<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_15_1251228</id>
	<title>Mono Squeezed Into Debian Default Installation</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1245072540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:pallmall@mail.com" rel="nofollow">pallmall1</a> writes <i>"OS News reports that Debian developer Josselin Mouette got Tomboy accepted as a dependency for gnome in the next release of Debian (codenamed Squeeze).  While that may seem like nothing big (except for the 50 MByte size of the Tomboy package), Tomboy requires Mono &mdash; meaning that <a href="http://www.osnews.com/story/21660/Mono\_Part\_of\_Debian\_s\_Default\_Desktop\_Install\_">Mono will now be installed by default</a>.  Apparently, Debian doesn't have the same concerns over using specifications patented by Microsoft and licensed under <a href="http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/0/">undisclosed terms</a> that <a href="http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/06/fedora-is-concerned-about-mono.html">Red Hat does</a>.  Perhaps Debian doesn't believe that Microsoft might do something <a href="http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/05/14/ftc\_drops\_rambus\_antitrust\_case/">like Rambus did</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>pallmall1 writes " OS News reports that Debian developer Josselin Mouette got Tomboy accepted as a dependency for gnome in the next release of Debian ( codenamed Squeeze ) .
While that may seem like nothing big ( except for the 50 MByte size of the Tomboy package ) , Tomboy requires Mono    meaning that Mono will now be installed by default .
Apparently , Debian does n't have the same concerns over using specifications patented by Microsoft and licensed under undisclosed terms that Red Hat does .
Perhaps Debian does n't believe that Microsoft might do something like Rambus did .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pallmall1 writes "OS News reports that Debian developer Josselin Mouette got Tomboy accepted as a dependency for gnome in the next release of Debian (codenamed Squeeze).
While that may seem like nothing big (except for the 50 MByte size of the Tomboy package), Tomboy requires Mono — meaning that Mono will now be installed by default.
Apparently, Debian doesn't have the same concerns over using specifications patented by Microsoft and licensed under undisclosed terms that Red Hat does.
Perhaps Debian doesn't believe that Microsoft might do something like Rambus did.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28342337</id>
	<title>That is the way MS wants you to think.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1245069780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft has not put forward a single bit of evidence about somebody in the Linux world infringing their precious patents (where software patents apply, there is still hope that in vast swathes of this planet such lunacy is not allowed to happen).</p><p>That is why so many of us dislike Novel, Xandros &amp;  co with a passion: they gave credence to Microsoft's position without the monopoly abusers having to do as much as to say which patents they have been talking about.</p><p>Novell has given mixed signals about the deal, and have declared in many occasions that they are not infringing any patents, in which case one just don't understand why they got into bed with Microsoft in the first. Protection (have you seen any gangsters' movie?) comes to mind....</p><p>So to reiterate, no, nobody in Linux land has accepted that there is any infringing code in Linux. Educate yourself and stop to spread this unsubstantiated rumour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has not put forward a single bit of evidence about somebody in the Linux world infringing their precious patents ( where software patents apply , there is still hope that in vast swathes of this planet such lunacy is not allowed to happen ) .That is why so many of us dislike Novel , Xandros &amp; co with a passion : they gave credence to Microsoft 's position without the monopoly abusers having to do as much as to say which patents they have been talking about.Novell has given mixed signals about the deal , and have declared in many occasions that they are not infringing any patents , in which case one just do n't understand why they got into bed with Microsoft in the first .
Protection ( have you seen any gangsters ' movie ?
) comes to mind....So to reiterate , no , nobody in Linux land has accepted that there is any infringing code in Linux .
Educate yourself and stop to spread this unsubstantiated rumour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has not put forward a single bit of evidence about somebody in the Linux world infringing their precious patents (where software patents apply, there is still hope that in vast swathes of this planet such lunacy is not allowed to happen).That is why so many of us dislike Novel, Xandros &amp;  co with a passion: they gave credence to Microsoft's position without the monopoly abusers having to do as much as to say which patents they have been talking about.Novell has given mixed signals about the deal, and have declared in many occasions that they are not infringing any patents, in which case one just don't understand why they got into bed with Microsoft in the first.
Protection (have you seen any gangsters' movie?
) comes to mind....So to reiterate, no, nobody in Linux land has accepted that there is any infringing code in Linux.
Educate yourself and stop to spread this unsubstantiated rumour.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28339873</id>
	<title>Re:When taking a stand...</title>
	<author>Super\_Z</author>
	<datestamp>1245057060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People are afraid of a rerun of <a href="http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune\_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/" title="cnn.com">this</a> [cnn.com] story. Accusing people vary of Microsofts motives of "wearing tinfoil hats" strikes me as a bit naive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are afraid of a rerun of this [ cnn.com ] story .
Accusing people vary of Microsofts motives of " wearing tinfoil hats " strikes me as a bit naive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are afraid of a rerun of this [cnn.com] story.
Accusing people vary of Microsofts motives of "wearing tinfoil hats" strikes me as a bit naive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28344955</id>
	<title>Re:what a troll</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1245094860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Java is based on an open standard... the fully open-source reference JDK.</i></p><p>The purpose of a reference implementation is to serve as a reference for independent third party implementations that illustrates behavior (reference implementations are typically simple, clean, and low performance).  It's more than a decade after Java first appeared; where are the independent third party implementations that use OpenJDK as a reference?</p><p>In order for it to be a reference implementation, it would have to be a reference implementation of a standard, but there is no Java standard.  That's because the only way you can actually implement Java without infringing on Sun's intellectual property is if you pass their compatibility tests.  For practical purposes, you can't do that unless you actually sign a license agreement with them.  That's why Microsoft developed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET and Google developed Dalvik, deliberately incompatible implementations that work around Sun's intellectual property.</p><p>As for OpenJDK, you have two choices: you can use it under the GPL, which precludes many commercial uses, or you can license it from Sun.</p><p>Of course, it is good that we have the "OpenJDK" under the GPL now, compared to the situation before that.  But that's not the same as Java being an "open standard".  Compared to most other programming languages, Java is one of the most legally encumbered languages in existence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Java is based on an open standard... the fully open-source reference JDK.The purpose of a reference implementation is to serve as a reference for independent third party implementations that illustrates behavior ( reference implementations are typically simple , clean , and low performance ) .
It 's more than a decade after Java first appeared ; where are the independent third party implementations that use OpenJDK as a reference ? In order for it to be a reference implementation , it would have to be a reference implementation of a standard , but there is no Java standard .
That 's because the only way you can actually implement Java without infringing on Sun 's intellectual property is if you pass their compatibility tests .
For practical purposes , you ca n't do that unless you actually sign a license agreement with them .
That 's why Microsoft developed .NET and Google developed Dalvik , deliberately incompatible implementations that work around Sun 's intellectual property.As for OpenJDK , you have two choices : you can use it under the GPL , which precludes many commercial uses , or you can license it from Sun.Of course , it is good that we have the " OpenJDK " under the GPL now , compared to the situation before that .
But that 's not the same as Java being an " open standard " .
Compared to most other programming languages , Java is one of the most legally encumbered languages in existence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Java is based on an open standard... the fully open-source reference JDK.The purpose of a reference implementation is to serve as a reference for independent third party implementations that illustrates behavior (reference implementations are typically simple, clean, and low performance).
It's more than a decade after Java first appeared; where are the independent third party implementations that use OpenJDK as a reference?In order for it to be a reference implementation, it would have to be a reference implementation of a standard, but there is no Java standard.
That's because the only way you can actually implement Java without infringing on Sun's intellectual property is if you pass their compatibility tests.
For practical purposes, you can't do that unless you actually sign a license agreement with them.
That's why Microsoft developed .NET and Google developed Dalvik, deliberately incompatible implementations that work around Sun's intellectual property.As for OpenJDK, you have two choices: you can use it under the GPL, which precludes many commercial uses, or you can license it from Sun.Of course, it is good that we have the "OpenJDK" under the GPL now, compared to the situation before that.
But that's not the same as Java being an "open standard".
Compared to most other programming languages, Java is one of the most legally encumbered languages in existence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334429</id>
	<title>Re:Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1245076800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft may just have<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET patents and contracts for their own sake, as SOP. Pragmatically, it would be a mistake for them to sue Debian or Miguel. I think they realize that because they haven't yet gone after Miguel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft may just have .NET patents and contracts for their own sake , as SOP .
