<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_10_1243232</id>
	<title>Linux Kernel 2.6.30 Released</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1244641200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>diegocgteleline.es writes <i>"Linux kernel <a href="http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/6/9/710">2.6.30 has been released</a>. The <a href="http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux\_2\_6\_30">list of new features</a> includes NILFS2 (a new, log-structured filesystem), a filesystem for object-based storage devices called exofs, local caching for NFS, the RDS protocol (which delivers high-performance reliable connections between the servers of a cluster), a new distributed networking filesystem (POHMELFS), automatic flushing of files on renames/truncates in ext3, ext4 and btrfs, preliminary support for the 802.11w drafts, support for the Microblaze architecture, the Tomoyo security MAC, DRM support for the Radeon R6xx/R7xx graphic cards, asynchronous scanning of devices and partitions for faster bootup, the preadv/pwritev syscalls, several new drivers and <a href="http://www.h-online.com/open/Fine-tuning-What-s-new-in-Linux-2-6-30--/features/113478">many other small improvements</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>diegocgteleline.es writes " Linux kernel 2.6.30 has been released .
The list of new features includes NILFS2 ( a new , log-structured filesystem ) , a filesystem for object-based storage devices called exofs , local caching for NFS , the RDS protocol ( which delivers high-performance reliable connections between the servers of a cluster ) , a new distributed networking filesystem ( POHMELFS ) , automatic flushing of files on renames/truncates in ext3 , ext4 and btrfs , preliminary support for the 802.11w drafts , support for the Microblaze architecture , the Tomoyo security MAC , DRM support for the Radeon R6xx/R7xx graphic cards , asynchronous scanning of devices and partitions for faster bootup , the preadv/pwritev syscalls , several new drivers and many other small improvements .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>diegocgteleline.es writes "Linux kernel 2.6.30 has been released.
The list of new features includes NILFS2 (a new, log-structured filesystem), a filesystem for object-based storage devices called exofs, local caching for NFS, the RDS protocol (which delivers high-performance reliable connections between the servers of a cluster), a new distributed networking filesystem (POHMELFS), automatic flushing of files on renames/truncates in ext3, ext4 and btrfs, preliminary support for the 802.11w drafts, support for the Microblaze architecture, the Tomoyo security MAC, DRM support for the Radeon R6xx/R7xx graphic cards, asynchronous scanning of devices and partitions for faster bootup, the preadv/pwritev syscalls, several new drivers and many other small improvements.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28286863</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>bcnstony</author>
	<datestamp>1244635740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can anyone explain to me why Linux has so many filesystems? Windows has had NTFS for years (admittedly, several versions, but never any compatibility issues that I've come across), and Linux has, what, 73 or something?! Is it really <b>that</b> hard to get it right?</p></div><p>Well, I've had 73 girlfriends over the years, so I think I <b>have</b> gotten it right. Much like file systems, each of my ex's offers something uniquely special.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p><p>

Of course, it's a lot easier to bring a filesystem back to my mother's basement where I live . . . sigh</p><p>.</p><p>


--<br>
<a href="http://myhovercraftisfullofeels.com/" title="myhovercra...ofeels.com" rel="nofollow">http://myhovercraftisfullofeels.com/</a> [myhovercra...ofeels.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone explain to me why Linux has so many filesystems ?
Windows has had NTFS for years ( admittedly , several versions , but never any compatibility issues that I 've come across ) , and Linux has , what , 73 or something ? !
Is it really that hard to get it right ? Well , I 've had 73 girlfriends over the years , so I think I have gotten it right .
Much like file systems , each of my ex 's offers something uniquely special .
. Of course , it 's a lot easier to bring a filesystem back to my mother 's basement where I live .
. .
sigh . -- http : //myhovercraftisfullofeels.com/ [ myhovercra...ofeels.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone explain to me why Linux has so many filesystems?
Windows has had NTFS for years (admittedly, several versions, but never any compatibility issues that I've come across), and Linux has, what, 73 or something?!
Is it really that hard to get it right?Well, I've had 73 girlfriends over the years, so I think I have gotten it right.
Much like file systems, each of my ex's offers something uniquely special.
.

Of course, it's a lot easier to bring a filesystem back to my mother's basement where I live .
. .
sigh.


--
http://myhovercraftisfullofeels.com/ [myhovercra...ofeels.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281161</id>
	<title>It's too easy these days ...</title>
	<author>DrogMan</author>
	<datestamp>1244655000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Downloaded. Compiled. Installed and rebooted, and it's running on a little test "embedded" box I'm playing with. (Geode LX800) It's passed all my own tests, and that's that.
<p>Like the new compression stuff. Compressed kernel under 1MB again - First time I've seen that for a while.
</p><p>Now to try it on my Acer Aspire One...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Downloaded .
Compiled. Installed and rebooted , and it 's running on a little test " embedded " box I 'm playing with .
( Geode LX800 ) It 's passed all my own tests , and that 's that .
Like the new compression stuff .
Compressed kernel under 1MB again - First time I 've seen that for a while .
Now to try it on my Acer Aspire One.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Downloaded.
Compiled. Installed and rebooted, and it's running on a little test "embedded" box I'm playing with.
(Geode LX800) It's passed all my own tests, and that's that.
Like the new compression stuff.
Compressed kernel under 1MB again - First time I've seen that for a while.
Now to try it on my Acer Aspire One...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281821</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244657580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because they have fewer filesystems?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they have fewer filesystems ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they have fewer filesystems?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279981</id>
	<title>Re:Sad, but true:</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244650020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, then tell us, how do you like it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , then tell us , how do you like it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, then tell us, how do you like it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279845</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Jugalator</author>
	<datestamp>1244649360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Why does it matter?</p></div><p>Complexity, attack vectors, having to spread out resources to commit to maintaining multiple file systems. I'm not saying I'm an advocate for anything specific here, and I'm not saying Windows is better, I'm just trying to answer your question on why it *can* be a bad idea to just keep pushing out file systems. Of course, Linux might need this direly, and then this fs might be a good idea.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does it matter ? Complexity , attack vectors , having to spread out resources to commit to maintaining multiple file systems .
I 'm not saying I 'm an advocate for anything specific here , and I 'm not saying Windows is better , I 'm just trying to answer your question on why it * can * be a bad idea to just keep pushing out file systems .
Of course , Linux might need this direly , and then this fs might be a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Why does it matter?Complexity, attack vectors, having to spread out resources to commit to maintaining multiple file systems.
I'm not saying I'm an advocate for anything specific here, and I'm not saying Windows is better, I'm just trying to answer your question on why it *can* be a bad idea to just keep pushing out file systems.
Of course, Linux might need this direly, and then this fs might be a good idea.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279089</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244646480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can anyone explain to me why Linux has so many filesystems?</p> </div><p>Because one filesystem isn't optimal for all cases?  Because people want to experiment with new things?  Why does it matter?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Windows has had NTFS for years (admittedly, several versions, but never any compatibility issues that I've come across), and Linux has, what, 73 or something?! Is it really that hard to get it right?</p></div><p>And Windows has had FAT12, FAT16, FAT32, NTFS, exFAT, VFAT, FFS2, DFS, EFS.  Was it really that hard to get it right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone explain to me why Linux has so many filesystems ?
Because one filesystem is n't optimal for all cases ?
Because people want to experiment with new things ?
Why does it matter ? Windows has had NTFS for years ( admittedly , several versions , but never any compatibility issues that I 've come across ) , and Linux has , what , 73 or something ? !
Is it really that hard to get it right ? And Windows has had FAT12 , FAT16 , FAT32 , NTFS , exFAT , VFAT , FFS2 , DFS , EFS .
Was it really that hard to get it right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone explain to me why Linux has so many filesystems?
Because one filesystem isn't optimal for all cases?
Because people want to experiment with new things?
Why does it matter?Windows has had NTFS for years (admittedly, several versions, but never any compatibility issues that I've come across), and Linux has, what, 73 or something?!
Is it really that hard to get it right?And Windows has had FAT12, FAT16, FAT32, NTFS, exFAT, VFAT, FFS2, DFS, EFS.
Was it really that hard to get it right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279933</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>ifrag</author>
	<datestamp>1244649780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Windows has had NTFS for years (admittedly, several versions, but never any compatibility issues that I've come across)</p></div></blockquote><p>
XP will kill Shadow Copy data from Vista on NTFS volumes.  Granted, all the data should be there and read / writes should work fine so it's not really a serious "compatibility" issue, it's more just like feature incompatibility.  Of course after going back to Vista if you needed a prior version it's gone.  And there might be some problems with System Restore if it's using Shadow Copy features.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows has had NTFS for years ( admittedly , several versions , but never any compatibility issues that I 've come across ) XP will kill Shadow Copy data from Vista on NTFS volumes .
Granted , all the data should be there and read / writes should work fine so it 's not really a serious " compatibility " issue , it 's more just like feature incompatibility .
Of course after going back to Vista if you needed a prior version it 's gone .
And there might be some problems with System Restore if it 's using Shadow Copy features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows has had NTFS for years (admittedly, several versions, but never any compatibility issues that I've come across)
XP will kill Shadow Copy data from Vista on NTFS volumes.
Granted, all the data should be there and read / writes should work fine so it's not really a serious "compatibility" issue, it's more just like feature incompatibility.
Of course after going back to Vista if you needed a prior version it's gone.
And there might be some problems with System Restore if it's using Shadow Copy features.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279127</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Nadir</author>
	<datestamp>1244646660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of these are experimenting in new directions. And ext4 is backwards compatibile with ext3 which is backwards compatible with ext2 (the reverse is not true: i.e. you can't mount an ext4 filesystem with ext3).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of these are experimenting in new directions .
And ext4 is backwards compatibile with ext3 which is backwards compatible with ext2 ( the reverse is not true : i.e .
you ca n't mount an ext4 filesystem with ext3 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of these are experimenting in new directions.
And ext4 is backwards compatibile with ext3 which is backwards compatible with ext2 (the reverse is not true: i.e.
you can't mount an ext4 filesystem with ext3).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281943</id>
	<title>Re:Intel integrated graphics now work properly</title>
	<author>nightfire-unique</author>
	<datestamp>1244657940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not alone!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>I struggled for hours playing with mtrr's, video drivers, and KDE (thinking it might be a bad QT build or something, since I updated to KDE4 at the same time this the 2.7 series intel driver went in).</p><p>I never would have suspected the kernel until I went through about a dozen bug reports, and decided to give 2.6.30-rc8 a shot.  Solved all my issues as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not alone !
: ) I struggled for hours playing with mtrr 's , video drivers , and KDE ( thinking it might be a bad QT build or something , since I updated to KDE4 at the same time this the 2.7 series intel driver went in ) .I never would have suspected the kernel until I went through about a dozen bug reports , and decided to give 2.6.30-rc8 a shot .
Solved all my issues as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not alone!
:)I struggled for hours playing with mtrr's, video drivers, and KDE (thinking it might be a bad QT build or something, since I updated to KDE4 at the same time this the 2.7 series intel driver went in).I never would have suspected the kernel until I went through about a dozen bug reports, and decided to give 2.6.30-rc8 a shot.
Solved all my issues as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279593</id>
	<title>Re:Some Great Work...But "rt2500 Realtek Drivers"</title>
	<author>Bigby</author>
	<datestamp>1244648400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't have any issues with rt2500 in 2.6.28.  However, I do have issues with ath9k and also issues with using smbfs and autofs, like my card is half duplex.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have any issues with rt2500 in 2.6.28 .
However , I do have issues with ath9k and also issues with using smbfs and autofs , like my card is half duplex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have any issues with rt2500 in 2.6.28.
However, I do have issues with ath9k and also issues with using smbfs and autofs, like my card is half duplex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279099</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>tick-tock-atona</author>
	<datestamp>1244646540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can anyone explain to me why Windows has so many viruses? Linux has had no viruses for years (admittedly, several attempts, but never any in the wild that I've come across), and Windows has, what, 73 billion or something?! Is it really that hard to get it right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone explain to me why Windows has so many viruses ?
Linux has had no viruses for years ( admittedly , several attempts , but never any in the wild that I 've come across ) , and Windows has , what , 73 billion or something ? !
Is it really that hard to get it right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone explain to me why Windows has so many viruses?
Linux has had no viruses for years (admittedly, several attempts, but never any in the wild that I've come across), and Windows has, what, 73 billion or something?!
Is it really that hard to get it right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280661</id>
	<title>Should Never Go Together</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244653140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>DRM support for the Radeon R6xx/R7xx graphic cards</p></div></blockquote><p>
DRM and Linux -- two words that should never go together.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>DRM support for the Radeon R6xx/R7xx graphic cards DRM and Linux -- two words that should never go together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DRM support for the Radeon R6xx/R7xx graphic cards
DRM and Linux -- two words that should never go together.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279441</id>
	<title>ati</title>
	<author>n30na</author>
	<datestamp>1244647800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, wait, does this mean that more ati cards get proper 3d acceleration? Or is that still ati's fault, like I thought?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , wait , does this mean that more ati cards get proper 3d acceleration ?
Or is that still ati 's fault , like I thought ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, wait, does this mean that more ati cards get proper 3d acceleration?
Or is that still ati's fault, like I thought?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279637</id>
	<title>Re:Trusted Computing Slithered In?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244648580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>some hardware needs to be 'trusted', most does not</p><p>the economics of it will sort it out, never mind</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>some hardware needs to be 'trusted ' , most does notthe economics of it will sort it out , never mind</tokentext>
<sentencetext>some hardware needs to be 'trusted', most does notthe economics of it will sort it out, never mind</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279283</id>
	<title>Re:DRM?</title>
	<author>denis-The-menace</author>
	<datestamp>1244647260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should rename it to ADRM where A=AMD or ATI</p><p>When I saw "DRM" in the list of feature I cringed.</p><p>In the world of computing, DRM has the same effect as calling a product/service NAZI in the rest of the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should rename it to ADRM where A = AMD or ATIWhen I saw " DRM " in the list of feature I cringed.In the world of computing , DRM has the same effect as calling a product/service NAZI in the rest of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should rename it to ADRM where A=AMD or ATIWhen I saw "DRM" in the list of feature I cringed.In the world of computing, DRM has the same effect as calling a product/service NAZI in the rest of the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279625</id>
	<title>Re:2.8.x kernel soon?</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1244648520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>didn't they change the numbering versions to where they don't do the specific numbered unstable anymore?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>did n't they change the numbering versions to where they do n't do the specific numbered unstable anymore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>didn't they change the numbering versions to where they don't do the specific numbered unstable anymore?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279029</id>
	<title>Trusted Computing Slithered In?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244646300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Integrity Management Architecture</i></p><p><i>Contributor: IBM</i></p><p><i>Recommended LWN article: <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/227937/" title="lwn.net">http://lwn.net/Articles/227937/</a> [lwn.net]</i></p><p><i>The Trusted Computing Group(TCG) runtime Integrity Measurement Architecture(IMA) maintains a list of hash values of executables and other sensitive system files, as they are read or executed. If an attacker manages to change the contents of an important system file being measured, we can tell. If your system has a TPM chip, then IMA also maintains an aggregate integrity value over this list inside the TPM hardware, so that the TPM can prove to a third party whether or not critical system files have been modified.</i></p><p>From the recommended article, the key dilemma:</p><p><i>There are clear advantages to a structure like this. A Linux-based teller machine, say, or a voting machine could ensure that it has not been compromised and prove its integrity to the network. Administrators in charge of web servers can use the integrity code in similar ways. In general, integrity management can be a powerful tool for people who want to be sure that the systems they own (or manage) have not be reconfigured into spam servers when they weren't looking.</i></p><p><i>The other side of this coin is that integrity management can be a powerful tool for those who wish to maintain control over systems they do not own. Should it be merged, the kernel will come with the tools needed to create a locked-down system out of the box. As these modules get closer to mainline confusion, we may begin to see more people getting worried about them. Quite a few kernel developers may oppose license terms intended to prevent "tivoization," but that doesn't mean they want to actively support that sort of use of their software. Certainly it would be harder to argue against the shipping of locked-down, Linux-based gadgets when the kernel, itself, provides the lockdown tools.</i></p><p>OK, maybe this is overdramatic, but trading freedom from third-party oversight through trusted computing for the security of first-party oversight through trusted computing seems a little like:</p><p>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin</p><p>But I can see both sides. Pondering... what are your thoughts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Integrity Management ArchitectureContributor : IBMRecommended LWN article : http : //lwn.net/Articles/227937/ [ lwn.net ] The Trusted Computing Group ( TCG ) runtime Integrity Measurement Architecture ( IMA ) maintains a list of hash values of executables and other sensitive system files , as they are read or executed .
If an attacker manages to change the contents of an important system file being measured , we can tell .
If your system has a TPM chip , then IMA also maintains an aggregate integrity value over this list inside the TPM hardware , so that the TPM can prove to a third party whether or not critical system files have been modified.From the recommended article , the key dilemma : There are clear advantages to a structure like this .
A Linux-based teller machine , say , or a voting machine could ensure that it has not been compromised and prove its integrity to the network .
Administrators in charge of web servers can use the integrity code in similar ways .
In general , integrity management can be a powerful tool for people who want to be sure that the systems they own ( or manage ) have not be reconfigured into spam servers when they were n't looking.The other side of this coin is that integrity management can be a powerful tool for those who wish to maintain control over systems they do not own .
Should it be merged , the kernel will come with the tools needed to create a locked-down system out of the box .
As these modules get closer to mainline confusion , we may begin to see more people getting worried about them .
Quite a few kernel developers may oppose license terms intended to prevent " tivoization , " but that does n't mean they want to actively support that sort of use of their software .
Certainly it would be harder to argue against the shipping of locked-down , Linux-based gadgets when the kernel , itself , provides the lockdown tools.OK , maybe this is overdramatic , but trading freedom from third-party oversight through trusted computing for the security of first-party oversight through trusted computing seems a little like : " They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety .
" - Benjamin FranklinBut I can see both sides .
Pondering... what are your thoughts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Integrity Management ArchitectureContributor: IBMRecommended LWN article: http://lwn.net/Articles/227937/ [lwn.net]The Trusted Computing Group(TCG) runtime Integrity Measurement Architecture(IMA) maintains a list of hash values of executables and other sensitive system files, as they are read or executed.
If an attacker manages to change the contents of an important system file being measured, we can tell.
If your system has a TPM chip, then IMA also maintains an aggregate integrity value over this list inside the TPM hardware, so that the TPM can prove to a third party whether or not critical system files have been modified.From the recommended article, the key dilemma:There are clear advantages to a structure like this.
A Linux-based teller machine, say, or a voting machine could ensure that it has not been compromised and prove its integrity to the network.
Administrators in charge of web servers can use the integrity code in similar ways.
In general, integrity management can be a powerful tool for people who want to be sure that the systems they own (or manage) have not be reconfigured into spam servers when they weren't looking.The other side of this coin is that integrity management can be a powerful tool for those who wish to maintain control over systems they do not own.
Should it be merged, the kernel will come with the tools needed to create a locked-down system out of the box.
As these modules get closer to mainline confusion, we may begin to see more people getting worried about them.
Quite a few kernel developers may oppose license terms intended to prevent "tivoization," but that doesn't mean they want to actively support that sort of use of their software.
Certainly it would be harder to argue against the shipping of locked-down, Linux-based gadgets when the kernel, itself, provides the lockdown tools.OK, maybe this is overdramatic, but trading freedom from third-party oversight through trusted computing for the security of first-party oversight through trusted computing seems a little like:"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
" - Benjamin FranklinBut I can see both sides.
Pondering... what are your thoughts?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</id>
	<title>Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Psiren</author>
	<datestamp>1244646240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can anyone explain to me why Linux has so many filesystems? Windows has had NTFS for years (admittedly, several versions, but never any compatibility issues that I've come across), and Linux has, what, 73 or something?! Is it really <b>that</b> hard to get it right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone explain to me why Linux has so many filesystems ?
Windows has had NTFS for years ( admittedly , several versions , but never any compatibility issues that I 've come across ) , and Linux has , what , 73 or something ? !
Is it really that hard to get it right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone explain to me why Linux has so many filesystems?
Windows has had NTFS for years (admittedly, several versions, but never any compatibility issues that I've come across), and Linux has, what, 73 or something?!
Is it really that hard to get it right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279703</id>
	<title>Re:Thottle Capability</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244648760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The scheduler does great things don't get me wrong but when it comes to provisioning systems for various clients some want a garuntee on the level of processing power that is available at any time.</i></p><p>Google for cpusets...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The scheduler does great things do n't get me wrong but when it comes to provisioning systems for various clients some want a garuntee on the level of processing power that is available at any time.Google for cpusets.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The scheduler does great things don't get me wrong but when it comes to provisioning systems for various clients some want a garuntee on the level of processing power that is available at any time.Google for cpusets...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278915</id>
	<title>Re:DRM?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244645820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Direct Rendering Managment - this DRM not the bad one</htmltext>
<tokenext>Direct Rendering Managment - this DRM not the bad one</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Direct Rendering Managment - this DRM not the bad one</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28289647</id>
	<title>Re:Just get your shit together or give up</title>
	<author>corychristison</author>
	<datestamp>1244658180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>make webcams work (they don't in the majority of cases at the moment)</p></div></blockquote><p>Who uses webcams? Text is much more efficient and doesn't hog bandwidth. <a href="http://www.amsn-project.net/" title="amsn-project.net">aMSN</a> [amsn-project.net] kicks ass for those who still use MSN/Live Messenger.</p><blockquote><div><p>stop regressions in graphics drivers</p></div></blockquote><p>That's not entirely upto the Kernel dev's... Ati/nVidia/Intel all have their own driver packages that aren't included in the kernel. 9/10 times it's their problem, not the kernel dev's.</p><blockquote><div><p>get other hardware working, e.g. iPods;</p></div></blockquote><p>Definitely not a Linux developer issue. Apple changes the iPod connectivity system and obfuscates it so often it's not worth the hassle.<br>There are some solutions out there, though. Your mileage may vary though, depending on which model/revision/colour iPod you own.</p><blockquote><div><p>make dual-screen work without spending 20 minutes fucking around</p></div> </blockquote><p>This depends on which set of drivers you are using. ati-config has an option to set it up nearly instantly. nvidia-config does, too. I haven't dealt with Intel video cards for a long time so I'm unsure of their options.</p><blockquote><div><p>get GNOME on to QT and develop a decent HIG (sorry, the current GNOME HIG is an excuse to put off doing anything about bugs, see Apple's for how this should be done)</p></div></blockquote><p>Not going to happen. There are alternatives to GNOME and KDE (and GTK/QT respectively). But you wouldn't want to use those because they aren't "pretty". Seeing as how you're a fan of Apple (and probably a douchebag-mac-fuck) that just won't do for you because fashion and beauty is everything to people like you.</p><blockquote><div><p>finally pick one -- namely<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.deb -- package format and stick to it; so developers aren't put-off by the idea of spending days creating packages for different platforms.</p></div></blockquote><p>Also probably never going to happen.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.deb is not a good choice for some people (like me). Gentoo seems to have it right. Gentoo employs a ports-like system borrowed from BSD. Since you're such a fan of Apple, you could appreciate that. Seeing as Mac OSX is a fusion of MacOS and FreeBSD (\_basically\_ -- NOT getting into the technical aspect of this)</p><blockquote><div><p>I'm sure some smug twat will pop-up and say how they don't care about Linux on the desktop, my answer is: why are you bothering to reply, if you don't care? There are obviously loads of people who do care, just look around at all the advocates. They told me Linux is ready for the desktop, and I tried it, only to find everything's slower, my iPod didn't work, then upgrading hosed my sound and video!</p></div></blockquote><p>I guess I'm a twat... but who's holding the iPod?<br>Anyway. I'm replying because I want to maybe set you straight on a few things. You are obviously a Mac user because you are very imaginative. We all know only fruity apple guys are imaginative, right?<br>Perhaps your experience using Linux sucked, but my family uses it for \_all\_ tasks (from messaging, to e-mail, to programming, to book-keeping, to writing a letter, to watching Media on the TV, to the firmware in my networking equipment) and it works great.<br>I don't understand the speed comment you made. I've used Mac OS/X and every version of Windows. Speed certainly is not an issue here. Ubuntu may be your problem there (never used it past installing and wiping because I didn't like it)</p><blockquote><div><p>If you're thinking of advocating Linux to someone: stop! Go and do some work on getting drivers working instead, your time won't be wasted and you won't lose any friends.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm guessing you are some hip-cool teen that doesn't seem to comprehend anything past "Ohhnoooes! My iPood Odesn't work! WTFBBQ<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:cry:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/wrist"<br>That's fine. We don't want your business anyway. Maybe one day when you grow up and realize life is more important than your iPod will you understand.</p><p>Thank you, and have a good night.<br>Sincerely,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Cory Christison</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>make webcams work ( they do n't in the majority of cases at the moment ) Who uses webcams ?
