just a trap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is absolutely nothing wrong with a standardized HIG.There is something wrong with having multiple conflicting HIGs, where following any particular one will meet with vocal opposition from people who follow a different one.
That's not standardized at all, that's just a trap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154127</id>
	<title>Re:Linux's greatest strength = greatest weakness</title>
	<author>synthespian</author>
	<datestamp>1243689960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Standartization is not even the issue. Stupid choices are the issue. If Linux had as many choices as today, but with inovative stuff, that would be fine. But KDE is behind Apple, Gnome is behind everyone else (it still uses Apple's HIG from last century), etc. Linux developers take pride in the fact there's no binary backwards compatibillty (it being C source code, actually). You can even be extremely cool and intelligent, write a Master's theses and develop sophisticated tech like NixOS (solves the library-dependency hell), but no-one will give a shit in Linuxland.</p><p>Meanwhile, Microsoft does formal analysis on its drivers, promotes C# and F#, Apple is the master of sensible choices in the UI (I predict that in 10 years from now, Linux users will be able to rename their photos with an Automator clone instead of a bash script) , etc. Closest thing Linux devs could come up with is a useless spinning cube that is full of bugs.</p><p>The disease is called: severe Stuckintheseventilitis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Standartization is not even the issue .
Stupid choices are the issue .
If Linux had as many choices as today , but with inovative stuff , that would be fine .
But KDE is behind Apple , Gnome is behind everyone else ( it still uses Apple 's HIG from last century ) , etc .
Linux developers take pride in the fact there 's no binary backwards compatibillty ( it being C source code , actually ) .
You can even be extremely cool and intelligent , write a Master 's theses and develop sophisticated tech like NixOS ( solves the library-dependency hell ) , but no-one will give a shit in Linuxland.Meanwhile , Microsoft does formal analysis on its drivers , promotes C # and F # , Apple is the master of sensible choices in the UI ( I predict that in 10 years from now , Linux users will be able to rename their photos with an Automator clone instead of a bash script ) , etc .
Closest thing Linux devs could come up with is a useless spinning cube that is full of bugs.The disease is called : severe Stuckintheseventilitis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Standartization is not even the issue.
Stupid choices are the issue.
If Linux had as many choices as today, but with inovative stuff, that would be fine.
But KDE is behind Apple, Gnome is behind everyone else (it still uses Apple's HIG from last century), etc.
Linux developers take pride in the fact there's no binary backwards compatibillty (it being C source code, actually).
You can even be extremely cool and intelligent, write a Master's theses and develop sophisticated tech like NixOS (solves the library-dependency hell), but no-one will give a shit in Linuxland.Meanwhile, Microsoft does formal analysis on its drivers, promotes C# and F#, Apple is the master of sensible choices in the UI (I predict that in 10 years from now, Linux users will be able to rename their photos with an Automator clone instead of a bash script) , etc.
Closest thing Linux devs could come up with is a useless spinning cube that is full of bugs.The disease is called: severe Stuckintheseventilitis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151269</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153813</id>
	<title>Re:and this is different from other platforms... h</title>
	<author>inalienable</author>
	<datestamp>1243687620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They start writing some big, ugly, messy Windows application (hello, Firefox), and then they moan and groan when porting it to Linux</p></div><p>Mosaic was originally designed for UNIX / X Windows.  Mosaic Netscape (-&gt;) Netscape Navigator -&gt; Mozilla -&gt; Phoenix -&gt; Firebird -&gt; Firefox.</p><p>It's been cross platform for a very, very long time, and it definitely didn't start as a "big, ugly, messy Windows application".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They start writing some big , ugly , messy Windows application ( hello , Firefox ) , and then they moan and groan when porting it to LinuxMosaic was originally designed for UNIX / X Windows .
Mosaic Netscape ( - &gt; ) Netscape Navigator - &gt; Mozilla - &gt; Phoenix - &gt; Firebird - &gt; Firefox.It 's been cross platform for a very , very long time , and it definitely did n't start as a " big , ugly , messy Windows application " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They start writing some big, ugly, messy Windows application (hello, Firefox), and then they moan and groan when porting it to LinuxMosaic was originally designed for UNIX / X Windows.
Mosaic Netscape (-&gt;) Netscape Navigator -&gt; Mozilla -&gt; Phoenix -&gt; Firebird -&gt; Firefox.It's been cross platform for a very, very long time, and it definitely didn't start as a "big, ugly, messy Windows application".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156149</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243712100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you all people talk about standardization you're talking about choosing 1 component from every part of the SO? Like<br><br>1. Grub -&gt; boot<br>2. Custom kernels according to hardware<br>3. Xorg -&gt; X<br>4. Aptitude -&gt;  Apps<br>5. QT -&gt; Framework<br>6. KDE -&gt;WM<br>7. Compiz -&gt; blink<br>8. OOo -&gt; Office suite<br><br>and so on.<br><br>I really want to know from people inside the development of Linux.. Why it's so hard? Just release a standardized branch for the OEM's and Software giants (Adobe) to work on it. Once your Joe Public feels like dancing with konsole he will someday feel the itch to try Slackware or Gento. I just can't see the problem besides all the work, but you are going to code something anyway.<br><br>Today I have a nice surprise when I lurked to my local newspaper online for a payoled article about Win 7 and the commenter's not just pestered the author for the obvious shill but down moded any obvious astroturfer and you read Ubuntu here and there. I think people are ready to accept Linux, it just needs a little more standardization for the thing to DELIVER.<br><br>i0</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you all people talk about standardization you 're talking about choosing 1 component from every part of the SO ?
Like1. Grub - &gt; boot2 .
Custom kernels according to hardware3 .
Xorg - &gt; X4 .
Aptitude - &gt; Apps5 .
QT - &gt; Framework6 .
KDE - &gt; WM7 .
Compiz - &gt; blink8 .
OOo - &gt; Office suiteand so on.I really want to know from people inside the development of Linux.. Why it 's so hard ?
Just release a standardized branch for the OEM 's and Software giants ( Adobe ) to work on it .
Once your Joe Public feels like dancing with konsole he will someday feel the itch to try Slackware or Gento .
I just ca n't see the problem besides all the work , but you are going to code something anyway.Today I have a nice surprise when I lurked to my local newspaper online for a payoled article about Win 7 and the commenter 's not just pestered the author for the obvious shill but down moded any obvious astroturfer and you read Ubuntu here and there .
I think people are ready to accept Linux , it just needs a little more standardization for the thing to DELIVER.i0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you all people talk about standardization you're talking about choosing 1 component from every part of the SO?
Like1. Grub -&gt; boot2.
Custom kernels according to hardware3.
Xorg -&gt; X4.
Aptitude -&gt;  Apps5.
QT -&gt; Framework6.
KDE -&gt;WM7.
Compiz -&gt; blink8.
OOo -&gt; Office suiteand so on.I really want to know from people inside the development of Linux.. Why it's so hard?
Just release a standardized branch for the OEM's and Software giants (Adobe) to work on it.
Once your Joe Public feels like dancing with konsole he will someday feel the itch to try Slackware or Gento.
I just can't see the problem besides all the work, but you are going to code something anyway.Today I have a nice surprise when I lurked to my local newspaper online for a payoled article about Win 7 and the commenter's not just pestered the author for the obvious shill but down moded any obvious astroturfer and you read Ubuntu here and there.
I think people are ready to accept Linux, it just needs a little more standardization for the thing to DELIVER.i0</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151127</id>
	<title>I don't see anything wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243713540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>with a standardized HIG. After all, graphical interfaces are not exactly the new kid on the block. There are common standards (use radio buttons for this, checkboxes for that, put your menu HERE). And while Linux does not necessarily have to conform to OS X or Windows standards, it could certainly have a standard of its own. This would help developers a lot. In my experience, many developers, while good coders, are not good interface designers. Without a comprehensive guide, they just plain get it wrong.
<br> <br>
I don't much give a damn about Adobe being skittish, though. Are they paying Linux core developers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>with a standardized HIG .
After all , graphical interfaces are not exactly the new kid on the block .
There are common standards ( use radio buttons for this , checkboxes for that , put your menu HERE ) .
And while Linux does not necessarily have to conform to OS X or Windows standards , it could certainly have a standard of its own .
This would help developers a lot .
In my experience , many developers , while good coders , are not good interface designers .
Without a comprehensive guide , they just plain get it wrong .
I do n't much give a damn about Adobe being skittish , though .
Are they paying Linux core developers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with a standardized HIG.
After all, graphical interfaces are not exactly the new kid on the block.
There are common standards (use radio buttons for this, checkboxes for that, put your menu HERE).
And while Linux does not necessarily have to conform to OS X or Windows standards, it could certainly have a standard of its own.
This would help developers a lot.
In my experience, many developers, while good coders, are not good interface designers.
Without a comprehensive guide, they just plain get it wrong.
I don't much give a damn about Adobe being skittish, though.
Are they paying Linux core developers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153135</id>
	<title>Is it time?</title>
	<author>prefec2</author>
	<datestamp>1243682760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is always time to standardize in the Linux domain. However, it is impossible to implement a standard as long as people have different opinions on a subject. What these company guys do not understand is the free nature of Open Source. Free means everyone can do what they want. And as long as not a significant group wants a particular standard, it will not be a standard.</p><p>yes it would be great if we could agree on one toolkit. And yes it would be cool if it would be cross platform, easy to use, and available for all programming languages (because we want that freedom). And yes GTK is very old school in design. It inherits features from Motif. It would be nice to have a Swing like composition model (e.g. GroupLayout) without the speed problems of Swing.</p><p>But I find it interesting what he finds so problematic with audio systems. He could use Phonon when he is writing with QT or gstreamer with GTK and QT. As it looks like he is using GTK gstreamer would be fine. It also work in KDE. And there is a HIG available especially for Gnome applications. Yes KDE does not have something similar. So instead of wining, he should encourage the KDE team to adopt the Gnome HIG or support a unifying HIG for both platforms.</p><p>The problem for Adobe can easily be fixed. Release the source code. This would allow us to fix the other issues the flash-plugin has.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is always time to standardize in the Linux domain .
However , it is impossible to implement a standard as long as people have different opinions on a subject .
What these company guys do not understand is the free nature of Open Source .
Free means everyone can do what they want .
And as long as not a significant group wants a particular standard , it will not be a standard.yes it would be great if we could agree on one toolkit .
And yes it would be cool if it would be cross platform , easy to use , and available for all programming languages ( because we want that freedom ) .
And yes GTK is very old school in design .
It inherits features from Motif .
It would be nice to have a Swing like composition model ( e.g .
GroupLayout ) without the speed problems of Swing.But I find it interesting what he finds so problematic with audio systems .
He could use Phonon when he is writing with QT or gstreamer with GTK and QT .
As it looks like he is using GTK gstreamer would be fine .
It also work in KDE .
And there is a HIG available especially for Gnome applications .
Yes KDE does not have something similar .
So instead of wining , he should encourage the KDE team to adopt the Gnome HIG or support a unifying HIG for both platforms.The problem for Adobe can easily be fixed .
Release the source code .
This would allow us to fix the other issues the flash-plugin has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is always time to standardize in the Linux domain.
However, it is impossible to implement a standard as long as people have different opinions on a subject.
What these company guys do not understand is the free nature of Open Source.
Free means everyone can do what they want.
And as long as not a significant group wants a particular standard, it will not be a standard.yes it would be great if we could agree on one toolkit.
And yes it would be cool if it would be cross platform, easy to use, and available for all programming languages (because we want that freedom).
And yes GTK is very old school in design.
It inherits features from Motif.
It would be nice to have a Swing like composition model (e.g.
GroupLayout) without the speed problems of Swing.But I find it interesting what he finds so problematic with audio systems.
He could use Phonon when he is writing with QT or gstreamer with GTK and QT.
As it looks like he is using GTK gstreamer would be fine.
It also work in KDE.
And there is a HIG available especially for Gnome applications.
Yes KDE does not have something similar.
So instead of wining, he should encourage the KDE team to adopt the Gnome HIG or support a unifying HIG for both platforms.The problem for Adobe can easily be fixed.
Release the source code.
This would allow us to fix the other issues the flash-plugin has.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151823</id>
	<title>this is ridiculous</title>
	<author>Punto</author>
	<datestamp>1243674540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>these are the guys who were trying to make a portable browser, so they used all the windows apis, and then they went "now we just port it to the other platforms.. no big deal, you just have to change this "compilor" thingy and press the "build" button again, right?"</p><p>of course they'll have trouble with a new platform, they don't know what they're doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>these are the guys who were trying to make a portable browser , so they used all the windows apis , and then they went " now we just port it to the other platforms.. no big deal , you just have to change this " compilor " thingy and press the " build " button again , right ?
" of course they 'll have trouble with a new platform , they do n't know what they 're doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>these are the guys who were trying to make a portable browser, so they used all the windows apis, and then they went "now we just port it to the other platforms.. no big deal, you just have to change this "compilor" thingy and press the "build" button again, right?
"of course they'll have trouble with a new platform, they don't know what they're doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151507</id>
	<title>Re:Um....</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1243715880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try openSUSE and the latest KDE before jumping over to Vista.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try openSUSE and the latest KDE before jumping over to Vista .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try openSUSE and the latest KDE before jumping over to Vista.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154373</id>
	<title>Re:Use Qt....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243691880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But but... KDE slow edition is so pretty! Obviously QT must be superior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But but... KDE slow edition is so pretty !
Obviously QT must be superior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But but... KDE slow edition is so pretty!
Obviously QT must be superior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151599</id>
	<title>Re:There's nothing wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243716300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, Qt is \_way\_ more than a "widget toolkit". In fact, "linux" could do far worse than standardizing on it. Do not compare it to gtk, they are not in the same leauge at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , Qt is \ _way \ _ more than a " widget toolkit " .
In fact , " linux " could do far worse than standardizing on it .
Do not compare it to gtk , they are not in the same leauge at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, Qt is \_way\_ more than a "widget toolkit".
In fact, "linux" could do far worse than standardizing on it.
Do not compare it to gtk, they are not in the same leauge at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155087</id>
	<title>Ben Goodger needs to soak his head some</title>
	<author>haruchai</author>
	<datestamp>1243700280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After reading through the discussion between Ben, some other Google people and various Linux users, it's apparent to me that Ben is whining too much.
One one hand, there all the bitching about the weakness of GTK and the fractured APIs of Linux but when it's suggested that they use QT instead,
the answer is that they don't want to choose one toolkit over another and potentially alienate some of the userbase (!).

No technical reason is given for not using QT and, from the various comments, it's clear that what they needed on Windows wasn't all baked into Win32 - they had
to make some of it from scratch.

Some advice for Ben - if you want to get the Linux port out, use QT, ship it and write a note saying that you choose the best tool you had available and if anyone
wants to port it to GTK+, well good luck to them and here are a list of stumbling blocks they'll encounter.