Pragmatically , it would be a mistake for them to sue Debian or Miguel .
I think they realize that because they have n't yet gone after Miguel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft may just have .NET patents and contracts for their own sake, as SOP.
Pragmatically, it would be a mistake for them to sue Debian or Miguel.
I think they realize that because they haven't yet gone after Miguel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28339813</id>
	<title>Re:Incredible horrifying bloat</title>
	<author>kelnos</author>
	<datestamp>1245056820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, that's much better.  50MB for a note-taking app is absolutely ludicrous.  5-6MB for a note-taking app is only garden-variety ridiculous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , that 's much better .
50MB for a note-taking app is absolutely ludicrous .
5-6MB for a note-taking app is only garden-variety ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, that's much better.
50MB for a note-taking app is absolutely ludicrous.
5-6MB for a note-taking app is only garden-variety ridiculous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334579</id>
	<title>Re:Incredible horrifying bloat</title>
	<author>suffix tree monkey</author>
	<datestamp>1245077700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, that is my problem with Mono (or C#, for that matter) as well. We can't expect small, lean applications written in C# because of the language's design. C# is only good for writing code blazingly fast. Which is kind of silly to me, because as a semi-experienced programmer, I know that writing code is the easier part of software development.</p><p>So yeah, the more Mono/C# apps we get into Debian, the slower and memory-hungry (and disk-hungry, but I find that a non-issue in general) it gets. However, most people with enough RAM just 'meh' it out, after all, there is no such thing as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page's\_law" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Page's Law</a> [wikipedia.org], right?</p><p>But it's not just Microsoft's products that bloat Debian. My personal windmills are applications like HAL, D-BUS, any gnome-*-daemon, any {Policy,Device,Console}Kit and so on. By the way, a useful hint - when a developer can't think of an original name and prefers to rip-off a name trendy at that time, expect the code to be as well thought-out as Nuka Cola Cherry.</p><p> <i>(I get agitated when software bloat is discussed, I know.)</i> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , that is my problem with Mono ( or C # , for that matter ) as well .
We ca n't expect small , lean applications written in C # because of the language 's design .
C # is only good for writing code blazingly fast .
Which is kind of silly to me , because as a semi-experienced programmer , I know that writing code is the easier part of software development.So yeah , the more Mono/C # apps we get into Debian , the slower and memory-hungry ( and disk-hungry , but I find that a non-issue in general ) it gets .
However , most people with enough RAM just 'meh ' it out , after all , there is no such thing as Page 's Law [ wikipedia.org ] , right ? But it 's not just Microsoft 's products that bloat Debian .
My personal windmills are applications like HAL , D-BUS , any gnome- * -daemon , any { Policy,Device,Console } Kit and so on .
By the way , a useful hint - when a developer ca n't think of an original name and prefers to rip-off a name trendy at that time , expect the code to be as well thought-out as Nuka Cola Cherry .
( I get agitated when software bloat is discussed , I know .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, that is my problem with Mono (or C#, for that matter) as well.
We can't expect small, lean applications written in C# because of the language's design.
C# is only good for writing code blazingly fast.
Which is kind of silly to me, because as a semi-experienced programmer, I know that writing code is the easier part of software development.So yeah, the more Mono/C# apps we get into Debian, the slower and memory-hungry (and disk-hungry, but I find that a non-issue in general) it gets.
However, most people with enough RAM just 'meh' it out, after all, there is no such thing as Page's Law [wikipedia.org], right?But it's not just Microsoft's products that bloat Debian.
My personal windmills are applications like HAL, D-BUS, any gnome-*-daemon, any {Policy,Device,Console}Kit and so on.
By the way, a useful hint - when a developer can't think of an original name and prefers to rip-off a name trendy at that time, expect the code to be as well thought-out as Nuka Cola Cherry.
(I get agitated when software bloat is discussed, I know.
) </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335841</id>
	<title>Re:what a troll</title>
	<author>slack\_justyb</author>
	<datestamp>1245083700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If anybody can point to an actual patent that Mono or Tomboy violate, please file an issue report against the Mono project;</p></div><p>
I know it is a bit old but, <a href="http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-984052.html" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">we'll file one once they publish which part they're going to patent</a> [cnet.com], of course, <a href="http://www.msversus.org/microsoft-response-to-net-patents.html" title="msversus.org" rel="nofollow"> that shouldn't be long.</a> [msversus.org]  <b>PS:</b>  The only complaint I have of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is the syntax of <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/netframework/aa904594.aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">LINQ,</a> [microsoft.com] but what'cha going do?
<br> <br>
Besides, anyone thinking that MS would attacking Linux using patents isn't giving Microsoft any credit.  I figure that they would try to kill Linux (GNOME proper, since GNOME != Linux) via contracts with Linux vendors as opposed to patents.  It just seems too obvious to go that (patents) route.  Linux isn't the problem with MS, it is more like the vendors pandering Linux that is.
<br> <br>
Also I develop on OpenJDK, <a href="http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo" title="java.net" rel="nofollow">I was wondering if you could provide a list of patents that the OpenJDK is infringing on?</a> [java.net]  I'm sure we could work out what it is that you feel is something we may have overlooked.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Mono is way ahead of languages like Java in that regard because, unlike Java, Mono is based on an open standard</p></div><p>
Could you clear that up?  I'm not sure I follow what you are talking about.  Is it because<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is a standard through an <a href="http://www.ecma-international.org/" title="ecma-international.org" rel="nofollow">organized body?</a> [ecma-international.org]  Whereas, <a href="http://jcp.org/en/home/index" title="jcp.org" rel="nofollow">Java is basically a community process with Sun at the head of the community?</a> [jcp.org]  If this is your beef with Java then what exactly is different between how Java is made versus something like, <a href="http://lkml.org/" title="lkml.org" rel="nofollow">Linux</a> [lkml.org] or <a href="http://savannah.gnu.org/mail/?group=hurd" title="gnu.org" rel="nofollow">GNU HURD?</a> [gnu.org]
<br> <br>
Besides, what is all this seemingly bad blood between<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET and Java?  I've been to many PDCs and the people behind<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET seem pretty accepting of Java much like the Samba - Microsoft love (which granted isn't awesome but it is still pretty good).  Also, the Mono devs are pretty cool people on IRC.  Really?  Do we need to build walls?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If anybody can point to an actual patent that Mono or Tomboy violate , please file an issue report against the Mono project ; I know it is a bit old but , we 'll file one once they publish which part they 're going to patent [ cnet.com ] , of course , that should n't be long .
[ msversus.org ] PS : The only complaint I have of .NET is the syntax of LINQ , [ microsoft.com ] but what'cha going do ?
Besides , anyone thinking that MS would attacking Linux using patents is n't giving Microsoft any credit .
I figure that they would try to kill Linux ( GNOME proper , since GNOME ! = Linux ) via contracts with Linux vendors as opposed to patents .
It just seems too obvious to go that ( patents ) route .
Linux is n't the problem with MS , it is more like the vendors pandering Linux that is .
Also I develop on OpenJDK , I was wondering if you could provide a list of patents that the OpenJDK is infringing on ?
[ java.net ] I 'm sure we could work out what it is that you feel is something we may have overlooked.Mono is way ahead of languages like Java in that regard because , unlike Java , Mono is based on an open standard Could you clear that up ?
I 'm not sure I follow what you are talking about .
Is it because .NET is a standard through an organized body ?
[ ecma-international.org ] Whereas , Java is basically a community process with Sun at the head of the community ?
[ jcp.org ] If this is your beef with Java then what exactly is different between how Java is made versus something like , Linux [ lkml.org ] or GNU HURD ?
[ gnu.org ] Besides , what is all this seemingly bad blood between .NET and Java ?
I 've been to many PDCs and the people behind .NET seem pretty accepting of Java much like the Samba - Microsoft love ( which granted is n't awesome but it is still pretty good ) .
Also , the Mono devs are pretty cool people on IRC .
Really ? Do we need to build walls ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anybody can point to an actual patent that Mono or Tomboy violate, please file an issue report against the Mono project;
I know it is a bit old but, we'll file one once they publish which part they're going to patent [cnet.com], of course,  that shouldn't be long.
[msversus.org]  PS:  The only complaint I have of .NET is the syntax of LINQ, [microsoft.com] but what'cha going do?