Text is much more efficient and does n't hog bandwidth .
aMSN [ amsn-project.net ] kicks ass for those who still use MSN/Live Messenger.stop regressions in graphics driversThat 's not entirely upto the Kernel dev 's... Ati/nVidia/Intel all have their own driver packages that are n't included in the kernel .
9/10 times it 's their problem , not the kernel dev 's.get other hardware working , e.g .
iPods ; Definitely not a Linux developer issue .
Apple changes the iPod connectivity system and obfuscates it so often it 's not worth the hassle.There are some solutions out there , though .
Your mileage may vary though , depending on which model/revision/colour iPod you own.make dual-screen work without spending 20 minutes fucking around This depends on which set of drivers you are using .
ati-config has an option to set it up nearly instantly .
nvidia-config does , too .
I have n't dealt with Intel video cards for a long time so I 'm unsure of their options.get GNOME on to QT and develop a decent HIG ( sorry , the current GNOME HIG is an excuse to put off doing anything about bugs , see Apple 's for how this should be done ) Not going to happen .
There are alternatives to GNOME and KDE ( and GTK/QT respectively ) .
But you would n't want to use those because they are n't " pretty " .
Seeing as how you 're a fan of Apple ( and probably a douchebag-mac-fuck ) that just wo n't do for you because fashion and beauty is everything to people like you.finally pick one -- namely .deb -- package format and stick to it ; so developers are n't put-off by the idea of spending days creating packages for different platforms.Also probably never going to happen .
.deb is not a good choice for some people ( like me ) .
Gentoo seems to have it right .
Gentoo employs a ports-like system borrowed from BSD .
Since you 're such a fan of Apple , you could appreciate that .
Seeing as Mac OSX is a fusion of MacOS and FreeBSD ( \ _basically \ _ -- NOT getting into the technical aspect of this ) I 'm sure some smug twat will pop-up and say how they do n't care about Linux on the desktop , my answer is : why are you bothering to reply , if you do n't care ?
There are obviously loads of people who do care , just look around at all the advocates .
They told me Linux is ready for the desktop , and I tried it , only to find everything 's slower , my iPod did n't work , then upgrading hosed my sound and video ! I guess I 'm a twat... but who 's holding the iPod ? Anyway .
I 'm replying because I want to maybe set you straight on a few things .
You are obviously a Mac user because you are very imaginative .
We all know only fruity apple guys are imaginative , right ? Perhaps your experience using Linux sucked , but my family uses it for \ _all \ _ tasks ( from messaging , to e-mail , to programming , to book-keeping , to writing a letter , to watching Media on the TV , to the firmware in my networking equipment ) and it works great.I do n't understand the speed comment you made .
I 've used Mac OS/X and every version of Windows .
Speed certainly is not an issue here .
Ubuntu may be your problem there ( never used it past installing and wiping because I did n't like it ) If you 're thinking of advocating Linux to someone : stop !
Go and do some work on getting drivers working instead , your time wo n't be wasted and you wo n't lose any friends.I 'm guessing you are some hip-cool teen that does n't seem to comprehend anything past " Ohhnoooes !
My iPood Odes n't work !
WTFBBQ : cry : /wrist " That 's fine .
We do n't want your business anyway .
Maybe one day when you grow up and realize life is more important than your iPod will you understand.Thank you , and have a good night.Sincerely ,     Cory Christison</tokentext>
<sentencetext>make webcams work (they don't in the majority of cases at the moment)Who uses webcams?
Text is much more efficient and doesn't hog bandwidth.
aMSN [amsn-project.net] kicks ass for those who still use MSN/Live Messenger.stop regressions in graphics driversThat's not entirely upto the Kernel dev's... Ati/nVidia/Intel all have their own driver packages that aren't included in the kernel.
9/10 times it's their problem, not the kernel dev's.get other hardware working, e.g.
iPods;Definitely not a Linux developer issue.
Apple changes the iPod connectivity system and obfuscates it so often it's not worth the hassle.There are some solutions out there, though.
Your mileage may vary though, depending on which model/revision/colour iPod you own.make dual-screen work without spending 20 minutes fucking around This depends on which set of drivers you are using.
ati-config has an option to set it up nearly instantly.
nvidia-config does, too.
I haven't dealt with Intel video cards for a long time so I'm unsure of their options.get GNOME on to QT and develop a decent HIG (sorry, the current GNOME HIG is an excuse to put off doing anything about bugs, see Apple's for how this should be done)Not going to happen.
There are alternatives to GNOME and KDE (and GTK/QT respectively).
But you wouldn't want to use those because they aren't "pretty".
Seeing as how you're a fan of Apple (and probably a douchebag-mac-fuck) that just won't do for you because fashion and beauty is everything to people like you.finally pick one -- namely .deb -- package format and stick to it; so developers aren't put-off by the idea of spending days creating packages for different platforms.Also probably never going to happen.
.deb is not a good choice for some people (like me).
Gentoo seems to have it right.
Gentoo employs a ports-like system borrowed from BSD.
Since you're such a fan of Apple, you could appreciate that.
Seeing as Mac OSX is a fusion of MacOS and FreeBSD (\_basically\_ -- NOT getting into the technical aspect of this)I'm sure some smug twat will pop-up and say how they don't care about Linux on the desktop, my answer is: why are you bothering to reply, if you don't care?
There are obviously loads of people who do care, just look around at all the advocates.
They told me Linux is ready for the desktop, and I tried it, only to find everything's slower, my iPod didn't work, then upgrading hosed my sound and video!I guess I'm a twat... but who's holding the iPod?Anyway.
I'm replying because I want to maybe set you straight on a few things.
You are obviously a Mac user because you are very imaginative.
We all know only fruity apple guys are imaginative, right?Perhaps your experience using Linux sucked, but my family uses it for \_all\_ tasks (from messaging, to e-mail, to programming, to book-keeping, to writing a letter, to watching Media on the TV, to the firmware in my networking equipment) and it works great.I don't understand the speed comment you made.
I've used Mac OS/X and every version of Windows.
Speed certainly is not an issue here.
Ubuntu may be your problem there (never used it past installing and wiping because I didn't like it)If you're thinking of advocating Linux to someone: stop!
Go and do some work on getting drivers working instead, your time won't be wasted and you won't lose any friends.I'm guessing you are some hip-cool teen that doesn't seem to comprehend anything past "Ohhnoooes!
My iPood Odesn't work!
WTFBBQ :cry: /wrist"That's fine.
We don't want your business anyway.
Maybe one day when you grow up and realize life is more important than your iPod will you understand.Thank you, and have a good night.Sincerely,
    Cory Christison
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279383</id>
	<title>POHMELFS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244647560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Epecially I like this feature, which if you read it in Russian would mean in English "file system created after a good party night" - or "hangover fs"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Epecially I like this feature , which if you read it in Russian would mean in English " file system created after a good party night " - or " hangover fs " ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Epecially I like this feature, which if you read it in Russian would mean in English "file system created after a good party night" - or "hangover fs" ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28292395</id>
	<title>Re:Thottle Capability</title>
	<author>Burpmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1244730300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What? Linux has had that in an officially released version for more than a year! It's called <a href="http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux\_2\_6\_24#head-16d608b6aba030fe15ba3bbc75655391ae98d707" title="kernelnewbies.org" rel="nofollow">fair group scheduling</a> [kernelnewbies.org]. You assign processes to groups and set the cpu share for each group. Then processor time is allotted proportionally between all groups that want to run. Nice levels are only used within a group.</p><p>A nice default is grouping by uid. Then users can't hog CPU time from others by creating a ton of processes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
Linux has had that in an officially released version for more than a year !
It 's called fair group scheduling [ kernelnewbies.org ] .
You assign processes to groups and set the cpu share for each group .
Then processor time is allotted proportionally between all groups that want to run .
Nice levels are only used within a group.A nice default is grouping by uid .
Then users ca n't hog CPU time from others by creating a ton of processes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
Linux has had that in an officially released version for more than a year!
It's called fair group scheduling [kernelnewbies.org].
You assign processes to groups and set the cpu share for each group.
Then processor time is allotted proportionally between all groups that want to run.
Nice levels are only used within a group.A nice default is grouping by uid.
Then users can't hog CPU time from others by creating a ton of processes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279237</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1244647080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>POHMELFS is a filesystem that can do what a lot of people have been wanting to do for a while:  Use that extra 100GB (or TB/PB for our future readers) that no one ever uses on their workstations as redundant distributed network storage, or the same for clusters instead of buying dedicated storage machines.  Of course, this requires Linux with kernel 2.6.30 running on all those workstations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>POHMELFS is a filesystem that can do what a lot of people have been wanting to do for a while : Use that extra 100GB ( or TB/PB for our future readers ) that no one ever uses on their workstations as redundant distributed network storage , or the same for clusters instead of buying dedicated storage machines .
Of course , this requires Linux with kernel 2.6.30 running on all those workstations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>POHMELFS is a filesystem that can do what a lot of people have been wanting to do for a while:  Use that extra 100GB (or TB/PB for our future readers) that no one ever uses on their workstations as redundant distributed network storage, or the same for clusters instead of buying dedicated storage machines.
Of course, this requires Linux with kernel 2.6.30 running on all those workstations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279211</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Dishevel</author>
	<datestamp>1244646960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NTFS first off isn't right. Never has been.
<p> Linux has quite a few file systems. File systems that are quick and light. Ones that are built for Moving huge chunks of data. Ones that are adept at handling Massive databases and millions of requests. Linux has a few that are done right. Right for what you need it to do. Not what one person decides you should do. That is the beauty of Linux. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NTFS first off is n't right .
Never has been .
Linux has quite a few file systems .
File systems that are quick and light .
Ones that are built for Moving huge chunks of data .
Ones that are adept at handling Massive databases and millions of requests .
Linux has a few that are done right .
Right for what you need it to do .
Not what one person decides you should do .
That is the beauty of Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NTFS first off isn't right.
Never has been.
Linux has quite a few file systems.
File systems that are quick and light.
Ones that are built for Moving huge chunks of data.
Ones that are adept at handling Massive databases and millions of requests.
Linux has a few that are done right.
Right for what you need it to do.
Not what one person decides you should do.
That is the beauty of Linux. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281033</id>
	<title>WinFS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244654580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft was supposed to release WinFS, but they gave up. I'm guessing it's because filesystems are hard to get right.<br>Linux and Windows both vitally need a next generation filesystem for certain types of applications to work effectively.</p><p>All these new filesystems (including the 73 that don't work right) leave NTFS in the dust. Ext3 has roughly the same features and similar scalability to NTFS, and you can consider them technologically equivalent as well as being both very stable with only a few obscure bugs that almost nobody has noticed.</p><p>Things you might want in a filesystem that NTFS and Ext3 do not provide: Snapshots(freebsd has this already), remote replication(stream your backups 24/7), integrated special RAID(liked RAID-Z and RAID-RP), clustering(as in distributed), hard-real time provisioning(for multimedia where you can guarantee a certain bitrate under all conditions), very high performance on multiple drives(lots of tricks involves that are integral to the design and layout of the filesystem).</p><p>Also, there are other possible features that may be hard to have in a general purpose filesystem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft was supposed to release WinFS , but they gave up .
I 'm guessing it 's because filesystems are hard to get right.Linux and Windows both vitally need a next generation filesystem for certain types of applications to work effectively.All these new filesystems ( including the 73 that do n't work right ) leave NTFS in the dust .
Ext3 has roughly the same features and similar scalability to NTFS , and you can consider them technologically equivalent as well as being both very stable with only a few obscure bugs that almost nobody has noticed.Things you might want in a filesystem that NTFS and Ext3 do not provide : Snapshots ( freebsd has this already ) , remote replication ( stream your backups 24/7 ) , integrated special RAID ( liked RAID-Z and RAID-RP ) , clustering ( as in distributed ) , hard-real time provisioning ( for multimedia where you can guarantee a certain bitrate under all conditions ) , very high performance on multiple drives ( lots of tricks involves that are integral to the design and layout of the filesystem ) .Also , there are other possible features that may be hard to have in a general purpose filesystem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft was supposed to release WinFS, but they gave up.
I'm guessing it's because filesystems are hard to get right.Linux and Windows both vitally need a next generation filesystem for certain types of applications to work effectively.All these new filesystems (including the 73 that don't work right) leave NTFS in the dust.
Ext3 has roughly the same features and similar scalability to NTFS, and you can consider them technologically equivalent as well as being both very stable with only a few obscure bugs that almost nobody has noticed.Things you might want in a filesystem that NTFS and Ext3 do not provide: Snapshots(freebsd has this already), remote replication(stream your backups 24/7), integrated special RAID(liked RAID-Z and RAID-RP), clustering(as in distributed), hard-real time provisioning(for multimedia where you can guarantee a certain bitrate under all conditions), very high performance on multiple drives(lots of tricks involves that are integral to the design and layout of the filesystem).Also, there are other possible features that may be hard to have in a general purpose filesystem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278935</id>
	<title>Intel integrated graphics now work properly</title>
	<author>zevans</author>
	<datestamp>1244645820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're using 2.7.x Intel xorg drivers you NEED this kernel. Anyone struggling with weird freezes, font corruption, and various other troubles - turns out most of these problems weren't in the Intel drivers at all, but in the GEM and DRI code in the kernel. Mine's been rock solid since RC5 for stability, and RC8 finally fixed the problem with fonts under UXA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're using 2.7.x Intel xorg drivers you NEED this kernel .
Anyone struggling with weird freezes , font corruption , and various other troubles - turns out most of these problems were n't in the Intel drivers at all , but in the GEM and DRI code in the kernel .
Mine 's been rock solid since RC5 for stability , and RC8 finally fixed the problem with fonts under UXA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're using 2.7.x Intel xorg drivers you NEED this kernel.
Anyone struggling with weird freezes, font corruption, and various other troubles - turns out most of these problems weren't in the Intel drivers at all, but in the GEM and DRI code in the kernel.
Mine's been rock solid since RC5 for stability, and RC8 finally fixed the problem with fonts under UXA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280809</id>
	<title>Re:Ralink Driver Clarification</title>
	<author>da\_matta</author>
	<datestamp>1244653680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Must be the year of the Linux laptop if they got the WLAN working...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Must be the year of the Linux laptop if they got the WLAN working.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Must be the year of the Linux laptop if they got the WLAN working...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28284471</id>
	<title>Re:Thottle Capability</title>
	<author>mandolin</author>
	<datestamp>1244625120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And for my own personal use, I'd love to be able to throttle a dos 6.22 VM to 486 speeds so some of those ancient programs can be ran for historical purposes. (Without bombing the processor with dummy NOP and other MOSLO crap so we keep our power consumption down.)</p></div><p>I assume you've checked out DosBox and its 'cycles' configuration option/command?  It's not precise but it works quite well for me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And for my own personal use , I 'd love to be able to throttle a dos 6.22 VM to 486 speeds so some of those ancient programs can be ran for historical purposes .
( Without bombing the processor with dummy NOP and other MOSLO crap so we keep our power consumption down .
) I assume you 've checked out DosBox and its 'cycles ' configuration option/command ?
It 's not precise but it works quite well for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And for my own personal use, I'd love to be able to throttle a dos 6.22 VM to 486 speeds so some of those ancient programs can be ran for historical purposes.
(Without bombing the processor with dummy NOP and other MOSLO crap so we keep our power consumption down.
)I assume you've checked out DosBox and its 'cycles' configuration option/command?
It's not precise but it works quite well for me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280179</id>
	<title>Re:DRM?</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1244651040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why would DRM be listed as a "feature"?</p><p>Oh, wrong kind of DRM?</p></div><p>That threw me at first, too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would DRM be listed as a " feature " ? Oh , wrong kind of DRM ? That threw me at first , too .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would DRM be listed as a "feature"?Oh, wrong kind of DRM?That threw me at first, too.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279975</id>
	<title>Performance?</title>
	<author>omuls are tasty</author>
	<datestamp>1244649960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intel's integrated graphics performance has been pretty progressively worse ever since switching from XAA, and rather abysmal ever since Xorg 1.5. Since then every release of X/mesa/xf86-video-intel made it even worse. Hopefully this release brings the entire GEM/UXA/KMS/whatever stack to a usable state. All this on a 945GM.</p><p>What's your experience with it so far? I'll try it out myself in a few days, but I'm eager to hear the results...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel 's integrated graphics performance has been pretty progressively worse ever since switching from XAA , and rather abysmal ever since Xorg 1.5 .
Since then every release of X/mesa/xf86-video-intel made it even worse .
Hopefully this release brings the entire GEM/UXA/KMS/whatever stack to a usable state .
All this on a 945GM.What 's your experience with it so far ?
I 'll try it out myself in a few days , but I 'm eager to hear the results.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel's integrated graphics performance has been pretty progressively worse ever since switching from XAA, and rather abysmal ever since Xorg 1.5.
Since then every release of X/mesa/xf86-video-intel made it even worse.
Hopefully this release brings the entire GEM/UXA/KMS/whatever stack to a usable state.
All this on a 945GM.What's your experience with it so far?
I'll try it out myself in a few days, but I'm eager to hear the results...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28287679</id>
	<title>Re:In related news</title>
	<author>Trogre</author>
	<datestamp>1244641320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and then they screw it all up anyway by insisting that a terminal window must have close buttons on <a href="http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=335453" title="gnome.org">every single tab</a> [gnome.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and then they screw it all up anyway by insisting that a terminal window must have close buttons on every single tab [ gnome.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and then they screw it all up anyway by insisting that a terminal window must have close buttons on every single tab [gnome.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279579</id>
	<title>Re:LINUX IS SHIT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244648340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And this is why Linux will never make any headway on the desktop. Thanks for proving the OP's point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this is why Linux will never make any headway on the desktop .
Thanks for proving the OP 's point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this is why Linux will never make any headway on the desktop.
Thanks for proving the OP's point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280579</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>leoc</author>
	<datestamp>1244652900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can anyone explain to me why Ford has so many kinds of cars?   Tesla has had a 2 seat roadster for years (admittedly, several versions, but never any compatibility issues that I've come across), and Ford has, what, 73 or something?! Is it really that hard to get it right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone explain to me why Ford has so many kinds of cars ?
Tesla has had a 2 seat roadster for years ( admittedly , several versions , but never any compatibility issues that I 've come across ) , and Ford has , what , 73 or something ? !
Is it really that hard to get it right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone explain to me why Ford has so many kinds of cars?
Tesla has had a 2 seat roadster for years (admittedly, several versions, but never any compatibility issues that I've come across), and Ford has, what, 73 or something?!
Is it really that hard to get it right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280971</id>
	<title>Re:DRM?</title>
	<author>makomk</author>
	<datestamp>1244654280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are actually adding support for DRM of the evil kind, though, in the form of the<br>Integrity Management Architecture. It's basically a large chunk of what the critics claimed that Trusted Computing was going to become. (The other bits, such as restricting what operating system you can run, and the question of when it will actually be used for DRM, obviously aren't something that Linux can do anything about.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are actually adding support for DRM of the evil kind , though , in the form of theIntegrity Management Architecture .
It 's basically a large chunk of what the critics claimed that Trusted Computing was going to become .
( The other bits , such as restricting what operating system you can run , and the question of when it will actually be used for DRM , obviously are n't something that Linux can do anything about .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are actually adding support for DRM of the evil kind, though, in the form of theIntegrity Management Architecture.
It's basically a large chunk of what the critics claimed that Trusted Computing was going to become.
(The other bits, such as restricting what operating system you can run, and the question of when it will actually be used for DRM, obviously aren't something that Linux can do anything about.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279585</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1244648400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because one filesystem isn't optimal for all cases?</p> </div><p>Exactly.  You wouldn't use a journaling filesystem (ext3, JFS, XFS) on an SD card.  In networked environments, some filesystems are optimized for general use (CIFS, NFS) while others are optimized for a clustered environment (GFS, VMFS), while others are optmized for a distributed environment (Andrew Filesystem, CODA Filesystem).  Log-structured filesystems are a new technology that maximizes write throughput, something that is key to optimizing speed in write-heavy environments:  this is as opposed to conventional filesystems which are optimized for randomly reading and writing files in-place.</p><p>You wouldn't necessarily want a log-structured filesystem in a database environment, for example, because the performance hit from incurring more seeks that are necessarily a part of a log-structured filesystem would be prohibitive for queries.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because one filesystem is n't optimal for all cases ?
Exactly. You would n't use a journaling filesystem ( ext3 , JFS , XFS ) on an SD card .
In networked environments , some filesystems are optimized for general use ( CIFS , NFS ) while others are optimized for a clustered environment ( GFS , VMFS ) , while others are optmized for a distributed environment ( Andrew Filesystem , CODA Filesystem ) .
Log-structured filesystems are a new technology that maximizes write throughput , something that is key to optimizing speed in write-heavy environments : this is as opposed to conventional filesystems which are optimized for randomly reading and writing files in-place.You would n't necessarily want a log-structured filesystem in a database environment , for example , because the performance hit from incurring more seeks that are necessarily a part of a log-structured filesystem would be prohibitive for queries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because one filesystem isn't optimal for all cases?
Exactly.  You wouldn't use a journaling filesystem (ext3, JFS, XFS) on an SD card.
In networked environments, some filesystems are optimized for general use (CIFS, NFS) while others are optimized for a clustered environment (GFS, VMFS), while others are optmized for a distributed environment (Andrew Filesystem, CODA Filesystem).
Log-structured filesystems are a new technology that maximizes write throughput, something that is key to optimizing speed in write-heavy environments:  this is as opposed to conventional filesystems which are optimized for randomly reading and writing files in-place.You wouldn't necessarily want a log-structured filesystem in a database environment, for example, because the performance hit from incurring more seeks that are necessarily a part of a log-structured filesystem would be prohibitive for queries.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278739</id>
	<title>Features</title>
	<author>Thorwak</author>
	<datestamp>1244645040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; The list of new features includes NILFS2

Yeah, but does it include MILFS?

What, too obvious?</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The list of new features includes NILFS2 Yeah , but does it include MILFS ?
What , too obvious ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The list of new features includes NILFS2

Yeah, but does it include MILFS?
What, too obvious?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278815</id>
	<title>In related news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244645340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meanwhile back at GNOME H.Q. the developers are still undecided whether to move the "Ok" button on the default help screen 10 pixels to the right.  Most think it would be a good idea but a hard core few insist that such a momentous change requires further study as it may confuse new users.</p><p>A new version of the dialogue is expected in 2037.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile back at GNOME H.Q .
the developers are still undecided whether to move the " Ok " button on the default help screen 10 pixels to the right .
Most think it would be a good idea but a hard core few insist that such a momentous change requires further study as it may confuse new users.A new version of the dialogue is expected in 2037 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile back at GNOME H.Q.
the developers are still undecided whether to move the "Ok" button on the default help screen 10 pixels to the right.