There was really no need to start a flame war and I imagine the opensource community should be relieved that he's not the lead dev for Chrome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading through the discussion between Ben , some other Google people and various Linux users , it 's apparent to me that Ben is whining too much .
One one hand , there all the bitching about the weakness of GTK and the fractured APIs of Linux but when it 's suggested that they use QT instead , the answer is that they do n't want to choose one toolkit over another and potentially alienate some of the userbase ( ! ) .
No technical reason is given for not using QT and , from the various comments , it 's clear that what they needed on Windows was n't all baked into Win32 - they had to make some of it from scratch .
Some advice for Ben - if you want to get the Linux port out , use QT , ship it and write a note saying that you choose the best tool you had available and if anyone wants to port it to GTK + , well good luck to them and here are a list of stumbling blocks they 'll encounter .
There was really no need to start a flame war and I imagine the opensource community should be relieved that he 's not the lead dev for Chrome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading through the discussion between Ben, some other Google people and various Linux users, it's apparent to me that Ben is whining too much.
One one hand, there all the bitching about the weakness of GTK and the fractured APIs of Linux but when it's suggested that they use QT instead,
the answer is that they don't want to choose one toolkit over another and potentially alienate some of the userbase (!).
No technical reason is given for not using QT and, from the various comments, it's clear that what they needed on Windows wasn't all baked into Win32 - they had
to make some of it from scratch.
Some advice for Ben - if you want to get the Linux port out, use QT, ship it and write a note saying that you choose the best tool you had available and if anyone
wants to port it to GTK+, well good luck to them and here are a list of stumbling blocks they'll encounter.
There was really no need to start a flame war and I imagine the opensource community should be relieved that he's not the lead dev for Chrome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154397</id>
	<title>Not opensource...</title>
	<author>DrYak</author>
	<datestamp>1243692000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But Unix fragmented.  You had AIX, HPUX, and around a dozen other different kinds.  They all behaved differently, stored things in different places in the filesystem, had different desktop environments.</p></div><p>And above all weren't opensource.</p><p>Linux distribution are opensource, almost from the top to the bottom. Kernel, UI Toolkits, Applications.<br>That means that maker of Linux distributions have all the necessary material needed to adapt Applications to the specifics of their distribution.</p><p>Thus you can find Firefox on almost any distribution, and the distributions maker has taken the effort to compile Firefox's source against the distribution's special mix of libraries. In the process more bugs are discovered, leading to more patch sent upstream to application developers.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The only way Linux can hope to succeed is to present a unified environment to developers *and* users. Period. Yes, that means the over-complex KDE will have to die. Yes, that means binary compatibility must stop being broken from OS update to OS update. Yes, that means supporting DRM so that users can play their streaming videos from Netflix.</p></div><p>The lack of uniform environment poses only major problems to binary closed source software. Which has to be designed in a way which work whichever distro it is thrown against. That is hard.<br>For the rest of us, our open-source applications all work pretty well, thank you very much (thanks to the massive effort put by both applications and distributions developers)<br>Currently Google is complaining that it's hard for them to get a Linux port.<br>Meanwhile, both the major browser Firefox and Konqueror (and probably a dozen of other minor less-known browsers) are very well ported on virtually any linux distribution AND on Windows and Mac OS X too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But Unix fragmented .
You had AIX , HPUX , and around a dozen other different kinds .
They all behaved differently , stored things in different places in the filesystem , had different desktop environments.And above all were n't opensource.Linux distribution are opensource , almost from the top to the bottom .
Kernel , UI Toolkits , Applications.That means that maker of Linux distributions have all the necessary material needed to adapt Applications to the specifics of their distribution.Thus you can find Firefox on almost any distribution , and the distributions maker has taken the effort to compile Firefox 's source against the distribution 's special mix of libraries .
In the process more bugs are discovered , leading to more patch sent upstream to application developers.The only way Linux can hope to succeed is to present a unified environment to developers * and * users .
Period. Yes , that means the over-complex KDE will have to die .
Yes , that means binary compatibility must stop being broken from OS update to OS update .
Yes , that means supporting DRM so that users can play their streaming videos from Netflix.The lack of uniform environment poses only major problems to binary closed source software .
Which has to be designed in a way which work whichever distro it is thrown against .
That is hard.For the rest of us , our open-source applications all work pretty well , thank you very much ( thanks to the massive effort put by both applications and distributions developers ) Currently Google is complaining that it 's hard for them to get a Linux port.Meanwhile , both the major browser Firefox and Konqueror ( and probably a dozen of other minor less-known browsers ) are very well ported on virtually any linux distribution AND on Windows and Mac OS X too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Unix fragmented.
You had AIX, HPUX, and around a dozen other different kinds.
They all behaved differently, stored things in different places in the filesystem, had different desktop environments.And above all weren't opensource.Linux distribution are opensource, almost from the top to the bottom.
Kernel, UI Toolkits, Applications.That means that maker of Linux distributions have all the necessary material needed to adapt Applications to the specifics of their distribution.Thus you can find Firefox on almost any distribution, and the distributions maker has taken the effort to compile Firefox's source against the distribution's special mix of libraries.
In the process more bugs are discovered, leading to more patch sent upstream to application developers.The only way Linux can hope to succeed is to present a unified environment to developers *and* users.
Period. Yes, that means the over-complex KDE will have to die.
Yes, that means binary compatibility must stop being broken from OS update to OS update.
Yes, that means supporting DRM so that users can play their streaming videos from Netflix.The lack of uniform environment poses only major problems to binary closed source software.
Which has to be designed in a way which work whichever distro it is thrown against.
That is hard.For the rest of us, our open-source applications all work pretty well, thank you very much (thanks to the massive effort put by both applications and distributions developers)Currently Google is complaining that it's hard for them to get a Linux port.Meanwhile, both the major browser Firefox and Konqueror (and probably a dozen of other minor less-known browsers) are very well ported on virtually any linux distribution AND on Windows and Mac OS X too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152215</id>
	<title>Creating Pain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243677060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are needlessly creating pain for themselves - First is there really a need for Chrome on Linux? There is already Firefox, Konqueror/KHTML, GTK+Webkit, QtWebKit, Arora/WebKit, ReKonq/WebKit.</p><p>Google should really choose a sane cross platform toolkit like Qt4, which already provides integration with latest WebKit and build there UI and other features on top of that. Heck Qt is using git now - Google could send them patches to take care of the low level UI inconsistency issues. Sound - SDL is fine. I haven't had any program using SDL giving problems on any distro/DE combination.</p><p>They also fail to learn from Opera - it looks equally ugly on all platfroms<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D - but they are consistent and the UI ugliness is fixable.</p><p>That said I think the lack of standards, fork-happiness and the resulting massive duplication of efforts is hurting OSS - especially given the general shortage of talented programmers. But ok, no one spent money on it so whatever the world is getting out of it is a net gain...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are needlessly creating pain for themselves - First is there really a need for Chrome on Linux ?
There is already Firefox , Konqueror/KHTML , GTK + Webkit , QtWebKit , Arora/WebKit , ReKonq/WebKit.Google should really choose a sane cross platform toolkit like Qt4 , which already provides integration with latest WebKit and build there UI and other features on top of that .
Heck Qt is using git now - Google could send them patches to take care of the low level UI inconsistency issues .
Sound - SDL is fine .
I have n't had any program using SDL giving problems on any distro/DE combination.They also fail to learn from Opera - it looks equally ugly on all platfroms : D - but they are consistent and the UI ugliness is fixable.That said I think the lack of standards , fork-happiness and the resulting massive duplication of efforts is hurting OSS - especially given the general shortage of talented programmers .
But ok , no one spent money on it so whatever the world is getting out of it is a net gain.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are needlessly creating pain for themselves - First is there really a need for Chrome on Linux?
There is already Firefox, Konqueror/KHTML, GTK+Webkit, QtWebKit, Arora/WebKit, ReKonq/WebKit.Google should really choose a sane cross platform toolkit like Qt4, which already provides integration with latest WebKit and build there UI and other features on top of that.
Heck Qt is using git now - Google could send them patches to take care of the low level UI inconsistency issues.
Sound - SDL is fine.
I haven't had any program using SDL giving problems on any distro/DE combination.They also fail to learn from Opera - it looks equally ugly on all platfroms :D - but they are consistent and the UI ugliness is fixable.That said I think the lack of standards, fork-happiness and the resulting massive duplication of efforts is hurting OSS - especially given the general shortage of talented programmers.
But ok, no one spent money on it so whatever the world is getting out of it is a net gain...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151755</id>
	<title>Re:Article by Slashdot completely distorts reality</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1243674180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ben Goodger flat-out calls it a "clusterfuck" and criticizes the lack of standard APIs and tools.  It <em>is</em> about needing to standardize.  You even throw in the use of "FUD," "GNU/Linux," and "choice," which makes you come off as one of the stereotypical, brainwashed freetards who can't accept any criticism of their beloved operating system without resorting to preprogrammed Slashdotter responses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ben Goodger flat-out calls it a " clusterfuck " and criticizes the lack of standard APIs and tools .
It is about needing to standardize .
You even throw in the use of " FUD , " " GNU/Linux , " and " choice , " which makes you come off as one of the stereotypical , brainwashed freetards who ca n't accept any criticism of their beloved operating system without resorting to preprogrammed Slashdotter responses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ben Goodger flat-out calls it a "clusterfuck" and criticizes the lack of standard APIs and tools.
It is about needing to standardize.
You even throw in the use of "FUD," "GNU/Linux," and "choice," which makes you come off as one of the stereotypical, brainwashed freetards who can't accept any criticism of their beloved operating system without resorting to preprogrammed Slashdotter responses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152193</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243676940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The downside is that if you pick GTK, and your user is using KDE, the app will look weird because it won't fit in with the QT look. And vice-versa.</p><p>If you just want to get any old app up, sure, just pick one. If you want to build a *product* that people use every day and probably every hour while they're at the computer, the details matter.</p><p>For sound toolkits it's worse. If your app isn't using the toolkit that was blessed by the distribution, it will not obey volume controls, or it won't be able to play sound when other apps are playing, etc. Because sound by definition involves mixing data from multiple apps, you need to have one single point of control over sound in the OS.</p><p>Finally, there's the issue of software versions. Maybe every major distribution has GTK. Are they all using the same version? If not, you are restricted to whatever features work consistently across versions, and you must work around bugs that are present in any version. What about glibc? What about versions of the sound toolkits? What about 32-bit vs 64-bit? Pretty soon you have a matrix of combinations of software packages. At least on Windows, you know that there are only 2 major versions used by consumers out there (XP and Vista), and there's a set of core APIs that have been thoroughly explored by hundreds of thousands of developers before you that will work on any Windows machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The downside is that if you pick GTK , and your user is using KDE , the app will look weird because it wo n't fit in with the QT look .
And vice-versa.If you just want to get any old app up , sure , just pick one .
If you want to build a * product * that people use every day and probably every hour while they 're at the computer , the details matter.For sound toolkits it 's worse .
If your app is n't using the toolkit that was blessed by the distribution , it will not obey volume controls , or it wo n't be able to play sound when other apps are playing , etc .
Because sound by definition involves mixing data from multiple apps , you need to have one single point of control over sound in the OS.Finally , there 's the issue of software versions .
Maybe every major distribution has GTK .
Are they all using the same version ?
If not , you are restricted to whatever features work consistently across versions , and you must work around bugs that are present in any version .
What about glibc ?
What about versions of the sound toolkits ?
What about 32-bit vs 64-bit ?
Pretty soon you have a matrix of combinations of software packages .
At least on Windows , you know that there are only 2 major versions used by consumers out there ( XP and Vista ) , and there 's a set of core APIs that have been thoroughly explored by hundreds of thousands of developers before you that will work on any Windows machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The downside is that if you pick GTK, and your user is using KDE, the app will look weird because it won't fit in with the QT look.
And vice-versa.If you just want to get any old app up, sure, just pick one.
If you want to build a *product* that people use every day and probably every hour while they're at the computer, the details matter.For sound toolkits it's worse.
If your app isn't using the toolkit that was blessed by the distribution, it will not obey volume controls, or it won't be able to play sound when other apps are playing, etc.
Because sound by definition involves mixing data from multiple apps, you need to have one single point of control over sound in the OS.Finally, there's the issue of software versions.
Maybe every major distribution has GTK.
Are they all using the same version?
If not, you are restricted to whatever features work consistently across versions, and you must work around bugs that are present in any version.
What about glibc?
What about versions of the sound toolkits?
What about 32-bit vs 64-bit?
Pretty soon you have a matrix of combinations of software packages.
At least on Windows, you know that there are only 2 major versions used by consumers out there (XP and Vista), and there's a set of core APIs that have been thoroughly explored by hundreds of thousands of developers before you that will work on any Windows machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152773</id>
	<title>Revisionism much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243680420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows took over because it offered a safe, sane single-API equivalent?  That's gross, blatant revisionism.</p><p>Doesn't anybody here remember that MSFT is in fact a convicted monopolist?  Doesn't anybody remember how they got that way? There have been *multiple* court cases over this, some settled (why Gary Kildall got rich after all) and some didn't.</p><p>Microsoft pulled a bunch of dirty tricks to get where they were, that's all there is to it, any other viewpoint is false.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows took over because it offered a safe , sane single-API equivalent ?
That 's gross , blatant revisionism.Does n't anybody here remember that MSFT is in fact a convicted monopolist ?
Does n't anybody remember how they got that way ?
There have been * multiple * court cases over this , some settled ( why Gary Kildall got rich after all ) and some did n't.Microsoft pulled a bunch of dirty tricks to get where they were , that 's all there is to it , any other viewpoint is false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows took over because it offered a safe, sane single-API equivalent?
That's gross, blatant revisionism.Doesn't anybody here remember that MSFT is in fact a convicted monopolist?
Doesn't anybody remember how they got that way?
There have been *multiple* court cases over this, some settled (why Gary Kildall got rich after all) and some didn't.Microsoft pulled a bunch of dirty tricks to get where they were, that's all there is to it, any other viewpoint is false.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151223</id>
	<title>Tada</title>
	<author>googlesmith123</author>
	<datestamp>1243714200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe that's why there are so few "I can to everything" applications and so many "I can just do this one thing". Especially when it comes to creative work with multi-media.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe that 's why there are so few " I can to everything " applications and so many " I can just do this one thing " .
Especially when it comes to creative work with multi-media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe that's why there are so few "I can to everything" applications and so many "I can just do this one thing".
Especially when it comes to creative work with multi-media.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154247</id>
	<title>hey Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243690860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want a better UI toolkit, write one yourself. Otherwise use wx or Qt. But it's OK, everyone knows you're just making lame excuses for not supporting Linux properly despite having enough resources for it easily (even the Mozilla Project can do it and it doesn't earn billions every year).</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want a better UI toolkit , write one yourself .
Otherwise use wx or Qt .
But it 's OK , everyone knows you 're just making lame excuses for not supporting Linux properly despite having enough resources for it easily ( even the Mozilla Project can do it and it does n't earn billions every year ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want a better UI toolkit, write one yourself.
Otherwise use wx or Qt.
But it's OK, everyone knows you're just making lame excuses for not supporting Linux properly despite having enough resources for it easily (even the Mozilla Project can do it and it doesn't earn billions every year).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151751</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243674180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does apt-get count as a relatively easy to use package manager? I've used it on both OS X and Windows machines.
<br> <br>The problem with having several GUI toolkits is that then you fragment the user experience. I use GIMP on OS X, and having X11 running makes it a very awkward, sometimes annoying experience - not only do I have to make sure I'm properly in GIMP rather than X11, but all the keys change command button to control button depending on which one you're in. It's really pretty awful, and I expect non-techy users to find it more confusing than I do. <br> <br>Consistency is important to a user experience. Learning how to complete tasks in an OS is very much like a language skill. When you force people to learn different sets of hot keys, different ways of achieving the same task, then you're burdening them with another language. The only good reason to break away from having a single HIG standard, as far as from the user's perspective, is if you're writing a really novel application where you're trying to provoke a different mindset; writing yet another average GUI toolkit doesn't come close to qualifying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does apt-get count as a relatively easy to use package manager ?
I 've used it on both OS X and Windows machines .
The problem with having several GUI toolkits is that then you fragment the user experience .
I use GIMP on OS X , and having X11 running makes it a very awkward , sometimes annoying experience - not only do I have to make sure I 'm properly in GIMP rather than X11 , but all the keys change command button to control button depending on which one you 're in .
It 's really pretty awful , and I expect non-techy users to find it more confusing than I do .
Consistency is important to a user experience .
Learning how to complete tasks in an OS is very much like a language skill .
When you force people to learn different sets of hot keys , different ways of achieving the same task , then you 're burdening them with another language .
The only good reason to break away from having a single HIG standard , as far as from the user 's perspective , is if you 're writing a really novel application where you 're trying to provoke a different mindset ; writing yet another average GUI toolkit does n't come close to qualifying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does apt-get count as a relatively easy to use package manager?
I've used it on both OS X and Windows machines.
The problem with having several GUI toolkits is that then you fragment the user experience.
I use GIMP on OS X, and having X11 running makes it a very awkward, sometimes annoying experience - not only do I have to make sure I'm properly in GIMP rather than X11, but all the keys change command button to control button depending on which one you're in.
It's really pretty awful, and I expect non-techy users to find it more confusing than I do.
Consistency is important to a user experience.
Learning how to complete tasks in an OS is very much like a language skill.
When you force people to learn different sets of hot keys, different ways of achieving the same task, then you're burdening them with another language.
The only good reason to break away from having a single HIG standard, as far as from the user's perspective, is if you're writing a really novel application where you're trying to provoke a different mindset; writing yet another average GUI toolkit doesn't come close to qualifying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079</id>
	<title>Choice</title>
	<author>edivad</author>
	<datestamp>1243713240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Choice, many times becomes really fast synonym of fragmentation and lack of standard.
And this is just a bright example. The situation described is 100\% conforming to reality, as far as UI kits and sound infrastructure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Choice , many times becomes really fast synonym of fragmentation and lack of standard .
And this is just a bright example .
The situation described is 100 \ % conforming to reality , as far as UI kits and sound infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Choice, many times becomes really fast synonym of fragmentation and lack of standard.
And this is just a bright example.
The situation described is 100\% conforming to reality, as far as UI kits and sound infrastructure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151339</id>
	<title>Re:Yes!</title>
	<author>What Is Dot</author>
	<datestamp>1243714920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that there are too many choices, but I believe that's part of the point of open source solutions.</p><p>It's partially the responsibility of the application developers to choose the toolkits and platforms that work best for them, not complain about having too many to choose from.</p><p>If companies like Google and Adobe got together in a side meeting and came up with a "standard" they found acceptable, it would create a demand for those platforms and make those toolkits/apps the dominant.  Too bad this will never happen...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that there are too many choices , but I believe that 's part of the point of open source solutions.It 's partially the responsibility of the application developers to choose the toolkits and platforms that work best for them , not complain about having too many to choose from.If companies like Google and Adobe got together in a side meeting and came up with a " standard " they found acceptable , it would create a demand for those platforms and make those toolkits/apps the dominant .
Too bad this will never happen.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that there are too many choices, but I believe that's part of the point of open source solutions.It's partially the responsibility of the application developers to choose the toolkits and platforms that work best for them, not complain about having too many to choose from.If companies like Google and Adobe got together in a side meeting and came up with a "standard" they found acceptable, it would create a demand for those platforms and make those toolkits/apps the dominant.
Too bad this will never happen...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152387</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1243678140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here is the great thing about having dozens of GUI toolkits, multiple libc, and several audio APIs. You only have to choose 1! Every time somebody complains about the "mess" of GUI toolkits, it just comes off as senseless whining. Where are the downsides? There are only 2 major ones, and if you don't have experience in either, just pick one.</p></div><p>I don't know if it's just me that keeps running into these wtfs, but if all of them worked from the user POV then I'd agree with you. Reality is that sometimes pulseaudio works, sometimes it works if I redirect it to ALSA, sometimes for no good reason I have to pick OSS output - that on modern Linuxes maps to ALSA, but for some reason that works and ALSA doesn't. Sometimes if I'm running multiple sound-using apps I get complaints that it can't open the audio device and so I have to close something else, even though everything should support mixers since many years ago.</p><p>It usually runs decent if you run say only KDE apps, probably the same for Gnome - but if you start mixing kde and gnome apps, virtualbox, wine and closed source then my experience is really bad. Still, it looks like a decent toolchain is emerging:</p><p>Phonon - high-level cross-platform API - "Play me this MP3 file"<br>GStreamer - plugin layer for all the good/bad/ugly formats, not the one true decoder - "I took the MP3 and decoded it, here's the sound"<br>PulseAudio - sound (re)direction to speakers, headphones, network+++ - "Preferences say this sound should go on the headphones"<br>ALSA - actually deal with the hardware and reveal playback/recording capability - "Headphones - play this"</p><p>It's not like all these pieces of the audio system does the same thing, when they're trying to show that it's so very confusing they overcomplicate a bit. There's a fairly one-directional workflow from the application towards the hardware, and if you displayed them as a layer diagram (with some blocks possibly covering several layers) then it wouldn't look nearly as bad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the great thing about having dozens of GUI toolkits , multiple libc , and several audio APIs .
You only have to choose 1 !
Every time somebody complains about the " mess " of GUI toolkits , it just comes off as senseless whining .
Where are the downsides ?
There are only 2 major ones , and if you do n't have experience in either , just pick one.I do n't know if it 's just me that keeps running into these wtfs , but if all of them worked from the user POV then I 'd agree with you .
Reality is that sometimes pulseaudio works , sometimes it works if I redirect it to ALSA , sometimes for no good reason I have to pick OSS output - that on modern Linuxes maps to ALSA , but for some reason that works and ALSA does n't .
Sometimes if I 'm running multiple sound-using apps I get complaints that it ca n't open the audio device and so I have to close something else , even though everything should support mixers since many years ago.It usually runs decent if you run say only KDE apps , probably the same for Gnome - but if you start mixing kde and gnome apps , virtualbox , wine and closed source then my experience is really bad .
Still , it looks like a decent toolchain is emerging : Phonon - high-level cross-platform API - " Play me this MP3 file " GStreamer - plugin layer for all the good/bad/ugly formats , not the one true decoder - " I took the MP3 and decoded it , here 's the sound " PulseAudio - sound ( re ) direction to speakers , headphones , network + + + - " Preferences say this sound should go on the headphones " ALSA - actually deal with the hardware and reveal playback/recording capability - " Headphones - play this " It 's not like all these pieces of the audio system does the same thing , when they 're trying to show that it 's so very confusing they overcomplicate a bit .
There 's a fairly one-directional workflow from the application towards the hardware , and if you displayed them as a layer diagram ( with some blocks possibly covering several layers ) then it would n't look nearly as bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the great thing about having dozens of GUI toolkits, multiple libc, and several audio APIs.
You only have to choose 1!
Every time somebody complains about the "mess" of GUI toolkits, it just comes off as senseless whining.
Where are the downsides?
There are only 2 major ones, and if you don't have experience in either, just pick one.I don't know if it's just me that keeps running into these wtfs, but if all of them worked from the user POV then I'd agree with you.
Reality is that sometimes pulseaudio works, sometimes it works if I redirect it to ALSA, sometimes for no good reason I have to pick OSS output - that on modern Linuxes maps to ALSA, but for some reason that works and ALSA doesn't.
Sometimes if I'm running multiple sound-using apps I get complaints that it can't open the audio device and so I have to close something else, even though everything should support mixers since many years ago.It usually runs decent if you run say only KDE apps, probably the same for Gnome - but if you start mixing kde and gnome apps, virtualbox, wine and closed source then my experience is really bad.
Still, it looks like a decent toolchain is emerging:Phonon - high-level cross-platform API - "Play me this MP3 file"GStreamer - plugin layer for all the good/bad/ugly formats, not the one true decoder - "I took the MP3 and decoded it, here's the sound"PulseAudio - sound (re)direction to speakers, headphones, network+++ - "Preferences say this sound should go on the headphones"ALSA - actually deal with the hardware and reveal playback/recording capability - "Headphones - play this"It's not like all these pieces of the audio system does the same thing, when they're trying to show that it's so very confusing they overcomplicate a bit.
There's a fairly one-directional workflow from the application towards the hardware, and if you displayed them as a layer diagram (with some blocks possibly covering several layers) then it wouldn't look nearly as bad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151779</id>
	<title>A step forward</title>
	<author>goldaryn</author>
	<datestamp>1243674300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And now it's time for Google to embrace the future..<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>..and release a Windows 2000 compatible version!<br>
<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>..I kid. The real question is when will this come out of alpha?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</htmltext>
<tokenext>And now it 's time for Google to embrace the future.. ..and release a Windows 2000 compatible version !
..I kid .
The real question is when will this come out of alpha ?
: -P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And now it's time for Google to embrace the future.. ..and release a Windows 2000 compatible version!
..I kid.
The real question is when will this come out of alpha?
:-P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156563</id>
	<title>Why did Google pick GTK?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243762620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even the Gnome people don't like GTK. I have tried programming with it, and was surprised by its primitive level of development.<br>Clearly the Google developers made a mistake, by not choosing the appropriate tools for the job.<br>They now have to live with those mistakes.<br>Qt is much nicer for GUI development than ANY other C++ toolkit, on ANY platform that I have ever used. This may have been a more sensible choice, particularly, since it already includes the same webkit based browser engine, and a useable sample browser that uses it - all nicely and cleanly implemented, from what I have seen.<br>Also, I found wxWidgets pretty easy (I used to use on Windows because MFC is dismal)</p><p>For sound, programming directly to ALSA is not as easy as writing to a higher level library, but agaiin, it is perfectly manageable, standardised on all Linux platforms, and well understood.<br>I wonder if Google didn't make some WIndows centric design mistakes to begin with, or maybe just appointed a lower grade developer to this porting task, who will blame tools, rather than themselves, for making the wrong development decisions.</p><p>As for glibc forks, I can't see anyone shipping a binary incompatible version of GLIBC. Simply put, nobody is stupid enough to do this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even the Gnome people do n't like GTK .
I have tried programming with it , and was surprised by its primitive level of development.Clearly the Google developers made a mistake , by not choosing the appropriate tools for the job.They now have to live with those mistakes.Qt is much nicer for GUI development than ANY other C + + toolkit , on ANY platform that I have ever used .
This may have been a more sensible choice , particularly , since it already includes the same webkit based browser engine , and a useable sample browser that uses it - all nicely and cleanly implemented , from what I have seen.Also , I found wxWidgets pretty easy ( I used to use on Windows because MFC is dismal ) For sound , programming directly to ALSA is not as easy as writing to a higher level library , but agaiin , it is perfectly manageable , standardised on all Linux platforms , and well understood.I wonder if Google did n't make some WIndows centric design mistakes to begin with , or maybe just appointed a lower grade developer to this porting task , who will blame tools , rather than themselves , for making the wrong development decisions.As for glibc forks , I ca n't see anyone shipping a binary incompatible version of GLIBC .
Simply put , nobody is stupid enough to do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even the Gnome people don't like GTK.
I have tried programming with it, and was surprised by its primitive level of development.Clearly the Google developers made a mistake, by not choosing the appropriate tools for the job.They now have to live with those mistakes.Qt is much nicer for GUI development than ANY other C++ toolkit, on ANY platform that I have ever used.
This may have been a more sensible choice, particularly, since it already includes the same webkit based browser engine, and a useable sample browser that uses it - all nicely and cleanly implemented, from what I have seen.Also, I found wxWidgets pretty easy (I used to use on Windows because MFC is dismal)For sound, programming directly to ALSA is not as easy as writing to a higher level library, but agaiin, it is perfectly manageable, standardised on all Linux platforms, and well understood.I wonder if Google didn't make some WIndows centric design mistakes to begin with, or maybe just appointed a lower grade developer to this porting task, who will blame tools, rather than themselves, for making the wrong development decisions.As for glibc forks, I can't see anyone shipping a binary incompatible version of GLIBC.
Simply put, nobody is stupid enough to do this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151247</id>
	<title>Linux needs to stop forking around</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243714380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Linux wants to have substantial even ubiquitous marketshare it is going to have to mature.  This is going to require the majority of backend developers choosing one API/toolkit/etc to add features to, test for bugs and release on a predictable schedule.  Yes, Gnome or KDE may whither or die, too bad.  If we do not these steps now, Linux will continue receiving ports of projects developed on other platforms and not real development time.</p><p>If you build it they will come.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Linux wants to have substantial even ubiquitous marketshare it is going to have to mature .
This is going to require the majority of backend developers choosing one API/toolkit/etc to add features to , test for bugs and release on a predictable schedule .
Yes , Gnome or KDE may whither or die , too bad .
If we do not these steps now , Linux will continue receiving ports of projects developed on other platforms and not real development time.If you build it they will come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Linux wants to have substantial even ubiquitous marketshare it is going to have to mature.
This is going to require the majority of backend developers choosing one API/toolkit/etc to add features to, test for bugs and release on a predictable schedule.
Yes, Gnome or KDE may whither or die, too bad.
If we do not these steps now, Linux will continue receiving ports of projects developed on other platforms and not real development time.If you build it they will come.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155979</id>
	<title>Re:RTFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243710240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Or, if you like, don't port to Linux; we don't really care all that much, since there are several great browsers on Linux already that pretty much do what Chrome does."</p><p>I use firefox 3 on ubuntu linux, kde, every day at work.  I very, very much prefer any other browser on windows compared to firefox on linux.  It feels faster, and, well, as much as i love linux, I cannot stand how it performs in a desktop role.  It feels laggy, slow, bogged down, and I really don't like it.</p><p>When chrome started working on linux...it felt amazing.  I didn't know a linux gui application could even be that responsive.  I can honestly say - even with the occasional crashes - using an alpha version of chrome makes me more productive than even a barebones, stripped down version of firefox (which i more-or-less run because its so damn slow).  It may do the same thing, but it does it so much faster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Or , if you like , do n't port to Linux ; we do n't really care all that much , since there are several great browsers on Linux already that pretty much do what Chrome does .
" I use firefox 3 on ubuntu linux , kde , every day at work .
I very , very much prefer any other browser on windows compared to firefox on linux .
It feels faster , and , well , as much as i love linux , I can not stand how it performs in a desktop role .
It feels laggy , slow , bogged down , and I really do n't like it.When chrome started working on linux...it felt amazing .
I did n't know a linux gui application could even be that responsive .
I can honestly say - even with the occasional crashes - using an alpha version of chrome makes me more productive than even a barebones , stripped down version of firefox ( which i more-or-less run because its so damn slow ) .
It may do the same thing , but it does it so much faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Or, if you like, don't port to Linux; we don't really care all that much, since there are several great browsers on Linux already that pretty much do what Chrome does.
"I use firefox 3 on ubuntu linux, kde, every day at work.
I very, very much prefer any other browser on windows compared to firefox on linux.
It feels faster, and, well, as much as i love linux, I cannot stand how it performs in a desktop role.
It feels laggy, slow, bogged down, and I really don't like it.When chrome started working on linux...it felt amazing.
I didn't know a linux gui application could even be that responsive.
I can honestly say - even with the occasional crashes - using an alpha version of chrome makes me more productive than even a barebones, stripped down version of firefox (which i more-or-less run because its so damn slow).
It may do the same thing, but it does it so much faster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155419</id>
	<title>Re:Use Qt....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243703160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because only mental retards possibly would want to use a C++ toolkit.<br>If you can't interface in C you can go home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because only mental retards possibly would want to use a C + + toolkit.If you ca n't interface in C you can go home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because only mental retards possibly would want to use a C++ toolkit.If you can't interface in C you can go home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152819</id>
	<title>Re:it's why Windows took over in the first place</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1243680720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Score: 5 Insightful</p><p>70\% Insightful<br>20\% Flamebait<br>10\% Interesting</p><p>Talk about mods on crack</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Score : 5 Insightful70 \ % Insightful20 \ % Flamebait10 \ % InterestingTalk about mods on crack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Score: 5 Insightful70\% Insightful20\% Flamebait10\% InterestingTalk about mods on crack</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151325</id>
	<title>Re:Choice</title>
	<author>Santana</author>
	<datestamp>1243714860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
PC vendors are missing a gold opportunity here. They could adopt a GNU/Linux distribution and make it attractive to the masses, just like Apple did with Nextstep. That would really challenge Microsoft and Apple, but require a dedicated software development department, something that many of them don't know how to do or don't want to take the risk at.
</p><p>
Even though it's disappointing, It's not unexpected. They only know how to brand a PC and sell it.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PC vendors are missing a gold opportunity here .
They could adopt a GNU/Linux distribution and make it attractive to the masses , just like Apple did with Nextstep .
That would really challenge Microsoft and Apple , but require a dedicated software development department , something that many of them do n't know how to do or do n't want to take the risk at .
Even though it 's disappointing , It 's not unexpected .
They only know how to brand a PC and sell it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
PC vendors are missing a gold opportunity here.
They could adopt a GNU/Linux distribution and make it attractive to the masses, just like Apple did with Nextstep.
That would really challenge Microsoft and Apple, but require a dedicated software development department, something that many of them don't know how to do or don't want to take the risk at.
Even though it's disappointing, It's not unexpected.
They only know how to brand a PC and sell it.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153243</id>
	<title>The Linux Desktop</title>
	<author>paradox242</author>
	<datestamp>1243683480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This thread has quickly veered into the inevitable realm of comparing the Linux environment to Windows and OSX, which with a few reasonable exceptions, has yielded the usual complaints about each in comparison to the others.
As I see it, Microsoft and Apple are in the business of selling an environment for the casual computer user, and with some effort do their best to hide the underlying complexity from people who have no interest in computers beyond listening to music, browsing, checking their email, or using whatever applications they need to do their job.</p><p>Of course, Linux can do most of these things as well, but makes less effort to hide the complexity underneath, and can quickly becoming confusing to someone who has only used Windows or OSX. This is evidenced by the large number complaints on various Linux forums by new users who are asked to perform some task at the command line or edit a configuration file instead of using their more familiar GUI environment.
I see no reason for argument as people use computers for different reasons, and come from different backgrounds and as such, they should use whatever suits them best. There are plenty of intelligent and reasonable people who have no need or interest in learning more about computers than how to operate the applications they use to accomplish a specific task.</p><p>Linux can do many of these things, but these people will almost always find the underlying environment getting in their way because they don't care to understand it, or because the Linux equivalent is not what they are accustomed to.</p><p>And this is fine.</p><p>As others have mentioned, Linux is simply a kernel around which have grown a large body of specialized applications, frameworks and toolkits, and as such can be used to design a variety of systems for a variety of purposes. Almost by definition it is primarily for those of a technical inclination, who do not mind or even enjoy learning about computers, and what it is possible to do with them. There is little reason to recommend Linux to the more casual computer user, especially as it is almost always done with no care for what they actually want, and is largely out of the personal bias of those recommending it.</p><p>Linux is based on a community of developers largely working in their own time and on projects they have personal use for or interest in and they cannot be forced to design or agree upon "a single API" as some have suggested. Of course, there is nothing stopping a team from creating a Linux distribution targeted for the casual user, but then what is the compelling reason to switch, given that there are at least two separate and well-funded environments with this purpose already in mind? Such an environment would, by necessity have to leave out many of the compelling benefits of Linux that I and many others have come to enjoy.</p><p>I do not particularly care if Chrome is ever ported to a particular Linux distribution, and if they do adhere to their pretence of open standards, there is nothing preventing someone so inclined in creating a substitute for us as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This thread has quickly veered into the inevitable realm of comparing the Linux environment to Windows and OSX , which with a few reasonable exceptions , has yielded the usual complaints about each in comparison to the others .
As I see it , Microsoft and Apple are in the business of selling an environment for the casual computer user , and with some effort do their best to hide the underlying complexity from people who have no interest in computers beyond listening to music , browsing , checking their email , or using whatever applications they need to do their job.Of course , Linux can do most of these things as well , but makes less effort to hide the complexity underneath , and can quickly becoming confusing to someone who has only used Windows or OSX .
This is evidenced by the large number complaints on various Linux forums by new users who are asked to perform some task at the command line or edit a configuration file instead of using their more familiar GUI environment .
I see no reason for argument as people use computers for different reasons , and come from different backgrounds and as such , they should use whatever suits them best .
There are plenty of intelligent and reasonable people who have no need or interest in learning more about computers than how to operate the applications they use to accomplish a specific task.Linux can do many of these things , but these people will almost always find the underlying environment getting in their way because they do n't care to understand it , or because the Linux equivalent is not what they are accustomed to.And this is fine.As others have mentioned , Linux is simply a kernel around which have grown a large body of specialized applications , frameworks and toolkits , and as such can be used to design a variety of systems for a variety of purposes .
Almost by definition it is primarily for those of a technical inclination , who do not mind or even enjoy learning about computers , and what it is possible to do with them .
There is little reason to recommend Linux to the more casual computer user , especially as it is almost always done with no care for what they actually want , and is largely out of the personal bias of those recommending it.Linux is based on a community of developers largely working in their own time and on projects they have personal use for or interest in and they can not be forced to design or agree upon " a single API " as some have suggested .
Of course , there is nothing stopping a team from creating a Linux distribution targeted for the casual user , but then what is the compelling reason to switch , given that there are at least two separate and well-funded environments with this purpose already in mind ?
Such an environment would , by necessity have to leave out many of the compelling benefits of Linux that I and many others have come to enjoy.I do not particularly care if Chrome is ever ported to a particular Linux distribution , and if they do adhere to their pretence of open standards , there is nothing preventing someone so inclined in creating a substitute for us as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This thread has quickly veered into the inevitable realm of comparing the Linux environment to Windows and OSX, which with a few reasonable exceptions, has yielded the usual complaints about each in comparison to the others.
As I see it, Microsoft and Apple are in the business of selling an environment for the casual computer user, and with some effort do their best to hide the underlying complexity from people who have no interest in computers beyond listening to music, browsing, checking their email, or using whatever applications they need to do their job.Of course, Linux can do most of these things as well, but makes less effort to hide the complexity underneath, and can quickly becoming confusing to someone who has only used Windows or OSX.
This is evidenced by the large number complaints on various Linux forums by new users who are asked to perform some task at the command line or edit a configuration file instead of using their more familiar GUI environment.
I see no reason for argument as people use computers for different reasons, and come from different backgrounds and as such, they should use whatever suits them best.
There are plenty of intelligent and reasonable people who have no need or interest in learning more about computers than how to operate the applications they use to accomplish a specific task.Linux can do many of these things, but these people will almost always find the underlying environment getting in their way because they don't care to understand it, or because the Linux equivalent is not what they are accustomed to.And this is fine.As others have mentioned, Linux is simply a kernel around which have grown a large body of specialized applications, frameworks and toolkits, and as such can be used to design a variety of systems for a variety of purposes.
Almost by definition it is primarily for those of a technical inclination, who do not mind or even enjoy learning about computers, and what it is possible to do with them.
There is little reason to recommend Linux to the more casual computer user, especially as it is almost always done with no care for what they actually want, and is largely out of the personal bias of those recommending it.Linux is based on a community of developers largely working in their own time and on projects they have personal use for or interest in and they cannot be forced to design or agree upon "a single API" as some have suggested.
Of course, there is nothing stopping a team from creating a Linux distribution targeted for the casual user, but then what is the compelling reason to switch, given that there are at least two separate and well-funded environments with this purpose already in mind?
Such an environment would, by necessity have to leave out many of the compelling benefits of Linux that I and many others have come to enjoy.I do not particularly care if Chrome is ever ported to a particular Linux distribution, and if they do adhere to their pretence of open standards, there is nothing preventing someone so inclined in creating a substitute for us as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28159867</id>
	<title>Re:What Linux needs</title>
	<author>ion.simon.c</author>
	<datestamp>1243797900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>e)  Standardise around <a href="http://www.pkgsrc.org/" title="pkgsrc.org">pkgsrc</a> [pkgsrc.org] for package management.</p></div><p>How is pkgsrc better than ports and/or portage?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>e ) Standardise around pkgsrc [ pkgsrc.org ] for package management.How is pkgsrc better than ports and/or portage ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>e)  Standardise around pkgsrc [pkgsrc.org] for package management.How is pkgsrc better than ports and/or portage?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28157459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152159</id>
	<title>Re:Linux's greatest strength = greatest weakness</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1243676640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Company I worked for many moons ago had an IRIX application they ported to linux.  Those were back in the days of Dependancy hell, libraries inconsistent across distros, so we settled on supporting Redhat 4 (might have been 5, i can't remember).  Linux accounted for less than 5\% of sales and something like 20\% of support requests.  Mostly it was people trying the trial version and the linux people emailing us with questions like, "What won't this run on my custom compiled slackware kernel with XYZ and..."  Then we'd flamed when we answered we only supported the default install of Red Hat X.  Now I do believe it also ran on SuSE without issues.</p><p>It was nightmare.</p><p>When OS X 10.1 was released, we ported to MacOSX and dropped linux support.</p><p>Honestly, it was that experience that drove me to BSD on the server side and OSX on the desktop more than anything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Company I worked for many moons ago had an IRIX application they ported to linux .
Those were back in the days of Dependancy hell , libraries inconsistent across distros , so we settled on supporting Redhat 4 ( might have been 5 , i ca n't remember ) .
Linux accounted for less than 5 \ % of sales and something like 20 \ % of support requests .
Mostly it was people trying the trial version and the linux people emailing us with questions like , " What wo n't this run on my custom compiled slackware kernel with XYZ and... " Then we 'd flamed when we answered we only supported the default install of Red Hat X. Now I do believe it also ran on SuSE without issues.It was nightmare.When OS X 10.1 was released , we ported to MacOSX and dropped linux support.Honestly , it was that experience that drove me to BSD on the server side and OSX on the desktop more than anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Company I worked for many moons ago had an IRIX application they ported to linux.
Those were back in the days of Dependancy hell, libraries inconsistent across distros, so we settled on supporting Redhat 4 (might have been 5, i can't remember).
Linux accounted for less than 5\% of sales and something like 20\% of support requests.
Mostly it was people trying the trial version and the linux people emailing us with questions like, "What won't this run on my custom compiled slackware kernel with XYZ and..."  Then we'd flamed when we answered we only supported the default install of Red Hat X.  Now I do believe it also ran on SuSE without issues.It was nightmare.When OS X 10.1 was released, we ported to MacOSX and dropped linux support.Honestly, it was that experience that drove me to BSD on the server side and OSX on the desktop more than anything else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151269</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152409</id>
	<title>Re:Use Qt....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243678260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because every time you use a QT app, RMS cries!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because every time you use a QT app , RMS cries !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because every time you use a QT app, RMS cries!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152313</id>
	<title>There is just too much Linux!</title>
	<author>mortalmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1243677780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used linux (open suse with kde) for the first time recently, installing it on a machine that had previously been running the win 7 beta. Apart from the fact that I found it totally impossible to get sound from it despite spending almost 2 hours installing drivers (which are near impossible to find for linux) I just found it to be less useable overall (than any of the windows systems or mac osx). I had been considering giving it to my parents to replace their windows machine, but I quickly realised that they would be unable to use it. I think that considering there is such a good community behind all of the linux distros the effort would be much better used on creating a single more customizable distro. It would be far easier on the software devs as well. At the moment they cant be bothered realeasing software for such a small percentage of users and it is damaging the image of linux.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used linux ( open suse with kde ) for the first time recently , installing it on a machine that had previously been running the win 7 beta .
Apart from the fact that I found it totally impossible to get sound from it despite spending almost 2 hours installing drivers ( which are near impossible to find for linux ) I just found it to be less useable overall ( than any of the windows systems or mac osx ) .
I had been considering giving it to my parents to replace their windows machine , but I quickly realised that they would be unable to use it .
I think that considering there is such a good community behind all of the linux distros the effort would be much better used on creating a single more customizable distro .
It would be far easier on the software devs as well .
At the moment they cant be bothered realeasing software for such a small percentage of users and it is damaging the image of linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used linux (open suse with kde) for the first time recently, installing it on a machine that had previously been running the win 7 beta.
Apart from the fact that I found it totally impossible to get sound from it despite spending almost 2 hours installing drivers (which are near impossible to find for linux) I just found it to be less useable overall (than any of the windows systems or mac osx).
I had been considering giving it to my parents to replace their windows machine, but I quickly realised that they would be unable to use it.
I think that considering there is such a good community behind all of the linux distros the effort would be much better used on creating a single more customizable distro.
It would be far easier on the software devs as well.
At the moment they cant be bothered realeasing software for such a small percentage of users and it is damaging the image of linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151785</id>
	<title>Decision Point:  Standardization or Obscurity?</title>
	<author>reallocate</author>
	<datestamp>1243674420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the choice inherent in Linux -- meaning the choice for developers to go their own way -- increases the difficulty of achieving the level of standardization that allows any software platform to play well with others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the choice inherent in Linux -- meaning the choice for developers to go their own way -- increases the difficulty of achieving the level of standardization that allows any software platform to play well with others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the choice inherent in Linux -- meaning the choice for developers to go their own way -- increases the difficulty of achieving the level of standardization that allows any software platform to play well with others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151391</id>
	<title>Qt</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1243715160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrome should have been built on top of Qt from day 1.  You'd have tight integration with Webkit, a great toolkit, and cross-platform from day 1 on Windows, Mac, Linux and Solaris.</p><p>Google opted for VERY Windows-centric design which made porting hard, and then the man tasked with porting to Linux choose a poor toolkit and then blamed the Linux platform for two bad decisions in a row made by Google.</p><p>I have zero sympathy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome should have been built on top of Qt from day 1 .
You 'd have tight integration with Webkit , a great toolkit , and cross-platform from day 1 on Windows , Mac , Linux and Solaris.Google opted for VERY Windows-centric design which made porting hard , and then the man tasked with porting to Linux choose a poor toolkit and then blamed the Linux platform for two bad decisions in a row made by Google.I have zero sympathy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome should have been built on top of Qt from day 1.
You'd have tight integration with Webkit, a great toolkit, and cross-platform from day 1 on Windows, Mac, Linux and Solaris.Google opted for VERY Windows-centric design which made porting hard, and then the man tasked with porting to Linux choose a poor toolkit and then blamed the Linux platform for two bad decisions in a row made by Google.I have zero sympathy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154173</id>
	<title>Re:Use Qt....</title>
	<author>AleBaba</author>
	<datestamp>1243690320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, the real question is: Why?