Besides, anyone thinking that MS would attacking Linux using patents isn't giving Microsoft any credit.
I figure that they would try to kill Linux (GNOME proper, since GNOME != Linux) via contracts with Linux vendors as opposed to patents.
It just seems too obvious to go that (patents) route.
Linux isn't the problem with MS, it is more like the vendors pandering Linux that is.
Also I develop on OpenJDK, I was wondering if you could provide a list of patents that the OpenJDK is infringing on?
[java.net]  I'm sure we could work out what it is that you feel is something we may have overlooked.Mono is way ahead of languages like Java in that regard because, unlike Java, Mono is based on an open standard
Could you clear that up?
I'm not sure I follow what you are talking about.
Is it because .NET is a standard through an organized body?
[ecma-international.org]  Whereas, Java is basically a community process with Sun at the head of the community?
[jcp.org]  If this is your beef with Java then what exactly is different between how Java is made versus something like, Linux [lkml.org] or GNU HURD?
[gnu.org]
 
Besides, what is all this seemingly bad blood between .NET and Java?
I've been to many PDCs and the people behind .NET seem pretty accepting of Java much like the Samba - Microsoft love (which granted isn't awesome but it is still pretty good).
Also, the Mono devs are pretty cool people on IRC.
Really?  Do we need to build walls?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336885</id>
	<title>Re:awkward fact, may ruin exciting story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245088140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's Debian, you have a choice.</p></div><p>How cute, they think that's a choice.</p><p>Sincerely, A Smug Gentoo User</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's Debian , you have a choice.How cute , they think that 's a choice.Sincerely , A Smug Gentoo User</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's Debian, you have a choice.How cute, they think that's a choice.Sincerely, A Smug Gentoo User
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334719</id>
	<title>People are still on dial-up</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1245078600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the more Mono/C# apps we get into Debian, the slower and memory-hungry (and disk-hungry, but I find that a non-issue in general) it gets.</p></div><p>Disk-hungry implies bandwidth-hungry. If you "find that a non-issue in general", you must not have friends or family who live in an area that doesn't have high-speed home Internet access.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>By the way, a useful hint - when a developer can't think of an original name and prefers to rip-off a name trendy at that time, expect the code to be as well thought-out as Nuka Cola Cherry.</p></div><p>And when app maintainers do think up an original name, such as "Karbon14" or "Sodipodi" or "Amarok" or "Totem", they get bitched at for not coming up with a name that suggests to newbies what the program does.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the more Mono/C # apps we get into Debian , the slower and memory-hungry ( and disk-hungry , but I find that a non-issue in general ) it gets.Disk-hungry implies bandwidth-hungry .
If you " find that a non-issue in general " , you must not have friends or family who live in an area that does n't have high-speed home Internet access.By the way , a useful hint - when a developer ca n't think of an original name and prefers to rip-off a name trendy at that time , expect the code to be as well thought-out as Nuka Cola Cherry.And when app maintainers do think up an original name , such as " Karbon14 " or " Sodipodi " or " Amarok " or " Totem " , they get bitched at for not coming up with a name that suggests to newbies what the program does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the more Mono/C# apps we get into Debian, the slower and memory-hungry (and disk-hungry, but I find that a non-issue in general) it gets.Disk-hungry implies bandwidth-hungry.
If you "find that a non-issue in general", you must not have friends or family who live in an area that doesn't have high-speed home Internet access.By the way, a useful hint - when a developer can't think of an original name and prefers to rip-off a name trendy at that time, expect the code to be as well thought-out as Nuka Cola Cherry.And when app maintainers do think up an original name, such as "Karbon14" or "Sodipodi" or "Amarok" or "Totem", they get bitched at for not coming up with a name that suggests to newbies what the program does.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338501</id>
	<title>Re:Red hat/Fedora improve, Debian/deb-based regres</title>
	<author>Lorien\_the\_first\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1245095460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like to know how that works out as I'm planning on doing the same (Ubuntu 9.04 64-bit---&gt; Fedora 11 32-bit).  Reason?  My DVD writer will no longer read/write DVD/CDs.  This was a brand new machine when I bought it.  And I've seen a lot of forum posts complaining about this.
<br> <br>
I'm also not too keen on promoting Microsoft technologies.  Even if they *have* been submitted to the ECMA.  After watching what they did with OOXML at the ECMA and then ISO, I'd rather avoid the drama.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to know how that works out as I 'm planning on doing the same ( Ubuntu 9.04 64-bit--- &gt; Fedora 11 32-bit ) .
Reason ? My DVD writer will no longer read/write DVD/CDs .
This was a brand new machine when I bought it .
And I 've seen a lot of forum posts complaining about this .
I 'm also not too keen on promoting Microsoft technologies .
Even if they * have * been submitted to the ECMA .
After watching what they did with OOXML at the ECMA and then ISO , I 'd rather avoid the drama .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to know how that works out as I'm planning on doing the same (Ubuntu 9.04 64-bit---&gt; Fedora 11 32-bit).
Reason?  My DVD writer will no longer read/write DVD/CDs.
This was a brand new machine when I bought it.
And I've seen a lot of forum posts complaining about this.
I'm also not too keen on promoting Microsoft technologies.
Even if they *have* been submitted to the ECMA.
After watching what they did with OOXML at the ECMA and then ISO, I'd rather avoid the drama.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337993</id>
	<title>Re:what a troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245093120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The reference JVM is also significantly faster than mono and somewhat faster than Microsoft CLR</p></div><p>Mono JIT and GC are slow as molasses compared to both JVM and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET. The rest of it is not as clear-cut, however.</p><p>In general, it is accepted wisdom that Java has 1) a better optimizing JIT; and 2) a more advanced GC. In practice, however,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET often ends up being faster, simply because the languages and the platform itself offer more optimization opportunities. For example,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET has value types, and standard class library uses them a lot - and they are obviously more efficient for specific cases. For Java to match this, it has to do escape analysis to determine where heap-allocated reference types are effectively used as if they were value types. Other examples include all methods in Java being virtual by default (whereas it's opt-in in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and has loads of somewhat useful other languages implementations that compile to it (Ruby, Python, Scala, Groovy, etc). So I'm not sure where you're pulling "way ahead" from.</p></div><p>Language-wise, both platforms are doing pretty well. For comparison with your list,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET has IronPython (which is in fact more up-to-date than Jython), IronRuby (which is still in alpha and generally less stable than JRuby), F#, and Boo.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reference JVM is also significantly faster than mono and somewhat faster than Microsoft CLRMono JIT and GC are slow as molasses compared to both JVM and .NET .
The rest of it is not as clear-cut , however.In general , it is accepted wisdom that Java has 1 ) a better optimizing JIT ; and 2 ) a more advanced GC .
In practice , however , .NET often ends up being faster , simply because the languages and the platform itself offer more optimization opportunities .
For example , .NET has value types , and standard class library uses them a lot - and they are obviously more efficient for specific cases .
For Java to match this , it has to do escape analysis to determine where heap-allocated reference types are effectively used as if they were value types .
Other examples include all methods in Java being virtual by default ( whereas it 's opt-in in .NET ) .and has loads of somewhat useful other languages implementations that compile to it ( Ruby , Python , Scala , Groovy , etc ) .
So I 'm not sure where you 're pulling " way ahead " from.Language-wise , both platforms are doing pretty well .
For comparison with your list , .NET has IronPython ( which is in fact more up-to-date than Jython ) , IronRuby ( which is still in alpha and generally less stable than JRuby ) , F # , and Boo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reference JVM is also significantly faster than mono and somewhat faster than Microsoft CLRMono JIT and GC are slow as molasses compared to both JVM and .NET.
The rest of it is not as clear-cut, however.In general, it is accepted wisdom that Java has 1) a better optimizing JIT; and 2) a more advanced GC.
In practice, however, .NET often ends up being faster, simply because the languages and the platform itself offer more optimization opportunities.
For example, .NET has value types, and standard class library uses them a lot - and they are obviously more efficient for specific cases.
For Java to match this, it has to do escape analysis to determine where heap-allocated reference types are effectively used as if they were value types.
Other examples include all methods in Java being virtual by default (whereas it's opt-in in .NET).and has loads of somewhat useful other languages implementations that compile to it (Ruby, Python, Scala, Groovy, etc).
So I'm not sure where you're pulling "way ahead" from.Language-wise, both platforms are doing pretty well.