Most think it would be a good idea but a hard core few insist that such a momentous change requires further study as it may confuse new users.A new version of the dialogue is expected in 2037.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280045</id>
	<title>Re:Thottle Capability</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1244650380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is true in test systems as well where yout Integration, Acceptance, and Performance virtual environments may share Bare Iron with some production VMs.</p></div><p>If your test and prod VMs are sharing iron, some might say you're Doing It Wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is true in test systems as well where yout Integration , Acceptance , and Performance virtual environments may share Bare Iron with some production VMs.If your test and prod VMs are sharing iron , some might say you 're Doing It Wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is true in test systems as well where yout Integration, Acceptance, and Performance virtual environments may share Bare Iron with some production VMs.If your test and prod VMs are sharing iron, some might say you're Doing It Wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279101</id>
	<title>Some Great Work...But "rt2500 Realtek Drivers"</title>
	<author>mrpacmanjel</author>
	<datestamp>1244646600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have wireless "issues" been fixed with this release.</p><p>I have a laptop with generic realtek rt2500 wifi hardware.<br>For many kernel releases I have to compile seperate drivers (Legacy serialmonkey) because the "stock" drivers are woefully unstable.<br>I either lose my connection, painfully slow( have tried the "rate 54" fix) or I cannot reconnect to my network at all.</p><p>I don't mind compiling seperate drivers (a huge benefit of open source stuff &amp; Linux) but I am concerned how long I will be able to do this (E.g. something changes in the kernel makes the "external" driver break - in fact actual development of the legacy drivers has ceased - <a href="http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Main\_Page" title="serialmonkey.com">http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Main\_Page</a> [serialmonkey.com])?</p><p>I know I should not be moaning about this but this issue has been around for ages and seems to affect a lot of hardware.</p><p>This is my only niggle with Linux and I am grateful for everything. Computing become much more interesting and fun again.</p><p>Huge thanks to Linus and the kernel developers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have wireless " issues " been fixed with this release.I have a laptop with generic realtek rt2500 wifi hardware.For many kernel releases I have to compile seperate drivers ( Legacy serialmonkey ) because the " stock " drivers are woefully unstable.I either lose my connection , painfully slow ( have tried the " rate 54 " fix ) or I can not reconnect to my network at all.I do n't mind compiling seperate drivers ( a huge benefit of open source stuff &amp; Linux ) but I am concerned how long I will be able to do this ( E.g .
something changes in the kernel makes the " external " driver break - in fact actual development of the legacy drivers has ceased - http : //rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Main \ _Page [ serialmonkey.com ] ) ? I know I should not be moaning about this but this issue has been around for ages and seems to affect a lot of hardware.This is my only niggle with Linux and I am grateful for everything .
Computing become much more interesting and fun again.Huge thanks to Linus and the kernel developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have wireless "issues" been fixed with this release.I have a laptop with generic realtek rt2500 wifi hardware.For many kernel releases I have to compile seperate drivers (Legacy serialmonkey) because the "stock" drivers are woefully unstable.I either lose my connection, painfully slow( have tried the "rate 54" fix) or I cannot reconnect to my network at all.I don't mind compiling seperate drivers (a huge benefit of open source stuff &amp; Linux) but I am concerned how long I will be able to do this (E.g.
something changes in the kernel makes the "external" driver break - in fact actual development of the legacy drivers has ceased - http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Main\_Page [serialmonkey.com])?I know I should not be moaning about this but this issue has been around for ages and seems to affect a lot of hardware.This is my only niggle with Linux and I am grateful for everything.
Computing become much more interesting and fun again.Huge thanks to Linus and the kernel developers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279467</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>wolrahnaes</author>
	<datestamp>1244647920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the combination of a bit of NIH plus the freedom that Linux brings to a programmer.  If you know enough C to not break things horribly and can operate Google, you can create a filesystem.  There are also hundreds of proprietary filesystems from older hardware running other OSes, and Linux supports a number of those thanks to users of those older systems developing drivers for them.</p><p>I'd bet that the vast majority of filesystems supported by Linux are rarely if ever used, and when used they're operated in read-only mode to retrieve data from old disks.</p><p>There are still a number, probably in the low teens, of filesystems in active use on modern Linux systems.  Those are typically chosen either for compatibility with other platforms (FAT and it's derivatives for example, no one sane would choose to use that when other options are available, but it's just so compatible that often other options don't exist) or for specific job requirements (at one point I ran XFS on my file server because it supported growing the FS while mounted and seemed to be the best choice at the time for a box primarily handling large files).  So I guess after all that, yes, it is that hard to get it right because the definition of right varies.  Some jobs might want a filesystem to just be incredibly fast with a certain type of data and possibly rely on a nice RAID controller for reliability and caching, others might want the filesystem to handle everything and allow the controller to be dumb.  SSDs bring an entirely different set of needs to the table and a filesystem that was laid out to be fast on disk might have serious problems on some SSDs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the combination of a bit of NIH plus the freedom that Linux brings to a programmer .
If you know enough C to not break things horribly and can operate Google , you can create a filesystem .
There are also hundreds of proprietary filesystems from older hardware running other OSes , and Linux supports a number of those thanks to users of those older systems developing drivers for them.I 'd bet that the vast majority of filesystems supported by Linux are rarely if ever used , and when used they 're operated in read-only mode to retrieve data from old disks.There are still a number , probably in the low teens , of filesystems in active use on modern Linux systems .
Those are typically chosen either for compatibility with other platforms ( FAT and it 's derivatives for example , no one sane would choose to use that when other options are available , but it 's just so compatible that often other options do n't exist ) or for specific job requirements ( at one point I ran XFS on my file server because it supported growing the FS while mounted and seemed to be the best choice at the time for a box primarily handling large files ) .
So I guess after all that , yes , it is that hard to get it right because the definition of right varies .
Some jobs might want a filesystem to just be incredibly fast with a certain type of data and possibly rely on a nice RAID controller for reliability and caching , others might want the filesystem to handle everything and allow the controller to be dumb .
SSDs bring an entirely different set of needs to the table and a filesystem that was laid out to be fast on disk might have serious problems on some SSDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the combination of a bit of NIH plus the freedom that Linux brings to a programmer.
If you know enough C to not break things horribly and can operate Google, you can create a filesystem.
There are also hundreds of proprietary filesystems from older hardware running other OSes, and Linux supports a number of those thanks to users of those older systems developing drivers for them.I'd bet that the vast majority of filesystems supported by Linux are rarely if ever used, and when used they're operated in read-only mode to retrieve data from old disks.There are still a number, probably in the low teens, of filesystems in active use on modern Linux systems.
Those are typically chosen either for compatibility with other platforms (FAT and it's derivatives for example, no one sane would choose to use that when other options are available, but it's just so compatible that often other options don't exist) or for specific job requirements (at one point I ran XFS on my file server because it supported growing the FS while mounted and seemed to be the best choice at the time for a box primarily handling large files).
So I guess after all that, yes, it is that hard to get it right because the definition of right varies.
Some jobs might want a filesystem to just be incredibly fast with a certain type of data and possibly rely on a nice RAID controller for reliability and caching, others might want the filesystem to handle everything and allow the controller to be dumb.
SSDs bring an entirely different set of needs to the table and a filesystem that was laid out to be fast on disk might have serious problems on some SSDs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279523</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>xenolion</author>
	<datestamp>1244648160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please tell me these question are a joke right?? Cause if you have to ask them please turn off your computer, get up from the desk cause you have to be very drunk right now and its not safe for drunk and type.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please tell me these question are a joke right ? ?
Cause if you have to ask them please turn off your computer , get up from the desk cause you have to be very drunk right now and its not safe for drunk and type .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please tell me these question are a joke right??
Cause if you have to ask them please turn off your computer, get up from the desk cause you have to be very drunk right now and its not safe for drunk and type.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280295</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Cyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1244651520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>File system stack in Windows is slow. No. It's SLOOOOOOWWWW.</p><p>It's sometimes \_hundreds\_ \_of\_ \_times\_ slower than in Linux. So it makes less sense to create ultra-fast filesystems if dispatching requests takes longer than time spent in your filesystem.</p><p>Also, IFS (Installable FileSystems) layer in Windows is heavily geared towards NTFS, so it's not easy to adapt other filesystems to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>File system stack in Windows is slow .
No. It 's SLOOOOOOWWWW.It 's sometimes \ _hundreds \ _ \ _of \ _ \ _times \ _ slower than in Linux .
So it makes less sense to create ultra-fast filesystems if dispatching requests takes longer than time spent in your filesystem.Also , IFS ( Installable FileSystems ) layer in Windows is heavily geared towards NTFS , so it 's not easy to adapt other filesystems to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>File system stack in Windows is slow.
No. It's SLOOOOOOWWWW.It's sometimes \_hundreds\_ \_of\_ \_times\_ slower than in Linux.
So it makes less sense to create ultra-fast filesystems if dispatching requests takes longer than time spent in your filesystem.Also, IFS (Installable FileSystems) layer in Windows is heavily geared towards NTFS, so it's not easy to adapt other filesystems to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278901</id>
	<title>POHMEL</title>
	<author>dimethylxanthine</author>
	<datestamp>1244645760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not sure about the story behind naming POHMELFS what it is, but "pohmel'e" in Russian means "hangover". You can only guess...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure about the story behind naming POHMELFS what it is , but " pohmel'e " in Russian means " hangover " .
You can only guess.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure about the story behind naming POHMELFS what it is, but "pohmel'e" in Russian means "hangover".
You can only guess...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278997</id>
	<title>Thottle Capability</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1244646060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Still no support for SLA\95\% throttling of processing power allocated to VMs.</p><p>Case in Point:</p><p>VM 1 : 80\% Of processor utilization<br>VM 2 : 20\% of processor utilization<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; : Can borrow up to 20\% of VM1's allocation<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; : if unused.</p><p>The scheduler does great things don't get me wrong but when it comes to provisioning systems for various clients some want a garuntee on the level of processing power that is available at any time. This is true in test systems as well where yout Integration, Acceptance, and Performance virtual environments may share Bare Iron with some production VMs.</p><p>Now this is old hat easy with mainframes (MIP allocation\weights between LPARS\SYSPLEX) but with more and more focus on VMs and hosted VMs SLAs on processing power is becoming more of an issue.</p><p>Nice values are not enough when writing contracts... Great work Linux team but could we get some more granular control over VM provisioning with SLAs in mind? Yeah we can build user space systems to help manage VMs but kernel level provisioning and auditing is something we need with KVM. Gotta have the reports to show the customer you are meeting the agreeded upon SLAs.</p><p>And for my own personal use, I'd love to be able to throttle a dos 6.22 VM to 486 speeds so some of those ancient programs can be ran for historical purposes. (Without bombing the processor with dummy NOP and other MOSLO crap so we keep our power consumption down.)</p><p>Just some musings as Linux rolls along...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Still no support for SLA \ 95 \ % throttling of processing power allocated to VMs.Case in Point : VM 1 : 80 \ % Of processor utilizationVM 2 : 20 \ % of processor utilization           : Can borrow up to 20 \ % of VM1 's allocation           : if unused.The scheduler does great things do n't get me wrong but when it comes to provisioning systems for various clients some want a garuntee on the level of processing power that is available at any time .
This is true in test systems as well where yout Integration , Acceptance , and Performance virtual environments may share Bare Iron with some production VMs.Now this is old hat easy with mainframes ( MIP allocation \ weights between LPARS \ SYSPLEX ) but with more and more focus on VMs and hosted VMs SLAs on processing power is becoming more of an issue.Nice values are not enough when writing contracts... Great work Linux team but could we get some more granular control over VM provisioning with SLAs in mind ?
Yeah we can build user space systems to help manage VMs but kernel level provisioning and auditing is something we need with KVM .
Got ta have the reports to show the customer you are meeting the agreeded upon SLAs.And for my own personal use , I 'd love to be able to throttle a dos 6.22 VM to 486 speeds so some of those ancient programs can be ran for historical purposes .
( Without bombing the processor with dummy NOP and other MOSLO crap so we keep our power consumption down .
) Just some musings as Linux rolls along.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still no support for SLA\95\% throttling of processing power allocated to VMs.Case in Point:VM 1 : 80\% Of processor utilizationVM 2 : 20\% of processor utilization
          : Can borrow up to 20\% of VM1's allocation
          : if unused.The scheduler does great things don't get me wrong but when it comes to provisioning systems for various clients some want a garuntee on the level of processing power that is available at any time.
This is true in test systems as well where yout Integration, Acceptance, and Performance virtual environments may share Bare Iron with some production VMs.Now this is old hat easy with mainframes (MIP allocation\weights between LPARS\SYSPLEX) but with more and more focus on VMs and hosted VMs SLAs on processing power is becoming more of an issue.Nice values are not enough when writing contracts... Great work Linux team but could we get some more granular control over VM provisioning with SLAs in mind?
Yeah we can build user space systems to help manage VMs but kernel level provisioning and auditing is something we need with KVM.
Gotta have the reports to show the customer you are meeting the agreeded upon SLAs.And for my own personal use, I'd love to be able to throttle a dos 6.22 VM to 486 speeds so some of those ancient programs can be ran for historical purposes.
(Without bombing the processor with dummy NOP and other MOSLO crap so we keep our power consumption down.
)Just some musings as Linux rolls along...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281227</id>
	<title>Re:uhh-oh, a new filesystem......</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244655300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's just so fucking overdone. Please, please, please stop making dumb comparisons to Hans Reiser, we'd all appreciate it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just so fucking overdone .
Please , please , please stop making dumb comparisons to Hans Reiser , we 'd all appreciate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just so fucking overdone.
Please, please, please stop making dumb comparisons to Hans Reiser, we'd all appreciate it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28291083</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244720520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Can anyone explain to me why Linux has so many filesystems? </i></p><p>It's just like distros. There are loads of them but only a handful really count. For most people (?90\%+), the sucessive ext versions are the default and work just fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone explain to me why Linux has so many filesystems ?
It 's just like distros .
There are loads of them but only a handful really count .
For most people ( ? 90 \ % + ) , the sucessive ext versions are the default and work just fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone explain to me why Linux has so many filesystems?
It's just like distros.
There are loads of them but only a handful really count.
For most people (?90\%+), the sucessive ext versions are the default and work just fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279647</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1244648640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny but has Windows had many Viruses lately. I know that Virus has become a common term for all sorts of programs but this is Slashdot.  I thought that a Virus was a program that would self propagate usually using a boot block method. Not many people boot from floppies any more.<br>You do have some email viruses but the vast majority of those I would call Trojans and depend on somebody to actually run them.<br>Then of course your have all sorts of exploits that then try to infect other systems but wouldn't those be worms?<br>And then you have BonzoBuddy.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny but has Windows had many Viruses lately .
I know that Virus has become a common term for all sorts of programs but this is Slashdot .
I thought that a Virus was a program that would self propagate usually using a boot block method .
Not many people boot from floppies any more.You do have some email viruses but the vast majority of those I would call Trojans and depend on somebody to actually run them.Then of course your have all sorts of exploits that then try to infect other systems but would n't those be worms ? And then you have BonzoBuddy.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny but has Windows had many Viruses lately.
I know that Virus has become a common term for all sorts of programs but this is Slashdot.
I thought that a Virus was a program that would self propagate usually using a boot block method.
Not many people boot from floppies any more.You do have some email viruses but the vast majority of those I would call Trojans and depend on somebody to actually run them.Then of course your have all sorts of exploits that then try to infect other systems but wouldn't those be worms?And then you have BonzoBuddy.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279621</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244648520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because one filesystem isn't optimal for all cases?</p></div><p> The thing is, Linux strives so hard for the "optimum" that, while doing so, they end up in mediocrity. That's because its programmers are so concerned with micro-optimizations and top speed that they lack the ability to design properly and make good abstractions.</p><p>Would it really be that hard to have ONE good fs that you could tune to different use cases? Probably not. But the average Linux coder sees that something isn't fast in case X and goes ahead redoing the entire wheel. And why? Because the thing he just looked at wasn't designed very well either and can't be adapted easily to different use scenarios. And why? Because it was done by a half-assed coder like himself. And so the circle closes.</p><p>Linux needs more people that can properly design software and make good abstractions - instead of narrow-minded code monkeys that can't see beyond their own crap that they are willing to completely rewrite in two revisions anyway because they lost the big picture.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because one filesystem is n't optimal for all cases ?
The thing is , Linux strives so hard for the " optimum " that , while doing so , they end up in mediocrity .
That 's because its programmers are so concerned with micro-optimizations and top speed that they lack the ability to design properly and make good abstractions.Would it really be that hard to have ONE good fs that you could tune to different use cases ?
Probably not .
But the average Linux coder sees that something is n't fast in case X and goes ahead redoing the entire wheel .
And why ?
Because the thing he just looked at was n't designed very well either and ca n't be adapted easily to different use scenarios .
And why ?
Because it was done by a half-assed coder like himself .
And so the circle closes.Linux needs more people that can properly design software and make good abstractions - instead of narrow-minded code monkeys that ca n't see beyond their own crap that they are willing to completely rewrite in two revisions anyway because they lost the big picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because one filesystem isn't optimal for all cases?
The thing is, Linux strives so hard for the "optimum" that, while doing so, they end up in mediocrity.
That's because its programmers are so concerned with micro-optimizations and top speed that they lack the ability to design properly and make good abstractions.Would it really be that hard to have ONE good fs that you could tune to different use cases?
Probably not.
But the average Linux coder sees that something isn't fast in case X and goes ahead redoing the entire wheel.
And why?
Because the thing he just looked at wasn't designed very well either and can't be adapted easily to different use scenarios.
And why?
Because it was done by a half-assed coder like himself.
And so the circle closes.Linux needs more people that can properly design software and make good abstractions - instead of narrow-minded code monkeys that can't see beyond their own crap that they are willing to completely rewrite in two revisions anyway because they lost the big picture.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28288267</id>
	<title>Why is Linux relatively immune to viruses?</title>
	<author>deek</author>
	<datestamp>1244645400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are many reasons, but I think the best one is, in short, History.</p><p>Windows users typically run with administrator rights.  This is especially true of home users.  It's been that way for so long, that's what many windows programs expect to be able to run properly.  Viruses and trojans love this sort of environment.</p><p>Unix users have rights only to their home directory.  It's been that way for so long, that unix programs are very multi-user aware.  Running programs with administration access is only done very selectively, only when really needed, and you generally have to enter a code to allow the program to have admin rights.</p><p>All this really stems from the initial design of the system.  Windows was initially designed as a single user system.  Unix was designed as a multiple user system.  In some ways, Windows is still struggling to cope with growing beyond its initial design constraints.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are many reasons , but I think the best one is , in short , History.Windows users typically run with administrator rights .
This is especially true of home users .
It 's been that way for so long , that 's what many windows programs expect to be able to run properly .
Viruses and trojans love this sort of environment.Unix users have rights only to their home directory .
It 's been that way for so long , that unix programs are very multi-user aware .
Running programs with administration access is only done very selectively , only when really needed , and you generally have to enter a code to allow the program to have admin rights.All this really stems from the initial design of the system .
Windows was initially designed as a single user system .
Unix was designed as a multiple user system .
In some ways , Windows is still struggling to cope with growing beyond its initial design constraints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are many reasons, but I think the best one is, in short, History.Windows users typically run with administrator rights.
This is especially true of home users.
It's been that way for so long, that's what many windows programs expect to be able to run properly.
Viruses and trojans love this sort of environment.Unix users have rights only to their home directory.
It's been that way for so long, that unix programs are very multi-user aware.
Running programs with administration access is only done very selectively, only when really needed, and you generally have to enter a code to allow the program to have admin rights.All this really stems from the initial design of the system.
Windows was initially designed as a single user system.
Unix was designed as a multiple user system.
In some ways, Windows is still struggling to cope with growing beyond its initial design constraints.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279247</id>
	<title>Ralink Driver Clarification</title>
	<author>Vu1turEMaN</author>
	<datestamp>1244647140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When they say "Support for rt3070 driver for recent RaLink Wi-Fi chipsets", they really mean support for RT2870, RT2770, RT307X, RT3572 chipsets (they're all the same, with just features enabled or disabled, or signal strength improved between them).</p><p>This was the one last thing for me to fully switch over to linux. Netgear and alot of other Wireless-N USB adapters use these chipsets, and they are the best around.</p><p>Previously, the method of installing this driver was the largest pain in the ass I've ever had to go through as a linux noob (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=960642) and I'm so very very glad to see that this chipset is now supported.</p><p>The reason it was so hard is that the normal controlling app for the USB device has many advanced features you normally don't see on a wireless adapter (act as a router, full cisco network compatibility, etc etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When they say " Support for rt3070 driver for recent RaLink Wi-Fi chipsets " , they really mean support for RT2870 , RT2770 , RT307X , RT3572 chipsets ( they 're all the same , with just features enabled or disabled , or signal strength improved between them ) .This was the one last thing for me to fully switch over to linux .
Netgear and alot of other Wireless-N USB adapters use these chipsets , and they are the best around.Previously , the method of installing this driver was the largest pain in the ass I 've ever had to go through as a linux noob ( http : //ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php ? t = 960642 ) and I 'm so very very glad to see that this chipset is now supported.The reason it was so hard is that the normal controlling app for the USB device has many advanced features you normally do n't see on a wireless adapter ( act as a router , full cisco network compatibility , etc etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they say "Support for rt3070 driver for recent RaLink Wi-Fi chipsets", they really mean support for RT2870, RT2770, RT307X, RT3572 chipsets (they're all the same, with just features enabled or disabled, or signal strength improved between them).This was the one last thing for me to fully switch over to linux.
Netgear and alot of other Wireless-N USB adapters use these chipsets, and they are the best around.Previously, the method of installing this driver was the largest pain in the ass I've ever had to go through as a linux noob (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=960642) and I'm so very very glad to see that this chipset is now supported.The reason it was so hard is that the normal controlling app for the USB device has many advanced features you normally don't see on a wireless adapter (act as a router, full cisco network compatibility, etc etc).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279495</id>
	<title>Auto flushing</title>
	<author>AvitarX</author>
	<datestamp>1244647980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>automatic flushing of files on renames/truncates in ext3, ext4 and btrfs/quote?</p><p>I assume this means fighting over following the minimum in the POSIX spec has been ended by Linus weighing in on what he felt was proper (no disappearing of files that existed at boot time).</p><p>This makes sense, as Linus is on the whole for more caching than the spec allows for (for performance), but also for integrity.  This should allow for caching and integrity.</p><p>For evidence that Linus wants to allow for more caching (less syncing), and does not feel strict spec compliance is important, see his discussions about atime.</p><p>I am glad that someone from on high has settled this.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>automatic flushing of files on renames/truncates in ext3 , ext4 and btrfs/quote ? I assume this means fighting over following the minimum in the POSIX spec has been ended by Linus weighing in on what he felt was proper ( no disappearing of files that existed at boot time ) .This makes sense , as Linus is on the whole for more caching than the spec allows for ( for performance ) , but also for integrity .
This should allow for caching and integrity.For evidence that Linus wants to allow for more caching ( less syncing ) , and does not feel strict spec compliance is important , see his discussions about atime.I am glad that someone from on high has settled this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>automatic flushing of files on renames/truncates in ext3, ext4 and btrfs/quote?I assume this means fighting over following the minimum in the POSIX spec has been ended by Linus weighing in on what he felt was proper (no disappearing of files that existed at boot time).This makes sense, as Linus is on the whole for more caching than the spec allows for (for performance), but also for integrity.
This should allow for caching and integrity.For evidence that Linus wants to allow for more caching (less syncing), and does not feel strict spec compliance is important, see his discussions about atime.I am glad that someone from on high has settled this.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281823</id>
	<title>Re:Thottle Capability</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244657640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Option 1) Pay somebody to include these for you.<br>Option 2) Do it yourself.<br>Option 3) Try and persuade somebody to do it for you.<br>Option 4) Don't include SLAs with items that don't support your ability to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Option 1 ) Pay somebody to include these for you.Option 2 ) Do it yourself.Option 3 ) Try and persuade somebody to do it for you.Option 4 ) Do n't include SLAs with items that do n't support your ability to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Option 1) Pay somebody to include these for you.Option 2) Do it yourself.Option 3) Try and persuade somebody to do it for you.Option 4) Don't include SLAs with items that don't support your ability to do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279245</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244647140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the "Is it really that hard to get it right?" part gave parent the answers he/she deserved, but I am honestly curious about why there are so many file systems? Not criticizing - just wondering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the " Is it really that hard to get it right ?