Ubuntu users got their Firefox/Iceweasel/Ubufox with GTK-Toolkit. On the other hand, if I had to choose between Konqueror or Chrome I'd rather take choose Chrome (provided it was stable and available).

Lucky me, I prefer Gnome and Firefox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the real question is : Why ?
Ubuntu users got their Firefox/Iceweasel/Ubufox with GTK-Toolkit .
On the other hand , if I had to choose between Konqueror or Chrome I 'd rather take choose Chrome ( provided it was stable and available ) .
Lucky me , I prefer Gnome and Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the real question is: Why?
Ubuntu users got their Firefox/Iceweasel/Ubufox with GTK-Toolkit.
On the other hand, if I had to choose between Konqueror or Chrome I'd rather take choose Chrome (provided it was stable and available).
Lucky me, I prefer Gnome and Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152005</id>
	<title>Re:it's why Windows took over in the first place</title>
	<author>k.a.f.</author>
	<datestamp>1243675680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At one point, serious computers ran Unix.  PCs were just toys, not useful for doing real work with.</p><p>But Unix fragmented.  You had AIX, HPUX, and around a dozen other different kinds.  They all behaved differently, stored things in different places in the filesystem, had different desktop environments.</p><p>Windows came along with a single environment and suddenly *that* was the attractive place to develop software.</p><p>Fast forward a few decades, and to a 0th order approximation, all apps are written for Windows, and Unix derivatives are dead on the desktop.  Ok, there are a handful of slashdotters using Linux in their basements, but from a desktop perspective it essentially doesn't exist.  And the software people need to run for real productivity purposes - Autocad, Photoshop, things like that - are all for Windows.</p><p>The only way Linux can hope to succeed is to present a unified environment to developers *and* users.  Period.</p>  </div><p>I agree with you 100\% there.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, that means the over-complex KDE will have to die.  Yes, that means binary compatibility must stop being broken from OS update to OS update.  Yes, that means supporting DRM so that users can play their streaming videos from Netflix.</p><p>It's simply the arrogance of Linux developers that have crippled Linux adoption.</p></div><p>I disagree utterly. Nothing 'has' to change just because you would like it better. The majority of Linux users don't want world
domination badly enough to discard their own pet choices, and so it'll never happen. That is all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At one point , serious computers ran Unix .
PCs were just toys , not useful for doing real work with.But Unix fragmented .
You had AIX , HPUX , and around a dozen other different kinds .
They all behaved differently , stored things in different places in the filesystem , had different desktop environments.Windows came along with a single environment and suddenly * that * was the attractive place to develop software.Fast forward a few decades , and to a 0th order approximation , all apps are written for Windows , and Unix derivatives are dead on the desktop .
Ok , there are a handful of slashdotters using Linux in their basements , but from a desktop perspective it essentially does n't exist .
And the software people need to run for real productivity purposes - Autocad , Photoshop , things like that - are all for Windows.The only way Linux can hope to succeed is to present a unified environment to developers * and * users .
Period. I agree with you 100 \ % there.Yes , that means the over-complex KDE will have to die .
Yes , that means binary compatibility must stop being broken from OS update to OS update .
Yes , that means supporting DRM so that users can play their streaming videos from Netflix.It 's simply the arrogance of Linux developers that have crippled Linux adoption.I disagree utterly .
Nothing 'has ' to change just because you would like it better .
The majority of Linux users do n't want world domination badly enough to discard their own pet choices , and so it 'll never happen .
That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At one point, serious computers ran Unix.
PCs were just toys, not useful for doing real work with.But Unix fragmented.
You had AIX, HPUX, and around a dozen other different kinds.
They all behaved differently, stored things in different places in the filesystem, had different desktop environments.Windows came along with a single environment and suddenly *that* was the attractive place to develop software.Fast forward a few decades, and to a 0th order approximation, all apps are written for Windows, and Unix derivatives are dead on the desktop.
Ok, there are a handful of slashdotters using Linux in their basements, but from a desktop perspective it essentially doesn't exist.
And the software people need to run for real productivity purposes - Autocad, Photoshop, things like that - are all for Windows.The only way Linux can hope to succeed is to present a unified environment to developers *and* users.
Period.  I agree with you 100\% there.Yes, that means the over-complex KDE will have to die.
Yes, that means binary compatibility must stop being broken from OS update to OS update.
Yes, that means supporting DRM so that users can play their streaming videos from Netflix.It's simply the arrogance of Linux developers that have crippled Linux adoption.I disagree utterly.
Nothing 'has' to change just because you would like it better.
The majority of Linux users don't want world
domination badly enough to discard their own pet choices, and so it'll never happen.
That is all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151871</id>
	<title>two bad decisions in a row made by Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243674840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Three excellent paragraphs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Three excellent paragraphs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Three excellent paragraphs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156839</id>
	<title>Re:it's why Windows took over in the first place</title>
	<author>AleBaba</author>
	<datestamp>1243766940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Windows came along with a single environment and suddenly *that* was the attractive place to develop software.</p></div><p>
Wrong. Completely wrong.<br>
<br>
Windows was cheap. People could afford Windows, so lots of them did. Mass = money and here we've got the reason why lots of software were and are being developed for MS' systems.<br>
<br>
It never was about the "single environment", but about a new market. AND you are missing the real point: Most of the software being sold or developed for Windows is either crap or something a decent OS should feature anyway (that's what Mac users always say and they are right).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And the software people need to run for real productivity purposes - Autocad, Photoshop, things like that - are all for Windows.</p></div><p>

Ahahahaha. Photoshop. THE Mac's killer application used by nearly 100\% of professional designers. You can't be serious.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The only way Linux can hope to succeed is to present a unified environment to developers *and* users.</p></div><p>
I'm a web developer. For big projects I have to consider Opera, Safari, Firefox and Internet Explorer (5.5-8). Those browsers do have something in common: They<br>
a) don't present users a consistent UI (not even that IE crap) and<br>
b) render pages differently.<br>
<br>
No consistent, unified experience here. Following your logic: the web is dead.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Unix derivatives are dead on the desktop. Ok, there are a handful of slashdotters using Linux in their basements [...]</p></div><p>
Linux is and never was a Unix derivative but OS/X definitely is.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, that means the over-complex KDE will have to die.</p></div><p>

Ah, here I finally got the point. You're not a troll - you simply don't have a clue.<br>
<br>
I'm so happy you're not the one to decide to kill such a great project as KDE (said by a Gnome user).<br>
<br>
<br>
Linux is about choice and freedom.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows came along with a single environment and suddenly * that * was the attractive place to develop software .
Wrong. Completely wrong .
Windows was cheap .
People could afford Windows , so lots of them did .
Mass = money and here we 've got the reason why lots of software were and are being developed for MS ' systems .
It never was about the " single environment " , but about a new market .
AND you are missing the real point : Most of the software being sold or developed for Windows is either crap or something a decent OS should feature anyway ( that 's what Mac users always say and they are right ) .And the software people need to run for real productivity purposes - Autocad , Photoshop , things like that - are all for Windows .
Ahahahaha. Photoshop .
THE Mac 's killer application used by nearly 100 \ % of professional designers .
You ca n't be serious.The only way Linux can hope to succeed is to present a unified environment to developers * and * users .
I 'm a web developer .
For big projects I have to consider Opera , Safari , Firefox and Internet Explorer ( 5.5-8 ) .
Those browsers do have something in common : They a ) do n't present users a consistent UI ( not even that IE crap ) and b ) render pages differently .
No consistent , unified experience here .
Following your logic : the web is dead.Unix derivatives are dead on the desktop .
Ok , there are a handful of slashdotters using Linux in their basements [ ... ] Linux is and never was a Unix derivative but OS/X definitely is.Yes , that means the over-complex KDE will have to die .
Ah , here I finally got the point .
You 're not a troll - you simply do n't have a clue .
I 'm so happy you 're not the one to decide to kill such a great project as KDE ( said by a Gnome user ) .
Linux is about choice and freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows came along with a single environment and suddenly *that* was the attractive place to develop software.
Wrong. Completely wrong.
Windows was cheap.
People could afford Windows, so lots of them did.
Mass = money and here we've got the reason why lots of software were and are being developed for MS' systems.
It never was about the "single environment", but about a new market.
AND you are missing the real point: Most of the software being sold or developed for Windows is either crap or something a decent OS should feature anyway (that's what Mac users always say and they are right).And the software people need to run for real productivity purposes - Autocad, Photoshop, things like that - are all for Windows.
Ahahahaha. Photoshop.
THE Mac's killer application used by nearly 100\% of professional designers.
You can't be serious.The only way Linux can hope to succeed is to present a unified environment to developers *and* users.
I'm a web developer.
For big projects I have to consider Opera, Safari, Firefox and Internet Explorer (5.5-8).
Those browsers do have something in common: They
a) don't present users a consistent UI (not even that IE crap) and
b) render pages differently.
No consistent, unified experience here.
Following your logic: the web is dead.Unix derivatives are dead on the desktop.
Ok, there are a handful of slashdotters using Linux in their basements [...]
Linux is and never was a Unix derivative but OS/X definitely is.Yes, that means the over-complex KDE will have to die.
Ah, here I finally got the point.
You're not a troll - you simply don't have a clue.
I'm so happy you're not the one to decide to kill such a great project as KDE (said by a Gnome user).
Linux is about choice and freedom.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151829</id>
	<title>Re:Qt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243674600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Chrome should have been built on top of Qt from day 1.</p><p>RTFA.</p><blockquote><div><p>I sincerely wonder, why didn't you just use Qt for the UI from the<br>beginning? It blends very well with the native look&amp;feel on each<br>platform, while still letting you implement the distinctive Chrome<br>features. Qt 4.5 will even have native look in GNOME.</p><p>Ben Goodger:</p><p>In general, we've avoided cross platform UI toolkits because while<br>they may offer what superficially appears to be a quick path to native<br>looking UI on a variety of target platforms, once you go a bit deeper<br>it turns out to be a bit more problematic. As Amanda says, your app<br>ends up "speaking with a foreign accent".</p><p>Our experience is that using these frameworks also limits what you can<br>do to a lowest common denominator subset of what's supported by that<br>framework on each platform.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>The architecture of Chrome has converged over the past few<br>months on a solid separation of view from state, and this has given us<br>the flexibility to make these decisions and choose from the widest<br>range of alternatives.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Chrome should have been built on top of Qt from day 1.RTFA.I sincerely wonder , why did n't you just use Qt for the UI from thebeginning ?
It blends very well with the native look&amp;feel on eachplatform , while still letting you implement the distinctive Chromefeatures .
Qt 4.5 will even have native look in GNOME.Ben Goodger : In general , we 've avoided cross platform UI toolkits because whilethey may offer what superficially appears to be a quick path to nativelooking UI on a variety of target platforms , once you go a bit deeperit turns out to be a bit more problematic .
As Amanda says , your appends up " speaking with a foreign accent " .Our experience is that using these frameworks also limits what you cando to a lowest common denominator subset of what 's supported by thatframework on each platform .
...The architecture of Chrome has converged over the past fewmonths on a solid separation of view from state , and this has given usthe flexibility to make these decisions and choose from the widestrange of alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Chrome should have been built on top of Qt from day 1.RTFA.I sincerely wonder, why didn't you just use Qt for the UI from thebeginning?
It blends very well with the native look&amp;feel on eachplatform, while still letting you implement the distinctive Chromefeatures.
Qt 4.5 will even have native look in GNOME.Ben Goodger:In general, we've avoided cross platform UI toolkits because whilethey may offer what superficially appears to be a quick path to nativelooking UI on a variety of target platforms, once you go a bit deeperit turns out to be a bit more problematic.
As Amanda says, your appends up "speaking with a foreign accent".Our experience is that using these frameworks also limits what you cando to a lowest common denominator subset of what's supported by thatframework on each platform.
...The architecture of Chrome has converged over the past fewmonths on a solid separation of view from state, and this has given usthe flexibility to make these decisions and choose from the widestrange of alternatives.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151489</id>
	<title>Re:World of goo anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243715820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or just shorten it down to "PulseAudio is (was?) crap". It is only now even becoming useable (i.e. major bugs are fixed), it's completely Ubuntu who is to blame for using software that is almost a year from being ready. If you want further proof how completely they messed up: They added a PulseAudio support patch to MPlayer that was rejected by the MPlayer developers and did not even realize that it made the gmplayer Gui hang completly unresponsive when selected. I.e. a patch they can't even tested in the most superficial way (e.g. by just, you know, like, try using the feature).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or just shorten it down to " PulseAudio is ( was ?
) crap " .
It is only now even becoming useable ( i.e .
major bugs are fixed ) , it 's completely Ubuntu who is to blame for using software that is almost a year from being ready .
If you want further proof how completely they messed up : They added a PulseAudio support patch to MPlayer that was rejected by the MPlayer developers and did not even realize that it made the gmplayer Gui hang completly unresponsive when selected .
I.e. a patch they ca n't even tested in the most superficial way ( e.g .
by just , you know , like , try using the feature ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or just shorten it down to "PulseAudio is (was?
) crap".
It is only now even becoming useable (i.e.
major bugs are fixed), it's completely Ubuntu who is to blame for using software that is almost a year from being ready.
If you want further proof how completely they messed up: They added a PulseAudio support patch to MPlayer that was rejected by the MPlayer developers and did not even realize that it made the gmplayer Gui hang completly unresponsive when selected.
I.e. a patch they can't even tested in the most superficial way (e.g.
by just, you know, like, try using the feature).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152151</id>
	<title>Time to start making some cuts</title>
	<author>stbill79</author>
	<datestamp>1243676580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I've been back and forth between Windows and Linux for the last decade. Then, like now, QT and GTK were the main two competing GUI kits, Gnome and KDE were the two competing desktops. At the time, OSS was the standard audio API, though ALSA was the new kid on the block that was supposed to standardize Linux audio. There were multiple apps for organizing my music, watching videos, writings docs and spreadsheets, browsing the web, etc. None of the apps was as good as its best counterpart on Windows/Mac.
</p><p>
We all knew there were problems with having multiple GUI kits, desktops, audio APIs, and applications that provided the same functionality. This was acceptable, <strong>at the time</strong>, because we believed that evolution would eventually win, the strong would survive, the weak would die, and Linux would eventually have <strong>one</strong> standard GUI toolkit, <strong>one</strong> top-notch desktop manager, <strong>one</strong> audio API, and at least <strong>one</strong> great app for each needed function. At the time, we ignored all the complaints and deficiencies because we knew that this process would not happen overnight; we were sure that, in the end, all the competing apps and apis would innovate until a clear winner became dominant. Then, we assured ourselves, Linux would finally take over the desktop.
</p><p>
We believed the same economic BS the neo-cons have been chanting since the 80's. Leave the market alone, and economic prosperity will take care of itself.
</p><p>
Now, same as the neo-cons facing the reality of their collapsed businesses, we see that Linux has failed to standardize. Ubuntu has been forked into at least three semi-popular versions, one for each of the far-from-perfect desktops/GUI kits, contains yet another Audio api, and has a huge repository that allows one to download dozens of audio managers, video players, browsers, word processors, etc - none of which is as good as its best counterpart on Windows/Mac OSX. Ten years of waiting for evolution to fix Linux on its own, both Microsoft and Mac OSX have made major improvements, such that OSX and Windows XP (both pushing many years old, now) are unarguably more polished and stable than the comparable Linux desktop distros.
</p><p>
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it is time for us (along with the major vendors - RH, Suse, Ubuntu), to start making the tough choices. One desktop/GUI kit, one audio api, one good app for each needed function. That software that depends on the other toolkits, apis, etc. is deprecated. Period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been back and forth between Windows and Linux for the last decade .
Then , like now , QT and GTK were the main two competing GUI kits , Gnome and KDE were the two competing desktops .
At the time , OSS was the standard audio API , though ALSA was the new kid on the block that was supposed to standardize Linux audio .
There were multiple apps for organizing my music , watching videos , writings docs and spreadsheets , browsing the web , etc .
None of the apps was as good as its best counterpart on Windows/Mac .
We all knew there were problems with having multiple GUI kits , desktops , audio APIs , and applications that provided the same functionality .
This was acceptable , at the time , because we believed that evolution would eventually win , the strong would survive , the weak would die , and Linux would eventually have one standard GUI toolkit , one top-notch desktop manager , one audio API , and at least one great app for each needed function .
At the time , we ignored all the complaints and deficiencies because we knew that this process would not happen overnight ; we were sure that , in the end , all the competing apps and apis would innovate until a clear winner became dominant .
Then , we assured ourselves , Linux would finally take over the desktop .
We believed the same economic BS the neo-cons have been chanting since the 80 's .
Leave the market alone , and economic prosperity will take care of itself .
Now , same as the neo-cons facing the reality of their collapsed businesses , we see that Linux has failed to standardize .
Ubuntu has been forked into at least three semi-popular versions , one for each of the far-from-perfect desktops/GUI kits , contains yet another Audio api , and has a huge repository that allows one to download dozens of audio managers , video players , browsers , word processors , etc - none of which is as good as its best counterpart on Windows/Mac OSX .
Ten years of waiting for evolution to fix Linux on its own , both Microsoft and Mac OSX have made major improvements , such that OSX and Windows XP ( both pushing many years old , now ) are unarguably more polished and stable than the comparable Linux desktop distros .
I guess what I 'm trying to say is that it is time for us ( along with the major vendors - RH , Suse , Ubuntu ) , to start making the tough choices .
One desktop/GUI kit , one audio api , one good app for each needed function .
That software that depends on the other toolkits , apis , etc .
is deprecated .
Period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I've been back and forth between Windows and Linux for the last decade.
Then, like now, QT and GTK were the main two competing GUI kits, Gnome and KDE were the two competing desktops.
At the time, OSS was the standard audio API, though ALSA was the new kid on the block that was supposed to standardize Linux audio.
There were multiple apps for organizing my music, watching videos, writings docs and spreadsheets, browsing the web, etc.
None of the apps was as good as its best counterpart on Windows/Mac.
We all knew there were problems with having multiple GUI kits, desktops, audio APIs, and applications that provided the same functionality.
This was acceptable, at the time, because we believed that evolution would eventually win, the strong would survive, the weak would die, and Linux would eventually have one standard GUI toolkit, one top-notch desktop manager, one audio API, and at least one great app for each needed function.
At the time, we ignored all the complaints and deficiencies because we knew that this process would not happen overnight; we were sure that, in the end, all the competing apps and apis would innovate until a clear winner became dominant.
Then, we assured ourselves, Linux would finally take over the desktop.
We believed the same economic BS the neo-cons have been chanting since the 80's.
Leave the market alone, and economic prosperity will take care of itself.
Now, same as the neo-cons facing the reality of their collapsed businesses, we see that Linux has failed to standardize.
Ubuntu has been forked into at least three semi-popular versions, one for each of the far-from-perfect desktops/GUI kits, contains yet another Audio api, and has a huge repository that allows one to download dozens of audio managers, video players, browsers, word processors, etc - none of which is as good as its best counterpart on Windows/Mac OSX.
Ten years of waiting for evolution to fix Linux on its own, both Microsoft and Mac OSX have made major improvements, such that OSX and Windows XP (both pushing many years old, now) are unarguably more polished and stable than the comparable Linux desktop distros.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it is time for us (along with the major vendors - RH, Suse, Ubuntu), to start making the tough choices.
One desktop/GUI kit, one audio api, one good app for each needed function.
That software that depends on the other toolkits, apis, etc.
is deprecated.
Period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151815</id>
	<title>GUI standard is a myth.</title>
	<author>McDutchie</author>
	<datestamp>1243674480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no universal standard GUI toolkit on Windows either. Firefox and Opera use their own. OpenOffice.org uses its own. Even Microsoft Office uses its own. On the Mac, there is even more GUI dissonance. Current Macs make the typical Linux environment look downright uniform.</p><p>Why is this always considered a problem on Linux but not on Windows or on the Mac?</p><p>If the Chrome developers feel too constrained by GTK, they should have chosen a better toolkit, such as Qt (which, incidentally, is also popular on Windows). They can't blame their own bad choices on Linux. Their gripe sounds like the standard "how dare Linux be different from Windows and make us have to learn something new" whining.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no universal standard GUI toolkit on Windows either .
Firefox and Opera use their own .
OpenOffice.org uses its own .
Even Microsoft Office uses its own .
On the Mac , there is even more GUI dissonance .
Current Macs make the typical Linux environment look downright uniform.Why is this always considered a problem on Linux but not on Windows or on the Mac ? If the Chrome developers feel too constrained by GTK , they should have chosen a better toolkit , such as Qt ( which , incidentally , is also popular on Windows ) .
They ca n't blame their own bad choices on Linux .
Their gripe sounds like the standard " how dare Linux be different from Windows and make us have to learn something new " whining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no universal standard GUI toolkit on Windows either.
Firefox and Opera use their own.
OpenOffice.org uses its own.
Even Microsoft Office uses its own.
On the Mac, there is even more GUI dissonance.
Current Macs make the typical Linux environment look downright uniform.Why is this always considered a problem on Linux but not on Windows or on the Mac?If the Chrome developers feel too constrained by GTK, they should have chosen a better toolkit, such as Qt (which, incidentally, is also popular on Windows).
They can't blame their own bad choices on Linux.
Their gripe sounds like the standard "how dare Linux be different from Windows and make us have to learn something new" whining.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153643</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243686360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> SDL, GTK+, etc, and the dlls have to be included with the binary downloads because Windows/Mac don't have an easy to use package manager.</p> </div><p>Please, please, please stop with this stingy attitude towards distributing libraries. We have megabits of bandwidth and terabytes of disk space and yet there is an almost herculean effort made to economize a few GB by using dynamic linking where it's not strictly needed. The time and effort spent on these measures dwarfs the extra download times associated with statically linking as much as humanly possible.</p><p>As much as possible, every application should be entirely self-contained and reliant only on system calls in the underlying OS. I will gladly sacrifice any amount of diskspace not to deal with my package manager and insane requirements.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>SDL , GTK + , etc , and the dlls have to be included with the binary downloads because Windows/Mac do n't have an easy to use package manager .
Please , please , please stop with this stingy attitude towards distributing libraries .
We have megabits of bandwidth and terabytes of disk space and yet there is an almost herculean effort made to economize a few GB by using dynamic linking where it 's not strictly needed .
The time and effort spent on these measures dwarfs the extra download times associated with statically linking as much as humanly possible.As much as possible , every application should be entirely self-contained and reliant only on system calls in the underlying OS .
I will gladly sacrifice any amount of diskspace not to deal with my package manager and insane requirements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> SDL, GTK+, etc, and the dlls have to be included with the binary downloads because Windows/Mac don't have an easy to use package manager.
Please, please, please stop with this stingy attitude towards distributing libraries.
We have megabits of bandwidth and terabytes of disk space and yet there is an almost herculean effort made to economize a few GB by using dynamic linking where it's not strictly needed.
The time and effort spent on these measures dwarfs the extra download times associated with statically linking as much as humanly possible.As much as possible, every application should be entirely self-contained and reliant only on system calls in the underlying OS.
I will gladly sacrifice any amount of diskspace not to deal with my package manager and insane requirements.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154875</id>
	<title>Re:it's why Windows took over in the first place</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243697700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"KDE won't die so long there are people interested in working on it."</p><p>Ah yes, the "long tail" argument. That worked so well back in 2000, let's stick with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" KDE wo n't die so long there are people interested in working on it .
" Ah yes , the " long tail " argument .
That worked so well back in 2000 , let 's stick with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"KDE won't die so long there are people interested in working on it.
"Ah yes, the "long tail" argument.
That worked so well back in 2000, let's stick with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151275</id>
	<title>Application versus platform programming</title>
	<author>pegdhcp</author>
	<datestamp>1243714560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At a certain point of this topic, somebody will mention that application programmers blame OS coders whenever they have a problem even a twelve years old can solve.<p>
On another point nearby somebody else, will mention that an OS is nothing without proper applications.</p><p>
And somebody else in an attempt to consolidate ideas from both sides will mention that if everybody do their jobs properly that there would be no problem.</p><p>
Unfortunately somebody will pick from there and people will start compare OS X and Linux. We all know the result of this particular argument...</p><p> If it is a bad day some poor M$ programmer/user/whatever will try to tell something, probably irrelevant, about M$ craps sold as OS, and everybody will smash poor guy, even before reading his full post. Strangely, they would be right; even if that post was something interesting to read, M$ OSs suckiness factor is above the strongest Black Holes...</p><p>
If it is really a bad day we also see BSD kernel mentioned...</p><p>
Well another day in Slahsdot...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At a certain point of this topic , somebody will mention that application programmers blame OS coders whenever they have a problem even a twelve years old can solve .
On another point nearby somebody else , will mention that an OS is nothing without proper applications .
And somebody else in an attempt to consolidate ideas from both sides will mention that if everybody do their jobs properly that there would be no problem .
Unfortunately somebody will pick from there and people will start compare OS X and Linux .
We all know the result of this particular argument... If it is a bad day some poor M $ programmer/user/whatever will try to tell something , probably irrelevant , about M $ craps sold as OS , and everybody will smash poor guy , even before reading his full post .
Strangely , they would be right ; even if that post was something interesting to read , M $ OSs suckiness factor is above the strongest Black Holes.. . If it is really a bad day we also see BSD kernel mentioned.. . Well another day in Slahsdot.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At a certain point of this topic, somebody will mention that application programmers blame OS coders whenever they have a problem even a twelve years old can solve.
On another point nearby somebody else, will mention that an OS is nothing without proper applications.
And somebody else in an attempt to consolidate ideas from both sides will mention that if everybody do their jobs properly that there would be no problem.
Unfortunately somebody will pick from there and people will start compare OS X and Linux.
We all know the result of this particular argument... If it is a bad day some poor M$ programmer/user/whatever will try to tell something, probably irrelevant, about M$ craps sold as OS, and everybody will smash poor guy, even before reading his full post.
Strangely, they would be right; even if that post was something interesting to read, M$ OSs suckiness factor is above the strongest Black Holes...
If it is really a bad day we also see BSD kernel mentioned...
Well another day in Slahsdot...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151205</id>
	<title>World of goo anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243714080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reminds me of something that I read a while ago, when <a href="http://linuxlock.blogspot.com/2009/02/linux-gets-gooey-on-friday-13th.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">world of goo was released for linux</a> [blogspot.com], the developers had some trouble as well, but that time the culprit was pulse audio.</p><blockquote><div><p>There were a few small technical hurdles, but Maks is either a genius, or the port was not much trouble at all! One technical hurdle was with Pulse Audio, which apparently comes standard on major distros like Ubuntu. It introduces quite a bit of audio lag. This would be fine for most applications, but it's not good for games, where the goal is to build an extremely responsive system that feels snappy. We were able to work with it, and get the game feeling right, but it took a bit of effort. I realize I'll get shot for saying this, but in Windows, it just worked right away!<br>[..]<br>Also, and I've mentioned this before - Linux is created by too many smart opinionated people! There are a lot of very good ideas, but it can become difficult for developers to support all the different distro formats, bundles, audio/video systems. For linux to REALLY take over, it has to be easy for developers to make stuff, and easy for users to get stuff. It's one of those things where too many options can be suffocating, and ultimately hurt the cause.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of something that I read a while ago , when world of goo was released for linux [ blogspot.com ] , the developers had some trouble as well , but that time the culprit was pulse audio.There were a few small technical hurdles , but Maks is either a genius , or the port was not much trouble at all !
One technical hurdle was with Pulse Audio , which apparently comes standard on major distros like Ubuntu .
It introduces quite a bit of audio lag .
This would be fine for most applications , but it 's not good for games , where the goal is to build an extremely responsive system that feels snappy .
We were able to work with it , and get the game feeling right , but it took a bit of effort .
I realize I 'll get shot for saying this , but in Windows , it just worked right away ! [ . .
] Also , and I 've mentioned this before - Linux is created by too many smart opinionated people !
There are a lot of very good ideas , but it can become difficult for developers to support all the different distro formats , bundles , audio/video systems .
For linux to REALLY take over , it has to be easy for developers to make stuff , and easy for users to get stuff .
It 's one of those things where too many options can be suffocating , and ultimately hurt the cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of something that I read a while ago, when world of goo was released for linux [blogspot.com], the developers had some trouble as well, but that time the culprit was pulse audio.There were a few small technical hurdles, but Maks is either a genius, or the port was not much trouble at all!
One technical hurdle was with Pulse Audio, which apparently comes standard on major distros like Ubuntu.
It introduces quite a bit of audio lag.
This would be fine for most applications, but it's not good for games, where the goal is to build an extremely responsive system that feels snappy.
We were able to work with it, and get the game feeling right, but it took a bit of effort.
I realize I'll get shot for saying this, but in Windows, it just worked right away![..
]Also, and I've mentioned this before - Linux is created by too many smart opinionated people!
There are a lot of very good ideas, but it can become difficult for developers to support all the different distro formats, bundles, audio/video systems.
For linux to REALLY take over, it has to be easy for developers to make stuff, and easy for users to get stuff.
It's one of those things where too many options can be suffocating, and ultimately hurt the cause.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156703</id>
	<title>Re:Use Qt....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243764840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>errr. Not to rain on your parade but the file chooser is why I prefer GTK.</p><p>Have you even seen it?</p><p>I mean this one for loading:<br>http://www.gtkmm.org/docs/gtkmm-2.4/docs/tutorial/html/figures/dialogs\_filechooser.png</p><p>and this one for saving:<br>http://www.gnome.org/~federico/misc/gtkfilechooser-20080312.png</p><p>Did I mention the files are in a list? A normal list. Not some weird-ass matrix... and there are no knobs in it that aren't neccessary.</p><p>That's exactly how it should be, imo. The last time I saw QT's though...</p><p>http://blog.mob1970.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/openfiledialog.png</p><p>See the matrix? And if you type a path into the name field, it doesn't automatically change into the directory. What is one supposed to do? Click Open? Will it try to Open the directory in the text editor then? *scratches head*</p><p>What's more, what is a text entry box doing in an open dialog? Is anyone *typing* the name of the file into it, making 5 typos, when he could instead just go into the list (manually, of course) and search-as-you-type 2 characters and be done with?</p><p>I could go on.</p><p>cheers,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Danny</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>errr .
Not to rain on your parade but the file chooser is why I prefer GTK.Have you even seen it ? I mean this one for loading : http : //www.gtkmm.org/docs/gtkmm-2.4/docs/tutorial/html/figures/dialogs \ _filechooser.pngand this one for saving : http : //www.gnome.org/ ~ federico/misc/gtkfilechooser-20080312.pngDid I mention the files are in a list ?
A normal list .
Not some weird-ass matrix... and there are no knobs in it that are n't neccessary.That 's exactly how it should be , imo .
The last time I saw QT 's though...http : //blog.mob1970.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/openfiledialog.pngSee the matrix ?
And if you type a path into the name field , it does n't automatically change into the directory .
What is one supposed to do ?
Click Open ?
Will it try to Open the directory in the text editor then ?
* scratches head * What 's more , what is a text entry box doing in an open dialog ?
Is anyone * typing * the name of the file into it , making 5 typos , when he could instead just go into the list ( manually , of course ) and search-as-you-type 2 characters and be done with ? I could go on.cheers ,         Danny</tokentext>
<sentencetext>errr.
Not to rain on your parade but the file chooser is why I prefer GTK.Have you even seen it?I mean this one for loading:http://www.gtkmm.org/docs/gtkmm-2.4/docs/tutorial/html/figures/dialogs\_filechooser.pngand this one for saving:http://www.gnome.org/~federico/misc/gtkfilechooser-20080312.pngDid I mention the files are in a list?
A normal list.
Not some weird-ass matrix... and there are no knobs in it that aren't neccessary.That's exactly how it should be, imo.
The last time I saw QT's though...http://blog.mob1970.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/openfiledialog.pngSee the matrix?
And if you type a path into the name field, it doesn't automatically change into the directory.
What is one supposed to do?
Click Open?
Will it try to Open the directory in the text editor then?
*scratches head*What's more, what is a text entry box doing in an open dialog?
Is anyone *typing* the name of the file into it, making 5 typos, when he could instead just go into the list (manually, of course) and search-as-you-type 2 characters and be done with?I could go on.cheers,
        Danny</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151353</id>
	<title>Why not Qt?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243715040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems they didn't design it to be portable in the first place and now it's a bit harder than it should have been.</p><p>All their other complaints would have been solved by using Qt (including good-but-not-perfect Gnome integration). Again, their mistake. Nobody uses GTK if they don't have to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems they did n't design it to be portable in the first place and now it 's a bit harder than it should have been.All their other complaints would have been solved by using Qt ( including good-but-not-perfect Gnome integration ) .
Again , their mistake .
Nobody uses GTK if they do n't have to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems they didn't design it to be portable in the first place and now it's a bit harder than it should have been.All their other complaints would have been solved by using Qt (including good-but-not-perfect Gnome integration).
Again, their mistake.
Nobody uses GTK if they don't have to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152039</id>
	<title>GTK and QT</title>
	<author>Vexorian</author>
	<datestamp>1243675860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It sounds like an easy answer, and it covers a wide range of distros. Linux users don't really expect that much consistency anyway, and considering that even Mozillla is able to cover both toolkits, I'd say google perfectly can.