For comparison with your list, .NET has IronPython (which is in fact more up-to-date than Jython), IronRuby (which is still in alpha and generally less stable than JRuby), F#, and Boo.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336291</id>
	<title>Re:what a troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245085440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello, it's Mr. Reading Comprehension Helper here!</p><p>The parent comment was referring to Mono being way ahead *in openness* and did not make any reference to technological progress.</p><p>(As a side note, a nitpicker would say that the "open standard" Java is standardized on its <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology\_Compatibility\_Kit" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">TCKs</a> [wikipedia.org], not a reference implementation. And the TCKs are not necessarily <a href="https://jdk.dev.java.net/javase\_ip\_issues.html" title="java.net" rel="nofollow">fully open</a> [java.net].)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello , it 's Mr. Reading Comprehension Helper here ! The parent comment was referring to Mono being way ahead * in openness * and did not make any reference to technological progress .
( As a side note , a nitpicker would say that the " open standard " Java is standardized on its TCKs [ wikipedia.org ] , not a reference implementation .
And the TCKs are not necessarily fully open [ java.net ] .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello, it's Mr. Reading Comprehension Helper here!The parent comment was referring to Mono being way ahead *in openness* and did not make any reference to technological progress.
(As a side note, a nitpicker would say that the "open standard" Java is standardized on its TCKs [wikipedia.org], not a reference implementation.
And the TCKs are not necessarily fully open [java.net].
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335337</id>
	<title>Re:When taking a stand...</title>
	<author>bluefoxlucid</author>
	<datestamp>1245081600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My whole issue with Mono and Java revolves around technical aspects of the implementations.  They are purely data-code confusion:  your executable code is data.</p><p>
For perspective, a normal application has a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.text (code) segment and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.bss (data) segment.  There's other stuff but let's keep this simple.  When the application loads,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.text gets mmap()ed into memory as the main executable or a library area (for shared objects), while<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.bss gets mapped as the heap or as library data (for shared objects).  When the same object gets mapped into memory by multiple programs, it gets shared until one side or the other alters it.
</p><p>
By contrast, a VM application loads the VM the same way, and then loads the application on top of it.  The application ships data (data) and code (data).  The 'code' gets translated into native instructions, which get executed.  Each copy of the program maps the files shared; but the code itself is private anonymous memory, meaning 50 copies of the same library loaded in different programs puts 50 copies in physical RAM, instead of 1 shared copy.  Further, whenever the code gets generated or altered, the processor has to shift it between the Dcache and the Icache, causing a mess and some minor performance issues; multiprocessor systems especially have some confusion with this sort of behavior, due to cache coherency algorithms and the need for processors to have a vague idea of what other processors are doing with memory.
</p><p>
Further, all of these solutions supply functionality through native code, both in the base VM and in libraries like Libpng and Libogg.  In normal operation, we can make non-executable memory non-executable (i.e. mprotect(...|PROT\_EXEC,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...) fails on non-executable memory segments), and executable memory non-writable (i.e. mprotect(...|PROT\_WRITE|PROT\_EXEC,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...) fails).  This used to be a PaX/Grsecurity thing, but SELinux has this functionality now.  The problem is we can't apply this to any address space associated with a VM; we could improve SELinux policy a bit and apply protections to everything but anonymous mappings, but that creates an approximately sealed environment.  There are other methods to tighten the seal, but none to perfectly seal a VM.
</p><p>
What all this means is Mono and Java applications consume more memory (due to lack of sharing) and are less secure than native C applications, due to susceptibility to buffer overflow and other bugs in the VM itself and bound native libraries that lead to code injection.  Mind you, the default configuration of a normal Linux system doesn't apply the tight security constraints we'd like to see; but they're impossible to apply fully to any process running a VM, because these constraints rely entirely on blocking all paths that lead to runtime-generated code execution.
</p><p>
And yes, Mono is made by Microsoft, blahblahblah, evil empire, fucking kill google, whatever.  See above for worthwhile arguments.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My whole issue with Mono and Java revolves around technical aspects of the implementations .
They are purely data-code confusion : your executable code is data .
For perspective , a normal application has a .text ( code ) segment and .bss ( data ) segment .
There 's other stuff but let 's keep this simple .
When the application loads , .text gets mmap ( ) ed into memory as the main executable or a library area ( for shared objects ) , while .bss gets mapped as the heap or as library data ( for shared objects ) .
When the same object gets mapped into memory by multiple programs , it gets shared until one side or the other alters it .
By contrast , a VM application loads the VM the same way , and then loads the application on top of it .
The application ships data ( data ) and code ( data ) .
The 'code ' gets translated into native instructions , which get executed .
Each copy of the program maps the files shared ; but the code itself is private anonymous memory , meaning 50 copies of the same library loaded in different programs puts 50 copies in physical RAM , instead of 1 shared copy .
Further , whenever the code gets generated or altered , the processor has to shift it between the Dcache and the Icache , causing a mess and some minor performance issues ; multiprocessor systems especially have some confusion with this sort of behavior , due to cache coherency algorithms and the need for processors to have a vague idea of what other processors are doing with memory .
Further , all of these solutions supply functionality through native code , both in the base VM and in libraries like Libpng and Libogg .
In normal operation , we can make non-executable memory non-executable ( i.e .
mprotect ( ... | PROT \ _EXEC , ... ) fails on non-executable memory segments ) , and executable memory non-writable ( i.e .
mprotect ( ... | PROT \ _WRITE | PROT \ _EXEC , ... ) fails ) .
This used to be a PaX/Grsecurity thing , but SELinux has this functionality now .
The problem is we ca n't apply this to any address space associated with a VM ; we could improve SELinux policy a bit and apply protections to everything but anonymous mappings , but that creates an approximately sealed environment .
There are other methods to tighten the seal , but none to perfectly seal a VM .
What all this means is Mono and Java applications consume more memory ( due to lack of sharing ) and are less secure than native C applications , due to susceptibility to buffer overflow and other bugs in the VM itself and bound native libraries that lead to code injection .
Mind you , the default configuration of a normal Linux system does n't apply the tight security constraints we 'd like to see ; but they 're impossible to apply fully to any process running a VM , because these constraints rely entirely on blocking all paths that lead to runtime-generated code execution .
And yes , Mono is made by Microsoft , blahblahblah , evil empire , fucking kill google , whatever .
See above for worthwhile arguments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My whole issue with Mono and Java revolves around technical aspects of the implementations.
They are purely data-code confusion:  your executable code is data.
For perspective, a normal application has a .text (code) segment and .bss (data) segment.
There's other stuff but let's keep this simple.
When the application loads, .text gets mmap()ed into memory as the main executable or a library area (for shared objects), while .bss gets mapped as the heap or as library data (for shared objects).
When the same object gets mapped into memory by multiple programs, it gets shared until one side or the other alters it.
By contrast, a VM application loads the VM the same way, and then loads the application on top of it.
The application ships data (data) and code (data).
The 'code' gets translated into native instructions, which get executed.
Each copy of the program maps the files shared; but the code itself is private anonymous memory, meaning 50 copies of the same library loaded in different programs puts 50 copies in physical RAM, instead of 1 shared copy.
Further, whenever the code gets generated or altered, the processor has to shift it between the Dcache and the Icache, causing a mess and some minor performance issues; multiprocessor systems especially have some confusion with this sort of behavior, due to cache coherency algorithms and the need for processors to have a vague idea of what other processors are doing with memory.
Further, all of these solutions supply functionality through native code, both in the base VM and in libraries like Libpng and Libogg.
In normal operation, we can make non-executable memory non-executable (i.e.
mprotect(...|PROT\_EXEC, ...) fails on non-executable memory segments), and executable memory non-writable (i.e.
mprotect(...|PROT\_WRITE|PROT\_EXEC, ...) fails).
This used to be a PaX/Grsecurity thing, but SELinux has this functionality now.
The problem is we can't apply this to any address space associated with a VM; we could improve SELinux policy a bit and apply protections to everything but anonymous mappings, but that creates an approximately sealed environment.
There are other methods to tighten the seal, but none to perfectly seal a VM.
What all this means is Mono and Java applications consume more memory (due to lack of sharing) and are less secure than native C applications, due to susceptibility to buffer overflow and other bugs in the VM itself and bound native libraries that lead to code injection.