" part gave parent the answers he/she deserved , but I am honestly curious about why there are so many file systems ?
Not criticizing - just wondering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the "Is it really that hard to get it right?
" part gave parent the answers he/she deserved, but I am honestly curious about why there are so many file systems?
Not criticizing - just wondering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279563</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244648280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, lady, but no matter what your husband says, one size condom does NOT fit all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , lady , but no matter what your husband says , one size condom does NOT fit all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, lady, but no matter what your husband says, one size condom does NOT fit all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281107</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244654820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From my understanding, this problem comes from:</p><p>1. Windows, being a corporate product, must adhere to efficiency standards. Er go, it costs money for their pawns to crawl through their code looking for loop holes and exceptions. So, they must balance a percentage of cost vs performance within a margin dictated by their superiors. "We have enough payroll for you guys to make things ~99\% secure, but fret not on the minutia."</p><p>2. Linux, being open-source, has a boundless community of people who answer to no one, and strive only for the good of the product (we would hope).</p><p>Analogy: You must build a dam.</p><p>1. MS: You get 10 workers, 60 days, and hopefully it works when you're done.<br>2. Linux: You get 10e6 workers, as many days as you need, and when it's done, it's done.</p><p>Ta da!</p><p>Aside: Yes, those figures are silly for building a dam, allow poor representation in exchange for significance of message.<br>Long and Short: It's not easy, can be done, but how affordable is it? Especially with all the money to be made with tech support *inno*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From my understanding , this problem comes from : 1 .
Windows , being a corporate product , must adhere to efficiency standards .
Er go , it costs money for their pawns to crawl through their code looking for loop holes and exceptions .
So , they must balance a percentage of cost vs performance within a margin dictated by their superiors .
" We have enough payroll for you guys to make things ~ 99 \ % secure , but fret not on the minutia. " 2 .
Linux , being open-source , has a boundless community of people who answer to no one , and strive only for the good of the product ( we would hope ) .Analogy : You must build a dam.1 .
MS : You get 10 workers , 60 days , and hopefully it works when you 're done.2 .
Linux : You get 10e6 workers , as many days as you need , and when it 's done , it 's done.Ta da ! Aside : Yes , those figures are silly for building a dam , allow poor representation in exchange for significance of message.Long and Short : It 's not easy , can be done , but how affordable is it ?
Especially with all the money to be made with tech support * inno *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my understanding, this problem comes from:1.
Windows, being a corporate product, must adhere to efficiency standards.
Er go, it costs money for their pawns to crawl through their code looking for loop holes and exceptions.
So, they must balance a percentage of cost vs performance within a margin dictated by their superiors.
"We have enough payroll for you guys to make things ~99\% secure, but fret not on the minutia."2.
Linux, being open-source, has a boundless community of people who answer to no one, and strive only for the good of the product (we would hope).Analogy: You must build a dam.1.
MS: You get 10 workers, 60 days, and hopefully it works when you're done.2.
Linux: You get 10e6 workers, as many days as you need, and when it's done, it's done.Ta da!Aside: Yes, those figures are silly for building a dam, allow poor representation in exchange for significance of message.Long and Short: It's not easy, can be done, but how affordable is it?
Especially with all the money to be made with tech support *inno*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279519</id>
	<title>Re:Ralink Driver Clarification</title>
	<author>x78</author>
	<datestamp>1244648100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They patched the rt2870 to work for the Edimax EW7710Un, now I can finally stop patching it myself!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They patched the rt2870 to work for the Edimax EW7710Un , now I can finally stop patching it myself !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They patched the rt2870 to work for the Edimax EW7710Un, now I can finally stop patching it myself!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280277</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Vu1turEMaN</author>
	<datestamp>1244651400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You cannot have an NT installation on the same drive as a 2000/XP installation, as the NTFS differs so much between them that your system would become highly unstable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can not have an NT installation on the same drive as a 2000/XP installation , as the NTFS differs so much between them that your system would become highly unstable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You cannot have an NT installation on the same drive as a 2000/XP installation, as the NTFS differs so much between them that your system would become highly unstable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28293741</id>
	<title>Re:Just get your shit together or give up</title>
	<author>shish</author>
	<datestamp>1244735040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>developers are going to need to get their shit together and: make webcams work (they don't in the majority of cases at the moment);</p></div><p>Funny you should say that -- I've just spent the morning trying to get some webcams working in windows, and failing (default windows does nothing, official drivers cause all video input related programs to crash when a webcam is inserted). Then plugging them into my linux box, works out of the box, first time<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>developers are going to need to get their shit together and : make webcams work ( they do n't in the majority of cases at the moment ) ; Funny you should say that -- I 've just spent the morning trying to get some webcams working in windows , and failing ( default windows does nothing , official drivers cause all video input related programs to crash when a webcam is inserted ) .
Then plugging them into my linux box , works out of the box , first time : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>developers are going to need to get their shit together and: make webcams work (they don't in the majority of cases at the moment);Funny you should say that -- I've just spent the morning trying to get some webcams working in windows, and failing (default windows does nothing, official drivers cause all video input related programs to crash when a webcam is inserted).
Then plugging them into my linux box, works out of the box, first time :-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279911</id>
	<title>Re:LINUX IS SHIT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244649720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PREACH IT DAWG!!!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PREACH IT DAWG ! ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PREACH IT DAWG!!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280599</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>ArsenneLupin</author>
	<datestamp>1244652960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NTFS doesn't have any skeletons hidden in nearby parks...</htmltext>
<tokenext>NTFS does n't have any skeletons hidden in nearby parks.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NTFS doesn't have any skeletons hidden in nearby parks...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279603</id>
	<title>Ralink 2860 Drivers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244648460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just purchased an Asus 1000HE which unfortunately came with Ralink<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p><p>Can anyone tell me if this will help get the Ralink 2860 drivers fixed, so that I can use injection in this otherwise neat little piece of hardware?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just purchased an Asus 1000HE which unfortunately came with Ralink : ( Can anyone tell me if this will help get the Ralink 2860 drivers fixed , so that I can use injection in this otherwise neat little piece of hardware ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just purchased an Asus 1000HE which unfortunately came with Ralink :(Can anyone tell me if this will help get the Ralink 2860 drivers fixed, so that I can use injection in this otherwise neat little piece of hardware?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278811</id>
	<title>LINUX IS SHIT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244645340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't even install a usb wifi device without going through a bunch of command line bullshit that doesn't even work</p><p>Fuck this shit. Going back to Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't even install a usb wifi device without going through a bunch of command line bullshit that does n't even workFuck this shit .
Going back to Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't even install a usb wifi device without going through a bunch of command line bullshit that doesn't even workFuck this shit.
Going back to Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279639</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>SpooForBrains</author>
	<datestamp>1244648580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>plus, lets be honest, NTFS is crap. The only reason they're still using it is because there is too much involved in transitioning to a new one. The absense of WinFS from 7 is a testament to this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>plus , lets be honest , NTFS is crap .
The only reason they 're still using it is because there is too much involved in transitioning to a new one .
The absense of WinFS from 7 is a testament to this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>plus, lets be honest, NTFS is crap.
The only reason they're still using it is because there is too much involved in transitioning to a new one.
The absense of WinFS from 7 is a testament to this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278821</id>
	<title>Re:Sad, but true:</title>
	<author>ta bu shi da yu</author>
	<datestamp>1244645400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eric Allman might well agree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eric Allman might well agree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eric Allman might well agree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279239</id>
	<title>Re:2.8.x kernel soon?</title>
	<author>eean</author>
	<datestamp>1244647080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are no plans for an unstable branch. Without a 2.7, there will never be a 2.8.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are no plans for an unstable branch .
Without a 2.7 , there will never be a 2.8 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are no plans for an unstable branch.
Without a 2.7, there will never be a 2.8.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28283115</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>domatic</author>
	<datestamp>1244662800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many of them are there for compatibility reasons.  I've rescued Apple and Amiga disks by sticking them in Linux boxes.  Others are there for very specific contexts like flash devices.  Of the ones that can be used as root filesystems, some are better at certain workloads.  In practice there only a handful of that can be used to host the system itself with ext3 soon to be ext4 being the most common for workaday use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of them are there for compatibility reasons .
I 've rescued Apple and Amiga disks by sticking them in Linux boxes .
Others are there for very specific contexts like flash devices .
Of the ones that can be used as root filesystems , some are better at certain workloads .
In practice there only a handful of that can be used to host the system itself with ext3 soon to be ext4 being the most common for workaday use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of them are there for compatibility reasons.
I've rescued Apple and Amiga disks by sticking them in Linux boxes.
Others are there for very specific contexts like flash devices.
Of the ones that can be used as root filesystems, some are better at certain workloads.
In practice there only a handful of that can be used to host the system itself with ext3 soon to be ext4 being the most common for workaday use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279135</id>
	<title>I like it</title>
	<author>dburkland</author>
	<datestamp>1244646660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>local NFS caching along with ext4 improvements make this a pretty nice update imo. I will have to compile it later tonight on my Arch Laptop</htmltext>
<tokenext>local NFS caching along with ext4 improvements make this a pretty nice update imo .
I will have to compile it later tonight on my Arch Laptop</tokentext>
<sentencetext>local NFS caching along with ext4 improvements make this a pretty nice update imo.
I will have to compile it later tonight on my Arch Laptop</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280019</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1244650200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many of the filesystems come from different projects. Say, XFS first existed in Irix, then was ported to Linux.</p><p>The ext* family got started long ago and remains backwards compatible. It's not very flashy, but safe and well supported.</p><p>Some filesystems like ReiserFS have specific aims like efficiently handling huge directories and large amounts of small files. Those are things that can matter a lot for specific workloads.</p><p>Then there are very specialized filesystems like compressed readonly filesystems that are highly compact, and those specific to raw flash devices (not flash drives, but actual flash chips soldered in that are accessed directly).</p><p>It's not possible to have a single filesystem that optimizes for every possible use case. Some uses are mutually contradictory. For instance, a journal takes space, which conflicts with filesystems that aim for very efficient space usage, such as those intended for embedded devices with space measured in MB.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of the filesystems come from different projects .
Say , XFS first existed in Irix , then was ported to Linux.The ext * family got started long ago and remains backwards compatible .
It 's not very flashy , but safe and well supported.Some filesystems like ReiserFS have specific aims like efficiently handling huge directories and large amounts of small files .
Those are things that can matter a lot for specific workloads.Then there are very specialized filesystems like compressed readonly filesystems that are highly compact , and those specific to raw flash devices ( not flash drives , but actual flash chips soldered in that are accessed directly ) .It 's not possible to have a single filesystem that optimizes for every possible use case .
Some uses are mutually contradictory .
For instance , a journal takes space , which conflicts with filesystems that aim for very efficient space usage , such as those intended for embedded devices with space measured in MB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of the filesystems come from different projects.
Say, XFS first existed in Irix, then was ported to Linux.The ext* family got started long ago and remains backwards compatible.
It's not very flashy, but safe and well supported.Some filesystems like ReiserFS have specific aims like efficiently handling huge directories and large amounts of small files.
Those are things that can matter a lot for specific workloads.Then there are very specialized filesystems like compressed readonly filesystems that are highly compact, and those specific to raw flash devices (not flash drives, but actual flash chips soldered in that are accessed directly).It's not possible to have a single filesystem that optimizes for every possible use case.
Some uses are mutually contradictory.
For instance, a journal takes space, which conflicts with filesystems that aim for very efficient space usage, such as those intended for embedded devices with space measured in MB.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278743</id>
	<title>DRM?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244645040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would DRM be listed as a "feature"?</p><p>Oh, wrong kind of DRM?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would DRM be listed as a " feature " ? Oh , wrong kind of DRM ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would DRM be listed as a "feature"?Oh, wrong kind of DRM?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28285203</id>
	<title>NILFS2</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1244628000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I've been reading that NILFS is the dog bollocks when it comes to solid-state disks in terms of speed and longevity of the disk. However, what I'd like to know is whether any of the advantages will hold for regular old mechanical disks as well. If so, I'd love to try NILFS. Having a real honest-to-goodness versioning filesystem with instant snapshots on my file servers would be so great, I can hardly find the words to describe it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I 've been reading that NILFS is the dog bollocks when it comes to solid-state disks in terms of speed and longevity of the disk .
However , what I 'd like to know is whether any of the advantages will hold for regular old mechanical disks as well .
If so , I 'd love to try NILFS .
Having a real honest-to-goodness versioning filesystem with instant snapshots on my file servers would be so great , I can hardly find the words to describe it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I've been reading that NILFS is the dog bollocks when it comes to solid-state disks in terms of speed and longevity of the disk.
However, what I'd like to know is whether any of the advantages will hold for regular old mechanical disks as well.
If so, I'd love to try NILFS.
Having a real honest-to-goodness versioning filesystem with instant snapshots on my file servers would be so great, I can hardly find the words to describe it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279815</id>
	<title>Just get your shit together or give up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244649240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Linux is ever going to make it on the desktop, developers are going to need to get their shit together and: make webcams work (they don't in the majority of cases at the moment); stop regressions in graphics drivers; get other hardware working, e.g. iPods; make dual-screen work without spending 20 minutes fucking around (see Lunduke's presentation); get GNOME on to QT and develop a decent HIG (sorry, the current GNOME HIG is an excuse to put off doing anything about bugs, see Apple's for how this should be done); finally pick <em>one</em> -- namely<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.deb -- package format and stick to it; so developers aren't put-off by the idea of spending days creating packages for different platforms.</p><p>I'm sure some smug twat will pop-up and say how they don't care about Linux on the desktop, my answer is: why are you bothering to reply, if you don't care? There are <em>obviously</em> loads of people who do care, just look around at all the advocates. They told me Linux is ready for the desktop, and I tried it, only to find everything's slower, my iPod didn't work, then upgrading hosed my sound and video!</p><p>If you're thinking of advocating Linux to someone: stop! Go and do some work on getting drivers working instead, your time won't be wasted and you won't lose any friends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Linux is ever going to make it on the desktop , developers are going to need to get their shit together and : make webcams work ( they do n't in the majority of cases at the moment ) ; stop regressions in graphics drivers ; get other hardware working , e.g .
iPods ; make dual-screen work without spending 20 minutes fucking around ( see Lunduke 's presentation ) ; get GNOME on to QT and develop a decent HIG ( sorry , the current GNOME HIG is an excuse to put off doing anything about bugs , see Apple 's for how this should be done ) ; finally pick one -- namely .deb -- package format and stick to it ; so developers are n't put-off by the idea of spending days creating packages for different platforms.I 'm sure some smug twat will pop-up and say how they do n't care about Linux on the desktop , my answer is : why are you bothering to reply , if you do n't care ?
There are obviously loads of people who do care , just look around at all the advocates .
They told me Linux is ready for the desktop , and I tried it , only to find everything 's slower , my iPod did n't work , then upgrading hosed my sound and video ! If you 're thinking of advocating Linux to someone : stop !
Go and do some work on getting drivers working instead , your time wo n't be wasted and you wo n't lose any friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Linux is ever going to make it on the desktop, developers are going to need to get their shit together and: make webcams work (they don't in the majority of cases at the moment); stop regressions in graphics drivers; get other hardware working, e.g.
iPods; make dual-screen work without spending 20 minutes fucking around (see Lunduke's presentation); get GNOME on to QT and develop a decent HIG (sorry, the current GNOME HIG is an excuse to put off doing anything about bugs, see Apple's for how this should be done); finally pick one -- namely .deb -- package format and stick to it; so developers aren't put-off by the idea of spending days creating packages for different platforms.I'm sure some smug twat will pop-up and say how they don't care about Linux on the desktop, my answer is: why are you bothering to reply, if you don't care?
There are obviously loads of people who do care, just look around at all the advocates.
They told me Linux is ready for the desktop, and I tried it, only to find everything's slower, my iPod didn't work, then upgrading hosed my sound and video!If you're thinking of advocating Linux to someone: stop!
Go and do some work on getting drivers working instead, your time won't be wasted and you won't lose any friends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281885</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Mr. DOS</author>
	<datestamp>1244657820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And haven't there been at least two major versions of NTFS so far, too? (NTFS4 for NT 4.0, and NTFS5 for 2000/XP/Vista/7.)</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; --- Mr. DOS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And have n't there been at least two major versions of NTFS so far , too ?
( NTFS4 for NT 4.0 , and NTFS5 for 2000/XP/Vista/7 .
)       --- Mr. DOS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And haven't there been at least two major versions of NTFS so far, too?
(NTFS4 for NT 4.0, and NTFS5 for 2000/XP/Vista/7.
)
      --- Mr. DOS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280889</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244653980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux has a lot of filesystem drivers, yes. However, pretty much all of them have a reason to exist, and absolutely no reason for anyone to bother still using them.</p><p>The main reason for most filesystem drivers is compatibility with contemporary operating system. At the moment, that includes FAT 12, FAT 16, FAT 32 and NTFS for compatiblity with Windows, and HFS+ for compatibility with Mac OS X. Aside from the native filesystems, these are the most commonly used, but really have nothing to do with Linux itself.</p><p>Since Linux has been around for a very long time, and has been ported to a lot of different platforms, there's been a need to share data with all kinds of other operating systems running on the same hardware. Just a few examples - the Amiga's FFS (and OFS), BeOS BFS, Acorn ADFS, HPFS for OS/2, and the old UFS filesystem used by lots of old Unix systems. Most (aside from trivial filesystems like the Amiga FFS) are read-only, because full read-write support was unnecessary, and probably too hard for the sheer number of filesystems out there. This makes up the bulk of the Linux filesystem drivers, and none of these are anything to do with Linux.</p><p>Next, we have the filesystems for optical media - ISO9660 and UDF. Pretty much every OS needs to support those, nothing special about Linux support here.</p><p>The Linux native filesystems - ext, ext2, ext3 (which is an updated ext2, not a new filesystem), ext4, and (arguably) ReiserFS. These were all developed specifically for use as the primary filesystem on Linux. ext -&gt; ext2/3 -&gt; ext4 form a single series, and it's possible to upgrade from ext2 to ext3 and then to ext4 quite painlessly. They're actually a good set of filesystems, and are at least as good as NTFS in their current iterations.</p><p>Ported Linux filesystems - XFS and JFS. Originally written for other operating systems (IRIX and AIX / OS/2), and ported to Linux by their original developers, likely for compatibility with their own operating systems. Although they can be used as primary native Linux filesystems (I use XFS on my MythTV box), they usually aren't, and really have little to do with Linux anyway.</p><p>The experimental Linux filesystems. These are either historical or current development filesystems, either as a testbed for future filesystems, or attempts to actually build a new filesystem for use. The current major experimental Linux filesystem is BTRFS. Has previously included Reiser4, Tux / Tux2 / Tux3, and probably a load more. Although pretty much all of them were usable as primary filesystems, they're all either still experimental (BTRFS) or have since become unmaintained (like Reiser4).</p><p>Network filesystems - NFS and SMB / CIFS are the major ones, but Linux also supports serveral others, either for compatibility with other (older) operating systems, or new ones. Again, nothing really to do with Linux,</p><p>That just leaves oddball filesystems. Things like SquashFS (read-only compressed FS for use on small read-only media), various filesystems designed for directly connected flash devices that you can't directly use a conventional filesystem on (JFFS / JFFS2, probably more), or other filesystems designed for specific kinds of storage device, like NILFS2. Most of these are for embedded systems, which have strange storage requirements anyway,</p><p>So, you've got one set of native filesystem drivers, a few experimental filesystems, a few filesystems for embedded use, and almost everything else is for compatibility with another OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux has a lot of filesystem drivers , yes .
However , pretty much all of them have a reason to exist , and absolutely no reason for anyone to bother still using them.The main reason for most filesystem drivers is compatibility with contemporary operating system .
At the moment , that includes FAT 12 , FAT 16 , FAT 32 and NTFS for compatiblity with Windows , and HFS + for compatibility with Mac OS X. Aside from the native filesystems , these are the most commonly used , but really have nothing to do with Linux itself.Since Linux has been around for a very long time , and has been ported to a lot of different platforms , there 's been a need to share data with all kinds of other operating systems running on the same hardware .
Just a few examples - the Amiga 's FFS ( and OFS ) , BeOS BFS , Acorn ADFS , HPFS for OS/2 , and the old UFS filesystem used by lots of old Unix systems .
Most ( aside from trivial filesystems like the Amiga FFS ) are read-only , because full read-write support was unnecessary , and probably too hard for the sheer number of filesystems out there .
This makes up the bulk of the Linux filesystem drivers , and none of these are anything to do with Linux.Next , we have the filesystems for optical media - ISO9660 and UDF .
Pretty much every OS needs to support those , nothing special about Linux support here.The Linux native filesystems - ext , ext2 , ext3 ( which is an updated ext2 , not a new filesystem ) , ext4 , and ( arguably ) ReiserFS .
These were all developed specifically for use as the primary filesystem on Linux .
ext - &gt; ext2/3 - &gt; ext4 form a single series , and it 's possible to upgrade from ext2 to ext3 and then to ext4 quite painlessly .
They 're actually a good set of filesystems , and are at least as good as NTFS in their current iterations.Ported Linux filesystems - XFS and JFS .
Originally written for other operating systems ( IRIX and AIX / OS/2 ) , and ported to Linux by their original developers , likely for compatibility with their own operating systems .
Although they can be used as primary native Linux filesystems ( I use XFS on my MythTV box ) , they usually are n't , and really have little to do with Linux anyway.The experimental Linux filesystems .
These are either historical or current development filesystems , either as a testbed for future filesystems , or attempts to actually build a new filesystem for use .
The current major experimental Linux filesystem is BTRFS .
Has previously included Reiser4 , Tux / Tux2 / Tux3 , and probably a load more .
Although pretty much all of them were usable as primary filesystems , they 're all either still experimental ( BTRFS ) or have since become unmaintained ( like Reiser4 ) .Network filesystems - NFS and SMB / CIFS are the major ones , but Linux also supports serveral others , either for compatibility with other ( older ) operating systems , or new ones .
Again , nothing really to do with Linux,That just leaves oddball filesystems .
Things like SquashFS ( read-only compressed FS for use on small read-only media ) , various filesystems designed for directly connected flash devices that you ca n't directly use a conventional filesystem on ( JFFS / JFFS2 , probably more ) , or other filesystems designed for specific kinds of storage device , like NILFS2 .
Most of these are for embedded systems , which have strange storage requirements anyway,So , you 've got one set of native filesystem drivers , a few experimental filesystems , a few filesystems for embedded use , and almost everything else is for compatibility with another OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux has a lot of filesystem drivers, yes.
However, pretty much all of them have a reason to exist, and absolutely no reason for anyone to bother still using them.The main reason for most filesystem drivers is compatibility with contemporary operating system.
At the moment, that includes FAT 12, FAT 16, FAT 32 and NTFS for compatiblity with Windows, and HFS+ for compatibility with Mac OS X. Aside from the native filesystems, these are the most commonly used, but really have nothing to do with Linux itself.Since Linux has been around for a very long time, and has been ported to a lot of different platforms, there's been a need to share data with all kinds of other operating systems running on the same hardware.
Just a few examples - the Amiga's FFS (and OFS), BeOS BFS, Acorn ADFS, HPFS for OS/2, and the old UFS filesystem used by lots of old Unix systems.
Most (aside from trivial filesystems like the Amiga FFS) are read-only, because full read-write support was unnecessary, and probably too hard for the sheer number of filesystems out there.
This makes up the bulk of the Linux filesystem drivers, and none of these are anything to do with Linux.Next, we have the filesystems for optical media - ISO9660 and UDF.