<p>I really think distros using different GUI toolkits  should be considered different platforms, it has been long since an OS was just a kernel, really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like an easy answer , and it covers a wide range of distros .
Linux users do n't really expect that much consistency anyway , and considering that even Mozillla is able to cover both toolkits , I 'd say google perfectly can .
I really think distros using different GUI toolkits should be considered different platforms , it has been long since an OS was just a kernel , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like an easy answer, and it covers a wide range of distros.
Linux users don't really expect that much consistency anyway, and considering that even Mozillla is able to cover both toolkits, I'd say google perfectly can.
I really think distros using different GUI toolkits  should be considered different platforms, it has been long since an OS was just a kernel, really.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151081</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1243713240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well it was a few years ago. Hope ubuntu has enough weight it can set standards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well it was a few years ago .
Hope ubuntu has enough weight it can set standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well it was a few years ago.
Hope ubuntu has enough weight it can set standards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28163143</id>
	<title>Linux, Java, UI</title>
	<author>kaffiene</author>
	<datestamp>1243781760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is one of the reasons that Java should have been used for the UI instead of GTK, but Linux zealots are too rabidly anti Java to make what would have been an eminently sensible choice.  Great triumph of zealotry over common sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of the reasons that Java should have been used for the UI instead of GTK , but Linux zealots are too rabidly anti Java to make what would have been an eminently sensible choice .
Great triumph of zealotry over common sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of the reasons that Java should have been used for the UI instead of GTK, but Linux zealots are too rabidly anti Java to make what would have been an eminently sensible choice.
Great triumph of zealotry over common sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151229</id>
	<title>There's nothing wrong</title>
	<author>mikesd81</author>
	<datestamp>1243714260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>with having a standard in Linux at all. It doesn't have to be a just about GTK and QT either. They're both widget kits. Great. The standard has to start in the file system. Red Hat, for instance, worries about being backwards compatible with each update, as it should, but that means it broke the FSH to begin with. So migrating from RH to another Linux distro that may follow the FSH is difficult. Also, it makes installing things a pain sometimes. A few times I've had to edit a config file because it points to a web server in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/srv/www but in reality my system may use<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/var/www/ or what have you. Just because open source is about choice, doesn't mean there shouldn't be a standard set.</htmltext>
<tokenext>with having a standard in Linux at all .
It does n't have to be a just about GTK and QT either .
They 're both widget kits .
Great. The standard has to start in the file system .
Red Hat , for instance , worries about being backwards compatible with each update , as it should , but that means it broke the FSH to begin with .
So migrating from RH to another Linux distro that may follow the FSH is difficult .
Also , it makes installing things a pain sometimes .
A few times I 've had to edit a config file because it points to a web server in /srv/www but in reality my system may use /var/www/ or what have you .
Just because open source is about choice , does n't mean there should n't be a standard set .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with having a standard in Linux at all.
It doesn't have to be a just about GTK and QT either.
They're both widget kits.
Great. The standard has to start in the file system.
Red Hat, for instance, worries about being backwards compatible with each update, as it should, but that means it broke the FSH to begin with.
So migrating from RH to another Linux distro that may follow the FSH is difficult.
Also, it makes installing things a pain sometimes.
A few times I've had to edit a config file because it points to a web server in /srv/www but in reality my system may use /var/www/ or what have you.
Just because open source is about choice, doesn't mean there shouldn't be a standard set.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155259</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>bwashed75</author>
	<datestamp>1243701780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quite a few of the choices are there because any application developer is forced to make choices from all the choices already out there. <br> <br>

Lets say I want an application with features XYZ. I go looking and find a large number of application with feature X, a large number of application with feature Y, a large number with feature Z. However, as the applications are spread out across  different framework, GUIs, distros, personal coding styles and whatever, and since standarization is for suckers, I have a hard time finding an application with even two of my features, and there is no way in hell I will be able to find on with all three.<br> <br>

So.. there's nothing else for me to do than set out to make the application myself, and I as the developer have to make the choices about GUIs, frameworks and whatever. and since I want my application of choice to be far superior to the others, I read up on them all before I make the decision. A pretty time-consuming affair, but hey...I want my application to be far superior to the others. And after a lot of reading, a little bit of coding, and lots of swearing and bugfixing I finally get there: The oh so wonderfully superior BwashedXYZ. <br> <br>

Sensibly, I put it out there in the public for everyone to enjoy, and pat my shoulder knowing I've made the world a better place. Now anyone on distro A, using GUI B, with backends C,D,E,F and G installed, can tweak this to work on their H1 hardware (H2,H3,H4,...,Hn hardware doesn't work unfortunately since the manufacurers are suckers and cant provide drivers for this particular setup). I open open a bottle of champagne and prepare myself for the enormous amount of mail and gratefulness I'm about to receive<br> <br>

Those mails of course never reach my inbox. Due to lack of standarization I've created a product that is usable for a fraction of those 1\% who chose to use GNU/Linux in the first place. Thousands of geeks cheer in harmony for another package in the distribution A repository, but unfortunately that happened to be a totally different thousands of people to my thousand of people: The thousands that would benefit from my XYZ application. I investigate and find that in my thousands of people I find tens of people using GNU/Linux(1\%) and ones of people being bothered installing backend C (10\% of the 1\%). None of the latter had hardware H1 <br> <br>


I'm all for free choice and the benefits of having competing products,but it has to be complemented by other things to work optimally. Some times one is just so much better off just deciding on some standard so that we all can use our creative energy WHERE IT MATTERS in stead of re-inventing wheels. <br> <br> <br>


hmm... Maybe I should write this post in ancient Greek. I've heard it's such a superior language to express thoughts..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite a few of the choices are there because any application developer is forced to make choices from all the choices already out there .
Lets say I want an application with features XYZ .
I go looking and find a large number of application with feature X , a large number of application with feature Y , a large number with feature Z. However , as the applications are spread out across different framework , GUIs , distros , personal coding styles and whatever , and since standarization is for suckers , I have a hard time finding an application with even two of my features , and there is no way in hell I will be able to find on with all three .
So.. there 's nothing else for me to do than set out to make the application myself , and I as the developer have to make the choices about GUIs , frameworks and whatever .
and since I want my application of choice to be far superior to the others , I read up on them all before I make the decision .
A pretty time-consuming affair , but hey...I want my application to be far superior to the others .
And after a lot of reading , a little bit of coding , and lots of swearing and bugfixing I finally get there : The oh so wonderfully superior BwashedXYZ .
Sensibly , I put it out there in the public for everyone to enjoy , and pat my shoulder knowing I 've made the world a better place .
Now anyone on distro A , using GUI B , with backends C,D,E,F and G installed , can tweak this to work on their H1 hardware ( H2,H3,H4,...,Hn hardware does n't work unfortunately since the manufacurers are suckers and cant provide drivers for this particular setup ) .
I open open a bottle of champagne and prepare myself for the enormous amount of mail and gratefulness I 'm about to receive Those mails of course never reach my inbox .
Due to lack of standarization I 've created a product that is usable for a fraction of those 1 \ % who chose to use GNU/Linux in the first place .
Thousands of geeks cheer in harmony for another package in the distribution A repository , but unfortunately that happened to be a totally different thousands of people to my thousand of people : The thousands that would benefit from my XYZ application .
I investigate and find that in my thousands of people I find tens of people using GNU/Linux ( 1 \ % ) and ones of people being bothered installing backend C ( 10 \ % of the 1 \ % ) .
None of the latter had hardware H1 I 'm all for free choice and the benefits of having competing products,but it has to be complemented by other things to work optimally .
Some times one is just so much better off just deciding on some standard so that we all can use our creative energy WHERE IT MATTERS in stead of re-inventing wheels .
hmm... Maybe I should write this post in ancient Greek .
I 've heard it 's such a superior language to express thoughts. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite a few of the choices are there because any application developer is forced to make choices from all the choices already out there.
Lets say I want an application with features XYZ.
I go looking and find a large number of application with feature X, a large number of application with feature Y, a large number with feature Z. However, as the applications are spread out across  different framework, GUIs, distros, personal coding styles and whatever, and since standarization is for suckers, I have a hard time finding an application with even two of my features, and there is no way in hell I will be able to find on with all three.
So.. there's nothing else for me to do than set out to make the application myself, and I as the developer have to make the choices about GUIs, frameworks and whatever.
and since I want my application of choice to be far superior to the others, I read up on them all before I make the decision.
A pretty time-consuming affair, but hey...I want my application to be far superior to the others.
And after a lot of reading, a little bit of coding, and lots of swearing and bugfixing I finally get there: The oh so wonderfully superior BwashedXYZ.
Sensibly, I put it out there in the public for everyone to enjoy, and pat my shoulder knowing I've made the world a better place.
Now anyone on distro A, using GUI B, with backends C,D,E,F and G installed, can tweak this to work on their H1 hardware (H2,H3,H4,...,Hn hardware doesn't work unfortunately since the manufacurers are suckers and cant provide drivers for this particular setup).
I open open a bottle of champagne and prepare myself for the enormous amount of mail and gratefulness I'm about to receive 

Those mails of course never reach my inbox.
Due to lack of standarization I've created a product that is usable for a fraction of those 1\% who chose to use GNU/Linux in the first place.
Thousands of geeks cheer in harmony for another package in the distribution A repository, but unfortunately that happened to be a totally different thousands of people to my thousand of people: The thousands that would benefit from my XYZ application.
I investigate and find that in my thousands of people I find tens of people using GNU/Linux(1\%) and ones of people being bothered installing backend C (10\% of the 1\%).
None of the latter had hardware H1  