Mind you, the default configuration of a normal Linux system doesn't apply the tight security constraints we'd like to see; but they're impossible to apply fully to any process running a VM, because these constraints rely entirely on blocking all paths that lead to runtime-generated code execution.
And yes, Mono is made by Microsoft, blahblahblah, evil empire, fucking kill google, whatever.
See above for worthwhile arguments.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334591</id>
	<title>Re:Yessss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245077880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Open and Closed source worlds are not exclusive and can happily co-exist with each other.</p></div><p>You mean a closed source browser can access an open source web server (or vice versa)? Sure. No one in the FSF is trying to prevent that, as far as I know. But if Microsoft decides to use its patent portfolio to pull the plug on Mono then there's a problem for all of us. Looks like the "stallmanists" might be on to something after all! Like it or not, you can't guarantee that Mono will still be legal next year.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open and Closed source worlds are not exclusive and can happily co-exist with each other.You mean a closed source browser can access an open source web server ( or vice versa ) ?
Sure. No one in the FSF is trying to prevent that , as far as I know .
But if Microsoft decides to use its patent portfolio to pull the plug on Mono then there 's a problem for all of us .
Looks like the " stallmanists " might be on to something after all !
Like it or not , you ca n't guarantee that Mono will still be legal next year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open and Closed source worlds are not exclusive and can happily co-exist with each other.You mean a closed source browser can access an open source web server (or vice versa)?
Sure. No one in the FSF is trying to prevent that, as far as I know.
But if Microsoft decides to use its patent portfolio to pull the plug on Mono then there's a problem for all of us.
Looks like the "stallmanists" might be on to something after all!
Like it or not, you can't guarantee that Mono will still be legal next year.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338997</id>
	<title>Re:Incredible horrifying bloat</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1245097020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..it only comes out to around 5-6 megs.</p><p>You do know that attitude is what is killing us.  It is an APPLET.  Only 5-6megs....  Of course it could be much worse.  Have a look at libgweather.  It lets the clock applet show the local weather.  On Fedora 10 it weighs in at 80MB, mostly a bunch of XML horror that nobody thought to gzip.</p><p>But with Tomboy/Mono it is the resident set that should be the dealbreaker.  Applets should not consume more RAM at idle than an entire POSIX environment would need to happily run in a generation ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ..it only comes out to around 5-6 megs.You do know that attitude is what is killing us .
It is an APPLET .
Only 5-6megs.... Of course it could be much worse .
Have a look at libgweather .
It lets the clock applet show the local weather .
On Fedora 10 it weighs in at 80MB , mostly a bunch of XML horror that nobody thought to gzip.But with Tomboy/Mono it is the resident set that should be the dealbreaker .
Applets should not consume more RAM at idle than an entire POSIX environment would need to happily run in a generation ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ..it only comes out to around 5-6 megs.You do know that attitude is what is killing us.
It is an APPLET.
Only 5-6megs....  Of course it could be much worse.
Have a look at libgweather.
It lets the clock applet show the local weather.
On Fedora 10 it weighs in at 80MB, mostly a bunch of XML horror that nobody thought to gzip.But with Tomboy/Mono it is the resident set that should be the dealbreaker.
Applets should not consume more RAM at idle than an entire POSIX environment would need to happily run in a generation ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28342935</id>
	<title>Re:what a troll</title>
	<author>man\_of\_mr\_e</author>
	<datestamp>1245074280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>ECMA is a standard body and IS NOT an API similar to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET. There's not such thing as ECMA APIs in your context</i></p><p>You're being obtuse.  He clearly means the API's that are published by ECMA as ECMA standards.</p><p><i>Microsoft submit C# to ECMA for open standard. This doesn't prevent them from filing a patent on its implementation at the same time. You can have an open standard with patent like OOXM, PDF, etc</i></p><p>There are no known patents on ECMA C# or CLI, or their ISO versions.  That doesn't stop MS from filing a patent that may cover it in the future, but as of right now, nobody has found any.  But then, Anyone can file a patent on any technology.  All they have to do is prove they did it first (the patent can come years afterwards).</p><p><i>Secondly, Python, Ruby and Perl do not have core that are patent ambiguous</i></p><p>Neither does ECMA/ISO C# and CLI.  Yes, Microsoft has some patents on things to do with web services and other parts of the Windows stack, but not the ECMA/C# stuff.  This is pure FUD.  "Microsoft *might" do this, or they *may* have that".  It's the definition of FUD.</p><p><i>Mono is just a direct implementation of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET which is patented.</i></p><p>No, Mono is a direct implementation of ECMA/ISO C#/CLI, which is *NOT* patented.  They also do implement some of the Windows stack, but they seperate that code and you are free to not use it if you want a patentless stack.</p><p><i>Do you know all of Microsoft patents? I guess not. Until then why should Linux take the risk when Balmer is touting that Linux violated 200+ Microsoft's patent.</i></p><p>So, if you're going to accept that Microsoft may have patents on Mono, why do you reject that Microsoft may have patents that cover Linux?  That's an illogical argument.</p><p>By your way of thinking, you should completely throw away Linux because Microsoft claims they have patents on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ECMA is a standard body and IS NOT an API similar to .NET .
There 's not such thing as ECMA APIs in your contextYou 're being obtuse .
He clearly means the API 's that are published by ECMA as ECMA standards.Microsoft submit C # to ECMA for open standard .
This does n't prevent them from filing a patent on its implementation at the same time .
You can have an open standard with patent like OOXM , PDF , etcThere are no known patents on ECMA C # or CLI , or their ISO versions .
That does n't stop MS from filing a patent that may cover it in the future , but as of right now , nobody has found any .
But then , Anyone can file a patent on any technology .
All they have to do is prove they did it first ( the patent can come years afterwards ) .Secondly , Python , Ruby and Perl do not have core that are patent ambiguousNeither does ECMA/ISO C # and CLI .
Yes , Microsoft has some patents on things to do with web services and other parts of the Windows stack , but not the ECMA/C # stuff .
This is pure FUD .
" Microsoft * might " do this , or they * may * have that " .
It 's the definition of FUD.Mono is just a direct implementation of .NET which is patented.No , Mono is a direct implementation of ECMA/ISO C # /CLI , which is * NOT * patented .
They also do implement some of the Windows stack , but they seperate that code and you are free to not use it if you want a patentless stack.Do you know all of Microsoft patents ?
I guess not .
Until then why should Linux take the risk when Balmer is touting that Linux violated 200 + Microsoft 's patent.So , if you 're going to accept that Microsoft may have patents on Mono , why do you reject that Microsoft may have patents that cover Linux ?
That 's an illogical argument.By your way of thinking , you should completely throw away Linux because Microsoft claims they have patents on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ECMA is a standard body and IS NOT an API similar to .NET.
There's not such thing as ECMA APIs in your contextYou're being obtuse.
He clearly means the API's that are published by ECMA as ECMA standards.Microsoft submit C# to ECMA for open standard.
This doesn't prevent them from filing a patent on its implementation at the same time.
You can have an open standard with patent like OOXM, PDF, etcThere are no known patents on ECMA C# or CLI, or their ISO versions.
That doesn't stop MS from filing a patent that may cover it in the future, but as of right now, nobody has found any.
But then, Anyone can file a patent on any technology.
All they have to do is prove they did it first (the patent can come years afterwards).Secondly, Python, Ruby and Perl do not have core that are patent ambiguousNeither does ECMA/ISO C# and CLI.
Yes, Microsoft has some patents on things to do with web services and other parts of the Windows stack, but not the ECMA/C# stuff.
This is pure FUD.
"Microsoft *might" do this, or they *may* have that".
It's the definition of FUD.Mono is just a direct implementation of .NET which is patented.No, Mono is a direct implementation of ECMA/ISO C#/CLI, which is *NOT* patented.
They also do implement some of the Windows stack, but they seperate that code and you are free to not use it if you want a patentless stack.Do you know all of Microsoft patents?
I guess not.
Until then why should Linux take the risk when Balmer is touting that Linux violated 200+ Microsoft's patent.So, if you're going to accept that Microsoft may have patents on Mono, why do you reject that Microsoft may have patents that cover Linux?