Pretty much every OS needs to support those, nothing special about Linux support here.The Linux native filesystems - ext, ext2, ext3 (which is an updated ext2, not a new filesystem), ext4, and (arguably) ReiserFS.
These were all developed specifically for use as the primary filesystem on Linux.
ext -&gt; ext2/3 -&gt; ext4 form a single series, and it's possible to upgrade from ext2 to ext3 and then to ext4 quite painlessly.
They're actually a good set of filesystems, and are at least as good as NTFS in their current iterations.Ported Linux filesystems - XFS and JFS.
Originally written for other operating systems (IRIX and AIX / OS/2), and ported to Linux by their original developers, likely for compatibility with their own operating systems.
Although they can be used as primary native Linux filesystems (I use XFS on my MythTV box), they usually aren't, and really have little to do with Linux anyway.The experimental Linux filesystems.
These are either historical or current development filesystems, either as a testbed for future filesystems, or attempts to actually build a new filesystem for use.
The current major experimental Linux filesystem is BTRFS.
Has previously included Reiser4, Tux / Tux2 / Tux3, and probably a load more.
Although pretty much all of them were usable as primary filesystems, they're all either still experimental (BTRFS) or have since become unmaintained (like Reiser4).Network filesystems - NFS and SMB / CIFS are the major ones, but Linux also supports serveral others, either for compatibility with other (older) operating systems, or new ones.
Again, nothing really to do with Linux,That just leaves oddball filesystems.
Things like SquashFS (read-only compressed FS for use on small read-only media), various filesystems designed for directly connected flash devices that you can't directly use a conventional filesystem on (JFFS / JFFS2, probably more), or other filesystems designed for specific kinds of storage device, like NILFS2.
Most of these are for embedded systems, which have strange storage requirements anyway,So, you've got one set of native filesystem drivers, a few experimental filesystems, a few filesystems for embedded use, and almost everything else is for compatibility with another OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278753</id>
	<title>Sad, but true:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244645100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux is for fags.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux is for fags .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux is for fags.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28282575</id>
	<title>Re:Trusted Computing Slithered In?</title>
	<author>somenickname</author>
	<datestamp>1244660520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The chips already exist on the machines.  This change might make it easier to use the chips for nefarious purposes (like "tivoization") but there has been nothing preventing people from writing their own driver (or possibly finding a reference implementation) to do this anyway.  It sounds like there are a number of compelling reasons to add the feature and the only drawback is that now it's slightly easier for vendors to take advantage of this functionality for anti-consumer type behavior.  In that case, simply do research before buying a new device and don't buy it if it's using the TPM hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The chips already exist on the machines .
This change might make it easier to use the chips for nefarious purposes ( like " tivoization " ) but there has been nothing preventing people from writing their own driver ( or possibly finding a reference implementation ) to do this anyway .
It sounds like there are a number of compelling reasons to add the feature and the only drawback is that now it 's slightly easier for vendors to take advantage of this functionality for anti-consumer type behavior .
In that case , simply do research before buying a new device and do n't buy it if it 's using the TPM hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The chips already exist on the machines.
This change might make it easier to use the chips for nefarious purposes (like "tivoization") but there has been nothing preventing people from writing their own driver (or possibly finding a reference implementation) to do this anyway.
It sounds like there are a number of compelling reasons to add the feature and the only drawback is that now it's slightly easier for vendors to take advantage of this functionality for anti-consumer type behavior.
In that case, simply do research before buying a new device and don't buy it if it's using the TPM hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280243</id>
	<title>DRM killed FBDEV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244651280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunatelly if DRM had *one* effect, that was stopping the evolution of the framebuffer drivers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p><p>OK. DRM and KMS is supposed to be a techincally superior solution in the long run, but hey, Hurd was supposed to be a superior solution and that didn't stop the early linux hackers. Being left with ancient fb drivers for such a long time is not acceptable!</p><p>It harms the evolution of non-X11 fb-based backends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunatelly if DRM had * one * effect , that was stopping the evolution of the framebuffer drivers : ( OK. DRM and KMS is supposed to be a techincally superior solution in the long run , but hey , Hurd was supposed to be a superior solution and that did n't stop the early linux hackers .
Being left with ancient fb drivers for such a long time is not acceptable ! It harms the evolution of non-X11 fb-based backends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunatelly if DRM had *one* effect, that was stopping the evolution of the framebuffer drivers :(OK. DRM and KMS is supposed to be a techincally superior solution in the long run, but hey, Hurd was supposed to be a superior solution and that didn't stop the early linux hackers.
Being left with ancient fb drivers for such a long time is not acceptable!It harms the evolution of non-X11 fb-based backends.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28291199</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Elrond, Duke of URL</author>
	<datestamp>1244722380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Would it really be that hard to have ONE good fs that you could tune to different use cases? Probably not. But the average Linux coder sees that something isn't fast in case X and goes ahead redoing the entire wheel. And why? Because the thing he just looked at wasn't designed very well either and can't be adapted easily to different use scenarios. And why? Because it was done by a half-assed coder like himself. And so the circle closes.</p></div><p>Actually, yes, it <b>is</b> that hard.  There's a good reason why so much research goes into filesystem development.  A desktop use-case is <i>very</i> different from a database use-case which is again different from a web server use-case.  Sure, you could find a middle ground, but it would result it mediocre performance (even after tuning) for all concerned.</p><p>Also, haven't you noticed that there <b>is</b>, essentially, "ONE good fs" that the vast majority of Linux systems use?  It's called ext3 and it's the default for pretty much every major Linux distribution for the very reason that it does offer good performance in most cases.  Desktop PC, laptop, small web server, DVR, development machine... ext3 is a perfectly fine choice for all of these uses.</p><p>Contrast this with Windows where you basically have a choice between FAT32/VFAT for memcards and NTFS for hard drives.  It tries to be everything to everybody, but in the end it is merely adequate for everybody.  That, and it <b>still</b> requires periodic defragmentation.  Really now...  this is a problem that the rest of the filesystem/OS development world solved a long long time ago.  Microsoft is constantly adding/tweaking/reworking NTFS... isn't it about time they fixed that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would it really be that hard to have ONE good fs that you could tune to different use cases ?
Probably not .
But the average Linux coder sees that something is n't fast in case X and goes ahead redoing the entire wheel .
And why ?
Because the thing he just looked at was n't designed very well either and ca n't be adapted easily to different use scenarios .
And why ?
Because it was done by a half-assed coder like himself .
And so the circle closes.Actually , yes , it is that hard .
There 's a good reason why so much research goes into filesystem development .
A desktop use-case is very different from a database use-case which is again different from a web server use-case .
Sure , you could find a middle ground , but it would result it mediocre performance ( even after tuning ) for all concerned.Also , have n't you noticed that there is , essentially , " ONE good fs " that the vast majority of Linux systems use ?
It 's called ext3 and it 's the default for pretty much every major Linux distribution for the very reason that it does offer good performance in most cases .
Desktop PC , laptop , small web server , DVR , development machine... ext3 is a perfectly fine choice for all of these uses.Contrast this with Windows where you basically have a choice between FAT32/VFAT for memcards and NTFS for hard drives .
It tries to be everything to everybody , but in the end it is merely adequate for everybody .
That , and it still requires periodic defragmentation .
Really now... this is a problem that the rest of the filesystem/OS development world solved a long long time ago .
Microsoft is constantly adding/tweaking/reworking NTFS... is n't it about time they fixed that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would it really be that hard to have ONE good fs that you could tune to different use cases?
Probably not.
But the average Linux coder sees that something isn't fast in case X and goes ahead redoing the entire wheel.
And why?
Because the thing he just looked at wasn't designed very well either and can't be adapted easily to different use scenarios.
And why?
Because it was done by a half-assed coder like himself.
And so the circle closes.Actually, yes, it is that hard.
There's a good reason why so much research goes into filesystem development.
A desktop use-case is very different from a database use-case which is again different from a web server use-case.
Sure, you could find a middle ground, but it would result it mediocre performance (even after tuning) for all concerned.Also, haven't you noticed that there is, essentially, "ONE good fs" that the vast majority of Linux systems use?
It's called ext3 and it's the default for pretty much every major Linux distribution for the very reason that it does offer good performance in most cases.
Desktop PC, laptop, small web server, DVR, development machine... ext3 is a perfectly fine choice for all of these uses.Contrast this with Windows where you basically have a choice between FAT32/VFAT for memcards and NTFS for hard drives.
It tries to be everything to everybody, but in the end it is merely adequate for everybody.
That, and it still requires periodic defragmentation.
Really now...  this is a problem that the rest of the filesystem/OS development world solved a long long time ago.
Microsoft is constantly adding/tweaking/reworking NTFS... isn't it about time they fixed that?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279903</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244649660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because one virus isn't optimal for all cases? Because people want to experiment with new things? Why does it matter?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because one virus is n't optimal for all cases ?
Because people want to experiment with new things ?
Why does it matter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because one virus isn't optimal for all cases?
Because people want to experiment with new things?
Why does it matter?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281495</id>
	<title>Re:Thottle Capability</title>
	<author>ratboy666</author>
	<datestamp>1244656320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here we have a disconnect. If the OS you are using DOESN'T support a feature you need, use one that DOES.</p><p>If you want to run POSIX/Unix mostly server applications in a way that allows resources to be controlled at this level, don't use Linux. Oracle/SUN has this nice open-source OS called Solaris that supports containers (zones) that will do what you want.</p><p>VMware has this nice product called ESX that can do the same thing <a href="https://www.vmware.com/support/esx2/doc/esx20admin\_res.html" title="vmware.com">https://www.vmware.com/support/esx2/doc/esx20admin\_res.html</a> [vmware.com] except that you still need another OS.</p><p>Which leaves you with ESX + Linux, or ESX + Solaris, or Solaris. Of course the ESX solution allows ESX + Windows as a possibility, although Orcle/SUN has another product called VirtualBox.</p><p>Now, it can be difficult choosing -- because there are even OTHER solutions that would work. Remember, Linux (though good, and my preferred desktop and small server platform) is not necessarily the end-all and be-all in OS's.</p><p>Also, remember that, even if a platform is "free" (as in freedom, and even, sometimes, as in beer), there are people out there who can help you architect a solution (usually, not so "free" as in beer).</p><p>Your personal use would not be met by these solutions, though. Sorry about that (the accurate DOS machine including timing). But you did mention LPARs; and that idea can be supported.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here we have a disconnect .
If the OS you are using DOES N'T support a feature you need , use one that DOES.If you want to run POSIX/Unix mostly server applications in a way that allows resources to be controlled at this level , do n't use Linux .
Oracle/SUN has this nice open-source OS called Solaris that supports containers ( zones ) that will do what you want.VMware has this nice product called ESX that can do the same thing https : //www.vmware.com/support/esx2/doc/esx20admin \ _res.html [ vmware.com ] except that you still need another OS.Which leaves you with ESX + Linux , or ESX + Solaris , or Solaris .
Of course the ESX solution allows ESX + Windows as a possibility , although Orcle/SUN has another product called VirtualBox.Now , it can be difficult choosing -- because there are even OTHER solutions that would work .
Remember , Linux ( though good , and my preferred desktop and small server platform ) is not necessarily the end-all and be-all in OS 's.Also , remember that , even if a platform is " free " ( as in freedom , and even , sometimes , as in beer ) , there are people out there who can help you architect a solution ( usually , not so " free " as in beer ) .Your personal use would not be met by these solutions , though .
Sorry about that ( the accurate DOS machine including timing ) .
But you did mention LPARs ; and that idea can be supported .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here we have a disconnect.
If the OS you are using DOESN'T support a feature you need, use one that DOES.If you want to run POSIX/Unix mostly server applications in a way that allows resources to be controlled at this level, don't use Linux.
Oracle/SUN has this nice open-source OS called Solaris that supports containers (zones) that will do what you want.VMware has this nice product called ESX that can do the same thing https://www.vmware.com/support/esx2/doc/esx20admin\_res.html [vmware.com] except that you still need another OS.Which leaves you with ESX + Linux, or ESX + Solaris, or Solaris.
Of course the ESX solution allows ESX + Windows as a possibility, although Orcle/SUN has another product called VirtualBox.Now, it can be difficult choosing -- because there are even OTHER solutions that would work.
Remember, Linux (though good, and my preferred desktop and small server platform) is not necessarily the end-all and be-all in OS's.Also, remember that, even if a platform is "free" (as in freedom, and even, sometimes, as in beer), there are people out there who can help you architect a solution (usually, not so "free" as in beer).Your personal use would not be met by these solutions, though.
Sorry about that (the accurate DOS machine including timing).
But you did mention LPARs; and that idea can be supported.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280973</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>harryandthehenderson</author>
	<datestamp>1244654280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>having to spread out resources to commit to maintaining multiple file systems.</p></div><p>So what? If someone wants to spend their time maintaining a filesystem or something like that why does it matter?  It's not your time being spent.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not saying I'm an advocate for anything specific here, and I'm not saying Windows is better,</p></div><p>It's not.  There have been at least a dozen filesystems created for Windows.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>i'm just trying to answer your question on why it *can* be a bad idea to just keep pushing out file systems.</p></div><p>But none of your answers are compelling in the least bit.  They amount to you basically caring way too much about what someone else decides to do with their own free time and effort.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, Linux might need this direly, and then this fs might be a good idea.</p></div><p>And even if Linux didn't need it direly that's not a valid reason to say that the filesystem isn't a good idea.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>having to spread out resources to commit to maintaining multiple file systems.So what ?
If someone wants to spend their time maintaining a filesystem or something like that why does it matter ?
It 's not your time being spent.I 'm not saying I 'm an advocate for anything specific here , and I 'm not saying Windows is better,It 's not .
There have been at least a dozen filesystems created for Windows.i 'm just trying to answer your question on why it * can * be a bad idea to just keep pushing out file systems.But none of your answers are compelling in the least bit .
They amount to you basically caring way too much about what someone else decides to do with their own free time and effort.Of course , Linux might need this direly , and then this fs might be a good idea.And even if Linux did n't need it direly that 's not a valid reason to say that the filesystem is n't a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>having to spread out resources to commit to maintaining multiple file systems.So what?
If someone wants to spend their time maintaining a filesystem or something like that why does it matter?
It's not your time being spent.I'm not saying I'm an advocate for anything specific here, and I'm not saying Windows is better,It's not.
There have been at least a dozen filesystems created for Windows.i'm just trying to answer your question on why it *can* be a bad idea to just keep pushing out file systems.But none of your answers are compelling in the least bit.
They amount to you basically caring way too much about what someone else decides to do with their own free time and effort.Of course, Linux might need this direly, and then this fs might be a good idea.And even if Linux didn't need it direly that's not a valid reason to say that the filesystem isn't a good idea.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279641</id>
	<title>Re:Some Great Work...But "rt2500 Realtek Drivers"</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1244648580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With individual driver issues like this, you're better off tracking the changes in the module than the changes in the kernel.  Individual driver module versions (or at least diffs) will be released more quickly than kernel versions, IOW, if you're going to use drivers undergoing heavy development, don't rely on each successive kernel version to fix the problem; instead be prepared to patch what you've got for a few releases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With individual driver issues like this , you 're better off tracking the changes in the module than the changes in the kernel .
Individual driver module versions ( or at least diffs ) will be released more quickly than kernel versions , IOW , if you 're going to use drivers undergoing heavy development , do n't rely on each successive kernel version to fix the problem ; instead be prepared to patch what you 've got for a few releases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With individual driver issues like this, you're better off tracking the changes in the module than the changes in the kernel.
Individual driver module versions (or at least diffs) will be released more quickly than kernel versions, IOW, if you're going to use drivers undergoing heavy development, don't rely on each successive kernel version to fix the problem; instead be prepared to patch what you've got for a few releases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279677</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1244648700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/22/103829/784" title="kuro5hin.org">Must... not... feed...</a> [kuro5hin.org] Ah, screw it.</p><p>There are a lot of reasons why windows has so many viruses. The one touted by Windows fans is that 90\% of PCs have Windows, making it a fat target. Of course, this discounts the fact that Apple sells millions of computers every year, which should make it a fat target, too, but I don't see any Apple viruses either.</p><p>But the 90\% seems to me to be the reason, but a different reason - Microsoft has no incentive to "get it right". As long as they can get their OS preinstalled on all the Dells and HPs and etc, and aren't losing revenue by writing a secure OS, why bother? After all, their only aim, unlike Linux's aim, is to make money, like every other corporation. You don't start a corporation to better the world, you start a corporation to make money. period. Apple makes their PCs secure because they have to - they don't own the market likd MS does.</p><p>And the 90\% also means that Windows users are, on the whole, less tech-savvy, making not only the OS but its users easy targets. A non-tech savvy user will install a trojan where someone who knows better will think twice. A tech savvy user will have a password like Xc4-99\_Zza?R2D2, while most Windows users will use something like 1234.</p><p>Windows almost requires its users to run as admin (remember, Microsoft has no incentive to do it differently) while better written OSes don't need this. No other OS has anything as stupidly dangerous as Active-X.</p><p>There are many, many more reasons. These are just a few that popped into the top of my head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Must... not... feed... [ kuro5hin.org ] Ah , screw it.There are a lot of reasons why windows has so many viruses .
The one touted by Windows fans is that 90 \ % of PCs have Windows , making it a fat target .
Of course , this discounts the fact that Apple sells millions of computers every year , which should make it a fat target , too , but I do n't see any Apple viruses either.But the 90 \ % seems to me to be the reason , but a different reason - Microsoft has no incentive to " get it right " .
As long as they can get their OS preinstalled on all the Dells and HPs and etc , and are n't losing revenue by writing a secure OS , why bother ?
After all , their only aim , unlike Linux 's aim , is to make money , like every other corporation .
You do n't start a corporation to better the world , you start a corporation to make money .
period. Apple makes their PCs secure because they have to - they do n't own the market likd MS does.And the 90 \ % also means that Windows users are , on the whole , less tech-savvy , making not only the OS but its users easy targets .
A non-tech savvy user will install a trojan where someone who knows better will think twice .
A tech savvy user will have a password like Xc4-99 \ _Zza ? R2D2 , while most Windows users will use something like 1234.Windows almost requires its users to run as admin ( remember , Microsoft has no incentive to do it differently ) while better written OSes do n't need this .
No other OS has anything as stupidly dangerous as Active-X.There are many , many more reasons .
These are just a few that popped into the top of my head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Must... not... feed... [kuro5hin.org] Ah, screw it.There are a lot of reasons why windows has so many viruses.
The one touted by Windows fans is that 90\% of PCs have Windows, making it a fat target.
Of course, this discounts the fact that Apple sells millions of computers every year, which should make it a fat target, too, but I don't see any Apple viruses either.But the 90\% seems to me to be the reason, but a different reason - Microsoft has no incentive to "get it right".
As long as they can get their OS preinstalled on all the Dells and HPs and etc, and aren't losing revenue by writing a secure OS, why bother?
After all, their only aim, unlike Linux's aim, is to make money, like every other corporation.
You don't start a corporation to better the world, you start a corporation to make money.
period. Apple makes their PCs secure because they have to - they don't own the market likd MS does.And the 90\% also means that Windows users are, on the whole, less tech-savvy, making not only the OS but its users easy targets.
A non-tech savvy user will install a trojan where someone who knows better will think twice.
A tech savvy user will have a password like Xc4-99\_Zza?R2D2, while most Windows users will use something like 1234.Windows almost requires its users to run as admin (remember, Microsoft has no incentive to do it differently) while better written OSes don't need this.
No other OS has anything as stupidly dangerous as Active-X.There are many, many more reasons.
These are just a few that popped into the top of my head.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28282245</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244659200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux has just fallen back below the 1\% desktop share. Why I mention this? No special reason, I'm sure this has nothing to do with the Virus issue....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux has just fallen back below the 1 \ % desktop share .
Why I mention this ?
No special reason , I 'm sure this has nothing to do with the Virus issue... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux has just fallen back below the 1\% desktop share.
Why I mention this?
No special reason, I'm sure this has nothing to do with the Virus issue....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281779</id>
	<title>Re:uhh-oh, a new filesystem......</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244657400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, it is overdone, but when we get "Flying Chair" or "640k" jokes you hike them up to +5 funny.  Hike up your skirt, there are better things to complain about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it is overdone , but when we get " Flying Chair " or " 640k " jokes you hike them up to + 5 funny .
Hike up your skirt , there are better things to complain about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it is overdone, but when we get "Flying Chair" or "640k" jokes you hike them up to +5 funny.
Hike up your skirt, there are better things to complain about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280983</id>
	<title>Damnit...</title>
	<author>Blankw</author>
	<datestamp>1244654340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...I compiled 2.6.29.4-rt16 not two days ago. Took 45 mins using a core2duo, and 6+ hours on a p3 1GHz (I gave up after 6 hours).</p><p>If only I'd known...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...I compiled 2.6.29.4-rt16 not two days ago .
Took 45 mins using a core2duo , and 6 + hours on a p3 1GHz ( I gave up after 6 hours ) .If only I 'd known.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I compiled 2.6.29.4-rt16 not two days ago.
Took 45 mins using a core2duo, and 6+ hours on a p3 1GHz (I gave up after 6 hours).If only I'd known...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279651</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1244648640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can anyone explain to me why Linux has so many filesystems? Windows has had NTFS for years (admittedly, several versions, but never any compatibility issues that I've come across), and Linux has, what, 73 or something?! Is it really <b>that</b> hard to get it right?</p></div><p>First up, you've got some incorrect assumptions/information about Windows.</p><p>Windows has not had just NTFS for years.  Windows has gone through several different flavors of FAT (FAT12, FAT16, FAT32, exFAT, VFAT).</p><p>As far as NTFS goes...  You dismiss the various versions, but then you're counting revisions to the various filesystems in Linux.  NTFS has gone through four or five major revisions.  Microsoft doesn't really advertise those revisions...  They just keep calling it NTFS.  But those revisions have added features and fixed bugs and basically changed the way the filesystem operates.  Those revisions are no more or less significant than the changes from EXT3 to EXT4.</p><p>Windows also offers a couple special-purpose filesystems...  Like EFS and DFS...</p><p>Windows can also handle NFS shares.</p><p>You can also install support for other filesystems (EXT, HFS) in Windows.</p><p>So, ultimately, Windows has at least 15ish filesystems going on...  And that's just right off the top of my head, without doing any research at all.</p><p>Now, as for why Linux has so many different filesystems available, it's simply because no single filesystem is perfect for everything.  One filesystem might be good if you've got tons of tiny files...  Another filesystem might be better if you've got tons of huge files...  Another filesystem might be better if you need extensive journaling and reliability...  Another filesystem might be better if you just need raw speed...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone explain to me why Linux has so many filesystems ?
Windows has had NTFS for years ( admittedly , several versions , but never any compatibility issues that I 've come across ) , and Linux has , what , 73 or something ? !
Is it really that hard to get it right ? First up , you 've got some incorrect assumptions/information about Windows.Windows has not had just NTFS for years .
Windows has gone through several different flavors of FAT ( FAT12 , FAT16 , FAT32 , exFAT , VFAT ) .As far as NTFS goes... You dismiss the various versions , but then you 're counting revisions to the various filesystems in Linux .
NTFS has gone through four or five major revisions .
Microsoft does n't really advertise those revisions... They just keep calling it NTFS .
But those revisions have added features and fixed bugs and basically changed the way the filesystem operates .
Those revisions are no more or less significant than the changes from EXT3 to EXT4.Windows also offers a couple special-purpose filesystems... Like EFS and DFS...Windows can also handle NFS shares.You can also install support for other filesystems ( EXT , HFS ) in Windows.So , ultimately , Windows has at least 15ish filesystems going on... And that 's just right off the top of my head , without doing any research at all.Now , as for why Linux has so many different filesystems available , it 's simply because no single filesystem is perfect for everything .
One filesystem might be good if you 've got tons of tiny files... Another filesystem might be better if you 've got tons of huge files... Another filesystem might be better if you need extensive journaling and reliability... Another filesystem might be better if you just need raw speed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone explain to me why Linux has so many filesystems?