I'm all for free choice and the benefits of having competing products,but it has to be complemented by other things to work optimally.
Some times one is just so much better off just deciding on some standard so that we all can use our creative energy WHERE IT MATTERS in stead of re-inventing wheels.
hmm... Maybe I should write this post in ancient Greek.
I've heard it's such a superior language to express thoughts..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153427</id>
	<title>Re:and this is different from other platforms... h</title>
	<author>BenoitRen</author>
	<datestamp>1243684980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Windows situation is even worse: there are several native toolkits there (Win32, MFC,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)</p></div> </blockquote><p>Win32 is the Windows API. MFC is a library consisting of shortcut functions to do larger things with the Windows API.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is a framework for languages like C# and Visual Basic that ultimately translates everything to the Windows API.</p><p>Hence there's still one standard: the Windows API. Everything else just builds on top of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Windows situation is even worse : there are several native toolkits there ( Win32 , MFC , .NET , ... ) Win32 is the Windows API .
MFC is a library consisting of shortcut functions to do larger things with the Windows API .
.NET is a framework for languages like C # and Visual Basic that ultimately translates everything to the Windows API.Hence there 's still one standard : the Windows API .
Everything else just builds on top of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Windows situation is even worse: there are several native toolkits there (Win32, MFC, .NET, ...) Win32 is the Windows API.
MFC is a library consisting of shortcut functions to do larger things with the Windows API.
.NET is a framework for languages like C# and Visual Basic that ultimately translates everything to the Windows API.Hence there's still one standard: the Windows API.
Everything else just builds on top of it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151665</id>
	<title>google apps</title>
	<author>meushi</author>
	<datestamp>1243716840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>google apps are on the web, why not build a nice javascript gui ? oh wait...</htmltext>
<tokenext>google apps are on the web , why not build a nice javascript gui ?
oh wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>google apps are on the web, why not build a nice javascript gui ?
oh wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151651</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see anything wrong</title>
	<author>XDirtypunkX</author>
	<datestamp>1243716780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrome is really about as simplistic as UIs get (apart from the web pages themselves). There aren't checkboxes or radio buttons on the main interface; you get tabs, a toolbar/address bar and that's it. To go further, the rendering in Chrome happens in a separate process (not even tied to the GUI) which is RPC'd back to the main process, which indicates that it's not really tied to the GUI toolkit either.</p><p>Is a standardized set of human interface guidelines really going to help them? Or are they just making an excuse for not servicing a small but vocal market? The truth is, if the Chrome developers wanted to worry about standardized interfaces, they would do the work to reproduce what they have on Windows. They didn't care about the standards on Windows (tabs on the title bar), so why would they care about them on Linux?</p><p>While I'm all for creating a common interface "language" for users to understand, I don't think a "linux" specific one is going to be helpful. Making it easy to move from using Chrome on Windows to using Chrome on Linux is much more helpful than saying "hey, look, you can use Chrome on Linux if you know how we do things around here". Making it so someone that uses Windows can understand the linux visual "language" is important, in the same way that we want people to understand what we say when we travel. Otherwise moving to Linux with it's own HIG is going to be like moving from England to China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome is really about as simplistic as UIs get ( apart from the web pages themselves ) .
There are n't checkboxes or radio buttons on the main interface ; you get tabs , a toolbar/address bar and that 's it .
To go further , the rendering in Chrome happens in a separate process ( not even tied to the GUI ) which is RPC 'd back to the main process , which indicates that it 's not really tied to the GUI toolkit either.Is a standardized set of human interface guidelines really going to help them ?
Or are they just making an excuse for not servicing a small but vocal market ?
The truth is , if the Chrome developers wanted to worry about standardized interfaces , they would do the work to reproduce what they have on Windows .
They did n't care about the standards on Windows ( tabs on the title bar ) , so why would they care about them on Linux ? While I 'm all for creating a common interface " language " for users to understand , I do n't think a " linux " specific one is going to be helpful .
Making it easy to move from using Chrome on Windows to using Chrome on Linux is much more helpful than saying " hey , look , you can use Chrome on Linux if you know how we do things around here " .
Making it so someone that uses Windows can understand the linux visual " language " is important , in the same way that we want people to understand what we say when we travel .
Otherwise moving to Linux with it 's own HIG is going to be like moving from England to China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome is really about as simplistic as UIs get (apart from the web pages themselves).
There aren't checkboxes or radio buttons on the main interface; you get tabs, a toolbar/address bar and that's it.
To go further, the rendering in Chrome happens in a separate process (not even tied to the GUI) which is RPC'd back to the main process, which indicates that it's not really tied to the GUI toolkit either.Is a standardized set of human interface guidelines really going to help them?
Or are they just making an excuse for not servicing a small but vocal market?
The truth is, if the Chrome developers wanted to worry about standardized interfaces, they would do the work to reproduce what they have on Windows.
They didn't care about the standards on Windows (tabs on the title bar), so why would they care about them on Linux?While I'm all for creating a common interface "language" for users to understand, I don't think a "linux" specific one is going to be helpful.
Making it easy to move from using Chrome on Windows to using Chrome on Linux is much more helpful than saying "hey, look, you can use Chrome on Linux if you know how we do things around here".
Making it so someone that uses Windows can understand the linux visual "language" is important, in the same way that we want people to understand what we say when we travel.
Otherwise moving to Linux with it's own HIG is going to be like moving from England to China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152963</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1243681680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>As an addendum to this good point:<br> <br>The reason we have so many choices is because....the users and developers want choices. OSS choices exist almost by definition because people are choosing them. To say, "your choice sucks, choose a better one" is ridiculous. Google is showing off the corporate mentality here. If you're not paying the thousands of developers of the toolchains for the major (and minor!) distributions, you don't get to complain about what they're producing. If you want standardization, you don't bitch about it - you make your platform of choice far superior to the other options. <br> <br>There are choices because they all have something to offer to someone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an addendum to this good point : The reason we have so many choices is because....the users and developers want choices .
OSS choices exist almost by definition because people are choosing them .
To say , " your choice sucks , choose a better one " is ridiculous .
Google is showing off the corporate mentality here .
If you 're not paying the thousands of developers of the toolchains for the major ( and minor !
) distributions , you do n't get to complain about what they 're producing .
If you want standardization , you do n't bitch about it - you make your platform of choice far superior to the other options .
There are choices because they all have something to offer to someone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an addendum to this good point: The reason we have so many choices is because....the users and developers want choices.
OSS choices exist almost by definition because people are choosing them.
To say, "your choice sucks, choose a better one" is ridiculous.
Google is showing off the corporate mentality here.
If you're not paying the thousands of developers of the toolchains for the major (and minor!
) distributions, you don't get to complain about what they're producing.
If you want standardization, you don't bitch about it - you make your platform of choice far superior to the other options.
There are choices because they all have something to offer to someone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153437</id>
	<title>Re:it's why Windows took over in the first place</title>
	<author>PeterBrett</author>
	<datestamp>1243685040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IMHO, this is the biggest barrier that keeps commercial development out of Linux. Basically, the Linux philosophy assumes that all applications are open source, so it doesn't matter if the ABI changes with every point release of the kernel, since the distros can just recompile all their binaries when packaging. This philosophy is incompatible with the commercial software method of distributing apps as binary blobs.</p></div><p>You're an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.</p><p>Applications run in userspace. The Linux userspace ABI has been stable since 2.6.0 IIRC. Lots of vendors (such as id Software) release completely closed source binary blobs which run on any 2.6.x Linux kernel. There are <em>many</em> examples of vendors who release binary blob applications for Linux and successfully run them on a variety of distributions and kernel builds.</p><p>What changes between versions is the kernel's <em>internal</em> ABI, which is totally hidden from userspace. This prevents closed source hardware drivers in the kernel from working between different kernel releases. Userspace drivers (e.g. USB devices) aren't affected by this.</p><p>Take your FUD elsewhere, sir.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IMHO , this is the biggest barrier that keeps commercial development out of Linux .
Basically , the Linux philosophy assumes that all applications are open source , so it does n't matter if the ABI changes with every point release of the kernel , since the distros can just recompile all their binaries when packaging .
This philosophy is incompatible with the commercial software method of distributing apps as binary blobs.You 're an idiot who does n't know what he 's talking about.Applications run in userspace .
The Linux userspace ABI has been stable since 2.6.0 IIRC .
Lots of vendors ( such as id Software ) release completely closed source binary blobs which run on any 2.6.x Linux kernel .
There are many examples of vendors who release binary blob applications for Linux and successfully run them on a variety of distributions and kernel builds.What changes between versions is the kernel 's internal ABI , which is totally hidden from userspace .
This prevents closed source hardware drivers in the kernel from working between different kernel releases .
Userspace drivers ( e.g .
USB devices ) are n't affected by this.Take your FUD elsewhere , sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMHO, this is the biggest barrier that keeps commercial development out of Linux.
Basically, the Linux philosophy assumes that all applications are open source, so it doesn't matter if the ABI changes with every point release of the kernel, since the distros can just recompile all their binaries when packaging.
This philosophy is incompatible with the commercial software method of distributing apps as binary blobs.You're an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.Applications run in userspace.
The Linux userspace ABI has been stable since 2.6.0 IIRC.
Lots of vendors (such as id Software) release completely closed source binary blobs which run on any 2.6.x Linux kernel.
There are many examples of vendors who release binary blob applications for Linux and successfully run them on a variety of distributions and kernel builds.What changes between versions is the kernel's internal ABI, which is totally hidden from userspace.
This prevents closed source hardware drivers in the kernel from working between different kernel releases.
Userspace drivers (e.g.
USB devices) aren't affected by this.Take your FUD elsewhere, sir.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28160885</id>
	<title>Re:World of goo anyone?</title>
	<author>JamesP</author>
	<datestamp>1243761900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's easy to solve PulseAudio problems.</p><p>Just remove it utterly.</p><p>(Ok, maybe not that easy, you still have to remove all references to PulseAudio in configurations, etc)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's easy to solve PulseAudio problems.Just remove it utterly .
( Ok , maybe not that easy , you still have to remove all references to PulseAudio in configurations , etc )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's easy to solve PulseAudio problems.Just remove it utterly.
(Ok, maybe not that easy, you still have to remove all references to PulseAudio in configurations, etc)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152511</id>
	<title>standardisation?</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1243678740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it's time to standardize.  Maybe.  I mean, why do we bitch so much about Microsoft?  They fail to follow established standards, making it difficult for honest people to compete with them - most notably in Internet Explorer, not to mention their office suite.</p><p>So, why can't Linux establish standards?  I mean, yeah, we can have choices out the wazoo, but why not a STANDARD?  As Adobe points out, audio is a jungle.  A set of standards for desktop audio would simplify life for MOST new users.  It would simplify life for most developers.  And, the standard would detract from NO ONE'S experience, since so many choices exist anyway.  If ALSA becomes "the standard", and I really want to use OSS, well, OSS is still there to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's time to standardize .
Maybe. I mean , why do we bitch so much about Microsoft ?
They fail to follow established standards , making it difficult for honest people to compete with them - most notably in Internet Explorer , not to mention their office suite.So , why ca n't Linux establish standards ?
I mean , yeah , we can have choices out the wazoo , but why not a STANDARD ?
As Adobe points out , audio is a jungle .
A set of standards for desktop audio would simplify life for MOST new users .
It would simplify life for most developers .
And , the standard would detract from NO ONE 'S experience , since so many choices exist anyway .
If ALSA becomes " the standard " , and I really want to use OSS , well , OSS is still there to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's time to standardize.
Maybe.  I mean, why do we bitch so much about Microsoft?
They fail to follow established standards, making it difficult for honest people to compete with them - most notably in Internet Explorer, not to mention their office suite.So, why can't Linux establish standards?
I mean, yeah, we can have choices out the wazoo, but why not a STANDARD?
As Adobe points out, audio is a jungle.
A set of standards for desktop audio would simplify life for MOST new users.
It would simplify life for most developers.
And, the standard would detract from NO ONE'S experience, since so many choices exist anyway.
If ALSA becomes "the standard", and I really want to use OSS, well, OSS is still there to use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153529</id>
	<title>Re:This is also why Linux gaming is substandard</title>
	<author>PeterBrett</author>
	<datestamp>1243685580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I love me some Linux, all my server boxes run it and I do do app and gui work on it, but the last time I tried to port a game to it I just gave up in disgust after hitting the sound stuff. And it wasn't just the sound, it was getting the mouse input, getting gamepad input, and a bunch of other things you don't even think about normally but have to work right to get a game running.</p></div><p>You were probably looking for SDL and OpenAL. They Just Work for all of the stuff you mention (and make it easy to use the same code between Linux &amp; Windows builds), and there have been lots of games successfully based on them, such as OpenTTD.</p><p>Hope that helps!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love me some Linux , all my server boxes run it and I do do app and gui work on it , but the last time I tried to port a game to it I just gave up in disgust after hitting the sound stuff .
And it was n't just the sound , it was getting the mouse input , getting gamepad input , and a bunch of other things you do n't even think about normally but have to work right to get a game running.You were probably looking for SDL and OpenAL .
They Just Work for all of the stuff you mention ( and make it easy to use the same code between Linux &amp; Windows builds ) , and there have been lots of games successfully based on them , such as OpenTTD.Hope that helps !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love me some Linux, all my server boxes run it and I do do app and gui work on it, but the last time I tried to port a game to it I just gave up in disgust after hitting the sound stuff.
And it wasn't just the sound, it was getting the mouse input, getting gamepad input, and a bunch of other things you don't even think about normally but have to work right to get a game running.You were probably looking for SDL and OpenAL.
They Just Work for all of the stuff you mention (and make it easy to use the same code between Linux &amp; Windows builds), and there have been lots of games successfully based on them, such as OpenTTD.Hope that helps!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155179</id>
	<title>Re:Use Qt....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243701000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well it (Qt) definitely surpasses GTK in many ways, and it indeed rendered it obsolete from the day Trolltech released it in LGPL on.<br>What prevented the wide usage of Qt was its license. Once this barrier has been removed, Qt did render other toolkits obsolete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well it ( Qt ) definitely surpasses GTK in many ways , and it indeed rendered it obsolete from the day Trolltech released it in LGPL on.What prevented the wide usage of Qt was its license .
Once this barrier has been removed , Qt did render other toolkits obsolete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well it (Qt) definitely surpasses GTK in many ways, and it indeed rendered it obsolete from the day Trolltech released it in LGPL on.What prevented the wide usage of Qt was its license.
Once this barrier has been removed, Qt did render other toolkits obsolete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156153</id>
	<title>The truth hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243712160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes people need to hear the truth in order to smell their shit.</p><p>It's like when you fart, and everyone runs. Yes, your shit does stink.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes people need to hear the truth in order to smell their shit.It 's like when you fart , and everyone runs .
Yes , your shit does stink .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes people need to hear the truth in order to smell their shit.It's like when you fart, and everyone runs.
Yes, your shit does stink.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155649</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>Mgccl</author>
	<datestamp>1243705800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry\_schwartz\_on\_the\_paradox\_of\_choice.html" title="ted.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry\_schwartz\_on\_the\_paradox\_of\_choice.html</a> [ted.com]

funny, because most of the time, choice only make people less happy...
People think when they chose something, they become more happy, when it is likely... completely the opposite.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry \ _schwartz \ _on \ _the \ _paradox \ _of \ _choice.html [ ted.com ] funny , because most of the time , choice only make people less happy.. . People think when they chose something , they become more happy , when it is likely... completely the opposite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry\_schwartz\_on\_the\_paradox\_of\_choice.html [ted.com]

funny, because most of the time, choice only make people less happy...
People think when they chose something, they become more happy, when it is likely... completely the opposite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154147</id>
	<title>Re:This is also why Linux gaming is substandard</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1243690140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are cases where a benevolent dictator is better than democracy - as long as they stay benevolent, which is another 'Good Luck'.</p></div><p>Democracy? Where? Where do users vote? Are you sure you don't mean anarchy?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are cases where a benevolent dictator is better than democracy - as long as they stay benevolent , which is another 'Good Luck'.Democracy ?
Where ? Where do users vote ?
Are you sure you do n't mean anarchy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are cases where a benevolent dictator is better than democracy - as long as they stay benevolent, which is another 'Good Luck'.Democracy?
Where? Where do users vote?
Are you sure you don't mean anarchy?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153515</id>
	<title>Re:Um....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243685520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can always go to Slashdot if you're looking for somebody talking out of their ass.  There are dozens of DE's/window managers now, GNOME and KDE being the only ones which were foolish enough to set up their own system of libraries, which is, in reality, a huge pain in the ass, since so many programs are developed exclusively for one.  I like to being able to switch window managers without even rebooting, meaning your "solution" creates far more problems than it causes for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can always go to Slashdot if you 're looking for somebody talking out of their ass .
There are dozens of DE 's/window managers now , GNOME and KDE being the only ones which were foolish enough to set up their own system of libraries , which is , in reality , a huge pain in the ass , since so many programs are developed exclusively for one .
I like to being able to switch window managers without even rebooting , meaning your " solution " creates far more problems than it causes for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can always go to Slashdot if you're looking for somebody talking out of their ass.
There are dozens of DE's/window managers now, GNOME and KDE being the only ones which were foolish enough to set up their own system of libraries, which is, in reality, a huge pain in the ass, since so many programs are developed exclusively for one.
I like to being able to switch window managers without even rebooting, meaning your "solution" creates far more problems than it causes for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156405</id>
	<title>Re:GUI standard is a myth.</title>
	<author>naheiw</author>
	<datestamp>1243802520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Firefox and Opera use their own.</p></div><p>Opera uses Qt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox and Opera use their own.Opera uses Qt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox and Opera use their own.Opera uses Qt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152125</id>
	<title>Re:Um....</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1243676340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
When NeXT went from NextStep to OpenStep, they had versions which ran on other OSes -- including Solaris (you can still dig up a (sparc only) beta package from Sun), HPUX, and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Windows NT.  OS X (as of 10.5) still includes image resources for Windows and NextStep.
See <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/02/mac\_images/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">here</a> [theregister.co.uk] for more information.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When NeXT went from NextStep to OpenStep , they had versions which ran on other OSes -- including Solaris ( you can still dig up a ( sparc only ) beta package from Sun ) , HPUX , and ... Windows NT .
OS X ( as of 10.5 ) still includes image resources for Windows and NextStep .
See here [ theregister.co.uk ] for more information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
When NeXT went from NextStep to OpenStep, they had versions which ran on other OSes -- including Solaris (you can still dig up a (sparc only) beta package from Sun), HPUX, and ... Windows NT.
OS X (as of 10.5) still includes image resources for Windows and NextStep.
See here [theregister.co.uk] for more information.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151147</id>
	<title>Yes!</title>
	<author>sammydee</author>
	<datestamp>1243713660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes!</p><p>(Seriously, linux needs a standard base to work off. The current mess is completely untenable)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes !
( Seriously , linux needs a standard base to work off .
The current mess is completely untenable )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes!
(Seriously, linux needs a standard base to work off.
The current mess is completely untenable)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155797</id>
	<title>Yes and no.</title>
	<author>drolli</author>
	<datestamp>1243707840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am only a semi-professional developer, writing and numerical software for research (which influences some things). My perspective on this is simple, and has not changed much since Java 1.2 came out. At that time my personal focus shifted completely to writing applications which are as portable as possible. Before that i was extremely annoyed over having to choose between the different platforms for UNIX (motif, X, gtk, qt), which where at that time either not free or not running well on windows. There are actually not many toolkits stable on both platforms. i would suppose that i would stick nowadays to qt if somebody would force me to write C.</p><p>With Java it became obvious that i can trade of performance for development time and having something running on all platforms. Yes, i am aware that AWT was never perfect, but it was, for a long time it was the tool providing the best abstraction of your OS while maintaining performance (please spare me the "java is slow" generalization here. i know the drawbacks, but i had a quite complex DAQ application in java running on a P120 with 96MB of RAM). Best in terms of not having to learn much and getting programs which still run well. The other option i am following is tcl/tk. I am impressed on the stability and maturity of tk in everyday life, even if it *definitely* not my favourite Toolkit. Nowadays, using Swing is the obvious way to go for multi-platform.</p><p>So, if you want to save development effort (and that is what i guess this is about), bind your native renderer to Java and use Swing as an GUI. You wont event have to maintain different versions. If you are keen on having it native on all platforms, how about QT? But i think we are getting closer to the problem here. So, google, instead of taking one of the options available and using it, insists on a windows-like philosophy that this should be part of the OS. We should ask for the motivation here. Google recently released android. It seems to be flourishing. I think this is nothing bad, i enjoy that after many progressive small companies who have been pushe out of the market when trying to make free phones, google creates one strong pole of development. But, IMHO, this time would be exactly the right time for google to tell to the FOSS community: "look we have this google-backed platform; Netbooks, mobiles, pdas - linux will conquer the world" and "oh BTW did you notice a standardized platform is utterly lacking for Linux?". So i appreciate a certain consolidation of toolkits in use on linux, be it just to make copy and paste working finally. On the other hand, i think, seeing that Java is GPLed now, doomsday predictions for Linux on the Desktop due to this reasons are highly exaggerated and developer opinions from companies who have an interest in establishing their own platform (which i appreciate. I can't wait to use an android phone when these are mature) should be taken with a grain of salt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am only a semi-professional developer , writing and numerical software for research ( which influences some things ) .
My perspective on this is simple , and has not changed much since Java 1.2 came out .
At that time my personal focus shifted completely to writing applications which are as portable as possible .
Before that i was extremely annoyed over having to choose between the different platforms for UNIX ( motif , X , gtk , qt ) , which where at that time either not free or not running well on windows .
There are actually not many toolkits stable on both platforms .
i would suppose that i would stick nowadays to qt if somebody would force me to write C.With Java it became obvious that i can trade of performance for development time and having something running on all platforms .
Yes , i am aware that AWT was never perfect , but it was , for a long time it was the tool providing the best abstraction of your OS while maintaining performance ( please spare me the " java is slow " generalization here .
i know the drawbacks , but i had a quite complex DAQ application in java running on a P120 with 96MB of RAM ) .
Best in terms of not having to learn much and getting programs which still run well .
The other option i am following is tcl/tk .
I am impressed on the stability and maturity of tk in everyday life , even if it * definitely * not my favourite Toolkit .
Nowadays , using Swing is the obvious way to go for multi-platform.So , if you want to save development effort ( and that is what i guess this is about ) , bind your native renderer to Java and use Swing as an GUI .
You wont event have to maintain different versions .
If you are keen on having it native on all platforms , how about QT ?
But i think we are getting closer to the problem here .
So , google , instead of taking one of the options available and using it , insists on a windows-like philosophy that this should be part of the OS .
We should ask for the motivation here .
Google recently released android .
It seems to be flourishing .
I think this is nothing bad , i enjoy that after many progressive small companies who have been pushe out of the market when trying to make free phones , google creates one strong pole of development .
But , IMHO , this time would be exactly the right time for google to tell to the FOSS community : " look we have this google-backed platform ; Netbooks , mobiles , pdas - linux will conquer the world " and " oh BTW did you notice a standardized platform is utterly lacking for Linux ? " .
So i appreciate a certain consolidation of toolkits in use on linux , be it just to make copy and paste working finally .
On the other hand , i think , seeing that Java is GPLed now , doomsday predictions for Linux on the Desktop due to this reasons are highly exaggerated and developer opinions from companies who have an interest in establishing their own platform ( which i appreciate .
I ca n't wait to use an android phone when these are mature ) should be taken with a grain of salt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am only a semi-professional developer, writing and numerical software for research (which influences some things).
My perspective on this is simple, and has not changed much since Java 1.2 came out.
At that time my personal focus shifted completely to writing applications which are as portable as possible.
Before that i was extremely annoyed over having to choose between the different platforms for UNIX (motif, X, gtk, qt), which where at that time either not free or not running well on windows.
There are actually not many toolkits stable on both platforms.
i would suppose that i would stick nowadays to qt if somebody would force me to write C.With Java it became obvious that i can trade of performance for development time and having something running on all platforms.
Yes, i am aware that AWT was never perfect, but it was, for a long time it was the tool providing the best abstraction of your OS while maintaining performance (please spare me the "java is slow" generalization here.
i know the drawbacks, but i had a quite complex DAQ application in java running on a P120 with 96MB of RAM).
Best in terms of not having to learn much and getting programs which still run well.
The other option i am following is tcl/tk.
I am impressed on the stability and maturity of tk in everyday life, even if it *definitely* not my favourite Toolkit.
Nowadays, using Swing is the obvious way to go for multi-platform.So, if you want to save development effort (and that is what i guess this is about), bind your native renderer to Java and use Swing as an GUI.
You wont event have to maintain different versions.
If you are keen on having it native on all platforms, how about QT?
But i think we are getting closer to the problem here.
So, google, instead of taking one of the options available and using it, insists on a windows-like philosophy that this should be part of the OS.
We should ask for the motivation here.
Google recently released android.
It seems to be flourishing.
I think this is nothing bad, i enjoy that after many progressive small companies who have been pushe out of the market when trying to make free phones, google creates one strong pole of development.
But, IMHO, this time would be exactly the right time for google to tell to the FOSS community: "look we have this google-backed platform; Netbooks, mobiles, pdas - linux will conquer the world" and "oh BTW did you notice a standardized platform is utterly lacking for Linux?".
So i appreciate a certain consolidation of toolkits in use on linux, be it just to make copy and paste working finally.
On the other hand, i think, seeing that Java is GPLed now, doomsday predictions for Linux on the Desktop due to this reasons are highly exaggerated and developer opinions from companies who have an interest in establishing their own platform (which i appreciate.
I can't wait to use an android phone when these are mature) should be taken with a grain of salt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28157115</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see anything wrong</title>
	<author>alexandre\_ganso</author>
	<datestamp>1243771320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... is going to be like moving from England to China.</p></div><p>At least the food is better!</p><p>The beer, though...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... is going to be like moving from England to China.At least the food is better ! The beer , though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is going to be like moving from England to China.At least the food is better!The beer, though...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151595</id>
	<title>Re:Linux's greatest strength = greatest weakness</title>
	<author>jbolden</author>
	<datestamp>1243716300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Application developers shouldn't be targeting desktops.  They should be working with the distribution system.  So in other words helping: RedHat, Mandriva, Debian... bring out their version of Chrome and let them distribute the packages.</p><p>That's the big problem, commercial app developers want to bypass the distributions without understanding that is the natural point of contact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Application developers should n't be targeting desktops .
They should be working with the distribution system .
So in other words helping : RedHat , Mandriva , Debian... bring out their version of Chrome and let them distribute the packages.That 's the big problem , commercial app developers want to bypass the distributions without understanding that is the natural point of contact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Application developers shouldn't be targeting desktops.
They should be working with the distribution system.
So in other words helping: RedHat, Mandriva, Debian... bring out their version of Chrome and let them distribute the packages.That's the big problem, commercial app developers want to bypass the distributions without understanding that is the natural point of contact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151269</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152625</id>
	<title>A generic remark to the whole discussion</title>
	<author>Ektanoor</author>
	<datestamp>1243679460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great discussion going on! Some good remarks, some so-so.</p><p>Let me note one thing to everyone. This is mostly a reflection on History and how it can apply to what we have here.</p><p>Ancient Greeks had the knowledge of the steam machine. Yes, we can say that they played with it as a toy and so on... But the problem is that they had not only the steam machine! They had all the basics to build machines, besides they were pretty advanced on using them as we know now. Not so long ago a very complicated machine was found that amazingly modelled the solar system. They were toys, but pretty elaborated toys.</p><p>Now we perfectly know that steam machines came up into life only in the XVII century. More, all the machinery stuff was mostly reinvented! We didn't know Greeks went that far until recent time.</p><p>Why?</p><p>Some people say that they, and Romans afterward, stuck to their "way of things" - slaves do the work, why we shall do something serious out of these machines? Why we need to substitute them for something... Better? Or worser? Or just different?</p><p>Now, they kept their society. Where is that society now, we perfectly know.</p><p>Is no one afraid, that sticking into the "way of things", we will just build our own doom? Yes, I know that it is hard to see the Future and probably no one of us will see the Avenge of Linux. Most probably there will never be such an avenge but someone will reinvent Linux on its basics. But, sincerly, I would prefer that even the basis for such things will never come into life! Because, if this happens, that will mean that we have choosen the most stupid historical path - no-way street.</p><p>Now I leave two questions for everyone here -</p><p>On trying to make a wholescale standard on Linux, aren't we burning bridges?</p><p>What do you prefer - an imperfect world and a future of Chance, or a perfect system and one-way to nowhere?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great discussion going on !
Some good remarks , some so-so.Let me note one thing to everyone .
This is mostly a reflection on History and how it can apply to what we have here.Ancient Greeks had the knowledge of the steam machine .
Yes , we can say that they played with it as a toy and so on... But the problem is that they had not only the steam machine !
They had all the basics to build machines , besides they were pretty advanced on using them as we know now .
Not so long ago a very complicated machine was found that amazingly modelled the solar system .
They were toys , but pretty elaborated toys.Now we perfectly know that steam machines came up into life only in the XVII century .
More , all the machinery stuff was mostly reinvented !
We did n't know Greeks went that far until recent time.Why ? Some people say that they , and Romans afterward , stuck to their " way of things " - slaves do the work , why we shall do something serious out of these machines ?
Why we need to substitute them for something... Better ? Or worser ?
Or just different ? Now , they kept their society .
Where is that society now , we perfectly know.Is no one afraid , that sticking into the " way of things " , we will just build our own doom ?
Yes , I know that it is hard to see the Future and probably no one of us will see the Avenge of Linux .
Most probably there will never be such an avenge but someone will reinvent Linux on its basics .
But , sincerly , I would prefer that even the basis for such things will never come into life !
Because , if this happens , that will mean that we have choosen the most stupid historical path - no-way street.Now I leave two questions for everyone here -On trying to make a wholescale standard on Linux , are n't we burning bridges ? What do you prefer - an imperfect world and a future of Chance , or a perfect system and one-way to nowhere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great discussion going on!
Some good remarks, some so-so.Let me note one thing to everyone.
This is mostly a reflection on History and how it can apply to what we have here.Ancient Greeks had the knowledge of the steam machine.
Yes, we can say that they played with it as a toy and so on... But the problem is that they had not only the steam machine!
They had all the basics to build machines, besides they were pretty advanced on using them as we know now.
Not so long ago a very complicated machine was found that amazingly modelled the solar system.
They were toys, but pretty elaborated toys.Now we perfectly know that steam machines came up into life only in the XVII century.
More, all the machinery stuff was mostly reinvented!
We didn't know Greeks went that far until recent time.Why?Some people say that they, and Romans afterward, stuck to their "way of things" - slaves do the work, why we shall do something serious out of these machines?
Why we need to substitute them for something... Better? Or worser?
Or just different?Now, they kept their society.
Where is that society now, we perfectly know.Is no one afraid, that sticking into the "way of things", we will just build our own doom?
Yes, I know that it is hard to see the Future and probably no one of us will see the Avenge of Linux.
Most probably there will never be such an avenge but someone will reinvent Linux on its basics.
But, sincerly, I would prefer that even the basis for such things will never come into life!
Because, if this happens, that will mean that we have choosen the most stupid historical path - no-way street.Now I leave two questions for everyone here -On trying to make a wholescale standard on Linux, aren't we burning bridges?What do you prefer - an imperfect world and a future of Chance, or a perfect system and one-way to nowhere?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152211</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243677000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So whats the difference between an msi and a package manager?  They both copy files and check versions?</p><p>Hell, Chrome runs portable without an installer even.</p><p>As a GUI developer who's lived in both worlds Google has a serious point, linux lacks some solid fundimentals even with the alternatives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So whats the difference between an msi and a package manager ?
They both copy files and check versions ? Hell , Chrome runs portable without an installer even.As a GUI developer who 's lived in both worlds Google has a serious point , linux lacks some solid fundimentals even with the alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So whats the difference between an msi and a package manager?
They both copy files and check versions?Hell, Chrome runs portable without an installer even.As a GUI developer who's lived in both worlds Google has a serious point, linux lacks some solid fundimentals even with the alternatives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155251</id>
	<title>Evolve, or ...</title>
	<author>sams67</author>
	<datestamp>1243701720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"is it time to concentrate on consolidation and standardisation in GNU/Linux in general, and the desktop in particular?"
<p>
Another thing that annoys me is the diversity of animals and plants on Earth. It makes it so hard to study them all. Isn't it time to concentrate on the consolidation and standardisation living species in general?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" is it time to concentrate on consolidation and standardisation in GNU/Linux in general , and the desktop in particular ?
" Another thing that annoys me is the diversity of animals and plants on Earth .
It makes it so hard to study them all .
Is n't it time to concentrate on the consolidation and standardisation living species in general ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"is it time to concentrate on consolidation and standardisation in GNU/Linux in general, and the desktop in particular?
"