That's an illogical argument.By your way of thinking, you should completely throw away Linux because Microsoft claims they have patents on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334965</id>
	<title>Microsoft's trojan horse into Open-Source?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245079800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This debate seem to stem from a fear that this is Microsoft's trojan horse that's going to sneak it's way into open-source and blow it up with frivolous patent suits. Never mind that Microsoft has started licensing more and more programs (more) openly specifically to help the Mono platform. There are plenty of other problems with other vague patents granted in the US in use by open-source today. But they aren't getting as much attention.</p><p>There are plenty of good arguments against bloat and the quality of the programs depending on Mono. But this patent rational isn't one.</p><p>It's not even the entire framework that's affected by patents. Only a few parts. The worst that could happen would be that a few non-essential programs would have to be tweaked.</p><p>Now, as I see it. This is Open-Source's trojan horse into a huge community of commercial<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET developers that are ever more embracing open-source software.</p><p>Mono is the best way to let Windows developers transition into open-source environments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This debate seem to stem from a fear that this is Microsoft 's trojan horse that 's going to sneak it 's way into open-source and blow it up with frivolous patent suits .
Never mind that Microsoft has started licensing more and more programs ( more ) openly specifically to help the Mono platform .
There are plenty of other problems with other vague patents granted in the US in use by open-source today .
But they are n't getting as much attention.There are plenty of good arguments against bloat and the quality of the programs depending on Mono .
But this patent rational is n't one.It 's not even the entire framework that 's affected by patents .
Only a few parts .
The worst that could happen would be that a few non-essential programs would have to be tweaked.Now , as I see it .
This is Open-Source 's trojan horse into a huge community of commercial .NET developers that are ever more embracing open-source software.Mono is the best way to let Windows developers transition into open-source environments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This debate seem to stem from a fear that this is Microsoft's trojan horse that's going to sneak it's way into open-source and blow it up with frivolous patent suits.
Never mind that Microsoft has started licensing more and more programs (more) openly specifically to help the Mono platform.
There are plenty of other problems with other vague patents granted in the US in use by open-source today.
But they aren't getting as much attention.There are plenty of good arguments against bloat and the quality of the programs depending on Mono.
But this patent rational isn't one.It's not even the entire framework that's affected by patents.
Only a few parts.
The worst that could happen would be that a few non-essential programs would have to be tweaked.Now, as I see it.
This is Open-Source's trojan horse into a huge community of commercial .NET developers that are ever more embracing open-source software.Mono is the best way to let Windows developers transition into open-source environments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337375</id>
	<title>Re:Incredible horrifying bloat</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1245090420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know that writing code is the easier part of software development.</p></div><p>Just for curiosity's sake, what exactly do you consider to be the hard part of software development?  Testing?  Debugging?  Because writing in C# tends to make the debugging easier as well......</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that writing code is the easier part of software development.Just for curiosity 's sake , what exactly do you consider to be the hard part of software development ?
Testing ? Debugging ?
Because writing in C # tends to make the debugging easier as well..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that writing code is the easier part of software development.Just for curiosity's sake, what exactly do you consider to be the hard part of software development?
Testing?  Debugging?
Because writing in C# tends to make the debugging easier as well......
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28340041</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please correct me if I'm wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245057780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>May it have something that the qt libraries was free , but they where under gpl which meant any app linking into it had to be opensource,<br>i like opensource , but i wouldnt use it for the world if it enforced me to be opensource , think about any commercial app if libc was licensed the same way,<br>which for me atleast since i actually develop for the food on my table , i selected gtk at that time even tough qt is better and more cool stuff , i wanted a<br>toolkit which i could use for any project , not just my hobby projects.</p><p>Qt is now lgpl so its very nice , but the reason for the switch was because of gpl on a library. it was a insane thing on qt's part and actually( even stallmann agrees , and thats<br>why the lgpl was born ) they lost alot of revenue on this clause and messed up the community. think its a bit to late , im sure had there been a lgpl clause on qt from the start<br>it would have been the prime cross platform gui toolkit out there. almost on level with the boost lib which is the defacto c++ utility library.</p><p>if your not a developer i can see the , whats the deal , gpl is all the same , well its not.</p><p>If you make your project gpl(without the L infront) , anyone who uses the code has to release theyr code , which is a fair imo ,<br>
&nbsp; but with a library gpl licensed ( not lgpl it doesnt care , it just want that if you modify the library you have to post the code ) , you would be enforced to release your code for a totally separate app for just using what many would say is standard programming libs on a platform., thats why no libs is licensed as gpl except dual licensed shit where you have 2 versions , one where you are free to use in any app and you pay $9999 for the lib and one that is free that can only be used for "gpl" software , its a typical vendor locking scenario if you start to use it.</p><p>ooh and you say , well adobe f.ex should pay for it , they can afford it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. well take this scenario , i work as a developer consultant and cant really compete when i make a custom app for a client which noone outside ever cares about , the client will get all the source ofc , but when i tell them they have to pay $9999 since they dont wanna share theyr company secrets i am in big trouble , and for real why would i choose a lib like that when it doesnt cost me more than 30 mins to use a free to use for whatever you like lib.</p><p>anyways thats a thing of the past , but trollteck created this shit and tbh i hope they die since they are the ones who destroyed the linux desktop forever. but ofc kudos for them creating a excellent lib., but still i hope they burn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>May it have something that the qt libraries was free , but they where under gpl which meant any app linking into it had to be opensource,i like opensource , but i wouldnt use it for the world if it enforced me to be opensource , think about any commercial app if libc was licensed the same way,which for me atleast since i actually develop for the food on my table , i selected gtk at that time even tough qt is better and more cool stuff , i wanted atoolkit which i could use for any project , not just my hobby projects.Qt is now lgpl so its very nice , but the reason for the switch was because of gpl on a library .
it was a insane thing on qt 's part and actually ( even stallmann agrees , and thatswhy the lgpl was born ) they lost alot of revenue on this clause and messed up the community .
think its a bit to late , im sure had there been a lgpl clause on qt from the startit would have been the prime cross platform gui toolkit out there .
almost on level with the boost lib which is the defacto c + + utility library.if your not a developer i can see the , whats the deal , gpl is all the same , well its not.If you make your project gpl ( without the L infront ) , anyone who uses the code has to release theyr code , which is a fair imo ,   but with a library gpl licensed ( not lgpl it doesnt care , it just want that if you modify the library you have to post the code ) , you would be enforced to release your code for a totally separate app for just using what many would say is standard programming libs on a platform. , thats why no libs is licensed as gpl except dual licensed shit where you have 2 versions , one where you are free to use in any app and you pay $ 9999 for the lib and one that is free that can only be used for " gpl " software , its a typical vendor locking scenario if you start to use it.ooh and you say , well adobe f.ex should pay for it , they can afford it .. well take this scenario , i work as a developer consultant and cant really compete when i make a custom app for a client which noone outside ever cares about , the client will get all the source ofc , but when i tell them they have to pay $ 9999 since they dont wan na share theyr company secrets i am in big trouble , and for real why would i choose a lib like that when it doesnt cost me more than 30 mins to use a free to use for whatever you like lib.anyways thats a thing of the past , but trollteck created this shit and tbh i hope they die since they are the ones who destroyed the linux desktop forever .
but ofc kudos for them creating a excellent lib. , but still i hope they burn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>May it have something that the qt libraries was free , but they where under gpl which meant any app linking into it had to be opensource,i like opensource , but i wouldnt use it for the world if it enforced me to be opensource , think about any commercial app if libc was licensed the same way,which for me atleast since i actually develop for the food on my table , i selected gtk at that time even tough qt is better and more cool stuff , i wanted atoolkit which i could use for any project , not just my hobby projects.Qt is now lgpl so its very nice , but the reason for the switch was because of gpl on a library.
it was a insane thing on qt's part and actually( even stallmann agrees , and thatswhy the lgpl was born ) they lost alot of revenue on this clause and messed up the community.
think its a bit to late , im sure had there been a lgpl clause on qt from the startit would have been the prime cross platform gui toolkit out there.