Windows has had NTFS for years (admittedly, several versions, but never any compatibility issues that I've come across), and Linux has, what, 73 or something?!
Is it really that hard to get it right?First up, you've got some incorrect assumptions/information about Windows.Windows has not had just NTFS for years.
Windows has gone through several different flavors of FAT (FAT12, FAT16, FAT32, exFAT, VFAT).As far as NTFS goes...  You dismiss the various versions, but then you're counting revisions to the various filesystems in Linux.
NTFS has gone through four or five major revisions.
Microsoft doesn't really advertise those revisions...  They just keep calling it NTFS.
But those revisions have added features and fixed bugs and basically changed the way the filesystem operates.
Those revisions are no more or less significant than the changes from EXT3 to EXT4.Windows also offers a couple special-purpose filesystems...  Like EFS and DFS...Windows can also handle NFS shares.You can also install support for other filesystems (EXT, HFS) in Windows.So, ultimately, Windows has at least 15ish filesystems going on...  And that's just right off the top of my head, without doing any research at all.Now, as for why Linux has so many different filesystems available, it's simply because no single filesystem is perfect for everything.
One filesystem might be good if you've got tons of tiny files...  Another filesystem might be better if you've got tons of huge files...  Another filesystem might be better if you need extensive journaling and reliability...  Another filesystem might be better if you just need raw speed...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279185</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244646900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Partly because they can, partly because it allows Linux to read and write filesystems used by other operating systems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Partly because they can , partly because it allows Linux to read and write filesystems used by other operating systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Partly because they can, partly because it allows Linux to read and write filesystems used by other operating systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279843</id>
	<title>Re:DRM?</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1244649360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no idea what DRM in this case stands for when applied to the Radeon cards named, however I'd like to make a point about Digital Rights Management technology.</p><p>I think that DRM technology is morally neutral.   Fundamentally nearly all technology is morally neutral.    There are a few exceptions I can think of.   I have a hard time envisioning ethical uses for technology to weaponize pathogens, although I cannot prove there are NO sufficient justifications for doing so that might apply in some hypothetical situation I haven't considered.  In the real world, efforts to develop that technology fill me with revulsion.   But revulsion is no guide to morality. There are also technologies that fill me with revulsion that I recognize as unquestionably useful and good, such as corneal surgery.</p><p>DRM is a somewhere in between, I think.  It is not unquestionably beneficial in every case it is likely to be used, but it is not difficult to envision reasonable uses for it either.  I think the problem is the agenda that advocates of DRM technology have.  They want to force a fundamental change in how society uses information, and they're doing so under the false flag of getting artists their just compensation.  It takes considerable chutzpah for many of these companies to present themselves as the champions of artists' economic interests, but we needn't bring that into this discussion to see that giving special interests greater and unhindered control over the bulk of information in society is a bad idea.</p><p>I believe that the immediate objective of DRM advocates is to monetize more uses of copyrighted information.  I am neither thrilled nor appalled by that prospect.  I would not oppose the creation of new mechanisms of revenue generation, but these require a considerable extension of corporate control over information.   I have no problem with corporations benefiting from new technologies, but they have not addressed the possible impact on individual freedom.</p><p>Since this is an era in which technology is changing how we distribute and use information,  I don't think we should welcome any one economic interest group using their influence with government (or their ability to form a private cartels) to steer that change to their exclusive benefit.   I <em>would</em> accept legally mandated DRM provided those mandates were balanced with other measures to safeguard free expression and the public interest in a healthy, growing public domain.  For example, I'd like to see:</p><p>* shortened copyright terms,<br>* key escrow to guarantee usage rights in case of corporate failure and to ensure that DRM protected materials fall into the public domain in due course,<br>* mandated provision for traditional fair use practices,<br>* limitations on unreasonable license terms, and<br>* restrictions on the use of strategic lawsuits to create new de facto "rights" for information "owners".</p><p>In exchange for that package, I'd be happy to participate in a DRM mediated digital download economy.  In fact, I think this is a bona fide *conservative* position (in the Edmund Burke sense).   It protects the traditional value of freedom of information, while not unduly hindering the development of new business models.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no idea what DRM in this case stands for when applied to the Radeon cards named , however I 'd like to make a point about Digital Rights Management technology.I think that DRM technology is morally neutral .
Fundamentally nearly all technology is morally neutral .
There are a few exceptions I can think of .
I have a hard time envisioning ethical uses for technology to weaponize pathogens , although I can not prove there are NO sufficient justifications for doing so that might apply in some hypothetical situation I have n't considered .
In the real world , efforts to develop that technology fill me with revulsion .
But revulsion is no guide to morality .
There are also technologies that fill me with revulsion that I recognize as unquestionably useful and good , such as corneal surgery.DRM is a somewhere in between , I think .
It is not unquestionably beneficial in every case it is likely to be used , but it is not difficult to envision reasonable uses for it either .
I think the problem is the agenda that advocates of DRM technology have .
They want to force a fundamental change in how society uses information , and they 're doing so under the false flag of getting artists their just compensation .
It takes considerable chutzpah for many of these companies to present themselves as the champions of artists ' economic interests , but we need n't bring that into this discussion to see that giving special interests greater and unhindered control over the bulk of information in society is a bad idea.I believe that the immediate objective of DRM advocates is to monetize more uses of copyrighted information .
I am neither thrilled nor appalled by that prospect .
I would not oppose the creation of new mechanisms of revenue generation , but these require a considerable extension of corporate control over information .
I have no problem with corporations benefiting from new technologies , but they have not addressed the possible impact on individual freedom.Since this is an era in which technology is changing how we distribute and use information , I do n't think we should welcome any one economic interest group using their influence with government ( or their ability to form a private cartels ) to steer that change to their exclusive benefit .
I would accept legally mandated DRM provided those mandates were balanced with other measures to safeguard free expression and the public interest in a healthy , growing public domain .
For example , I 'd like to see : * shortened copyright terms , * key escrow to guarantee usage rights in case of corporate failure and to ensure that DRM protected materials fall into the public domain in due course , * mandated provision for traditional fair use practices , * limitations on unreasonable license terms , and * restrictions on the use of strategic lawsuits to create new de facto " rights " for information " owners " .In exchange for that package , I 'd be happy to participate in a DRM mediated digital download economy .
In fact , I think this is a bona fide * conservative * position ( in the Edmund Burke sense ) .
It protects the traditional value of freedom of information , while not unduly hindering the development of new business models .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no idea what DRM in this case stands for when applied to the Radeon cards named, however I'd like to make a point about Digital Rights Management technology.I think that DRM technology is morally neutral.
Fundamentally nearly all technology is morally neutral.
There are a few exceptions I can think of.
I have a hard time envisioning ethical uses for technology to weaponize pathogens, although I cannot prove there are NO sufficient justifications for doing so that might apply in some hypothetical situation I haven't considered.
In the real world, efforts to develop that technology fill me with revulsion.
But revulsion is no guide to morality.
There are also technologies that fill me with revulsion that I recognize as unquestionably useful and good, such as corneal surgery.DRM is a somewhere in between, I think.
It is not unquestionably beneficial in every case it is likely to be used, but it is not difficult to envision reasonable uses for it either.
I think the problem is the agenda that advocates of DRM technology have.
They want to force a fundamental change in how society uses information, and they're doing so under the false flag of getting artists their just compensation.
It takes considerable chutzpah for many of these companies to present themselves as the champions of artists' economic interests, but we needn't bring that into this discussion to see that giving special interests greater and unhindered control over the bulk of information in society is a bad idea.I believe that the immediate objective of DRM advocates is to monetize more uses of copyrighted information.
I am neither thrilled nor appalled by that prospect.
I would not oppose the creation of new mechanisms of revenue generation, but these require a considerable extension of corporate control over information.
I have no problem with corporations benefiting from new technologies, but they have not addressed the possible impact on individual freedom.Since this is an era in which technology is changing how we distribute and use information,  I don't think we should welcome any one economic interest group using their influence with government (or their ability to form a private cartels) to steer that change to their exclusive benefit.
I would accept legally mandated DRM provided those mandates were balanced with other measures to safeguard free expression and the public interest in a healthy, growing public domain.
For example, I'd like to see:* shortened copyright terms,* key escrow to guarantee usage rights in case of corporate failure and to ensure that DRM protected materials fall into the public domain in due course,* mandated provision for traditional fair use practices,* limitations on unreasonable license terms, and* restrictions on the use of strategic lawsuits to create new de facto "rights" for information "owners".In exchange for that package, I'd be happy to participate in a DRM mediated digital download economy.
In fact, I think this is a bona fide *conservative* position (in the Edmund Burke sense).
It protects the traditional value of freedom of information, while not unduly hindering the development of new business models.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281525</id>
	<title>Re:DRM?</title>
	<author>Abreu</author>
	<datestamp>1244656440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bah, next you'll say that guns are not bad themselves...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah , next you 'll say that guns are not bad themselves.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah, next you'll say that guns are not bad themselves...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28282279</id>
	<title>Re:Some Great Work...But "rt2500 Realtek Drivers"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244659380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah I remember before they had an in-kernel driver for the rt2x00. I have an ASUS card in my laptop that was really slow with weird behavior but eventually after compiling 2.6.25 (?) the rate 54M trick started working. Haven't had any problems since (other than maybe having to do rate 54M a couple times before it worked).</p><p>Hopefully it will work for you this time. I know for me the only thing that worked was upgrading to the newest kernel and crossing my fingers. Good luck!</p><p>Ivo van Doorn (and others) have put in a lot of work on the driver and I can only appreciate what they've accomplished.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah I remember before they had an in-kernel driver for the rt2x00 .
I have an ASUS card in my laptop that was really slow with weird behavior but eventually after compiling 2.6.25 ( ?
) the rate 54M trick started working .
Have n't had any problems since ( other than maybe having to do rate 54M a couple times before it worked ) .Hopefully it will work for you this time .
I know for me the only thing that worked was upgrading to the newest kernel and crossing my fingers .
Good luck ! Ivo van Doorn ( and others ) have put in a lot of work on the driver and I can only appreciate what they 've accomplished .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah I remember before they had an in-kernel driver for the rt2x00.
I have an ASUS card in my laptop that was really slow with weird behavior but eventually after compiling 2.6.25 (?
) the rate 54M trick started working.
Haven't had any problems since (other than maybe having to do rate 54M a couple times before it worked).Hopefully it will work for you this time.
I know for me the only thing that worked was upgrading to the newest kernel and crossing my fingers.
Good luck!Ivo van Doorn (and others) have put in a lot of work on the driver and I can only appreciate what they've accomplished.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280409</id>
	<title>Re:Trusted Computing Slithered In?</title>
	<author>MostAwesomeDude</author>
	<datestamp>1244652180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://trousers.sourceforge.net/faq.html" title="sourceforge.net">http://trousers.sourceforge.net/faq.html</a> [sourceforge.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //trousers.sourceforge.net/faq.html [ sourceforge.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://trousers.sourceforge.net/faq.html [sourceforge.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279087</id>
	<title>Yes, but does it run Lin...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244646480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>oh wait nevermind</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>oh wait nevermind</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh wait nevermind</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279139</id>
	<title>Re:LINUX IS SHIT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244646660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>PEBKAC. Enjoy the similiar headaches of Windows land.</htmltext>
<tokenext>PEBKAC .
Enjoy the similiar headaches of Windows land .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PEBKAC.
Enjoy the similiar headaches of Windows land.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279409</id>
	<title>NILFS2 is better than MILFS2</title>
	<author>Dystopian Rebel</author>
	<datestamp>1244647620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NILFS2 is the successor to MILFS2, which was based on the "Mother" specification.</p><p>NILFS2 is based on the "Nanny" specification, which means it is younger, firmer, *and* keeps the child nodes quiet when you are not actively updating its data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NILFS2 is the successor to MILFS2 , which was based on the " Mother " specification.NILFS2 is based on the " Nanny " specification , which means it is younger , firmer , * and * keeps the child nodes quiet when you are not actively updating its data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NILFS2 is the successor to MILFS2, which was based on the "Mother" specification.NILFS2 is based on the "Nanny" specification, which means it is younger, firmer, *and* keeps the child nodes quiet when you are not actively updating its data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28286515</id>
	<title>Re:Some Great Work...But "rt2500 Realtek Drivers"</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1244633760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not the half of it. The kernel devs appear to break things - intentionally - and leave them that way.</p><p>Case in point, PCMCIA was/is supposedly being rewritten. It broke around kernel 2.6.27 for me (I think) on several systems with ricoh integrated chipsets: I'm unable to use my cardbus or CF slot unless I boot with the device in the slot (and not remove it). Supposedly (according to mailing list info I found) this is due to a 'rewrite' of the pcmcia architecture code. I guess they didn't want to leave it well enough alone until they got it right.</p><p>Likewise, I have a USB card reader (recognized as "Bus 002 Device 002: ID 0bda:0151 Realtek Semiconductor Corp. Mass Stroage Device") which does not work with the current Ubuntu 9.04 stock kernel. It's recognized, but no devices plugged in work. It worked under 8.10 just fine.</p><p>Maybe it's Ubuntu breaking things, but since it appears to be a cross-distro problem (in both cases), I'm betting it's just the kernel devs doing "business as usual" and "letting the distros sort it out".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not the half of it .
The kernel devs appear to break things - intentionally - and leave them that way.Case in point , PCMCIA was/is supposedly being rewritten .
It broke around kernel 2.6.27 for me ( I think ) on several systems with ricoh integrated chipsets : I 'm unable to use my cardbus or CF slot unless I boot with the device in the slot ( and not remove it ) .
Supposedly ( according to mailing list info I found ) this is due to a 'rewrite ' of the pcmcia architecture code .
I guess they did n't want to leave it well enough alone until they got it right.Likewise , I have a USB card reader ( recognized as " Bus 002 Device 002 : ID 0bda : 0151 Realtek Semiconductor Corp. Mass Stroage Device " ) which does not work with the current Ubuntu 9.04 stock kernel .
It 's recognized , but no devices plugged in work .
It worked under 8.10 just fine.Maybe it 's Ubuntu breaking things , but since it appears to be a cross-distro problem ( in both cases ) , I 'm betting it 's just the kernel devs doing " business as usual " and " letting the distros sort it out " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not the half of it.
The kernel devs appear to break things - intentionally - and leave them that way.Case in point, PCMCIA was/is supposedly being rewritten.
It broke around kernel 2.6.27 for me (I think) on several systems with ricoh integrated chipsets: I'm unable to use my cardbus or CF slot unless I boot with the device in the slot (and not remove it).
Supposedly (according to mailing list info I found) this is due to a 'rewrite' of the pcmcia architecture code.
I guess they didn't want to leave it well enough alone until they got it right.Likewise, I have a USB card reader (recognized as "Bus 002 Device 002: ID 0bda:0151 Realtek Semiconductor Corp. Mass Stroage Device") which does not work with the current Ubuntu 9.04 stock kernel.
It's recognized, but no devices plugged in work.
It worked under 8.10 just fine.Maybe it's Ubuntu breaking things, but since it appears to be a cross-distro problem (in both cases), I'm betting it's just the kernel devs doing "business as usual" and "letting the distros sort it out".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28358379</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Sunnz</author>
	<datestamp>1245181740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes love it is called VFS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes love it is called VFS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes love it is called VFS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280005</id>
	<title>Re:DRM support? In the kernel?</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1244650200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(Let me guess, you're going to actually read and research things before you make your scathing replies because you have to defend your point of view instead of running your mouth?)</p></div><p>Imagine that, researching first -- far better than spouting off before one reads, and looking the fool.  *cough*different DRM*cough*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Let me guess , you 're going to actually read and research things before you make your scathing replies because you have to defend your point of view instead of running your mouth ?
) Imagine that , researching first -- far better than spouting off before one reads , and looking the fool .
* cough * different DRM * cough *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Let me guess, you're going to actually read and research things before you make your scathing replies because you have to defend your point of view instead of running your mouth?
)Imagine that, researching first -- far better than spouting off before one reads, and looking the fool.
*cough*different DRM*cough*
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280941</id>
	<title>802.11w Draft?</title>
	<author>russlar</author>
	<datestamp>1244654160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>802.11w draft? Can we get 802.11n out of draft before we get distracted by something else? Please?</htmltext>
<tokenext>802.11w draft ?
Can we get 802.11n out of draft before we get distracted by something else ?
Please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>802.11w draft?
Can we get 802.11n out of draft before we get distracted by something else?
Please?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279011</id>
	<title>Re:LINUX IS SHIT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244646180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, Linux wireless is broken by design.</p><p>FreeBSD got it right. No fucking iwconfig there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , Linux wireless is broken by design.FreeBSD got it right .
No fucking iwconfig there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, Linux wireless is broken by design.FreeBSD got it right.
No fucking iwconfig there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279659</id>
	<title>Re:2.8.x kernel soon?</title>
	<author>Keruo</author>
	<datestamp>1244648640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's clear roadmap posted <a href="http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/3/2/247" title="lkml.org">here</a> [lkml.org] describing features and implications of version numbers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's clear roadmap posted here [ lkml.org ] describing features and implications of version numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's clear roadmap posted here [lkml.org] describing features and implications of version numbers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279749</id>
	<title>Re:Sad, but true:</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1244649000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, you COULD use Linux as an OS for a British cigarette vending machine, in which case it WOULD be for fags!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you COULD use Linux as an OS for a British cigarette vending machine , in which case it WOULD be for fags !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you COULD use Linux as an OS for a British cigarette vending machine, in which case it WOULD be for fags!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28282529</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>tabrnaker</author>
	<datestamp>1244660340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you volunteering for the position?  Or are you just good at bitching?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you volunteering for the position ?
Or are you just good at bitching ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you volunteering for the position?
Or are you just good at bitching?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280885</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>pjr.cc</author>
	<datestamp>1244653920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something else worth pointing out actually.</p><p>It's not a case of "your spoiled for choice", the reality is you rarely get one. If you get a linux distro its going to give you ext2/3/4 (older distro's did allow you do use reiser, xfs, and so forth, but thats mostly gone the way of the dinosaur). The reality is that the linux community has made ext the "most appropriate FS to use" and so they all do use it (that wasnt by popular concensus, it was a case of sheer compatibility and crowd behaviour - i.e. "he's using it, i'll use it too").</p><p>Alot of the "extra" fs's in linux are there solely for the benefit of reading other people's file systems (such as UFS, Amiga FS, HPFS, NTFS, and they do take up a huge portion of the list). But thats brilliant right? How many kernels out there have the kind of functionality - none!</p><p>Those FS's that dont fall into the "legacy" or "compatability" stack are there for people who need them and know when they need them (i.e. they're for the specialist) and much like if i wanted to use (commercial) xfs on windows, im going to need to know why im doing it and how its going to be done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something else worth pointing out actually.It 's not a case of " your spoiled for choice " , the reality is you rarely get one .
If you get a linux distro its going to give you ext2/3/4 ( older distro 's did allow you do use reiser , xfs , and so forth , but thats mostly gone the way of the dinosaur ) .
The reality is that the linux community has made ext the " most appropriate FS to use " and so they all do use it ( that wasnt by popular concensus , it was a case of sheer compatibility and crowd behaviour - i.e .
" he 's using it , i 'll use it too " ) .Alot of the " extra " fs 's in linux are there solely for the benefit of reading other people 's file systems ( such as UFS , Amiga FS , HPFS , NTFS , and they do take up a huge portion of the list ) .
But thats brilliant right ?
How many kernels out there have the kind of functionality - none ! Those FS 's that dont fall into the " legacy " or " compatability " stack are there for people who need them and know when they need them ( i.e .
they 're for the specialist ) and much like if i wanted to use ( commercial ) xfs on windows , im going to need to know why im doing it and how its going to be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something else worth pointing out actually.It's not a case of "your spoiled for choice", the reality is you rarely get one.
If you get a linux distro its going to give you ext2/3/4 (older distro's did allow you do use reiser, xfs, and so forth, but thats mostly gone the way of the dinosaur).
The reality is that the linux community has made ext the "most appropriate FS to use" and so they all do use it (that wasnt by popular concensus, it was a case of sheer compatibility and crowd behaviour - i.e.
"he's using it, i'll use it too").Alot of the "extra" fs's in linux are there solely for the benefit of reading other people's file systems (such as UFS, Amiga FS, HPFS, NTFS, and they do take up a huge portion of the list).
But thats brilliant right?
How many kernels out there have the kind of functionality - none!Those FS's that dont fall into the "legacy" or "compatability" stack are there for people who need them and know when they need them (i.e.
they're for the specialist) and much like if i wanted to use (commercial) xfs on windows, im going to need to know why im doing it and how its going to be done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280739</id>
	<title>Re:Trusted Computing Slithered In?</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1244653440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you need the kind of security for a teller or voting machine, build the chip and drivers for it. It shouldn't ever be part of consumer machines without a full disclosure in big red letters, something like "Operating this computer gives various companies complete control and access to all of your data while preventing you from monitoring such access"</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you need the kind of security for a teller or voting machine , build the chip and drivers for it .
It should n't ever be part of consumer machines without a full disclosure in big red letters , something like " Operating this computer gives various companies complete control and access to all of your data while preventing you from monitoring such access "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you need the kind of security for a teller or voting machine, build the chip and drivers for it.
It shouldn't ever be part of consumer machines without a full disclosure in big red letters, something like "Operating this computer gives various companies complete control and access to all of your data while preventing you from monitoring such access"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28320445</id>
	<title>Re:Trusted Computing Slithered In?</title>
	<author>Alsee</author>
	<datestamp>1244913540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consider you own two identical computers with identical hardware. The first computer is a TPM computer with the master key locked inside and you're forbidden to know or control that key. The second computer is identical hardware with identical, except you are allowed to buy it with a printed copy of the master key if you want to know it.</p><p>The first computer, the TPM computer, the Trusted Computer, you are forbidden to know your key. The fundamental design criteria is that it can be "secured" AGAINST you. Other people can Trust that your computer is secure against you. You can be locked out of your own files, you can be locked into particular software. It is exactly the DRM machine that the RIAA&amp;MPAA&amp;Microsoft have been dreaming for. You can't read or modify your own files because you don't know your key. You can only play them under the control of the TPM chip, the TPM chip only permits you to play them with the Officially Approved DRM Media Player.</p><p>The second computer, well you can have your key if you want it. That key enables you to unlock and read your own files if you want. With that key you can modify or override any of your security settings if you want. You have absolute and total control of your computer, if you want it. Your key gives you the control to override any lock in or any lock out. That makes it useless for DRM, and it means the TPM system can't he hijacked against you for any other malicious purpose.</p><p>Both computers have identical capabilities to secure your computer for you. Every single benefit to you they claim TPM gives you, you also get from the second computer. The only difference is that the second computer eliminates DRM and eliminates all of the negative uses of the TPM.</p><p>The second computer preserves ALL of the owner benefits, and eliminates ALL of the harms.</p><p>The Trusted Computing Group refuses to permit you to buy that second computer. The central design goal of Trusted Computing is EXACTLY to enable DRM and the other negative issues of Trusted Computing.</p><p>They are trying to shove a poison apple down your throat, and they are advertising it as a GOOD thing because apples have wonderful vitamins and minerals. These justifications for Trusted Computing are just plain bullshit. You cannot justify a poison apple by citing vitamins and minerals, because you could get ALL of those vitamins and minerals from an otherwise identical poison free apple.</p><p>The answer to TPMs and Trusted Computing is simple:</p><p>Give me my key. <b>No Key, No Sale.</b></p><p><b><b>-</b></b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider you own two identical computers with identical hardware .
The first computer is a TPM computer with the master key locked inside and you 're forbidden to know or control that key .
The second computer is identical hardware with identical , except you are allowed to buy it with a printed copy of the master key if you want to know it.The first computer , the TPM computer , the Trusted Computer , you are forbidden to know your key .
The fundamental design criteria is that it can be " secured " AGAINST you .