Another thing that annoys me is the diversity of animals and plants on Earth.
It makes it so hard to study them all.
Isn't it time to concentrate on the consolidation and standardisation living species in general?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153629</id>
	<title>Re:it's why Windows took over in the first place</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243686300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, what horse shit. Windows didn't get big because it had a single environment. Autocad and Photoshop are on OS X, too (a unix derivative). And Netflix needs to drop DRM from their streaming videos so people can watch them.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Windows might "own" the desktop, but it's mainly because users don't know any better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , what horse shit .
Windows did n't get big because it had a single environment .
Autocad and Photoshop are on OS X , too ( a unix derivative ) .
And Netflix needs to drop DRM from their streaming videos so people can watch them .
  Windows might " own " the desktop , but it 's mainly because users do n't know any better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, what horse shit.
Windows didn't get big because it had a single environment.
Autocad and Photoshop are on OS X, too (a unix derivative).
And Netflix needs to drop DRM from their streaming videos so people can watch them.
  Windows might "own" the desktop, but it's mainly because users don't know any better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152295</id>
	<title>Re:it's why Windows took over in the first place</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243677660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OS X is POSIX-certified, and thus very much a UNIX derivative?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OS X is POSIX-certified , and thus very much a UNIX derivative ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OS X is POSIX-certified, and thus very much a UNIX derivative?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154257</id>
	<title>It might work !</title>
	<author>DrYak</author>
	<datestamp>1243690980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe they should have just used Xlib/Xt instead and duplicated everything they did for Windows, especially if they want a completely consistent cross-platform look and feel, BUT don't want to be hamstrung by any single UI library's way of doing things.</p></div><p>Specially since this has already worked.<br>- Early versions of OpenOffice.org used to have their own toolkit (now they have something that is partly collaborating with either GTK or KDE's Qt).<br>- Firefox has it own widget abstraction (XUL) running on top of GTK2.</p><p>It has worked for these, so Google could achieve something similar.<br>Except that then, people trying to build micro distribution for limited hardware will complain about the memory foot-print of yet another tool-kit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they should have just used Xlib/Xt instead and duplicated everything they did for Windows , especially if they want a completely consistent cross-platform look and feel , BUT do n't want to be hamstrung by any single UI library 's way of doing things.Specially since this has already worked.- Early versions of OpenOffice.org used to have their own toolkit ( now they have something that is partly collaborating with either GTK or KDE 's Qt ) .- Firefox has it own widget abstraction ( XUL ) running on top of GTK2.It has worked for these , so Google could achieve something similar.Except that then , people trying to build micro distribution for limited hardware will complain about the memory foot-print of yet another tool-kit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they should have just used Xlib/Xt instead and duplicated everything they did for Windows, especially if they want a completely consistent cross-platform look and feel, BUT don't want to be hamstrung by any single UI library's way of doing things.Specially since this has already worked.- Early versions of OpenOffice.org used to have their own toolkit (now they have something that is partly collaborating with either GTK or KDE's Qt).- Firefox has it own widget abstraction (XUL) running on top of GTK2.It has worked for these, so Google could achieve something similar.Except that then, people trying to build micro distribution for limited hardware will complain about the memory foot-print of yet another tool-kit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151627</id>
	<title>Can I ask the stupid question?</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1243716540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrome/Chromium is OSS, right?  Can't someone else do what Google should have done and make a Qt port?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome/Chromium is OSS , right ?
Ca n't someone else do what Google should have done and make a Qt port ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome/Chromium is OSS, right?
Can't someone else do what Google should have done and make a Qt port?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151257</id>
	<title>The problem is they are targetting the wrong thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243714440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real problem is on Windows they are targeting a single operating system, with OSX they are also targeting a single OS, with "Linux" they are targeting a whole range of operating systems, of course there is gonna be a lot of diversity and no "standard". They should be targeting desktop enivironments, not kernels. If Google said we are going to target the GNOME desktop then GTK+ is the obvious choice, same with KDE and QT. Anyway, the chrome core is open source, what does it matter? Choose one toolkit and if people aren't happy they will develop a new UI for their platform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem is on Windows they are targeting a single operating system , with OSX they are also targeting a single OS , with " Linux " they are targeting a whole range of operating systems , of course there is gon na be a lot of diversity and no " standard " .
They should be targeting desktop enivironments , not kernels .
If Google said we are going to target the GNOME desktop then GTK + is the obvious choice , same with KDE and QT .
Anyway , the chrome core is open source , what does it matter ?
Choose one toolkit and if people are n't happy they will develop a new UI for their platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem is on Windows they are targeting a single operating system, with OSX they are also targeting a single OS, with "Linux" they are targeting a whole range of operating systems, of course there is gonna be a lot of diversity and no "standard".
They should be targeting desktop enivironments, not kernels.
If Google said we are going to target the GNOME desktop then GTK+ is the obvious choice, same with KDE and QT.
Anyway, the chrome core is open source, what does it matter?
Choose one toolkit and if people aren't happy they will develop a new UI for their platform.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151089</id>
	<title>Re:Um....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243713300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>GTK isn't as nice as everyone makes it out to be. Basically what everyone has been doing is talking red hat, and suse and making their product work on that. You can't "standardize" Linux because the 7 or so distro can't agree.</htmltext>
<tokenext>GTK is n't as nice as everyone makes it out to be .
Basically what everyone has been doing is talking red hat , and suse and making their product work on that .
You ca n't " standardize " Linux because the 7 or so distro ca n't agree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GTK isn't as nice as everyone makes it out to be.
Basically what everyone has been doing is talking red hat, and suse and making their product work on that.
You can't "standardize" Linux because the 7 or so distro can't agree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151547</id>
	<title>Re:Linux needs to stop forking around</title>
	<author>jbolden</author>
	<datestamp>1243716060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its been tried:</p><p><a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/151642/" title="lwn.net">UserLinux</a> [lwn.net], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Linux" title="wikipedia.org">United Linux</a> [wikipedia.org]....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its been tried : UserLinux [ lwn.net ] , United Linux [ wikipedia.org ] ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its been tried:UserLinux [lwn.net], United Linux [wikipedia.org]....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151153</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1243713720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, but I doubt it's going to happen.<br><br>Without some sort of standards how would a helpdesk worker even know where the "start button" is on a caller's "Linux Desktop"? Or what it even looks like, or if it's even there?<br><br>Remember the helpdesk worker might not be working for the same company as the user. For example: if Mr XYZ goes to a hotel and has problems with "hotel internet", they might be calling the "hotel internet helpdesk". Same for other stuff e.g. bank and financial sites.<br><br>BTW Microsoft has created a similar problem for themselves by changing things immensely with Vista (and Office 2007). Lucky for them, they're in a different market position but even they are having problems with market adoption, so go figure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but I doubt it 's going to happen.Without some sort of standards how would a helpdesk worker even know where the " start button " is on a caller 's " Linux Desktop " ?
Or what it even looks like , or if it 's even there ? Remember the helpdesk worker might not be working for the same company as the user .
For example : if Mr XYZ goes to a hotel and has problems with " hotel internet " , they might be calling the " hotel internet helpdesk " .
Same for other stuff e.g .
bank and financial sites.BTW Microsoft has created a similar problem for themselves by changing things immensely with Vista ( and Office 2007 ) .
Lucky for them , they 're in a different market position but even they are having problems with market adoption , so go figure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but I doubt it's going to happen.Without some sort of standards how would a helpdesk worker even know where the "start button" is on a caller's "Linux Desktop"?
Or what it even looks like, or if it's even there?Remember the helpdesk worker might not be working for the same company as the user.
For example: if Mr XYZ goes to a hotel and has problems with "hotel internet", they might be calling the "hotel internet helpdesk".
Same for other stuff e.g.
bank and financial sites.BTW Microsoft has created a similar problem for themselves by changing things immensely with Vista (and Office 2007).
Lucky for them, they're in a different market position but even they are having problems with market adoption, so go figure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28169741</id>
	<title>Re:it's why Windows took over in the first place</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243878300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This philosophy is incompatible with the commercial software method of distributing apps as binary blobs.</p></div><p>
This is bad why? Seems like a feature to me.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This philosophy is incompatible with the commercial software method of distributing apps as binary blobs .
This is bad why ?
Seems like a feature to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This philosophy is incompatible with the commercial software method of distributing apps as binary blobs.
This is bad why?
Seems like a feature to me.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152793</id>
	<title>Re:Um....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243680540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You obviously don't know jack shit about Operating Systems.</p><p>The UI is a layer of abstractions on top of the OS. Once a UI is ported to an OS, the differences between OSes are (hopefully) concealed from the end user. They are still there though. If you use GIMP or Pidgin on Windows, did your computer become Linux because you now have GTK libs? No. And a ton of effort (years in fact) went into making GTK work on Windows seamlessly. VLC moved from GTK to Qt, did the OS change any at all? No... because the UI is not the OS.</p><p>And this is the problem, multiple OSes using multiple toolkits, witch each element having it's own quirks. For each platform you have to work around differences in the OS, differences in the toolkit, and differences in the toolkit for each OS because of their workarounds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You obviously do n't know jack shit about Operating Systems.The UI is a layer of abstractions on top of the OS .
Once a UI is ported to an OS , the differences between OSes are ( hopefully ) concealed from the end user .
They are still there though .
If you use GIMP or Pidgin on Windows , did your computer become Linux because you now have GTK libs ?
No. And a ton of effort ( years in fact ) went into making GTK work on Windows seamlessly .
VLC moved from GTK to Qt , did the OS change any at all ?
No... because the UI is not the OS.And this is the problem , multiple OSes using multiple toolkits , witch each element having it 's own quirks .
For each platform you have to work around differences in the OS , differences in the toolkit , and differences in the toolkit for each OS because of their workarounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You obviously don't know jack shit about Operating Systems.The UI is a layer of abstractions on top of the OS.
Once a UI is ported to an OS, the differences between OSes are (hopefully) concealed from the end user.
They are still there though.
If you use GIMP or Pidgin on Windows, did your computer become Linux because you now have GTK libs?
No. And a ton of effort (years in fact) went into making GTK work on Windows seamlessly.
VLC moved from GTK to Qt, did the OS change any at all?
No... because the UI is not the OS.And this is the problem, multiple OSes using multiple toolkits, witch each element having it's own quirks.
For each platform you have to work around differences in the OS, differences in the toolkit, and differences in the toolkit for each OS because of their workarounds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28157069</id>
	<title>skin deep</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243770540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you are all arguing over facetious crap. if there is any standardization that needs to be done it should starts at the kernel and move out from there. people cant even agree on a bootloader!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you are all arguing over facetious crap .
if there is any standardization that needs to be done it should starts at the kernel and move out from there .
people cant even agree on a bootloader !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you are all arguing over facetious crap.
if there is any standardization that needs to be done it should starts at the kernel and move out from there.
people cant even agree on a bootloader!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335</id>
	<title>Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243714920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is the great thing about having dozens of GUI toolkits, multiple libc, and several audio APIs. You only have to choose 1! Every time somebody complains about the "mess" of GUI toolkits, it just comes off as senseless whining. Where are the downsides? There are only 2 major ones, and if you don't have experience in either, just pick one.</p><p>The only downside I can think of is that end-users need several GUI toolkits installed, for their multiple programs that use different toolkits, but a) Linux still has a better features/size ratio than any other major OS, and b) Windows and Mac have the same problem (SDL, GTK+, etc, and the dlls have to be included with the binary downloads because Windows/Mac don't have an easy to use package manager).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the great thing about having dozens of GUI toolkits , multiple libc , and several audio APIs .
You only have to choose 1 !
Every time somebody complains about the " mess " of GUI toolkits , it just comes off as senseless whining .
Where are the downsides ?
There are only 2 major ones , and if you do n't have experience in either , just pick one.The only downside I can think of is that end-users need several GUI toolkits installed , for their multiple programs that use different toolkits , but a ) Linux still has a better features/size ratio than any other major OS , and b ) Windows and Mac have the same problem ( SDL , GTK + , etc , and the dlls have to be included with the binary downloads because Windows/Mac do n't have an easy to use package manager ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the great thing about having dozens of GUI toolkits, multiple libc, and several audio APIs.
You only have to choose 1!
Every time somebody complains about the "mess" of GUI toolkits, it just comes off as senseless whining.
Where are the downsides?
There are only 2 major ones, and if you don't have experience in either, just pick one.The only downside I can think of is that end-users need several GUI toolkits installed, for their multiple programs that use different toolkits, but a) Linux still has a better features/size ratio than any other major OS, and b) Windows and Mac have the same problem (SDL, GTK+, etc, and the dlls have to be included with the binary downloads because Windows/Mac don't have an easy to use package manager).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154921</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see anything wrong</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1243698180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with HIGs is that so few developers are really all that interested in conforming.   Commercial developers are trying to <em>differentiate</em> their products, after all. Open source developers tend to get tunnel vision; they're so intimately familiar with what they're working on they often can't see the usability forest for the trees.   Users don't demand strict HIG compliance because never having lived in a world where there was strict compliance, they don't know better.</p><p>That said, I've found the apps bundled with major linux distros to be -- not all that bad in terms of standardization.  Oh, it's no as good as it ought to be, but if you remember the very early days of GUI adoption of apps, what we live with as Linux users is far from the worst case.  I think Linux developer UI consistency is actually better than Windows developer consistency. It gets positively weird when you install a Windows device and it comes with its own extremely wacky management application.  I'm supposed to jump for joy because my consumer dollars have paid for this?   And there's all that vertical market software in Windows.    At best it's plain jane MDA, and regular old fashioned menus and dialogs.   Yeah, MDA sucks, but it's a hell of a lot better than what you get when some vertical market app developer starts getting <em>creative</em> with user interfaces.    It's really very hard to do things differently in a way that amounts to an improvement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with HIGs is that so few developers are really all that interested in conforming .
Commercial developers are trying to differentiate their products , after all .
Open source developers tend to get tunnel vision ; they 're so intimately familiar with what they 're working on they often ca n't see the usability forest for the trees .
Users do n't demand strict HIG compliance because never having lived in a world where there was strict compliance , they do n't know better.That said , I 've found the apps bundled with major linux distros to be -- not all that bad in terms of standardization .
Oh , it 's no as good as it ought to be , but if you remember the very early days of GUI adoption of apps , what we live with as Linux users is far from the worst case .
I think Linux developer UI consistency is actually better than Windows developer consistency .
It gets positively weird when you install a Windows device and it comes with its own extremely wacky management application .
I 'm supposed to jump for joy because my consumer dollars have paid for this ?
And there 's all that vertical market software in Windows .
At best it 's plain jane MDA , and regular old fashioned menus and dialogs .
Yeah , MDA sucks , but it 's a hell of a lot better than what you get when some vertical market app developer starts getting creative with user interfaces .
It 's really very hard to do things differently in a way that amounts to an improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with HIGs is that so few developers are really all that interested in conforming.
Commercial developers are trying to differentiate their products, after all.
Open source developers tend to get tunnel vision; they're so intimately familiar with what they're working on they often can't see the usability forest for the trees.
Users don't demand strict HIG compliance because never having lived in a world where there was strict compliance, they don't know better.That said, I've found the apps bundled with major linux distros to be -- not all that bad in terms of standardization.
Oh, it's no as good as it ought to be, but if you remember the very early days of GUI adoption of apps, what we live with as Linux users is far from the worst case.
I think Linux developer UI consistency is actually better than Windows developer consistency.
It gets positively weird when you install a Windows device and it comes with its own extremely wacky management application.
I'm supposed to jump for joy because my consumer dollars have paid for this?
And there's all that vertical market software in Windows.
At best it's plain jane MDA, and regular old fashioned menus and dialogs.
Yeah, MDA sucks, but it's a hell of a lot better than what you get when some vertical market app developer starts getting creative with user interfaces.
It's really very hard to do things differently in a way that amounts to an improvement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154413</id>
	<title>Re:GUI standard is a myth.</title>
	<author>onefriedrice</author>
	<datestamp>1243692120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is no universal standard GUI toolkit on Windows either. Firefox and Opera use their own. OpenOffice.org uses its own. Even Microsoft Office uses its own. On the Mac, there is even more GUI dissonance. Current Macs make the typical Linux environment look downright uniform.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>I made it until here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no universal standard GUI toolkit on Windows either .
Firefox and Opera use their own .
OpenOffice.org uses its own .
Even Microsoft Office uses its own .
On the Mac , there is even more GUI dissonance .
Current Macs make the typical Linux environment look downright uniform .
...I made it until here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no universal standard GUI toolkit on Windows either.
Firefox and Opera use their own.
OpenOffice.org uses its own.
Even Microsoft Office uses its own.
On the Mac, there is even more GUI dissonance.
Current Macs make the typical Linux environment look downright uniform.
...I made it until here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28157759</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>c\_g\_hills</author>
	<datestamp>1243780680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The closest thing Microsoft Windows has to a package manager is software deployment through group policy, which is only available in an active directory domain. It provides for a central place to both push out software to groups of computers and users, and allows users to install packages for which they have been assigned privileges. The latter I have not seen implemented by any Linux distribution yet. It is a case of having the privilege to install any software, or none at all. In comparison, Linux distributions provide a multitude of different software which are often well-maintained. If you want to go outside what is provided by the repositories available for your distribution though, it is not quite so easy. If you are lucky, the software vendor has provided a binary package that is compatible with your distribution (taking into account the package manager, architecture, sound system, desktop environment, libraries, etc...).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The closest thing Microsoft Windows has to a package manager is software deployment through group policy , which is only available in an active directory domain .
It provides for a central place to both push out software to groups of computers and users , and allows users to install packages for which they have been assigned privileges .
The latter I have not seen implemented by any Linux distribution yet .
It is a case of having the privilege to install any software , or none at all .
In comparison , Linux distributions provide a multitude of different software which are often well-maintained .
If you want to go outside what is provided by the repositories available for your distribution though , it is not quite so easy .
If you are lucky , the software vendor has provided a binary package that is compatible with your distribution ( taking into account the package manager , architecture , sound system , desktop environment , libraries , etc... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The closest thing Microsoft Windows has to a package manager is software deployment through group policy, which is only available in an active directory domain.
It provides for a central place to both push out software to groups of computers and users, and allows users to install packages for which they have been assigned privileges.
The latter I have not seen implemented by any Linux distribution yet.
It is a case of having the privilege to install any software, or none at all.
In comparison, Linux distributions provide a multitude of different software which are often well-maintained.
If you want to go outside what is provided by the repositories available for your distribution though, it is not quite so easy.
If you are lucky, the software vendor has provided a binary package that is compatible with your distribution (taking into account the package manager, architecture, sound system, desktop environment, libraries, etc...).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154949</id>
	<title>Stop complaining about your own mistakes</title>
	<author>marm</author>
	<datestamp>1243698600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, there is genuinely a problem on the Linux desktop and that problem is that there are two major toolkits, two major desktops, two looks and feels (despite the KDE/Qt community's attempts to unify them, note that the GTK/GNOME community have done absolutely NOTHING in this regard).  However, this problem is ENTIRELY the making of the GNOME community, who came into existence purely as a reaction to KDE and who frankly have been the fly in the ointment ever since.  I appreciate their commitment to choice and the (now irrelevant) commitment to the Free Software Ideals but anyone with half a brain has been able to see for about a decade now that the division this has created has made the Linux desktop as a whole suffer overall enormously.  To then see someone choose GTK as their toolkit (for a C++ app no less!) and then complain that there is no standardisation is so rich as to make me feel unwell.  It's your fault in the first place, and now you are perpetutating it.  Grow up, stop whinging, and next time don't make a bum choice and then whinge about it as if it was somehow not your fault.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , there is genuinely a problem on the Linux desktop and that problem is that there are two major toolkits , two major desktops , two looks and feels ( despite the KDE/Qt community 's attempts to unify them , note that the GTK/GNOME community have done absolutely NOTHING in this regard ) .
However , this problem is ENTIRELY the making of the GNOME community , who came into existence purely as a reaction to KDE and who frankly have been the fly in the ointment ever since .
I appreciate their commitment to choice and the ( now irrelevant ) commitment to the Free Software Ideals but anyone with half a brain has been able to see for about a decade now that the division this has created has made the Linux desktop as a whole suffer overall enormously .
To then see someone choose GTK as their toolkit ( for a C + + app no less !
) and then complain that there is no standardisation is so rich as to make me feel unwell .
It 's your fault in the first place , and now you are perpetutating it .
Grow up , stop whinging , and next time do n't make a bum choice and then whinge about it as if it was somehow not your fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, there is genuinely a problem on the Linux desktop and that problem is that there are two major toolkits, two major desktops, two looks and feels (despite the KDE/Qt community's attempts to unify them, note that the GTK/GNOME community have done absolutely NOTHING in this regard).
However, this problem is ENTIRELY the making of the GNOME community, who came into existence purely as a reaction to KDE and who frankly have been the fly in the ointment ever since.
I appreciate their commitment to choice and the (now irrelevant) commitment to the Free Software Ideals but anyone with half a brain has been able to see for about a decade now that the division this has created has made the Linux desktop as a whole suffer overall enormously.
To then see someone choose GTK as their toolkit (for a C++ app no less!
) and then complain that there is no standardisation is so rich as to make me feel unwell.
It's your fault in the first place, and now you are perpetutating it.
Grow up, stop whinging, and next time don't make a bum choice and then whinge about it as if it was somehow not your fault.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156801</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>AlexanderTe</author>
	<datestamp>1243766400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>[start of senseless whining]</i> <br> <br>
You got modded insightful for this? It bugs me a lot when there's a post like this in a discussion, it gets modded high, and people swallow it without even thinking. Here's your very own arguments, rephrased:<br>
<br>
Pros:<br>
You only have to choose one.<br>
<br>
Cons:<br>
End users need several GUI toolkits installed.<br>
<br>
Discussion:<br>
If there's a standard, you only have to choose one as well. Your only valid point is about the end users that needs several GUI toolkits installed, which you categorized as a downside--which it is!<br>
<br>
a) What does these words even have to do with the discussion?<br>
b) Could be used as an example on Wikipedia about the logical fallacy that is "two wrongs make a right"<br>
<br>
<i>[end of senseless whining]</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ start of senseless whining ] You got modded insightful for this ?
It bugs me a lot when there 's a post like this in a discussion , it gets modded high , and people swallow it without even thinking .
Here 's your very own arguments , rephrased : Pros : You only have to choose one .
Cons : End users need several GUI toolkits installed .
Discussion : If there 's a standard , you only have to choose one as well .
Your only valid point is about the end users that needs several GUI toolkits installed , which you categorized as a downside--which it is !
a ) What does these words even have to do with the discussion ?
b ) Could be used as an example on Wikipedia about the logical fallacy that is " two wrongs make a right " [ end of senseless whining ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[start of senseless whining]  
You got modded insightful for this?
It bugs me a lot when there's a post like this in a discussion, it gets modded high, and people swallow it without even thinking.
Here's your very own arguments, rephrased:

Pros:
You only have to choose one.
Cons:
End users need several GUI toolkits installed.
Discussion:
If there's a standard, you only have to choose one as well.
Your only valid point is about the end users that needs several GUI toolkits installed, which you categorized as a downside--which it is!
a) What does these words even have to do with the discussion?
b) Could be used as an example on Wikipedia about the logical fallacy that is "two wrongs make a right"