almost on level with the boost lib which is the defacto c++ utility library.if your not a developer i can see the , whats the deal , gpl is all the same , well its not.If you make your project gpl(without the L infront) , anyone who uses the code has to release theyr code , which is a fair imo ,
  but with a library gpl licensed ( not lgpl it doesnt care , it just want that if you modify the library you have to post the code ) , you would be enforced to release your code for a totally separate app for just using what many would say is standard programming libs on a platform., thats why no libs is licensed as gpl except dual licensed shit where you have 2 versions , one where you are free to use in any app and you pay $9999 for the lib and one that is free that can only be used for "gpl" software , its a typical vendor locking scenario if you start to use it.ooh and you say , well adobe f.ex should pay for it , they can afford it .. well take this scenario , i work as a developer consultant and cant really compete when i make a custom app for a client which noone outside ever cares about , the client will get all the source ofc , but when i tell them they have to pay $9999 since they dont wanna share theyr company secrets i am in big trouble , and for real why would i choose a lib like that when it doesnt cost me more than 30 mins to use a free to use for whatever you like lib.anyways thats a thing of the past , but trollteck created this shit and tbh i hope they die since they are the ones who destroyed the linux desktop forever.
but ofc kudos for them creating a excellent lib., but still i hope they burn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335093</id>
	<title>As a .NET developer &amp; a Linux user</title>
	<author>BlueScreenOfTOM</author>
	<datestamp>1245080400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...I'm very excited by this.  I've been using Mono in Linux and OS X for a long time now and it has been working great.  I'm not sure what Microsoft will think of this, but from what I've read thus far (which is admittedly not a ton) they haven't been getting in Mono's way... in fact, I believe that they gave information to help the Mono project so that it could be leveraged for Silverlight.
<br> <br>
Who knows what Microsoft is going to do in the future, but for now I'm excited for Mono.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...I 'm very excited by this .
I 've been using Mono in Linux and OS X for a long time now and it has been working great .
I 'm not sure what Microsoft will think of this , but from what I 've read thus far ( which is admittedly not a ton ) they have n't been getting in Mono 's way... in fact , I believe that they gave information to help the Mono project so that it could be leveraged for Silverlight .
Who knows what Microsoft is going to do in the future , but for now I 'm excited for Mono .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I'm very excited by this.
I've been using Mono in Linux and OS X for a long time now and it has been working great.
I'm not sure what Microsoft will think of this, but from what I've read thus far (which is admittedly not a ton) they haven't been getting in Mono's way... in fact, I believe that they gave information to help the Mono project so that it could be leveraged for Silverlight.
Who knows what Microsoft is going to do in the future, but for now I'm excited for Mono.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337209</id>
	<title>Re:awkward fact, may ruin exciting story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245089700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the problem is, more or less, mental.</p><p>Let's put it this way: Because, as you see, FOSS projects must rely on Microsoft's innovation, so FOSS must be inferior to proprietary software (in general, and Microsoft in particular). Plus, if they rely Microsoft's innovation here, who knows if they steal other innovations somewhere else?</p><p>Sure, it is a choice, but why bother? Why not just give the user a purely free installation, after which they can (easily) install Microsoft-innovation should they so choose? Oh, I get it, it is because Debian project must be so afraid that the Free solution is not good enough, so they must provide back up (aka Microsoft technology)! See, FOSS is but a joke. Proprietary is the only way to go. Oh, maybe because installing new software in Debian must be very difficult, which involves in stealing more software, compiling drivers from scratch, and eating children. That's right, that's why Mono is needed.</p><p>To tell you the truth, I don't really care if Ubuntu includes Mono by default (because I default that distro to be broken anyway), but for Debian, one of the most important distro of GNU/Linux, to do this, well, I have not words to express my disappointment in the matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the problem is , more or less , mental.Let 's put it this way : Because , as you see , FOSS projects must rely on Microsoft 's innovation , so FOSS must be inferior to proprietary software ( in general , and Microsoft in particular ) .
Plus , if they rely Microsoft 's innovation here , who knows if they steal other innovations somewhere else ? Sure , it is a choice , but why bother ?
Why not just give the user a purely free installation , after which they can ( easily ) install Microsoft-innovation should they so choose ?
Oh , I get it , it is because Debian project must be so afraid that the Free solution is not good enough , so they must provide back up ( aka Microsoft technology ) !
See , FOSS is but a joke .
Proprietary is the only way to go .
Oh , maybe because installing new software in Debian must be very difficult , which involves in stealing more software , compiling drivers from scratch , and eating children .
That 's right , that 's why Mono is needed.To tell you the truth , I do n't really care if Ubuntu includes Mono by default ( because I default that distro to be broken anyway ) , but for Debian , one of the most important distro of GNU/Linux , to do this , well , I have not words to express my disappointment in the matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the problem is, more or less, mental.Let's put it this way: Because, as you see, FOSS projects must rely on Microsoft's innovation, so FOSS must be inferior to proprietary software (in general, and Microsoft in particular).
Plus, if they rely Microsoft's innovation here, who knows if they steal other innovations somewhere else?Sure, it is a choice, but why bother?
Why not just give the user a purely free installation, after which they can (easily) install Microsoft-innovation should they so choose?
Oh, I get it, it is because Debian project must be so afraid that the Free solution is not good enough, so they must provide back up (aka Microsoft technology)!
See, FOSS is but a joke.
Proprietary is the only way to go.
Oh, maybe because installing new software in Debian must be very difficult, which involves in stealing more software, compiling drivers from scratch, and eating children.
That's right, that's why Mono is needed.To tell you the truth, I don't really care if Ubuntu includes Mono by default (because I default that distro to be broken anyway), but for Debian, one of the most important distro of GNU/Linux, to do this, well, I have not words to express my disappointment in the matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336663</id>
	<title>Re:Another good reason to use KDE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245087120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that KDE 4.2 is still hideously slow and buggy, I guess it needs to be pushed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that KDE 4.2 is still hideously slow and buggy , I guess it needs to be pushed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that KDE 4.2 is still hideously slow and buggy, I guess it needs to be pushed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28343105</id>
	<title>Re:When taking a stand...</title>
	<author>telemachuszero</author>
	<datestamp>1245075720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd call myself anti-Mono, but only because I've actually tried to use it. Trying to load a folder of 100 camera JPEGs into F-Spot (on a Core 2 Duo with 4GB of RAM), and then seeing the entire GUI lock up for 3-4 minutes isn't my idea of a user friendly experience. For the GNOME Project, evidently it is.</p></div><p>"For the GNOME Project"? Why not say "for the F-Spot developers"? It uses the gnome libraries, but it's not an official gnome application.

Also, the current version is 0.5.0.3. Evidently the developers don't think it deserves to be marked 1.0 yet either. You can no doubt find badly implemented applications in nearly any language and framework around.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd call myself anti-Mono , but only because I 've actually tried to use it .
Trying to load a folder of 100 camera JPEGs into F-Spot ( on a Core 2 Duo with 4GB of RAM ) , and then seeing the entire GUI lock up for 3-4 minutes is n't my idea of a user friendly experience .
For the GNOME Project , evidently it is .
" For the GNOME Project " ?
Why not say " for the F-Spot developers " ?
It uses the gnome libraries , but it 's not an official gnome application .
Also , the current version is 0.5.0.3 .
Evidently the developers do n't think it deserves to be marked 1.0 yet either .
You can no doubt find badly implemented applications in nearly any language and framework around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd call myself anti-Mono, but only because I've actually tried to use it.
Trying to load a folder of 100 camera JPEGs into F-Spot (on a Core 2 Duo with 4GB of RAM), and then seeing the entire GUI lock up for 3-4 minutes isn't my idea of a user friendly experience.
For the GNOME Project, evidently it is.
"For the GNOME Project"?
Why not say "for the F-Spot developers"?
It uses the gnome libraries, but it's not an official gnome application.
Also, the current version is 0.5.0.3.
Evidently the developers don't think it deserves to be marked 1.0 yet either.
You can no doubt find badly implemented applications in nearly any language and framework around.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28340405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336677</id>
	<title>Re:Frist</title>
	<author>Actually, I do RTFA</author>
	<datestamp>1245087240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't believe that Microsoft will take legal action against Debian or Miguel, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least considering Microsoft's recent suicidal business divisions.</p></div></blockquote><p>What's mysterious about Microsoft's patent claims?   They offered "fair and non-descriminary pricing" or what-have-you as a condition of getting<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET to be an ISO standard.  Although not immediately obvious to me, I assume that's clear enough for someone out there to understand.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe that Microsoft will take legal action against Debian or Miguel , but it would n't surprise me in the least considering Microsoft 's recent suicidal business divisions.What 's mysterious about Microsoft 's patent claims ?