Other people can Trust that your computer is secure against you .
You can be locked out of your own files , you can be locked into particular software .
It is exactly the DRM machine that the RIAA&amp;MPAA&amp;Microsoft have been dreaming for .
You ca n't read or modify your own files because you do n't know your key .
You can only play them under the control of the TPM chip , the TPM chip only permits you to play them with the Officially Approved DRM Media Player.The second computer , well you can have your key if you want it .
That key enables you to unlock and read your own files if you want .
With that key you can modify or override any of your security settings if you want .
You have absolute and total control of your computer , if you want it .
Your key gives you the control to override any lock in or any lock out .
That makes it useless for DRM , and it means the TPM system ca n't he hijacked against you for any other malicious purpose.Both computers have identical capabilities to secure your computer for you .
Every single benefit to you they claim TPM gives you , you also get from the second computer .
The only difference is that the second computer eliminates DRM and eliminates all of the negative uses of the TPM.The second computer preserves ALL of the owner benefits , and eliminates ALL of the harms.The Trusted Computing Group refuses to permit you to buy that second computer .
The central design goal of Trusted Computing is EXACTLY to enable DRM and the other negative issues of Trusted Computing.They are trying to shove a poison apple down your throat , and they are advertising it as a GOOD thing because apples have wonderful vitamins and minerals .
These justifications for Trusted Computing are just plain bullshit .
You can not justify a poison apple by citing vitamins and minerals , because you could get ALL of those vitamins and minerals from an otherwise identical poison free apple.The answer to TPMs and Trusted Computing is simple : Give me my key .
No Key , No Sale.-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider you own two identical computers with identical hardware.
The first computer is a TPM computer with the master key locked inside and you're forbidden to know or control that key.
The second computer is identical hardware with identical, except you are allowed to buy it with a printed copy of the master key if you want to know it.The first computer, the TPM computer, the Trusted Computer, you are forbidden to know your key.
The fundamental design criteria is that it can be "secured" AGAINST you.
Other people can Trust that your computer is secure against you.
You can be locked out of your own files, you can be locked into particular software.
It is exactly the DRM machine that the RIAA&amp;MPAA&amp;Microsoft have been dreaming for.
You can't read or modify your own files because you don't know your key.
You can only play them under the control of the TPM chip, the TPM chip only permits you to play them with the Officially Approved DRM Media Player.The second computer, well you can have your key if you want it.
That key enables you to unlock and read your own files if you want.
With that key you can modify or override any of your security settings if you want.
You have absolute and total control of your computer, if you want it.
Your key gives you the control to override any lock in or any lock out.
That makes it useless for DRM, and it means the TPM system can't he hijacked against you for any other malicious purpose.Both computers have identical capabilities to secure your computer for you.
Every single benefit to you they claim TPM gives you, you also get from the second computer.
The only difference is that the second computer eliminates DRM and eliminates all of the negative uses of the TPM.The second computer preserves ALL of the owner benefits, and eliminates ALL of the harms.The Trusted Computing Group refuses to permit you to buy that second computer.
The central design goal of Trusted Computing is EXACTLY to enable DRM and the other negative issues of Trusted Computing.They are trying to shove a poison apple down your throat, and they are advertising it as a GOOD thing because apples have wonderful vitamins and minerals.
These justifications for Trusted Computing are just plain bullshit.
You cannot justify a poison apple by citing vitamins and minerals, because you could get ALL of those vitamins and minerals from an otherwise identical poison free apple.The answer to TPMs and Trusted Computing is simple:Give me my key.
No Key, No Sale.-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280433</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>pjr.cc</author>
	<datestamp>1244652240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, i always get quite excited when i hear about a new fs in the linux kernel. everyone of them is unique and inventive and does serve a purpose. I always wanted to write a tag based file system (and ended up implementing one in fuse once i realised i didnt care about how the data actually got onto the disk), the idea was to get rid of directory structures as we know them (i personally think they are a crap way of storing data, but oh well). I never got it finished but it was going to work like file x.zip has the tags a, b and c. So its accessible a variety of ways (/a/x.zip,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/b/x.zip,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/a/b/c/x.zip or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/b/c/a/x.zip), and you could just move it to change its tags (i.e. mv<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/a/b/c/x.zip<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/d/x.zip to remove the a, b and c tags and replace them with d, or cd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/c; mv x.zip<nobr> <wbr></nobr>../d would remove the "c" tag and replace it with "d"). Back when i first thought of the notion i personally think it was quite unique, but its not without its drawbacks (think backup or any kind of filesystem scraping tool).</p><p>But lets put some things in perspective first. Sure windows has NTFS, but its not the only one (as has been pointed out numerous times) - i didnt see anyone list vxfs (veritas), but there are probably as many for windows fs's that aren't part of windows (xfs for eg is available for windows - commercially). The other thing is that its always been called NTFS but its gotten quite a few variants (much like solaris and UFS), so your layman only ever see's "NTFS" and "FAT".</p><p>So does it matter? the reality is that 99.999\% of people only know ntfs and fat for windows, the same goes for linux really, 99.999\% of people are using ext2/3 (now 4) plus FAT. In the windows world they would all have just been called "Ext" and you wouldn't have known that windows NT used ext2 while XP used ext3 and vista used ext4. Linux hasn't chosen to do it that way and for good reasons.</p><p>But you should also define "right". Show me a filesystem like ext3cow (essentially a compliance file system) for windows, they do exist, they're not NTFS, you've just never heard of them cause you dont need them, and you've probably not heard of ext3cow either for that matter. The truth is that 99\% of people just need ext2/3/4 for hard disks, will use fat for flash and wont care which one they get so long as it stores files. Which again, is exactly like windows, 99\% of people know only NTFS for hard disks, fat for removable storage and dont need (or want) to know about the rest - but they do exist and we haven't even mentioned things like win CE, XP embedded, etc.</p><p>You will get the occasional lunatic (i say that in a loving way) that'll do something like reiserfs or xfs, but thats your getting-a-bit-hardcore linux type.</p><p>One other thing worth pointing out is that part of the reason there are few FS's you've heard of for windows is cause its a nightmare to code them (or was, may not be true anymore). I tried to do one for around the time XP/2003 were available, and it had about 12 different ways of doing exactly the same thing in the driver that you had to implement (i.e. "get the list of files in this directory" had to be implemented 6 different ways for backward compatibility, that was painful). Probably a good reason why any third-party commercial FS's for windows costs a minor fortune.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , i always get quite excited when i hear about a new fs in the linux kernel .
everyone of them is unique and inventive and does serve a purpose .
I always wanted to write a tag based file system ( and ended up implementing one in fuse once i realised i didnt care about how the data actually got onto the disk ) , the idea was to get rid of directory structures as we know them ( i personally think they are a crap way of storing data , but oh well ) .
I never got it finished but it was going to work like file x.zip has the tags a , b and c. So its accessible a variety of ways ( /a/x.zip , /b/x.zip , /a/b/c/x.zip or /b/c/a/x.zip ) , and you could just move it to change its tags ( i.e .
mv /a/b/c/x.zip /d/x.zip to remove the a , b and c tags and replace them with d , or cd /c ; mv x.zip ../d would remove the " c " tag and replace it with " d " ) .
Back when i first thought of the notion i personally think it was quite unique , but its not without its drawbacks ( think backup or any kind of filesystem scraping tool ) .But lets put some things in perspective first .
Sure windows has NTFS , but its not the only one ( as has been pointed out numerous times ) - i didnt see anyone list vxfs ( veritas ) , but there are probably as many for windows fs 's that are n't part of windows ( xfs for eg is available for windows - commercially ) .
The other thing is that its always been called NTFS but its gotten quite a few variants ( much like solaris and UFS ) , so your layman only ever see 's " NTFS " and " FAT " .So does it matter ?
the reality is that 99.999 \ % of people only know ntfs and fat for windows , the same goes for linux really , 99.999 \ % of people are using ext2/3 ( now 4 ) plus FAT .
In the windows world they would all have just been called " Ext " and you would n't have known that windows NT used ext2 while XP used ext3 and vista used ext4 .
Linux has n't chosen to do it that way and for good reasons.But you should also define " right " .
Show me a filesystem like ext3cow ( essentially a compliance file system ) for windows , they do exist , they 're not NTFS , you 've just never heard of them cause you dont need them , and you 've probably not heard of ext3cow either for that matter .
The truth is that 99 \ % of people just need ext2/3/4 for hard disks , will use fat for flash and wont care which one they get so long as it stores files .
Which again , is exactly like windows , 99 \ % of people know only NTFS for hard disks , fat for removable storage and dont need ( or want ) to know about the rest - but they do exist and we have n't even mentioned things like win CE , XP embedded , etc.You will get the occasional lunatic ( i say that in a loving way ) that 'll do something like reiserfs or xfs , but thats your getting-a-bit-hardcore linux type.One other thing worth pointing out is that part of the reason there are few FS 's you 've heard of for windows is cause its a nightmare to code them ( or was , may not be true anymore ) .
I tried to do one for around the time XP/2003 were available , and it had about 12 different ways of doing exactly the same thing in the driver that you had to implement ( i.e .
" get the list of files in this directory " had to be implemented 6 different ways for backward compatibility , that was painful ) .
Probably a good reason why any third-party commercial FS 's for windows costs a minor fortune .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, i always get quite excited when i hear about a new fs in the linux kernel.
everyone of them is unique and inventive and does serve a purpose.
I always wanted to write a tag based file system (and ended up implementing one in fuse once i realised i didnt care about how the data actually got onto the disk), the idea was to get rid of directory structures as we know them (i personally think they are a crap way of storing data, but oh well).
I never got it finished but it was going to work like file x.zip has the tags a, b and c. So its accessible a variety of ways (/a/x.zip, /b/x.zip, /a/b/c/x.zip or /b/c/a/x.zip), and you could just move it to change its tags (i.e.
mv /a/b/c/x.zip /d/x.zip to remove the a, b and c tags and replace them with d, or cd /c; mv x.zip ../d would remove the "c" tag and replace it with "d").
Back when i first thought of the notion i personally think it was quite unique, but its not without its drawbacks (think backup or any kind of filesystem scraping tool).But lets put some things in perspective first.
Sure windows has NTFS, but its not the only one (as has been pointed out numerous times) - i didnt see anyone list vxfs (veritas), but there are probably as many for windows fs's that aren't part of windows (xfs for eg is available for windows - commercially).
The other thing is that its always been called NTFS but its gotten quite a few variants (much like solaris and UFS), so your layman only ever see's "NTFS" and "FAT".So does it matter?
the reality is that 99.999\% of people only know ntfs and fat for windows, the same goes for linux really, 99.999\% of people are using ext2/3 (now 4) plus FAT.
In the windows world they would all have just been called "Ext" and you wouldn't have known that windows NT used ext2 while XP used ext3 and vista used ext4.
Linux hasn't chosen to do it that way and for good reasons.But you should also define "right".
Show me a filesystem like ext3cow (essentially a compliance file system) for windows, they do exist, they're not NTFS, you've just never heard of them cause you dont need them, and you've probably not heard of ext3cow either for that matter.
The truth is that 99\% of people just need ext2/3/4 for hard disks, will use fat for flash and wont care which one they get so long as it stores files.
Which again, is exactly like windows, 99\% of people know only NTFS for hard disks, fat for removable storage and dont need (or want) to know about the rest - but they do exist and we haven't even mentioned things like win CE, XP embedded, etc.You will get the occasional lunatic (i say that in a loving way) that'll do something like reiserfs or xfs, but thats your getting-a-bit-hardcore linux type.One other thing worth pointing out is that part of the reason there are few FS's you've heard of for windows is cause its a nightmare to code them (or was, may not be true anymore).
I tried to do one for around the time XP/2003 were available, and it had about 12 different ways of doing exactly the same thing in the driver that you had to implement (i.e.
"get the list of files in this directory" had to be implemented 6 different ways for backward compatibility, that was painful).
Probably a good reason why any third-party commercial FS's for windows costs a minor fortune.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28285463</id>
	<title>Re:Trusted Computing Slithered In?</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1244629200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TPM, from my understanding, just makes it more difficult to tinker with things that were designed not to be tinkered with. Those of us who buy hardware and use software that explicitly *was* meant to be tinkered with will see no change, so TPM support in the kernel ultimately means little to me. If a company releases a cool gadget or computer with a TPM but doesn't give me the keys, then I simply don't buy that gadget.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TPM , from my understanding , just makes it more difficult to tinker with things that were designed not to be tinkered with .
Those of us who buy hardware and use software that explicitly * was * meant to be tinkered with will see no change , so TPM support in the kernel ultimately means little to me .
If a company releases a cool gadget or computer with a TPM but does n't give me the keys , then I simply do n't buy that gadget .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TPM, from my understanding, just makes it more difficult to tinker with things that were designed not to be tinkered with.
Those of us who buy hardware and use software that explicitly *was* meant to be tinkered with will see no change, so TPM support in the kernel ultimately means little to me.
If a company releases a cool gadget or computer with a TPM but doesn't give me the keys, then I simply don't buy that gadget.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281199</id>
	<title>Re:Trusted Computing Slithered In?</title>
	<author>Sancho</author>
	<datestamp>1244655180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If your system has a TPM chip, then IMA also maintains an aggregate integrity value over this list inside the TPM hardware, so that the TPM can prove to a third party whether or not critical system files have been modified.</p></div><p>This sounds more like it's for auditing.  It allows you to prove to an authority that system files were not modified after a certain point.</p><p>Trusted computing is not inherently evil.  I, for one, would love the ability to prove <b>to myself</b> that my system hasn't been compromised from the bootloader on up.  Nothing says that trusted computer must be used by a third-party to regulate what I do on my machine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If your system has a TPM chip , then IMA also maintains an aggregate integrity value over this list inside the TPM hardware , so that the TPM can prove to a third party whether or not critical system files have been modified.This sounds more like it 's for auditing .
It allows you to prove to an authority that system files were not modified after a certain point.Trusted computing is not inherently evil .
I , for one , would love the ability to prove to myself that my system has n't been compromised from the bootloader on up .
Nothing says that trusted computer must be used by a third-party to regulate what I do on my machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your system has a TPM chip, then IMA also maintains an aggregate integrity value over this list inside the TPM hardware, so that the TPM can prove to a third party whether or not critical system files have been modified.This sounds more like it's for auditing.
It allows you to prove to an authority that system files were not modified after a certain point.Trusted computing is not inherently evil.
I, for one, would love the ability to prove to myself that my system hasn't been compromised from the bootloader on up.
Nothing says that trusted computer must be used by a third-party to regulate what I do on my machine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281061</id>
	<title>Re:DRM?</title>
	<author>Fry-kun</author>
	<datestamp>1244654640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because everyone is doing it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because everyone is doing it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because everyone is doing it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28282591</id>
	<title>Re:Auto flushing</title>
	<author>swilver</author>
	<datestamp>1244660640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's nice, but actually only solves one specific way applications could guarantee integrity of their files.  There's numerous other assumptions one can make of an ordered filesystem in your typical program which will not be caught by this little fix.</p><p>I still think it would be a really bad idea to use any filesystem (or database for that matter) that doesn't flush data and metadata up to the same point in time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's nice , but actually only solves one specific way applications could guarantee integrity of their files .
There 's numerous other assumptions one can make of an ordered filesystem in your typical program which will not be caught by this little fix.I still think it would be a really bad idea to use any filesystem ( or database for that matter ) that does n't flush data and metadata up to the same point in time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's nice, but actually only solves one specific way applications could guarantee integrity of their files.
There's numerous other assumptions one can make of an ordered filesystem in your typical program which will not be caught by this little fix.I still think it would be a really bad idea to use any filesystem (or database for that matter) that doesn't flush data and metadata up to the same point in time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28283349</id>
	<title>Re:uhh-oh, a new filesystem......</title>
	<author>cheftw</author>
	<datestamp>1244663940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And where did kerneltrap go?</p><p>It used to be great for keeping abreast of kernel development but now it just has an oddly appropriate article from september last.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And where did kerneltrap go ? It used to be great for keeping abreast of kernel development but now it just has an oddly appropriate article from september last .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And where did kerneltrap go?It used to be great for keeping abreast of kernel development but now it just has an oddly appropriate article from september last.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278737</id>
	<title>uhh-oh, a new filesystem......</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1244645040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where'd my wife and the extra seat from my car go?
</p><p>(Yeah, bad taste.... I'm going directly to hell<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 'd my wife and the extra seat from my car go ?
( Yeah , bad taste.... I 'm going directly to hell ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where'd my wife and the extra seat from my car go?
(Yeah, bad taste.... I'm going directly to hell ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28333657</id>
	<title>enough is enough</title>
	<author>luxitan</author>
	<datestamp>1245070020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First we got a filesystem created by a murderer, now we got a filesystem for incest?

NILFS - Nieces I'd Like to Fsck ???

When will it end?</htmltext>
<tokenext>First we got a filesystem created by a murderer , now we got a filesystem for incest ?
NILFS - Nieces I 'd Like to Fsck ? ? ?
When will it end ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First we got a filesystem created by a murderer, now we got a filesystem for incest?
NILFS - Nieces I'd Like to Fsck ???
When will it end?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281775</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244657400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's an in-joke.
When NILFS2 is stable it will be renamed to Mature Implementation of a Log-structured File System, so you can get MILFS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an in-joke .
When NILFS2 is stable it will be renamed to Mature Implementation of a Log-structured File System , so you can get MILFS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an in-joke.
When NILFS2 is stable it will be renamed to Mature Implementation of a Log-structured File System, so you can get MILFS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280317</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>itof500</author>
	<datestamp>1244651700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the 90\% seems to me to be the reason, but a different reason - Microsoft has no incentive to "get it right". As long as they can get their OS preinstalled on all the Dells and HPs and etc, and aren't losing revenue by writing a secure OS, why bother? After all, their only aim, unlike Linux's aim, is to make money, like every other corporation. You don't start a corporation to better the world, you start a corporation to make money. period. Apple makes their PCs secure because they have to - they don't own the market likd MS does.<br>=========<br>I don't think that this is correct.  Rather, I think the vulnerability of the various operating systems is built into the their presumptive roles.  Windows was build around the idea of one guy sitting in front of the computer.  The Internet and viruses were never considered.  As these modes of connection/vulnerability have developed Microsoft has been trying to secure the inherently insecure operating system.  Vista was supposed to be a big step in erasing these presumptions, but still has to deal with legacy apps that assume root privileges.</p><p>The Unix based Mach kernel at the core of OSX and Linux inherently make the assumption of the multi-user system.  Thus, privilege separation is build into the DNA of the system, and no app assumes you have root privileges.</p><p>duke out</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the 90 \ % seems to me to be the reason , but a different reason - Microsoft has no incentive to " get it right " .
As long as they can get their OS preinstalled on all the Dells and HPs and etc , and are n't losing revenue by writing a secure OS , why bother ?
After all , their only aim , unlike Linux 's aim , is to make money , like every other corporation .
You do n't start a corporation to better the world , you start a corporation to make money .
period. Apple makes their PCs secure because they have to - they do n't own the market likd MS does. = = = = = = = = = I do n't think that this is correct .
Rather , I think the vulnerability of the various operating systems is built into the their presumptive roles .
Windows was build around the idea of one guy sitting in front of the computer .
The Internet and viruses were never considered .
As these modes of connection/vulnerability have developed Microsoft has been trying to secure the inherently insecure operating system .
Vista was supposed to be a big step in erasing these presumptions , but still has to deal with legacy apps that assume root privileges.The Unix based Mach kernel at the core of OSX and Linux inherently make the assumption of the multi-user system .
Thus , privilege separation is build into the DNA of the system , and no app assumes you have root privileges.duke out</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the 90\% seems to me to be the reason, but a different reason - Microsoft has no incentive to "get it right".
As long as they can get their OS preinstalled on all the Dells and HPs and etc, and aren't losing revenue by writing a secure OS, why bother?
After all, their only aim, unlike Linux's aim, is to make money, like every other corporation.
You don't start a corporation to better the world, you start a corporation to make money.
period. Apple makes their PCs secure because they have to - they don't own the market likd MS does.=========I don't think that this is correct.
Rather, I think the vulnerability of the various operating systems is built into the their presumptive roles.
Windows was build around the idea of one guy sitting in front of the computer.
The Internet and viruses were never considered.
As these modes of connection/vulnerability have developed Microsoft has been trying to secure the inherently insecure operating system.
Vista was supposed to be a big step in erasing these presumptions, but still has to deal with legacy apps that assume root privileges.The Unix based Mach kernel at the core of OSX and Linux inherently make the assumption of the multi-user system.
Thus, privilege separation is build into the DNA of the system, and no app assumes you have root privileges.duke out</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28285117</id>
	<title>Cool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244627640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's awesome.  I'm right on the verge of needing to build two new boxes for MythTV, and the Intel G45 chipset looks like it <em>might</em> be exactly what I want, but I'm seeing a lot of conflicting reports about whether or not they've got it working yet.
</p><p>The driver (kernel?!) issue cascades into other things; if I want that video chipset, then I'm buying Intel CPUs instead of my usually-preferred AMD.
</p><p>
Hundreds of bucks are riding on this.  Nvidia doesn't want my money so they're out, but Intel and AMD/ATI are trying.  The question is: who is trying hard enough to actually deliver a product before the other guy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's awesome .
I 'm right on the verge of needing to build two new boxes for MythTV , and the Intel G45 chipset looks like it might be exactly what I want , but I 'm seeing a lot of conflicting reports about whether or not they 've got it working yet .
The driver ( kernel ? !
) issue cascades into other things ; if I want that video chipset , then I 'm buying Intel CPUs instead of my usually-preferred AMD .
Hundreds of bucks are riding on this .
Nvidia does n't want my money so they 're out , but Intel and AMD/ATI are trying .
The question is : who is trying hard enough to actually deliver a product before the other guy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's awesome.
I'm right on the verge of needing to build two new boxes for MythTV, and the Intel G45 chipset looks like it might be exactly what I want, but I'm seeing a lot of conflicting reports about whether or not they've got it working yet.
The driver (kernel?!
) issue cascades into other things; if I want that video chipset, then I'm buying Intel CPUs instead of my usually-preferred AMD.
Hundreds of bucks are riding on this.
Nvidia doesn't want my money so they're out, but Intel and AMD/ATI are trying.
The question is: who is trying hard enough to actually deliver a product before the other guy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278919</id>
	<title>DRM for Trolls</title>
	<author>chill</author>
	<datestamp>1244645820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Direct Rendering Manager (DRM) is a component of the Direct Rendering Infrastructure, a system to provide efficient video acceleration (especially 3D rendering) on Unix-like operating systems, e.g. Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD.</p><p>It consists of two in-kernel drivers (realized as kernel modules on Linux), a generic drm driver, and another which has specific support for the video hardware. This pair of drivers allows a userspace client direct access to the video hardware.</p><p>From WikiPedia.</p><p>Karma Whoring FTW!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Direct Rendering Manager ( DRM ) is a component of the Direct Rendering Infrastructure , a system to provide efficient video acceleration ( especially 3D rendering ) on Unix-like operating systems , e.g .
Linux , FreeBSD , NetBSD , and OpenBSD.It consists of two in-kernel drivers ( realized as kernel modules on Linux ) , a generic drm driver , and another which has specific support for the video hardware .
This pair of drivers allows a userspace client direct access to the video hardware.From WikiPedia.Karma Whoring FTW !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Direct Rendering Manager (DRM) is a component of the Direct Rendering Infrastructure, a system to provide efficient video acceleration (especially 3D rendering) on Unix-like operating systems, e.g.
Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD.It consists of two in-kernel drivers (realized as kernel modules on Linux), a generic drm driver, and another which has specific support for the video hardware.