[end of senseless whining]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151087</id>
	<title>No Link to Actual Content</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243713240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where's the link to this developer's comments? Would be nice to read all of what he has to say rather than just what you want us to read.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's the link to this developer 's comments ?
Would be nice to read all of what he has to say rather than just what you want us to read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's the link to this developer's comments?
Would be nice to read all of what he has to say rather than just what you want us to read.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153367</id>
	<title>Re:RTFA</title>
	<author>glwtta</author>
	<datestamp>1243684440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, that's some pretty good spin, but I'm having trouble believing that the only problem here is that GTK is <i>too awesome</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , that 's some pretty good spin , but I 'm having trouble believing that the only problem here is that GTK is too awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, that's some pretty good spin, but I'm having trouble believing that the only problem here is that GTK is too awesome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28222847</id>
	<title>Re:Christ, everybody just shut up about look and f</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244218500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You want to be Picasso, get a fucking paintbrush!</p></div><p>Have you ever seen Picasso's work?  Jumbled user interfaces give you the Picasso look for free!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You want to be Picasso , get a fucking paintbrush ! Have you ever seen Picasso 's work ?
Jumbled user interfaces give you the Picasso look for free !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want to be Picasso, get a fucking paintbrush!Have you ever seen Picasso's work?
Jumbled user interfaces give you the Picasso look for free!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153805</id>
	<title>Re:Qt</title>
	<author>feranick</author>
	<datestamp>1243687560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ben Goodger is obviously biased towards Windows. Even at the time when he worked as main architect for Firefox, he has always had a focused development towards Windows. You might remember how Firefox used to suck on OSX (with horrible UI inconsistencies) and problems affecting the Linux version. Firefox, when he was responsible for its design, was a totally Windows centric platform, so much that the UI had to mimic that of Windows also on other OS. When he left, and Firefox 3 came along, things got much better, with specific UI for individual OS.
<br> <br>
Nothing wrong with being Windows centric. However, I would not count his opinion as objectively fair. The UI is only the tip of the iceberg in Chrome as Windows specific. If they really wanted to make it really a universal application, they could have done so since the beginning. It now feels like versions for OSX and Linux are an afterthought, and the complain about toolkit just an excuse for something they could have done since the beginning.
<br> <br>
(as a side note: Google Earth is built with QT already and they work beautifully on Windows as well as Linux)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ben Goodger is obviously biased towards Windows .
Even at the time when he worked as main architect for Firefox , he has always had a focused development towards Windows .
You might remember how Firefox used to suck on OSX ( with horrible UI inconsistencies ) and problems affecting the Linux version .
Firefox , when he was responsible for its design , was a totally Windows centric platform , so much that the UI had to mimic that of Windows also on other OS .
When he left , and Firefox 3 came along , things got much better , with specific UI for individual OS .
Nothing wrong with being Windows centric .
However , I would not count his opinion as objectively fair .
The UI is only the tip of the iceberg in Chrome as Windows specific .
If they really wanted to make it really a universal application , they could have done so since the beginning .
It now feels like versions for OSX and Linux are an afterthought , and the complain about toolkit just an excuse for something they could have done since the beginning .
( as a side note : Google Earth is built with QT already and they work beautifully on Windows as well as Linux )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ben Goodger is obviously biased towards Windows.
Even at the time when he worked as main architect for Firefox, he has always had a focused development towards Windows.
You might remember how Firefox used to suck on OSX (with horrible UI inconsistencies) and problems affecting the Linux version.
Firefox, when he was responsible for its design, was a totally Windows centric platform, so much that the UI had to mimic that of Windows also on other OS.
When he left, and Firefox 3 came along, things got much better, with specific UI for individual OS.
Nothing wrong with being Windows centric.
However, I would not count his opinion as objectively fair.
The UI is only the tip of the iceberg in Chrome as Windows specific.
If they really wanted to make it really a universal application, they could have done so since the beginning.
It now feels like versions for OSX and Linux are an afterthought, and the complain about toolkit just an excuse for something they could have done since the beginning.
(as a side note: Google Earth is built with QT already and they work beautifully on Windows as well as Linux)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28160487</id>
	<title>Re:Use Qt....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243802520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; QT is probably the best GUI toolkit in history,</p><p>Agreed it's pretty good.  But so was MUI - I'd place that in contention for the "best GUI toolkit" race.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; QT is probably the best GUI toolkit in history,Agreed it 's pretty good .
But so was MUI - I 'd place that in contention for the " best GUI toolkit " race .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; QT is probably the best GUI toolkit in history,Agreed it's pretty good.
But so was MUI - I'd place that in contention for the "best GUI toolkit" race.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154105</id>
	<title>Re:It's open source, google. Fork it.</title>
	<author>TuaAmin13</author>
	<datestamp>1243689840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nobody would switch to it because it'd be in "beta."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody would switch to it because it 'd be in " beta .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody would switch to it because it'd be in "beta.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153543</id>
	<title>Re:Um....</title>
	<author>mirshafie</author>
	<datestamp>1243685640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The OS is not the UI, at least not for the average Linux user. We like tweaking little things, like the exact package management, or in what way the system detects hardware if you want it to do so automatically at all.</p><p>The solution is NOT to merge distros, but there needs to be some rigorous standards for how different implementations can communicate with each other. The KDE people get this and have been working like hell to standardize hardware management (especially audio), but all they get is whining about the UI and bugs. It needs a lot of work, but the foundation is there, and it needs to reach a level of maturity and adoption across distros/WMs so that developers can focus on developing.</p><p>The next thing we need is a standardized install method for packages that are obtained manually by the user. I know it is not as simple as just providing a tar.bz2 with source and machine readable dependency instructions, but it should be possible to make compilation automatic across the board if the major distros come together and put some work into it.</p><p>PS. Don't know why the paragraphs are not separated. Very weird. DS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The OS is not the UI , at least not for the average Linux user .
We like tweaking little things , like the exact package management , or in what way the system detects hardware if you want it to do so automatically at all.The solution is NOT to merge distros , but there needs to be some rigorous standards for how different implementations can communicate with each other .
The KDE people get this and have been working like hell to standardize hardware management ( especially audio ) , but all they get is whining about the UI and bugs .
It needs a lot of work , but the foundation is there , and it needs to reach a level of maturity and adoption across distros/WMs so that developers can focus on developing.The next thing we need is a standardized install method for packages that are obtained manually by the user .
I know it is not as simple as just providing a tar.bz2 with source and machine readable dependency instructions , but it should be possible to make compilation automatic across the board if the major distros come together and put some work into it.PS .
Do n't know why the paragraphs are not separated .
Very weird .
DS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The OS is not the UI, at least not for the average Linux user.
We like tweaking little things, like the exact package management, or in what way the system detects hardware if you want it to do so automatically at all.The solution is NOT to merge distros, but there needs to be some rigorous standards for how different implementations can communicate with each other.
The KDE people get this and have been working like hell to standardize hardware management (especially audio), but all they get is whining about the UI and bugs.
It needs a lot of work, but the foundation is there, and it needs to reach a level of maturity and adoption across distros/WMs so that developers can focus on developing.The next thing we need is a standardized install method for packages that are obtained manually by the user.
I know it is not as simple as just providing a tar.bz2 with source and machine readable dependency instructions, but it should be possible to make compilation automatic across the board if the major distros come together and put some work into it.PS.
Don't know why the paragraphs are not separated.
Very weird.
DS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154265</id>
	<title>It's a fair question</title>
	<author>Klink, you idiot!</author>
	<datestamp>1243690980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"is it time to concentrate on consolidation and standardisation in GNU/Linux in general, and the desktop in particular?"



Yes. Yes it is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" is it time to concentrate on consolidation and standardisation in GNU/Linux in general , and the desktop in particular ?
" Yes .
Yes it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"is it time to concentrate on consolidation and standardisation in GNU/Linux in general, and the desktop in particular?
"



Yes.
Yes it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28162807</id>
	<title>Re:hey Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243779180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sir, are proof that a low slashdot ID doesn't mean you're very intelligent.</p><p>In fact, I'd go as far as calling you a complete idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sir , are proof that a low slashdot ID does n't mean you 're very intelligent.In fact , I 'd go as far as calling you a complete idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sir, are proof that a low slashdot ID doesn't mean you're very intelligent.In fact, I'd go as far as calling you a complete idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156511</id>
	<title>With GTK+ &amp; Cairo you can do anything these da</title>
	<author>denominateur</author>
	<datestamp>1243761360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand this. There's a reasonably clear HIG document in GNOME which is continuously updated. The strict packing rules make the resulting interface flexible in regards to RTL languages and reasonably consistent with other applications. GTK+ has widgets for just about every purpose. Since the introduction of Cairo it is trivial to draw custom widgets, especially using the gtkmm and cairomm C++ bindings: the custom tab bar could be done in a day. With those bindings it is even quite easy to modify the behaviour of existing widgets by overloading their signal handlers, Murray Cumming and the others working on those have invested a great deal of effort to truly (and easily) expose the object system via C++.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand this .
There 's a reasonably clear HIG document in GNOME which is continuously updated .
The strict packing rules make the resulting interface flexible in regards to RTL languages and reasonably consistent with other applications .
GTK + has widgets for just about every purpose .
Since the introduction of Cairo it is trivial to draw custom widgets , especially using the gtkmm and cairomm C + + bindings : the custom tab bar could be done in a day .
With those bindings it is even quite easy to modify the behaviour of existing widgets by overloading their signal handlers , Murray Cumming and the others working on those have invested a great deal of effort to truly ( and easily ) expose the object system via C + + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand this.
There's a reasonably clear HIG document in GNOME which is continuously updated.
The strict packing rules make the resulting interface flexible in regards to RTL languages and reasonably consistent with other applications.
GTK+ has widgets for just about every purpose.
Since the introduction of Cairo it is trivial to draw custom widgets, especially using the gtkmm and cairomm C++ bindings: the custom tab bar could be done in a day.
With those bindings it is even quite easy to modify the behaviour of existing widgets by overloading their signal handlers, Murray Cumming and the others working on those have invested a great deal of effort to truly (and easily) expose the object system via C++.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155617</id>
	<title>Re:GUI standard is a myth.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243705440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is no universal standard GUI toolkit on Windows either. Firefox and Opera use their own. OpenOffice.org uses its own. Even Microsoft Office uses its own. On the Mac, there is even more GUI dissonance. Current Macs make the typical Linux environment look downright uniform.</p><p>Why is this always considered a problem on Linux but not on Windows or on the Mac?</p></div><p>It's considered more important on Linux just because it's more obvious- most people actually stick with the single toolkit (either Qt or Gtk) and, because of package managers, the users know when they have to install the other one. With Windows, the extra toolkit just means bigger programs and a messier DLL hell for the developers to deal with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no universal standard GUI toolkit on Windows either .
Firefox and Opera use their own .
OpenOffice.org uses its own .
Even Microsoft Office uses its own .
On the Mac , there is even more GUI dissonance .
Current Macs make the typical Linux environment look downright uniform.Why is this always considered a problem on Linux but not on Windows or on the Mac ? It 's considered more important on Linux just because it 's more obvious- most people actually stick with the single toolkit ( either Qt or Gtk ) and , because of package managers , the users know when they have to install the other one .
With Windows , the extra toolkit just means bigger programs and a messier DLL hell for the developers to deal with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no universal standard GUI toolkit on Windows either.
Firefox and Opera use their own.
OpenOffice.org uses its own.
Even Microsoft Office uses its own.
On the Mac, there is even more GUI dissonance.
Current Macs make the typical Linux environment look downright uniform.Why is this always considered a problem on Linux but not on Windows or on the Mac?It's considered more important on Linux just because it's more obvious- most people actually stick with the single toolkit (either Qt or Gtk) and, because of package managers, the users know when they have to install the other one.
With Windows, the extra toolkit just means bigger programs and a messier DLL hell for the developers to deal with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152279</id>
	<title>Re:World of goo anyone?</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1243677540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are a lot of very good ideas, but it can become difficult for developers to support all the different distro formats, bundles, audio/video systems. For linux to REALLY take over, it has to be easy for developers to make stuff</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMU0tzLwhbE" title="youtube.com">Developers, developers, developers</a> [youtube.com]. He may be a ****** ******* ****, but he's not stupid when it comes to making money for the corporation. There is just too many options for Linux, having one choice would be barely acceptable, having a few would be fantastic, having a hundred is just counter productive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot of very good ideas , but it can become difficult for developers to support all the different distro formats , bundles , audio/video systems .
For linux to REALLY take over , it has to be easy for developers to make stuff Developers , developers , developers [ youtube.com ] .
He may be a * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * , but he 's not stupid when it comes to making money for the corporation .
There is just too many options for Linux , having one choice would be barely acceptable , having a few would be fantastic , having a hundred is just counter productive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot of very good ideas, but it can become difficult for developers to support all the different distro formats, bundles, audio/video systems.
For linux to REALLY take over, it has to be easy for developers to make stuff Developers, developers, developers [youtube.com].
He may be a ****** ******* ****, but he's not stupid when it comes to making money for the corporation.
There is just too many options for Linux, having one choice would be barely acceptable, having a few would be fantastic, having a hundred is just counter productive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152001</id>
	<title>Re:It's open source, google. Fork it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243675620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone working with Android, let me just remind you that Android has its own libc and its own UI stuff.</p><p>Persumably this is Ben speaking on his own and not as the Chrome team.  Otherwise perhaps they should go talk with their Android team first<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone working with Android , let me just remind you that Android has its own libc and its own UI stuff.Persumably this is Ben speaking on his own and not as the Chrome team .
Otherwise perhaps they should go talk with their Android team first : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone working with Android, let me just remind you that Android has its own libc and its own UI stuff.Persumably this is Ben speaking on his own and not as the Chrome team.
Otherwise perhaps they should go talk with their Android team first :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152483</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243678560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here is the great thing about having dozens of GUI toolkits, multiple libc, and several audio APIs. You only have to choose 1! Every time somebody complains about the "mess" of GUI toolkits, it just comes off as senseless whining. Where are the downsides?</p></div><p>You seem to never have heard about "fragmentation of effort".</p><p>Or, "lack of a clear standard", for that matter.</p><p>Or, "clear and consistent architecture"...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the great thing about having dozens of GUI toolkits , multiple libc , and several audio APIs .
You only have to choose 1 !
Every time somebody complains about the " mess " of GUI toolkits , it just comes off as senseless whining .
Where are the downsides ? You seem to never have heard about " fragmentation of effort " .Or , " lack of a clear standard " , for that matter.Or , " clear and consistent architecture " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the great thing about having dozens of GUI toolkits, multiple libc, and several audio APIs.
You only have to choose 1!
Every time somebody complains about the "mess" of GUI toolkits, it just comes off as senseless whining.
Where are the downsides?You seem to never have heard about "fragmentation of effort".Or, "lack of a clear standard", for that matter.Or, "clear and consistent architecture"...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151485</id>
	<title>RE: GTK</title>
	<author>somecanuckchick</author>
	<datestamp>1243715760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Should have used Qt instead of GTK for Google Chrome. Just sayin'...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) somecanuckchick</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should have used Qt instead of GTK for Google Chrome .
Just sayin'... : ) somecanuckchick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should have used Qt instead of GTK for Google Chrome.
Just sayin'... :) somecanuckchick</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154047</id>
	<title>You REALLY want Linux On The Desktop?</title>
	<author>solios</author>
	<datestamp>1243689240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> is it time to concentrate on consolidation and standardisation in GNU/Linux in general, and the desktop in particular?</i><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. has been trumpeting The Year Of Linux On The Desktop for as long as I've been a user - before, no doubt.</p><p>You want it to happen?  Like, <i>actually</i> happen?  Do that.</p><p>Consolidate, standardize, document.  Choice is a fantastic thing to have and will always be there for those who need it - but it confuses the hell out of most grandmothers.  Linux might be paradise for server-side and web developers (I heart my debian box) but it's a mess on the desktop.  It's come a <i>long</i> way from the early days of Red Hat, to be sure - but Desktop Linux still suffers from Tinkering Required for some applications, and massive, massive bloat. X-windows toolkits, for example - Windows and the Mac have <i>one</i> UI toolkit.  Linux (rather, X-Windows) has as many as it has IRC clients, and while GTK has gained a lot of marketshare, it's not A Standard in the sense that, say.... Cocoa is.  Cocoa's just <i>there</i> OS X.  Compare to GTK - your distro might have it, it might not... and if it does, what <i>version?</i>  If it doesn't, how easy is it to <i>get?</i>  Do you have to <i>compile?</i></p><p>My grandmother doesn't know how to compile.  She shouldn't have to.</p><p>I know, I know... making Linux truly Grandmother Friendly goes completely against the natural instincts of the developer community.  That doesn't mean we can't have GrandmotherOS with a linux kernel and a set of rock-solid featureful APIs that make ISVs drool.... and then backport it to the distros we use on our LCIIIs, toasters, SGIs, sparcs, Apollos and DECs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is it time to concentrate on consolidation and standardisation in GNU/Linux in general , and the desktop in particular ?
/. has been trumpeting The Year Of Linux On The Desktop for as long as I 've been a user - before , no doubt.You want it to happen ?
Like , actually happen ?
Do that.Consolidate , standardize , document .
Choice is a fantastic thing to have and will always be there for those who need it - but it confuses the hell out of most grandmothers .
Linux might be paradise for server-side and web developers ( I heart my debian box ) but it 's a mess on the desktop .
It 's come a long way from the early days of Red Hat , to be sure - but Desktop Linux still suffers from Tinkering Required for some applications , and massive , massive bloat .
X-windows toolkits , for example - Windows and the Mac have one UI toolkit .
Linux ( rather , X-Windows ) has as many as it has IRC clients , and while GTK has gained a lot of marketshare , it 's not A Standard in the sense that , say.... Cocoa is .
Cocoa 's just there OS X. Compare to GTK - your distro might have it , it might not... and if it does , what version ?
If it does n't , how easy is it to get ?
Do you have to compile ? My grandmother does n't know how to compile .
She should n't have to.I know , I know... making Linux truly Grandmother Friendly goes completely against the natural instincts of the developer community .
That does n't mean we ca n't have GrandmotherOS with a linux kernel and a set of rock-solid featureful APIs that make ISVs drool.... and then backport it to the distros we use on our LCIIIs , toasters , SGIs , sparcs , Apollos and DECs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> is it time to concentrate on consolidation and standardisation in GNU/Linux in general, and the desktop in particular?
/. has been trumpeting The Year Of Linux On The Desktop for as long as I've been a user - before, no doubt.You want it to happen?
Like, actually happen?
Do that.Consolidate, standardize, document.
Choice is a fantastic thing to have and will always be there for those who need it - but it confuses the hell out of most grandmothers.
Linux might be paradise for server-side and web developers (I heart my debian box) but it's a mess on the desktop.
It's come a long way from the early days of Red Hat, to be sure - but Desktop Linux still suffers from Tinkering Required for some applications, and massive, massive bloat.
X-windows toolkits, for example - Windows and the Mac have one UI toolkit.
Linux (rather, X-Windows) has as many as it has IRC clients, and while GTK has gained a lot of marketshare, it's not A Standard in the sense that, say.... Cocoa is.
Cocoa's just there OS X.  Compare to GTK - your distro might have it, it might not... and if it does, what version?
If it doesn't, how easy is it to get?
Do you have to compile?My grandmother doesn't know how to compile.
She shouldn't have to.I know, I know... making Linux truly Grandmother Friendly goes completely against the natural instincts of the developer community.
That doesn't mean we can't have GrandmotherOS with a linux kernel and a set of rock-solid featureful APIs that make ISVs drool.... and then backport it to the distros we use on our LCIIIs, toasters, SGIs, sparcs, Apollos and DECs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101</id>
	<title>Use Qt....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243713360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not just use Qt instead? It's LGPL....why people still using GTK?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just use Qt instead ?
It 's LGPL....why people still using GTK ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just use Qt instead?
It's LGPL....why people still using GTK?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28157459</id>
	<title>What Linux needs</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1243776840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a)  Decide once and for all; client or server?  If client, (which is what the desktop is) embrace that completely.  Tell anyone who wants UNIX that they need to move to *BSD.</p><p>b)  For sound, return to OSS.  v4 is under the GPL now, so there's no reason not to.  ALSA is over-engineered, unstable garbage.  Get rid of it.</p><p>c)  Standardise around GNOME.  For my money it's the least bloated of the big two.  In terms of features, truthfully I probably like KDE more, but it needs to lose weight before I'd advocate it.</p><p>d)  Stop standardising around Debian, and stop listening to whoever keeps telling everyone to do so.  Debian/Ubuntu are the two most poorly designed Linux distributions in existence.  If fanboys want to respond to that, fine, but if I list my issues with Debian, I expect you to respond to me on those issues specifically, without simply resorting to the old standby of telling me that I'm ignorant.</p><p>e)  Standardise around <a href="http://www.pkgsrc.org/" title="pkgsrc.org">pkgsrc</a> [pkgsrc.org] for package management.  It's portable, it's solid, it has a lot of features, and it's written by people who, unlike many Linux developers, both care about design quality AND can actually code their way out of a wet paper bag.  Do not listen to Debian fanboys who attempt to say otherwise.</p><p>f)  Stop caring AT ALL about what the FSF thinks.  If nVidia only distribute binary drivers, people are going to want them, period; and are going to use them, irrespective of what the cult decrees.  I also don't want to hear from FSF cultists in response to this, either.  I don't agree with you now, I'm not going to in the future, I think your organisation is a disease, and is the single worst thing about Linux, and I'd be much happier if it didn't exist, putting it bluntly; so don't bother.</p><p>g)  If money is what it takes to cause FOSS developers to get serious, then so be it.  Relicense under more commercially friendly licenses, (like the BSD license, for instance) and form companies around the relevant applications.</p><p>h)  If the desktop is where the Linux community has decided it wants to go, Linus needs to be brought into line with that vision.  At the moment, he is primarily concerned about big iron, because that is what the corporate hands that feed him primarily care about.  If you want the i386 client desktop, that is where you need to put the entirety of your focus.  Forget portability, forget the server, and focus purely on being an i386 client desktop.  You're not going to get there any other way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a ) Decide once and for all ; client or server ?
If client , ( which is what the desktop is ) embrace that completely .
Tell anyone who wants UNIX that they need to move to * BSD.b ) For sound , return to OSS .
v4 is under the GPL now , so there 's no reason not to .
ALSA is over-engineered , unstable garbage .
Get rid of it.c ) Standardise around GNOME .
For my money it 's the least bloated of the big two .
In terms of features , truthfully I probably like KDE more , but it needs to lose weight before I 'd advocate it.d ) Stop standardising around Debian , and stop listening to whoever keeps telling everyone to do so .
Debian/Ubuntu are the two most poorly designed Linux distributions in existence .
If fanboys want to respond to that , fine , but if I list my issues with Debian , I expect you to respond to me on those issues specifically , without simply resorting to the old standby of telling me that I 'm ignorant.e ) Standardise around pkgsrc [ pkgsrc.org ] for package management .
It 's portable , it 's solid , it has a lot of features , and it 's written by people who , unlike many Linux developers , both care about design quality AND can actually code their way out of a wet paper bag .
Do not listen to Debian fanboys who attempt to say otherwise.f ) Stop caring AT ALL about what the FSF thinks .
If nVidia only distribute binary drivers , people are going to want them , period ; and are going to use them , irrespective of what the cult decrees .
I also do n't want to hear from FSF cultists in response to this , either .
I do n't agree with you now , I 'm not going to in the future , I think your organisation is a disease , and is the single worst thing about Linux , and I 'd be much happier if it did n't exist , putting it bluntly ; so do n't bother.g ) If money is what it takes to cause FOSS developers to get serious , then so be it .
Relicense under more commercially friendly licenses , ( like the BSD license , for instance ) and form companies around the relevant applications.h ) If the desktop is where the Linux community has decided it wants to go , Linus needs to be brought into line with that vision .
At the moment , he is primarily concerned about big iron , because that is what the corporate hands that feed him primarily care about .
If you want the i386 client desktop , that is where you need to put the entirety of your focus .
Forget portability , forget the server , and focus purely on being an i386 client desktop .
You 're not going to get there any other way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a)  Decide once and for all; client or server?
If client, (which is what the desktop is) embrace that completely.
Tell anyone who wants UNIX that they need to move to *BSD.b)  For sound, return to OSS.
v4 is under the GPL now, so there's no reason not to.
ALSA is over-engineered, unstable garbage.
Get rid of it.c)  Standardise around GNOME.
For my money it's the least bloated of the big two.
In terms of features, truthfully I probably like KDE more, but it needs to lose weight before I'd advocate it.d)  Stop standardising around Debian, and stop listening to whoever keeps telling everyone to do so.
Debian/Ubuntu are the two most poorly designed Linux distributions in existence.
If fanboys want to respond to that, fine, but if I list my issues with Debian, I expect you to respond to me on those issues specifically, without simply resorting to the old standby of telling me that I'm ignorant.e)  Standardise around pkgsrc [pkgsrc.org] for package management.
It's portable, it's solid, it has a lot of features, and it's written by people who, unlike many Linux developers, both care about design quality AND can actually code their way out of a wet paper bag.
Do not listen to Debian fanboys who attempt to say otherwise.f)  Stop caring AT ALL about what the FSF thinks.
If nVidia only distribute binary drivers, people are going to want them, period; and are going to use them, irrespective of what the cult decrees.
I also don't want to hear from FSF cultists in response to this, either.
I don't agree with you now, I'm not going to in the future, I think your organisation is a disease, and is the single worst thing about Linux, and I'd be much happier if it didn't exist, putting it bluntly; so don't bother.g)  If money is what it takes to cause FOSS developers to get serious, then so be it.
Relicense under more commercially friendly licenses, (like the BSD license, for instance) and form companies around the relevant applications.h)  If the desktop is where the Linux community has decided it wants to go, Linus needs to be brought into line with that vision.
At the moment, he is primarily concerned about big iron, because that is what the corporate hands that feed him primarily care about.
If you want the i386 client desktop, that is where you need to put the entirety of your focus.
Forget portability, forget the server, and focus purely on being an i386 client desktop.
You're not going to get there any other way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152289</id>
	<title>new what?</title>
	<author>zaicic</author>
	<datestamp>1243677600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"511MB executable that brings up an empty window."
<br>
Hmm, is that a new OS?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" 511MB executable that brings up an empty window .
" Hmm , is that a new OS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"511MB executable that brings up an empty window.
"

Hmm, is that a new OS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155089</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>spitzak</author>
	<datestamp>1243700280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you.</p><p>This is in fact why "installation" works on Windows. It has nothing to do with Windows itself, it is because programs include all the libraries they need!</p><p>There is a switch to the linker that makes a linux executable act as though LD\_LIBRARY\_PATH starts with the directory the executable is in. This should be turned on ALL THE TIME by EVERY PROGRAM IN THE WORLD (in fact it should be the default). If you want to say something technically correct about Windows, you can say that it does act this way by default.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you.This is in fact why " installation " works on Windows .
It has nothing to do with Windows itself , it is because programs include all the libraries they need ! There is a switch to the linker that makes a linux executable act as though LD \ _LIBRARY \ _PATH starts with the directory the executable is in .
This should be turned on ALL THE TIME by EVERY PROGRAM IN THE WORLD ( in fact it should be the default ) .
If you want to say something technically correct about Windows , you can say that it does act this way by default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you.This is in fact why "installation" works on Windows.
It has nothing to do with Windows itself, it is because programs include all the libraries they need!There is a switch to the linker that makes a linux executable act as though LD\_LIBRARY\_PATH starts with the directory the executable is in.
This should be turned on ALL THE TIME by EVERY PROGRAM IN THE WORLD (in fact it should be the default).
If you want to say something technically correct about Windows, you can say that it does act this way by default.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28158429</id>
	<title>Abstraction?</title>
	<author>Rydia</author>
	<datestamp>1243786740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most applications don't use the full range of features with any toolkit, and generally use a small, shared subset of features. Why is there no uniform abstraction layer for, say, Qt and GTK, a library that takes genericized commands and then implements them in whatever environment the app is built for? If you needed something only available in one toolkit, you could include those separately, which would lead to a nice segregation between genericized and toolkit-specific stuff in your code. You'd be able to cut down substantially on code because instead of having separate functions and objects for each toolkit, you just have one that works with all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most applications do n't use the full range of features with any toolkit , and generally use a small , shared subset of features .
Why is there no uniform abstraction layer for , say , Qt and GTK , a library that takes genericized commands and then implements them in whatever environment the app is built for ?
If you needed something only available in one toolkit , you could include those separately , which would lead to a nice segregation between genericized and toolkit-specific stuff in your code .
You 'd be able to cut down substantially on code because instead of having separate functions and objects for each toolkit , you just have one that works with all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most applications don't use the full range of features with any toolkit, and generally use a small, shared subset of features.
Why is there no uniform abstraction layer for, say, Qt and GTK, a library that takes genericized commands and then implements them in whatever environment the app is built for?
If you needed something only available in one toolkit, you could include those separately, which would lead to a nice segregation between genericized and toolkit-specific stuff in your code.
You'd be able to cut down substantially on code because instead of having separate functions and objects for each toolkit, you just have one that works with all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151201</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see anything wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243714020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, and those 'standards' suck. The Windows desktop is a painful user experience for me, made tolerable only through the grace of non-standard utilities such as VirtuaWin.<br>Make the low end - GUI toolkits, audio subsystems, graphic subsystems - coherent and leave the user experience to the users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and those 'standards ' suck .
The Windows desktop is a painful user experience for me , made tolerable only through the grace of non-standard utilities such as VirtuaWin.Make the low end - GUI toolkits , audio subsystems , graphic subsystems - coherent and leave the user experience to the users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and those 'standards' suck.
The Windows desktop is a painful user experience for me, made tolerable only through the grace of non-standard utilities such as VirtuaWin.Make the low end - GUI toolkits, audio subsystems, graphic subsystems - coherent and leave the user experience to the users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154815</id>
	<title>Re:Qt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243696980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As if Chrome didn't already look like a Qt application on Windows...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As if Chrome did n't already look like a Qt application on Windows.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As if Chrome didn't already look like a Qt application on Windows...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152195</id>
	<title>Whose fault is non-standardization anyway?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243676940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets put the shoe on the other foot.</p><p>If application developers all chose the same toolkit, that would become the standard. You can't dictate this kind of thing. It has to come from the bottom up. Don't whine about the distros or toolkit producers because you don't all make the same choice.</p><p>Second, AFAIK all toolkits can be supported on all distros if the distro producer bothers to configure dependencies in their packages and provide libraries for all of the toolkits. If a developer chooses an obscure toolkit not universally available, whose fault is that?</p><p>And besides, standards suppresses innovation. Eliminate that and Linux will stagnate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets put the shoe on the other foot.If application developers all chose the same toolkit , that would become the standard .
You ca n't dictate this kind of thing .
It has to come from the bottom up .
Do n't whine about the distros or toolkit producers because you do n't all make the same choice.Second , AFAIK all toolkits can be supported on all distros if the distro producer bothers to configure dependencies in their packages and provide libraries for all of the toolkits .
If a developer chooses an obscure toolkit not universally available , whose fault is that ? And besides , standards suppresses innovation .
Eliminate that and Linux will stagnate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets put the shoe on the other foot.If application developers all chose the same toolkit, that would become the standard.
You can't dictate this kind of thing.
It has to come from the bottom up.
Don't whine about the distros or toolkit producers because you don't all make the same choice.Second, AFAIK all toolkits can be supported on all distros if the distro producer bothers to configure dependencies in their packages and provide libraries for all of the toolkits.
If a developer chooses an obscure toolkit not universally available, whose fault is that?And besides, standards suppresses innovation.
Eliminate that and Linux will stagnate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28162225</id>
	<title>Weeeelllll....</title>
	<author>Sire Enaique</author>
	<datestamp>1243773900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fail to see where Google has a problem.<br>Gnome is the default DE of the three main distros, Ubuntu, Suse and RH/Fedora, so - and that's what they did - it's quite logical to do the port on Gnome.</p><p>Now Chrome is open source, so if anybody want to port Chrome to QT/KDE, well, they can.</p><p>As to why Google wants to port Chrome to Linux, well, they need to show goodwill to the open source community to beef up the Android Market.</p><p>And finally, I think we'll see the Gnome/KDE duality for a long, long time, simply because some people prefer C and others C++ and we're talking about free software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see where Google has a problem.Gnome is the default DE of the three main distros , Ubuntu , Suse and RH/Fedora , so - and that 's what they did - it 's quite logical to do the port on Gnome.Now Chrome is open source , so if anybody want to port Chrome to QT/KDE , well , they can.As to why Google wants to port Chrome to Linux , well , they need to show goodwill to the open source community to beef up the Android Market.And finally , I think we 'll see the Gnome/KDE duality for a long , long time , simply because some people prefer C and others C + + and we 're talking about free software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see where Google has a problem.Gnome is the default DE of the three main distros, Ubuntu, Suse and RH/Fedora, so - and that's what they did - it's quite logical to do the port on Gnome.Now Chrome is open source, so if anybody want to port Chrome to QT/KDE, well, they can.As to why Google wants to port Chrome to Linux, well, they need to show goodwill to the open source community to beef up the Android Market.And finally, I think we'll see the Gnome/KDE duality for a long, long time, simply because some people prefer C and others C++ and we're talking about free software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151859</id>
	<title>Google</title>
	<author>FudRucker</author>
	<datestamp>1243674780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google CEO: "Do no Evil"
<br> <br>
someLinuxDev: "If you wont, we will, and blame it all on you"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google CEO : " Do no Evil " someLinuxDev : " If you wont , we will , and blame it all on you "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google CEO: "Do no Evil"
 
someLinuxDev: "If you wont, we will, and blame it all on you"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151661</id>
	<title>Chromium Linux builds link</title>
	<author>kmike</author>
	<datestamp>1243716780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since no one so far cared to provide a link to the actual Chromium Linux builds, here it is:<br><a href="http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/chromium-rel-linux/" title="chromium.org">http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/chromium-rel-linux/</a> [chromium.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since no one so far cared to provide a link to the actual Chromium Linux builds , here it is : http : //build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/chromium-rel-linux/ [ chromium.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since no one so far cared to provide a link to the actual Chromium Linux builds, here it is:http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/chromium-rel-linux/ [chromium.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152227</id>
	<title>Why the fuck would Adobe care?</title>
	<author>toby</author>
	<datestamp>1243677120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have only token support for Linux anyway. Where's the Creative Suite?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have only token support for Linux anyway .
Where 's the Creative Suite ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have only token support for Linux anyway.
Where's the Creative Suite?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152059</id>
	<title>Re:Yes.</title>
	<author>buchner.johannes</author>
	<datestamp>1243675920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Asking for a standardization, you want to drop the only thing all desktops share? The one where the least forks exist?</p><p>Umm yeah, I mean, fork it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Asking for a standardization , you want to drop the only thing all desktops share ?
The one where the least forks exist ? Umm yeah , I mean , fork it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asking for a standardization, you want to drop the only thing all desktops share?
The one where the least forks exist?Umm yeah, I mean, fork it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28158921</id>
	<title>Re:Um....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243790640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally I think the whole situation is fubar. There should be three distributions, different-enough to be treated as independent OSes: GNOME, KDE, "Other/Build Your Own".</p><p>No, nobody gives a shit what the kernel is-- the OS is the UI, and the UI is the OS. (Think about it: if Apple ported OS X to run on the NT Kernel, would it still be OS X or would it magically turn into Windows?)</p></div><p>It would be neither.  It would be a new OS, based on parts of Windows and OSX.  If I'm reading Wikipedia correctly (and if it's accurate), the kernel is the interface between the hardware and the software, and the OS is the interface between the hardware and the user.  The UI is the interface between the software and the user, allowing the user to interact with the computer.  The kernel and the UI are the parts that make up the OS.  The OS is larger than either the kernel or the UI.  If you have just a kernel (like, say, NT or Linux), but no UI, then you clearly don't have an OS.  If you have just a UI (like, say, the OSX interface or the GNU toolset), but no kernel, then you still don't have an OS.  But, if you have a kernel (NT or Linux) and a UI (OSX UI or GNU toolset), then you get an operating system (that monster that you created, or GNU/Linux).</p><p>Actually, I suppose that you could probably make an OS of some sort from just a kernel, but it would either have to be a very intelligent computer, or just run a specific instruction set in a specific sequence each time, since the "user" (or lack therof) couldn't influence it without a UI.  And even then, you wouldn't know if it did anything, because output is an element of the UI, not the kernel's responsibility.  For all practical purposes at this time, an OS needs a kernel and a UI.  Without both the kernel and the UI, the OS would be useless and invisible, and might as well not exist.</p><p>The kernel and the UI work together to make computers do useful things.  Yes, my argument would even make things such as Ubuntu and Kubuntu distinctly different operating systems.  And this could very easily be seen as the case, because they have different libraries to work with (Ubuntu's GNOME has GTK+; Kubuntu's KDE has Qt).  And other combinations, like Fedora/Debian, are clearly different operating systems, using different package management rules (a differing element in the UI).</p><p>Argh, second time in a week I get mod points (and second time ever), and already I want an adjective along the lines of something like "Disagree", "Ignorant", or "Stupid". &gt;\_</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I think the whole situation is fubar .
There should be three distributions , different-enough to be treated as independent OSes : GNOME , KDE , " Other/Build Your Own " .No , nobody gives a shit what the kernel is-- the OS is the UI , and the UI is the OS .
( Think about it : if Apple ported OS X to run on the NT Kernel , would it still be OS X or would it magically turn into Windows ?
) It would be neither .
It would be a new OS , based on parts of Windows and OSX .
If I 'm reading Wikipedia correctly ( and if it 's accurate ) , the kernel is the interface between the hardware and the software , and the OS is the interface between the hardware and the user .
The UI is the interface between the software and the user , allowing the user to interact with the computer .
The kernel and the UI are the parts that make up the OS .
The OS is larger than either the kernel or the UI .
If you have just a kernel ( like , say , NT or Linux ) , but no UI , then you clearly do n't have an OS .
If you have just a UI ( like , say , the OSX interface or the GNU toolset ) , but no kernel , then you still do n't have an OS .
But , if you have a kernel ( NT or Linux ) and a UI ( OSX UI or GNU toolset ) , then you get an operating system ( that monster that you created , or GNU/Linux ) .Actually , I suppose that you could probably make an OS of some sort from just a kernel , but it would either have to be a very intelligent computer , or just run a specific instruction set in a specific sequence each time , since the " user " ( or lack therof ) could n't influence it without a UI .
And even then , you would n't know if it did anything , because output is an element of the UI , not the kernel 's responsibility .
For all practical purposes at this time , an OS needs a kernel and a UI .
Without both the kernel and the UI , the OS would be useless and invisible , and might as well not exist.The kernel and the UI work together to make computers do useful things .
Yes , my argument would even make things such as Ubuntu and Kubuntu distinctly different operating systems .
And this could very easily be seen as the case , because they have different libraries to work with ( Ubuntu 's GNOME has GTK + ; Kubuntu 's KDE has Qt ) .
And other combinations , like Fedora/Debian , are clearly different operating systems , using different package management rules ( a differing element in the UI ) .Argh , second time in a week I get mod points ( and second time ever ) , and already I want an adjective along the lines of something like " Disagree " , " Ignorant " , or " Stupid " .
&gt; \ _</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I think the whole situation is fubar.
There should be three distributions, different-enough to be treated as independent OSes: GNOME, KDE, "Other/Build Your Own".No, nobody gives a shit what the kernel is-- the OS is the UI, and the UI is the OS.
(Think about it: if Apple ported OS X to run on the NT Kernel, would it still be OS X or would it magically turn into Windows?
)It would be neither.
It would be a new OS, based on parts of Windows and OSX.
If I'm reading Wikipedia correctly (and if it's accurate), the kernel is the interface between the hardware and the software, and the OS is the interface between the hardware and the user.
The UI is the interface between the software and the user, allowing the user to interact with the computer.
The kernel and the UI are the parts that make up the OS.
The OS is larger than either the kernel or the UI.
If you have just a kernel (like, say, NT or Linux), but no UI, then you clearly don't have an OS.
If you have just a UI (like, say, the OSX interface or the GNU toolset), but no kernel, then you still don't have an OS.
But, if you have a kernel (NT or Linux) and a UI (OSX UI or GNU toolset), then you get an operating system (that monster that you created, or GNU/Linux).Actually, I suppose that you could probably make an OS of some sort from just a kernel, but it would either have to be a very intelligent computer, or just run a specific instruction set in a specific sequence each time, since the "user" (or lack therof) couldn't influence it without a UI.
And even then, you wouldn't know if it did anything, because output is an element of the UI, not the kernel's responsibility.
For all practical purposes at this time, an OS needs a kernel and a UI.
Without both the kernel and the UI, the OS would be useless and invisible, and might as well not exist.The kernel and the UI work together to make computers do useful things.
Yes, my argument would even make things such as Ubuntu and Kubuntu distinctly different operating systems.
And this could very easily be seen as the case, because they have different libraries to work with (Ubuntu's GNOME has GTK+; Kubuntu's KDE has Qt).
And other combinations, like Fedora/Debian, are clearly different operating systems, using different package management rules (a differing element in the UI).Argh, second time in a week I get mod points (and second time ever), and already I want an adjective along the lines of something like "Disagree", "Ignorant", or "Stupid".
&gt;\_
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152521</id>
	<title>Re:Choice</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1243678740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Choice, many times becomes really fast synonym of fragmentation and lack of standard. And this is just a bright example. The situation described is 100\% conforming to reality, as far as UI kits and sound infrastructure.</p></div><p>Thank you very much for mentioning the sound infrastructure. Though there is fragmentation (OSS vs. ALSA), I would say the bigger problem here is that ALSA is shit, but it's the one most often supported. In fact, I think all current distros support ALSA, <b>unfortunately!</b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Choice , many times becomes really fast synonym of fragmentation and lack of standard .
And this is just a bright example .
The situation described is 100 \ % conforming to reality , as far as UI kits and sound infrastructure.Thank you very much for mentioning the sound infrastructure .
Though there is fragmentation ( OSS vs. ALSA ) , I would say the bigger problem here is that ALSA is shit , but it 's the one most often supported .
In fact , I think all current distros support ALSA , unfortunately !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Choice, many times becomes really fast synonym of fragmentation and lack of standard.
And this is just a bright example.
The situation described is 100\% conforming to reality, as far as UI kits and sound infrastructure.Thank you very much for mentioning the sound infrastructure.
Though there is fragmentation (OSS vs. ALSA), I would say the bigger problem here is that ALSA is shit, but it's the one most often supported.
In fact, I think all current distros support ALSA, unfortunately!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152467</id>
	<title>Re:Qt</title>
	<author>curunir</author>
	<datestamp>1243678500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The tight integration with WebKit is actually something that Chrome, by design, cannot have. The main thing that makes Chrome different from other browsers is the process separation between tabs. It does this by having a main browser process that handles network, HTTP, SSL, and the interaction with the GUI and then spawning processes for rendering and plugins. They actually had to do some work to get WebKit to render to a bitmap that could be sent via IPC to the browser thread to display to the user. Having a tight integration with the GUI toolkit breaks the separate process sandboxing that's core to the Chrome architecture since, by design, rendering processes cannot interact with those operating system resources since they run with reduced privileges.</p><p>Not that this discounts Qt as an option, but the built-in WebKit integration would have been useless for them.</p><p>Also, Qt alone would not make them cross platform. In the session at I/O, a Chrome developer mentioned that the most difficult part of Chrome, be it the Windows version or the Linux/Mac ports, was dealing with plugins. On Windows, they went with NPAPI which, according to him, was very Windows-specific and almost entirely non-portable. This means that ports to other platforms would require a similar amount of effort to support plugins. My guess is that they chose to release Chrome for Windows before other platforms because Windows as a platform did not have a browser with the performance characteristics necessary to run Google's planned web applications (like Wave). Mac has Safari and Linux has Konqueror, so Chrome isn't as important on those two platforms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The tight integration with WebKit is actually something that Chrome , by design , can not have .
The main thing that makes Chrome different from other browsers is the process separation between tabs .
It does this by having a main browser process that handles network , HTTP , SSL , and the interaction with the GUI and then spawning processes for rendering and plugins .
They actually had to do some work to get WebKit to render to a bitmap that could be sent via IPC to the browser thread to display to the user .
Having a tight integration with the GUI toolkit breaks the separate process sandboxing that 's core to the Chrome architecture since , by design , rendering processes can not interact with those operating system resources since they run with reduced privileges.Not that this discounts Qt as an option , but the built-in WebKit integration would have been useless for them.Also , Qt alone would not make them cross platform .
In the session at I/O , a Chrome developer mentioned that the most difficult part of Chrome , be it the Windows version or the Linux/Mac ports , was dealing with plugins .
On Windows , they went with NPAPI which , according to him , was very Windows-specific and almost entirely non-portable .
This means that ports to other platforms would require a similar amount of effort to support plugins .
My guess is that they chose to release Chrome for Windows before other platforms because Windows as a platform did not have a browser with the performance characteristics necessary to run Google 's planned web applications ( like Wave ) .
Mac has Safari and Linux has Konqueror , so Chrome is n't as important on those two platforms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tight integration with WebKit is actually something that Chrome, by design, cannot have.
The main thing that makes Chrome different from other browsers is the process separation between tabs.
It does this by having a main browser process that handles network, HTTP, SSL, and the interaction with the GUI and then spawning processes for rendering and plugins.
They actually had to do some work to get WebKit to render to a bitmap that could be sent via IPC to the browser thread to display to the user.
Having a tight integration with the GUI toolkit breaks the separate process sandboxing that's core to the Chrome architecture since, by design, rendering processes cannot interact with those operating system resources since they run with reduced privileges.Not that this discounts Qt as an option, but the built-in WebKit integration would have been useless for them.Also, Qt alone would not make them cross platform.
In the session at I/O, a Chrome developer mentioned that the most difficult part of Chrome, be it the Windows version or the Linux/Mac ports, was dealing with plugins.
On Windows, they went with NPAPI which, according to him, was very Windows-specific and almost entirely non-portable.
This means that ports to other platforms would require a similar amount of effort to support plugins.
My guess is that they chose to release Chrome for Windows before other platforms because Windows as a platform did not have a browser with the performance characteristics necessary to run Google's planned web applications (like Wave).
Mac has Safari and Linux has Konqueror, so Chrome isn't as important on those two platforms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28178987</id>
	<title>Yes please!</title>
	<author>Yfrwlf</author>
	<datestamp>1243934760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Push API standards to help with program communication and integration, but still allow differences of course.  Some Linux users think of "standardization" as taking away freedoms and conforming, when it does just the opposite.  It allows for <i>more</i> competition and differences, because it allows you do try very different paths without causing headaches for community in general.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Push API standards to help with program communication and integration , but still allow differences of course .
Some Linux users think of " standardization " as taking away freedoms and conforming , when it does just the opposite .
It allows for more competition and differences , because it allows you do try very different paths without causing headaches for community in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Push API standards to help with program communication and integration, but still allow differences of course.
Some Linux users think of "standardization" as taking away freedoms and conforming, when it does just the opposite.
It allows for more competition and differences, because it allows you do try very different paths without causing headaches for community in general.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155267</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any downsides to choice in this case?</title>
	<author>Andreas Mayer</author>
	<datestamp>1243701900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hand b) Windows and Mac have the same problem (SDL, GTK+, etc, and the dlls have to be included with the binary downloads because Windows/Mac don't have an easy to use package manager).</p></div><p>Not <i>quite</i> sure what you are talking about, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... applications on Mac OS X generally do not need to include any GUI toolkit. The toolkit is part of the OS.</p><p>That's also the reason there is no package manager - because you don't need one.</p><p><div class="quote"></div><p>(Applications that use a non native GUI toolkit - like GTK+, wxWidgets etc. - will run into the problems you described. But those are not the norm on OS X. And they stick out like a red headed stepchild anyway.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hand b ) Windows and Mac have the same problem ( SDL , GTK + , etc , and the dlls have to be included with the binary downloads because Windows/Mac do n't have an easy to use package manager ) .Not quite sure what you are talking about , but ... applications on Mac OS X generally do not need to include any GUI toolkit .
The toolkit is part of the OS.That 's also the reason there is no package manager - because you do n't need one .
( Applications that use a non native GUI toolkit - like GTK + , wxWidgets etc .
- will run into the problems you described .
But those are not the norm on OS X. And they stick out like a red headed stepchild anyway .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hand b) Windows and Mac have the same problem (SDL, GTK+, etc, and the dlls have to be included with the binary downloads because Windows/Mac don't have an easy to use package manager).Not quite sure what you are talking about, but ... applications on Mac OS X generally do not need to include any GUI toolkit.
The toolkit is part of the OS.That's also the reason there is no package manager - because you don't need one.
(Applications that use a non native GUI toolkit - like GTK+, wxWidgets etc.
- will run into the problems you described.
But those are not the norm on OS X. And they stick out like a red headed stepchild anyway.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153231</id>
	<title>This is what you get, when you start on MS-Windows</title>
	<author>koinu</author>
	<datestamp>1243683420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if this is typical situation, when you start your development on MS-Windows with all the restricting consequences that this odd platform offers and the weird style of coding it forces develepers to use.</p><p>On my opinion, when you start on MS-Windows, it's always wrong, because you get some unportable crap. The only way to make this right, is to choose the right toolkit that is portable to all platforms at once, if you don't want to build a toolkit by yourself.</p><p>When I look at Google's statement (that I would like to interpret this way)... "Why doesn't Linux have an UI toolkit like MS-Windows?", it reminds me of the old weird comment from NVidia on FreeBSD/amd64 "Make FreeBSD behave more like Linux, then we give you drivers."... Have the people who say such things really understood what they demand?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if this is typical situation , when you start your development on MS-Windows with all the restricting consequences that this odd platform offers and the weird style of coding it forces develepers to use.On my opinion , when you start on MS-Windows , it 's always wrong , because you get some unportable crap .
The only way to make this right , is to choose the right toolkit that is portable to all platforms at once , if you do n't want to build a toolkit by yourself.When I look at Google 's statement ( that I would like to interpret this way ) ... " Why does n't Linux have an UI toolkit like MS-Windows ?
" , it reminds me of the old weird comment from NVidia on FreeBSD/amd64 " Make FreeBSD behave more like Linux , then we give you drivers. " .. .
Have the people who say such things really understood what they demand ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if this is typical situation, when you start your development on MS-Windows with all the restricting consequences that this odd platform offers and the weird style of coding it forces develepers to use.On my opinion, when you start on MS-Windows, it's always wrong, because you get some unportable crap.
The only way to make this right, is to choose the right toolkit that is portable to all platforms at once, if you don't want to build a toolkit by yourself.When I look at Google's statement (that I would like to interpret this way)... "Why doesn't Linux have an UI toolkit like MS-Windows?
", it reminds me of the old weird comment from NVidia on FreeBSD/amd64 "Make FreeBSD behave more like Linux, then we give you drivers."...
Have the people who say such things really understood what they demand?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154643</id>
	<title>unbelievable...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243694700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I don't mind telling you that I'm a little nervous about this business of Debian switching to EGLIBC. I know, it's supposed to be binary compatible and it shouldn't matter to application developers. Does that include developers of closed source binaries?"</p><p>when i read that, i felt the urge to say that:</p><p>of course not, shitface! damned be the day i install the crappy binary blobs you call software on my Debian box. are you not ashamed, that every second website demands a download of fucking adobereadershit and fucking adobeflashplayershit? it's the rfc's stupid. something the programmers at your stupid company have obviously no clue of. have you ever thought about that assholes like you are the main reason free software exists? thanks for listening, you dumb fuck!</p><p>but then i decided to say this:</p><p>thanks a lot, Mike for making the use of the ubiquitous flash player utility possible for all the Ubuntu users out there who really NEED it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I do n't mind telling you that I 'm a little nervous about this business of Debian switching to EGLIBC .
I know , it 's supposed to be binary compatible and it should n't matter to application developers .
Does that include developers of closed source binaries ?
" when i read that , i felt the urge to say that : of course not , shitface !
damned be the day i install the crappy binary blobs you call software on my Debian box .
are you not ashamed , that every second website demands a download of fucking adobereadershit and fucking adobeflashplayershit ?
it 's the rfc 's stupid .
something the programmers at your stupid company have obviously no clue of .
have you ever thought about that assholes like you are the main reason free software exists ?
thanks for listening , you dumb fuck ! but then i decided to say this : thanks a lot , Mike for making the use of the ubiquitous flash player utility possible for all the Ubuntu users out there who really NEED it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I don't mind telling you that I'm a little nervous about this business of Debian switching to EGLIBC.
I know, it's supposed to be binary compatible and it shouldn't matter to application developers.
Does that include developers of closed source binaries?
"when i read that, i felt the urge to say that:of course not, shitface!
damned be the day i install the crappy binary blobs you call software on my Debian box.
are you not ashamed, that every second website demands a download of fucking adobereadershit and fucking adobeflashplayershit?
it's the rfc's stupid.
something the programmers at your stupid company have obviously no clue of.
have you ever thought about that assholes like you are the main reason free software exists?
thanks for listening, you dumb fuck!but then i decided to say this:thanks a lot, Mike for making the use of the ubiquitous flash player utility possible for all the Ubuntu users out there who really NEED it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151405</id>
	<title>and this is different from other platforms... how?</title>
	<author>speedtux</author>
	<datestamp>1243715220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My Mac currently has several apps in three different toolkits open; several apps written by Apple itself don't follow standard UI conventions.  The Windows situation is even worse: there are several native toolkits there (Win32, MFC,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...), plus dozens of third party ones.  And UI conventions are violated constantly.</p><p>The real problem Windows programmers have with Linux is... that it isn't Windows.  They start writing some big, ugly, messy Windows application (hello, Firefox), and then they moan and groan when porting it to Linux and usually do a piss-poor job at it too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My Mac currently has several apps in three different toolkits open ; several apps written by Apple itself do n't follow standard UI conventions .
The Windows situation is even worse : there are several native toolkits there ( Win32 , MFC , .NET , ... ) , plus dozens of third party ones .
And UI conventions are violated constantly.The real problem Windows programmers have with Linux is... that it is n't Windows .
They start writing some big , ugly , messy Windows application ( hello , Firefox ) , and then they moan and groan when porting it to Linux and usually do a piss-poor job at it too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Mac currently has several apps in three different toolkits open; several apps written by Apple itself don't follow standard UI conventions.
The Windows situation is even worse: there are several native toolkits there (Win32, MFC, .NET, ...), plus dozens of third party ones.
And UI conventions are violated constantly.The real problem Windows programmers have with Linux is... that it isn't Windows.
They start writing some big, ugly, messy Windows application (hello, Firefox), and then they moan and groan when porting it to Linux and usually do a piss-poor job at it too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151143</id>
	<title>Re:No Link to Actual Content</title>
	<author>SirLurksAlot</author>
	<datestamp>1243713660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taking two seconds to skim the article you can find this link to the <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev/browse\_thread/thread/b89ab99a0c848b89" title="google.com">actual discussion board thread</a> [google.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taking two seconds to skim the article you can find this link to the actual discussion board thread [ google.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taking two seconds to skim the article you can find this link to the actual discussion board thread [google.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154429</id>
	<title>Please don't mention RedHat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243692300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it's them who are ignoring the standards, not vice-versa. I'm not a system administrator at all, but ifconfig in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sbin instead of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/sbin? WTF?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it 's them who are ignoring the standards , not vice-versa .
I 'm not a system administrator at all , but ifconfig in /sbin instead of /usr/sbin ?
WTF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it's them who are ignoring the standards, not vice-versa.
I'm not a system administrator at all, but ifconfig in /sbin instead of /usr/sbin?
WTF?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151229</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28159063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28157759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28160885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28158903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28177147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28159413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28164539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28162521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28158503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28162807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28184167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28157459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28159831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28157115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28160487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28158527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28222847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_142</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28160283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28157469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152193
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28158921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28157459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28159867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28169741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_1740205_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152817
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151153
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151545
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154751
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151699
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154373
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152257
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152541
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152861
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156019
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155179
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151579
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156703
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155327
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28160487
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152391
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155801
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155419
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28160885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152279
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151547
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152685
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151089
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151371
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151521
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152383
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28184167
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155053
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152125
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28158921
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152627
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153543
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28158503
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152793
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28158527
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156015
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152533
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154299
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153515
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151507
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153073
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153427
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28160283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28164539
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28177147
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151397
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153029
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28162807
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155979
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28222847
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151667
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155569
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28159493
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151143
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154429
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151201
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151651
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28157115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154921
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151897
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151829
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153555
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152487
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152883
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152795
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154815
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152633
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152237
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151595
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154175
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153529
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154361
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28162521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151851
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155217
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152029
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153847
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153437
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28169741
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152773
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152151
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151325
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151459
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151335
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156149
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151939
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156951
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152211
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28157759
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152483
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152963
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156005
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155259
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155649
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155223
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152387
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154261
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153897
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155293
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154321
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155267
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153643
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155089
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28159063
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28157469
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152193
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152493
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156801
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154305
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151751
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28159413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153909
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152615
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151065
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28157459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28159867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28159831
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152579
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28152289
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151081
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151505
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151581
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_1740205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28151815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28153503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28156405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28158903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28154413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_1740205.28155617
</commentlist>
</conversation>