This pair of drivers allows a userspace client direct access to the video hardware.From WikiPedia.Karma Whoring FTW!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279789</id>
	<title>Re:DRM?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244649120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nonono, the <i>right</i> kind of DRM!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nonono , the right kind of DRM !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nonono, the right kind of DRM!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28284805</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1244626440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>The Unix based Mach kernel at the core of OSX and Linux inherently make the assumption of the multi-user system. Thus, privilege separation is build into the DNA of the system, and no app assumes you have root privileges.</i>
</p><p>Your whole premise is wrong.  At its core Windows NT is, if anything, *more* of a multiuser OS than the classic UNIX model you are talking about.
</p><p>It's time to update your knowledge past Windows 95.  It's nearly a decade, now, since consumer-level Windows was based on single-user DOS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Unix based Mach kernel at the core of OSX and Linux inherently make the assumption of the multi-user system .
Thus , privilege separation is build into the DNA of the system , and no app assumes you have root privileges .
Your whole premise is wrong .
At its core Windows NT is , if anything , * more * of a multiuser OS than the classic UNIX model you are talking about .
It 's time to update your knowledge past Windows 95 .
It 's nearly a decade , now , since consumer-level Windows was based on single-user DOS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The Unix based Mach kernel at the core of OSX and Linux inherently make the assumption of the multi-user system.
Thus, privilege separation is build into the DNA of the system, and no app assumes you have root privileges.
Your whole premise is wrong.
At its core Windows NT is, if anything, *more* of a multiuser OS than the classic UNIX model you are talking about.
It's time to update your knowledge past Windows 95.
It's nearly a decade, now, since consumer-level Windows was based on single-user DOS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278823</id>
	<title>DRM support? In the kernel?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244645400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean that every single person's argument against 'DRM' in the Windows kernel has now been retroactively invalidated? How delicious is that? Think of the cognitive dissonance that will ensue!</p><p>(Let me guess, you're going to actually read and research things before you make your scathing replies because you have to defend your point of view instead of running your mouth?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean that every single person 's argument against 'DRM ' in the Windows kernel has now been retroactively invalidated ?
How delicious is that ?
Think of the cognitive dissonance that will ensue !
( Let me guess , you 're going to actually read and research things before you make your scathing replies because you have to defend your point of view instead of running your mouth ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean that every single person's argument against 'DRM' in the Windows kernel has now been retroactively invalidated?
How delicious is that?
Think of the cognitive dissonance that will ensue!
(Let me guess, you're going to actually read and research things before you make your scathing replies because you have to defend your point of view instead of running your mouth?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28287635</id>
	<title>Re:In related news</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1244641020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say what you want about the glacial speed with which GNOME progresses.  Their developers don't rip out 2/3 of the features of their applications, and call it a " major upgrade."</p><p>There's also a key difference between 'minimalism' and 'feature-deprived'.  Apple understand this, and the GNOME team seem to be catching on.  XFce's flexibility also makes it a surprisingly good environment to work in, despite being billed as a 'bare bones' environment.  KDE almost certainly doesn't understand this distinction, and I'd frankly be surprised if they had any sort of UI-design review process in place.</p><p>Take a <a href="http://amarok.kde.org/files/amarok2.1.png" title="kde.org">look</a> [kde.org] at the most recent release of Amarok, and tell me how the user interface effectively helps the user complete the task that the program was designed to accomplish.  Now consider the percentage of screen real-estate that the application devotes to this task (it's around 30\%, although you could argue that it's even less than that).</p><p>Now compare it to Winamp's famous classic skin, which only takes up a fraction of a 640x480 monitor, has collapsable UI elements to make it smaller if desired, and offers more options to the user up-front with textually-labeled controls.  I can only guess what 1 of the 7 icons on the bottom right corner of the previously-linked screenshot actually do.  I'll give credit to the KDE team for moving away from the 'Dozens of identical-looking blue icons' paradigm, although the new standard frankly isn't much better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say what you want about the glacial speed with which GNOME progresses .
Their developers do n't rip out 2/3 of the features of their applications , and call it a " major upgrade .
" There 's also a key difference between 'minimalism ' and 'feature-deprived' .
Apple understand this , and the GNOME team seem to be catching on .
XFce 's flexibility also makes it a surprisingly good environment to work in , despite being billed as a 'bare bones ' environment .
KDE almost certainly does n't understand this distinction , and I 'd frankly be surprised if they had any sort of UI-design review process in place.Take a look [ kde.org ] at the most recent release of Amarok , and tell me how the user interface effectively helps the user complete the task that the program was designed to accomplish .
Now consider the percentage of screen real-estate that the application devotes to this task ( it 's around 30 \ % , although you could argue that it 's even less than that ) .Now compare it to Winamp 's famous classic skin , which only takes up a fraction of a 640x480 monitor , has collapsable UI elements to make it smaller if desired , and offers more options to the user up-front with textually-labeled controls .
I can only guess what 1 of the 7 icons on the bottom right corner of the previously-linked screenshot actually do .
I 'll give credit to the KDE team for moving away from the 'Dozens of identical-looking blue icons ' paradigm , although the new standard frankly is n't much better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say what you want about the glacial speed with which GNOME progresses.
Their developers don't rip out 2/3 of the features of their applications, and call it a " major upgrade.
"There's also a key difference between 'minimalism' and 'feature-deprived'.
Apple understand this, and the GNOME team seem to be catching on.
XFce's flexibility also makes it a surprisingly good environment to work in, despite being billed as a 'bare bones' environment.
KDE almost certainly doesn't understand this distinction, and I'd frankly be surprised if they had any sort of UI-design review process in place.Take a look [kde.org] at the most recent release of Amarok, and tell me how the user interface effectively helps the user complete the task that the program was designed to accomplish.
Now consider the percentage of screen real-estate that the application devotes to this task (it's around 30\%, although you could argue that it's even less than that).Now compare it to Winamp's famous classic skin, which only takes up a fraction of a 640x480 monitor, has collapsable UI elements to make it smaller if desired, and offers more options to the user up-front with textually-labeled controls.
I can only guess what 1 of the 7 icons on the bottom right corner of the previously-linked screenshot actually do.
I'll give credit to the KDE team for moving away from the 'Dozens of identical-looking blue icons' paradigm, although the new standard frankly isn't much better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281123</id>
	<title>NILF is News I'd Like To ...</title>
	<author>ChrisCampbell47</author>
	<datestamp>1244654880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the funniest Daily Show bits ever:</p><p><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=87155&amp;title=News-I'd-Like-to-F@#k" title="thedailyshow.com">http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=87155&amp;title=News-I\%27d-Like-to-F@#k</a> [thedailyshow.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the funniest Daily Show bits ever : http : //www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml ? videoId = 87155&amp;title = News-I \ % 27d-Like-to-F @ # k [ thedailyshow.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the funniest Daily Show bits ever:http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=87155&amp;title=News-I\%27d-Like-to-F@#k [thedailyshow.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278745</id>
	<title>DRM?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244645040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF?! Will the F/OSS people stop copying from Windows? Whats next WGA? Activation?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF ? !
Will the F/OSS people stop copying from Windows ?
Whats next WGA ?
Activation ? : -P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF?!
Will the F/OSS people stop copying from Windows?
Whats next WGA?
Activation? :-P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281809</id>
	<title>Elves</title>
	<author>Ltap</author>
	<datestamp>1244657520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> a new distributed networking filesystem (POHMELFS)</p></div><p>I always knew it would be "palm[-sized?] elves" that would bring us into the future!
<br> <br>
In all seriousness, they need to find a way to make their acronyms shorter, or make acronyms inside acronyms, HURD-style.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a new distributed networking filesystem ( POHMELFS ) I always knew it would be " palm [ -sized ?
] elves " that would bring us into the future !
In all seriousness , they need to find a way to make their acronyms shorter , or make acronyms inside acronyms , HURD-style .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> a new distributed networking filesystem (POHMELFS)I always knew it would be "palm[-sized?
] elves" that would bring us into the future!
In all seriousness, they need to find a way to make their acronyms shorter, or make acronyms inside acronyms, HURD-style.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280077</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244650560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh...  How about because virus coders create their product for the broadest possible market?... Windows.  If Linux were top-dog, don't you think there'd be as many Linux-based viruses?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh... How about because virus coders create their product for the broadest possible market ? .. .
Windows. If Linux were top-dog , do n't you think there 'd be as many Linux-based viruses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh...  How about because virus coders create their product for the broadest possible market?...
Windows.  If Linux were top-dog, don't you think there'd be as many Linux-based viruses?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28285449</id>
	<title>Re:POHMEL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244629140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The developer is Evegeny Poliakov: www.ioremap.net<br>I'm pretty sure it's related<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The developer is Evegeny Poliakov : www.ioremap.netI 'm pretty sure it 's related : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The developer is Evegeny Poliakov: www.ioremap.netI'm pretty sure it's related :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28285309</id>
	<title>Re:Thottle Capability</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1244628480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And for my own personal use, I'd love to be able to throttle a dos 6.22 VM to 486 speeds so some of those ancient programs can be ran for historical purposes. (Without bombing the processor with dummy NOP and other MOSLO crap so we keep our power consumption down.)</p></div></blockquote><p>I think the "correct" solution to that is a 486 hardware "emulator" that uses a timer to run the virtualized CPU's clock at a certain rate. You're not going to get very far telling Intel and AMD that they need an instruction to slow down their chips.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And for my own personal use , I 'd love to be able to throttle a dos 6.22 VM to 486 speeds so some of those ancient programs can be ran for historical purposes .
( Without bombing the processor with dummy NOP and other MOSLO crap so we keep our power consumption down .
) I think the " correct " solution to that is a 486 hardware " emulator " that uses a timer to run the virtualized CPU 's clock at a certain rate .
You 're not going to get very far telling Intel and AMD that they need an instruction to slow down their chips .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And for my own personal use, I'd love to be able to throttle a dos 6.22 VM to 486 speeds so some of those ancient programs can be ran for historical purposes.
(Without bombing the processor with dummy NOP and other MOSLO crap so we keep our power consumption down.
)I think the "correct" solution to that is a 486 hardware "emulator" that uses a timer to run the virtualized CPU's clock at a certain rate.
You're not going to get very far telling Intel and AMD that they need an instruction to slow down their chips.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279795</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1244649180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well the idea that NTFS got it right is funny to start with. Defrag??? I still have to freaking Defrag?<br>Take a look at the feature set of ZFS and NTFS and tell me that NTFS got it right.<br>Also Windows does have  few more file systems like Fat32 and VFat. You can also install EXT support in XP as well.<br>The real answer is that one file system doesn't work for everything. You only think that Windows has a single filesystem because that is the the default  option. If you install Ubuntu you will get EXT3 I think by default or maybe EXT4. I have not checked lately. You may never even know what file system you are using with some Linux distros. But.. Linux give you options that Windows just doesn't to use different file system that may fit your needs better.  If you are just going to use Linux as a desktop then just use the default and don't worry about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well the idea that NTFS got it right is funny to start with .
Defrag ? ? ? I still have to freaking Defrag ? Take a look at the feature set of ZFS and NTFS and tell me that NTFS got it right.Also Windows does have few more file systems like Fat32 and VFat .
You can also install EXT support in XP as well.The real answer is that one file system does n't work for everything .
You only think that Windows has a single filesystem because that is the the default option .
If you install Ubuntu you will get EXT3 I think by default or maybe EXT4 .
I have not checked lately .
You may never even know what file system you are using with some Linux distros .
But.. Linux give you options that Windows just does n't to use different file system that may fit your needs better .
If you are just going to use Linux as a desktop then just use the default and do n't worry about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well the idea that NTFS got it right is funny to start with.
Defrag??? I still have to freaking Defrag?Take a look at the feature set of ZFS and NTFS and tell me that NTFS got it right.Also Windows does have  few more file systems like Fat32 and VFat.
You can also install EXT support in XP as well.The real answer is that one file system doesn't work for everything.
You only think that Windows has a single filesystem because that is the the default  option.
If you install Ubuntu you will get EXT3 I think by default or maybe EXT4.
I have not checked lately.
You may never even know what file system you are using with some Linux distros.
But.. Linux give you options that Windows just doesn't to use different file system that may fit your needs better.
If you are just going to use Linux as a desktop then just use the default and don't worry about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280785</id>
	<title>Re:Intel integrated graphics now work properly</title>
	<author>Erikderzweite</author>
	<datestamp>1244653620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, thanks a lot for the info! These damn fonts were driving me nuts! Good to hear it's solved. I'll test it on my lappy now and if it flies -- gotta close that bugreport...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , thanks a lot for the info !
These damn fonts were driving me nuts !
Good to hear it 's solved .
I 'll test it on my lappy now and if it flies -- got ta close that bugreport.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, thanks a lot for the info!
These damn fonts were driving me nuts!
Good to hear it's solved.
I'll test it on my lappy now and if it flies -- gotta close that bugreport...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279499</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244648040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot Vista's famous WinFS.  Oh yeah.. that was dropped because they couldn't finish it in time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot Vista 's famous WinFS .
Oh yeah.. that was dropped because they could n't finish it in time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot Vista's famous WinFS.
Oh yeah.. that was dropped because they couldn't finish it in time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28320213</id>
	<title>Re:Trusted Computing Slithered In?</title>
	<author>Alsee</author>
	<datestamp>1244911800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If a company releases a cool gadget or computer with a TPM but doesn't give me the keys, then I simply don't buy that gadget.</i></p><p>By definition that means ALL TPMs.<br>The central design criteria for the TPM chip is that the master keys are locked inside and that the owner is forbidden to know or control those keys.</p><p><i>TPM, from my understanding, just makes it more difficult to tinker with things that were designed not to be tinkered with.</i></p><p>A fair percentage of laptops are already shipping with TPMs inside, and members of the Trusted Computing Group have explicitly stated the intention for TPMs to become standard hardware included on all computer motherboards.</p><p><i>TPM support in the kernel ultimately means little to me</i></p><p>Assuming they do go ahead with making TPMs standard on motherboards, and lets assume Microsoft revives their plan to make it a hardware requirement in order for a PC to be fully Certified Windows Compatible (Microsoft had intended exactly that for Vista, but it got cut along with all the other Vista cuts), yeah all the Linux support could indeed help push this TPM crap along. Linux is huge in webservers. And one of the things you can do with the TPM system is check if a website visitor is running any sort of adblocker. There are tons of websites out there that would absolutely JUMP at the chance to enforce ad views... to jump at the chance to block visitors who are running adblockers. If your computer doesn't have a TPM, or if you refuse to turn it on, then the website can't check if you running an adblocker. If you can't or won't comply with the TPM adlocker check then the presumption is that you are blocking ads, and the website will block you.</p><p>If this crap successfully goes forwards you could find yourself locked out of an increasing percentage of websites. The fact of Linux incorporating all of this TPM crap can indeed have a very real effect in helping it succeed. The more Linux business systems use the TPM the more general economic support there is for it to trickle out to general usage.</p><p>-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a company releases a cool gadget or computer with a TPM but does n't give me the keys , then I simply do n't buy that gadget.By definition that means ALL TPMs.The central design criteria for the TPM chip is that the master keys are locked inside and that the owner is forbidden to know or control those keys.TPM , from my understanding , just makes it more difficult to tinker with things that were designed not to be tinkered with.A fair percentage of laptops are already shipping with TPMs inside , and members of the Trusted Computing Group have explicitly stated the intention for TPMs to become standard hardware included on all computer motherboards.TPM support in the kernel ultimately means little to meAssuming they do go ahead with making TPMs standard on motherboards , and lets assume Microsoft revives their plan to make it a hardware requirement in order for a PC to be fully Certified Windows Compatible ( Microsoft had intended exactly that for Vista , but it got cut along with all the other Vista cuts ) , yeah all the Linux support could indeed help push this TPM crap along .
Linux is huge in webservers .
And one of the things you can do with the TPM system is check if a website visitor is running any sort of adblocker .
There are tons of websites out there that would absolutely JUMP at the chance to enforce ad views... to jump at the chance to block visitors who are running adblockers .
If your computer does n't have a TPM , or if you refuse to turn it on , then the website ca n't check if you running an adblocker .
If you ca n't or wo n't comply with the TPM adlocker check then the presumption is that you are blocking ads , and the website will block you.If this crap successfully goes forwards you could find yourself locked out of an increasing percentage of websites .
The fact of Linux incorporating all of this TPM crap can indeed have a very real effect in helping it succeed .
The more Linux business systems use the TPM the more general economic support there is for it to trickle out to general usage.-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a company releases a cool gadget or computer with a TPM but doesn't give me the keys, then I simply don't buy that gadget.By definition that means ALL TPMs.The central design criteria for the TPM chip is that the master keys are locked inside and that the owner is forbidden to know or control those keys.TPM, from my understanding, just makes it more difficult to tinker with things that were designed not to be tinkered with.A fair percentage of laptops are already shipping with TPMs inside, and members of the Trusted Computing Group have explicitly stated the intention for TPMs to become standard hardware included on all computer motherboards.TPM support in the kernel ultimately means little to meAssuming they do go ahead with making TPMs standard on motherboards, and lets assume Microsoft revives their plan to make it a hardware requirement in order for a PC to be fully Certified Windows Compatible (Microsoft had intended exactly that for Vista, but it got cut along with all the other Vista cuts), yeah all the Linux support could indeed help push this TPM crap along.
Linux is huge in webservers.
And one of the things you can do with the TPM system is check if a website visitor is running any sort of adblocker.
There are tons of websites out there that would absolutely JUMP at the chance to enforce ad views... to jump at the chance to block visitors who are running adblockers.
If your computer doesn't have a TPM, or if you refuse to turn it on, then the website can't check if you running an adblocker.
If you can't or won't comply with the TPM adlocker check then the presumption is that you are blocking ads, and the website will block you.If this crap successfully goes forwards you could find yourself locked out of an increasing percentage of websites.
The fact of Linux incorporating all of this TPM crap can indeed have a very real effect in helping it succeed.
The more Linux business systems use the TPM the more general economic support there is for it to trickle out to general usage.-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28285463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279093</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244646480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because filesystems are not condoms (one size fits all).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because filesystems are not condoms ( one size fits all ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because filesystems are not condoms (one size fits all).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28285809</id>
	<title>Re:POHMEL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A <a href="http://www.ioremap.net/node/22" title="ioremap.net" rel="nofollow">russian</a> [ioremap.net] wrote <a href="http://www.ioremap.net/projects/pohmelfs" title="ioremap.net" rel="nofollow">it</a> [ioremap.net].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A russian [ ioremap.net ] wrote it [ ioremap.net ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A russian [ioremap.net] wrote it [ioremap.net].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281497</id>
	<title>Re:2.8.x kernel soon?</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1244656320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's clear roadmap posted <a href="http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/3/2/247" title="lkml.org">here</a> [lkml.org] describing features and implications of version numbers.</p></div><p>Are you sure that's actually still accurate?  I've followed LWN and Kernel Newbies coverage of Linux releases for a while now, and have never seen any mention of a difference between even and odd third-level version numbers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's clear roadmap posted here [ lkml.org ] describing features and implications of version numbers.Are you sure that 's actually still accurate ?
I 've followed LWN and Kernel Newbies coverage of Linux releases for a while now , and have never seen any mention of a difference between even and odd third-level version numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's clear roadmap posted here [lkml.org] describing features and implications of version numbers.Are you sure that's actually still accurate?
I've followed LWN and Kernel Newbies coverage of Linux releases for a while now, and have never seen any mention of a difference between even and odd third-level version numbers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279497</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>peppepz</author>
	<datestamp>1244647980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot High Sierra, ISO9660, UDF.</p><p>And WinFS. Oh, wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot High Sierra , ISO9660 , UDF.And WinFS .
Oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot High Sierra, ISO9660, UDF.And WinFS.
Oh, wait...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280633</id>
	<title>Re:Trusted Computing Slithered In?</title>
	<author>rtkluttz</author>
	<datestamp>1244653020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I saw this and fumed up also. Trusted computing has shown up.</p><p>I should never have to prove anything about MY computer to a third party. If trusted computing doesn't work for the owner of the computer it is running on, why is it there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw this and fumed up also .
Trusted computing has shown up.I should never have to prove anything about MY computer to a third party .
If trusted computing does n't work for the owner of the computer it is running on , why is it there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw this and fumed up also.
Trusted computing has shown up.I should never have to prove anything about MY computer to a third party.
If trusted computing doesn't work for the owner of the computer it is running on, why is it there?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279269</id>
	<title>Re:POHMEL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244647260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Evgeniy Polyakov (the POHMELFS dev) sounds like a russian name. I guess he knows.</p><p>in soviet russia file systems name hangovers after you</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Evgeniy Polyakov ( the POHMELFS dev ) sounds like a russian name .
I guess he knows.in soviet russia file systems name hangovers after you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Evgeniy Polyakov (the POHMELFS dev) sounds like a russian name.
I guess he knows.in soviet russia file systems name hangovers after you</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28282473</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>Flammon</author>
	<datestamp>1244660100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You must be kidding right? There's tremendous code sharing and abstraction done in the kernel. Hardware specifics are placed in their own files but the rest is shared. Most hardware drivers work on all architectures and share common code. Here's one example, of many,  where code was consolidated. <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/243704/" title="lwn.net">i386 and x86\_64 merge</a> [lwn.net] Code sharing works because of well thought out abstractions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be kidding right ?
There 's tremendous code sharing and abstraction done in the kernel .
Hardware specifics are placed in their own files but the rest is shared .
Most hardware drivers work on all architectures and share common code .
Here 's one example , of many , where code was consolidated .
i386 and x86 \ _64 merge [ lwn.net ] Code sharing works because of well thought out abstractions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be kidding right?
There's tremendous code sharing and abstraction done in the kernel.
Hardware specifics are placed in their own files but the rest is shared.
Most hardware drivers work on all architectures and share common code.
Here's one example, of many,  where code was consolidated.
i386 and x86\_64 merge [lwn.net] Code sharing works because of well thought out abstractions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278809</id>
	<title>2.8.x kernel soon?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244645340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember when I was running the 2.4.29 kernel in Mandrake 9.0, when it jumped to the 2.6 kernel. Maybe some big improvements are in the wind...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember when I was running the 2.4.29 kernel in Mandrake 9.0 , when it jumped to the 2.6 kernel .
Maybe some big improvements are in the wind.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember when I was running the 2.4.29 kernel in Mandrake 9.0, when it jumped to the 2.6 kernel.
Maybe some big improvements are in the wind...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280447</id>
	<title>Re:Why another filesystem?!</title>
	<author>bl8n8r</author>
	<datestamp>1244652360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The number of Filesystems is related to interoperability.  It's not something you find much in proprietary software, so your confusion is understandable/excusable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The number of Filesystems is related to interoperability .
It 's not something you find much in proprietary software , so your confusion is understandable/excusable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The number of Filesystems is related to interoperability.
It's not something you find much in proprietary software, so your confusion is understandable/excusable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28293741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28285117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28285449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28285309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28289647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28285463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28320213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28288267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28282279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28284471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28287679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28284805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28286515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28282575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28283349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28291083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28320445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28282529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28358379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28282245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28285809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28283115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28287635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28291199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28292395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28282591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28282473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28286863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1243232_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1243232.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280243
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1243232.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278745
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1243232.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28293741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28289647
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1243232.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28292395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28285309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28284471
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1243232.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279239
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279659
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281497
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279625
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1243232.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281227
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28283349
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1243232.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28286515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28282279
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1243232.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279139
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279579
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1243232.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278739
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1243232.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28285809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28285449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1243232.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28282591
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1243232.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279843
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278915
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279283
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1243232.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280983
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1243232.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1243232.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280005
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1243232.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28320445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28285463
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28320213
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28282575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280409
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1243232.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28287635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28287679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1243232.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280661
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1243232.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279089
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281885
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279621
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28282473
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28358379
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28291199
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28282529
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279585
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279499
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279497
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279845
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28291083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28286863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28283115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279099
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281107
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28282245
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279903
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28288267
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279647
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279677
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280317
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28284805
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281821
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279523
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279093
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279563
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1243232.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28280785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28281943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28285117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279975
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1243232.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28278821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1243232.28279981
</commentlist>
</conversation>