They offered " fair and non-descriminary pricing " or what-have-you as a condition of getting .NET to be an ISO standard .
Although not immediately obvious to me , I assume that 's clear enough for someone out there to understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe that Microsoft will take legal action against Debian or Miguel, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least considering Microsoft's recent suicidal business divisions.What's mysterious about Microsoft's patent claims?
They offered "fair and non-descriminary pricing" or what-have-you as a condition of getting .NET to be an ISO standard.
Although not immediately obvious to me, I assume that's clear enough for someone out there to understand.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28342295</id>
	<title>Re:Incredible horrifying bloat</title>
	<author>suffix tree monkey</author>
	<datestamp>1245069420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just for curiosity's sake, what exactly do you consider to be the hard part of software development?  Testing?  Debugging?  Because writing in C# tends to make the debugging easier as well......</p></div><p>The hard part would be designing the software correctly, choosing the appropriate data structures and algorithms, calculating the estimated algorithm complexity, planning all the features and making sure the code is extensible in the future (if there are plans for that).</p><p>For me, it's always paid out to spend as much time as possible thinking about the theoretical side. After that, you have a really good idea on what you want to do, and you don't have to stop and think about that code too much. But I admit, debugging and testing are the bothersome parts of software development - you can never eliminate them completely. Kudos to C# for trying to minimize time spent on those. It's a sad fact that a lot of coders think the design part can be skipped as well. (I'm not above those people, I used to code like that, too.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just for curiosity 's sake , what exactly do you consider to be the hard part of software development ?
Testing ? Debugging ?
Because writing in C # tends to make the debugging easier as well......The hard part would be designing the software correctly , choosing the appropriate data structures and algorithms , calculating the estimated algorithm complexity , planning all the features and making sure the code is extensible in the future ( if there are plans for that ) .For me , it 's always paid out to spend as much time as possible thinking about the theoretical side .
After that , you have a really good idea on what you want to do , and you do n't have to stop and think about that code too much .
But I admit , debugging and testing are the bothersome parts of software development - you can never eliminate them completely .
Kudos to C # for trying to minimize time spent on those .
It 's a sad fact that a lot of coders think the design part can be skipped as well .
( I 'm not above those people , I used to code like that , too .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just for curiosity's sake, what exactly do you consider to be the hard part of software development?
Testing?  Debugging?
Because writing in C# tends to make the debugging easier as well......The hard part would be designing the software correctly, choosing the appropriate data structures and algorithms, calculating the estimated algorithm complexity, planning all the features and making sure the code is extensible in the future (if there are plans for that).For me, it's always paid out to spend as much time as possible thinking about the theoretical side.
After that, you have a really good idea on what you want to do, and you don't have to stop and think about that code too much.
But I admit, debugging and testing are the bothersome parts of software development - you can never eliminate them completely.
Kudos to C# for trying to minimize time spent on those.
It's a sad fact that a lot of coders think the design part can be skipped as well.
(I'm not above those people, I used to code like that, too.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28342883</id>
	<title>Re:what a troll</title>
	<author>man\_of\_mr\_e</author>
	<datestamp>1245073740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is literally true, but very misleading. Microsoft has ECMA bless<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET from time to time</i></p><p>And of course ISO as well.  You did know that C# and the CLI are ISO standards as well, right?</p><p>Sun attempted to put Java through the PAS system 2 or 3 times, but pulled out every time, pissing off people that had done a lot of work and ended up with nothing.</p><p>JCP is meaningless.  It's an advisory board.  Sun has no requirement to listen to the JCP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is literally true , but very misleading .
Microsoft has ECMA bless .NET from time to timeAnd of course ISO as well .
You did know that C # and the CLI are ISO standards as well , right ? Sun attempted to put Java through the PAS system 2 or 3 times , but pulled out every time , pissing off people that had done a lot of work and ended up with nothing.JCP is meaningless .
It 's an advisory board .
Sun has no requirement to listen to the JCP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is literally true, but very misleading.
Microsoft has ECMA bless .NET from time to timeAnd of course ISO as well.
You did know that C# and the CLI are ISO standards as well, right?Sun attempted to put Java through the PAS system 2 or 3 times, but pulled out every time, pissing off people that had done a lot of work and ended up with nothing.JCP is meaningless.
It's an advisory board.
Sun has no requirement to listen to the JCP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335029</id>
	<title>Re:An interesting read on the subject</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245080040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul> <li>"Mono is not the result of any deals between Novell and Microsoft. " but it is explicitly affected by them. Novell bought Mono then MS bought Novell's good will.</li><li>Pushing  Mono in the default risks making OIN waste a lot of money defending against MS in a case they can certainly win. As MS holds patents for this technology some of which are not covered by any of their promises not to sue. After OIN dies a terrible die for defending this Mono tantrum, all the other OIN-protected projects will be at risk. Great.</li><li>Still no way to get any Royalty-free license, regardles of what Jo claims.</li></ul><p>
"GREAT APPS" none of which are really needed. Everybody who is used to good desktop photo software hates F-spot just as much as g-thumb. Some people like tomboy but they couldn't differentiate it from g-note. Rhythmbox is acclaimed the second best music libray player, just after Amarok (which regardles of the WE WANT GREAT APPS mantra, is not in the ubuntu default, odd?) Banshee is still, far , far, far<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,fAR aways. For some reason Jo just forgets about the GREAT APPS mantra when he pushes Banshee out of a mythical package size argument! Of course, just dumping Mono altogether and replacing F-spot with gthumb and tomboy with gnote would boost freaking tens of megabytes, unlike the mere 6 MB that replacing Rhythmbox with Banshee would. What's worse are the attempts to smear against Rhythmbox development when it didn't stop:  <a href="http://meandubuntu.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/disinformation-disinfected-pt-3-banshee-in-ubuntu/" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">more info</a> [wordpress.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Mono is not the result of any deals between Novell and Microsoft .
" but it is explicitly affected by them .
Novell bought Mono then MS bought Novell 's good will.Pushing Mono in the default risks making OIN waste a lot of money defending against MS in a case they can certainly win .
As MS holds patents for this technology some of which are not covered by any of their promises not to sue .
After OIN dies a terrible die for defending this Mono tantrum , all the other OIN-protected projects will be at risk .
Great.Still no way to get any Royalty-free license , regardles of what Jo claims .
" GREAT APPS " none of which are really needed .
Everybody who is used to good desktop photo software hates F-spot just as much as g-thumb .
Some people like tomboy but they could n't differentiate it from g-note .
Rhythmbox is acclaimed the second best music libray player , just after Amarok ( which regardles of the WE WANT GREAT APPS mantra , is not in the ubuntu default , odd ?
) Banshee is still , far , far , far ,fAR aways .
For some reason Jo just forgets about the GREAT APPS mantra when he pushes Banshee out of a mythical package size argument !
Of course , just dumping Mono altogether and replacing F-spot with gthumb and tomboy with gnote would boost freaking tens of megabytes , unlike the mere 6 MB that replacing Rhythmbox with Banshee would .
What 's worse are the attempts to smear against Rhythmbox development when it did n't stop : more info [ wordpress.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Mono is not the result of any deals between Novell and Microsoft.
" but it is explicitly affected by them.
Novell bought Mono then MS bought Novell's good will.Pushing  Mono in the default risks making OIN waste a lot of money defending against MS in a case they can certainly win.
As MS holds patents for this technology some of which are not covered by any of their promises not to sue.
After OIN dies a terrible die for defending this Mono tantrum, all the other OIN-protected projects will be at risk.
Great.Still no way to get any Royalty-free license, regardles of what Jo claims.
"GREAT APPS" none of which are really needed.
Everybody who is used to good desktop photo software hates F-spot just as much as g-thumb.
Some people like tomboy but they couldn't differentiate it from g-note.
Rhythmbox is acclaimed the second best music libray player, just after Amarok (which regardles of the WE WANT GREAT APPS mantra, is not in the ubuntu default, odd?
) Banshee is still, far , far, far ,fAR aways.
For some reason Jo just forgets about the GREAT APPS mantra when he pushes Banshee out of a mythical package size argument!
Of course, just dumping Mono altogether and replacing F-spot with gthumb and tomboy with gnote would boost freaking tens of megabytes, unlike the mere 6 MB that replacing Rhythmbox with Banshee would.
What's worse are the attempts to smear against Rhythmbox development when it didn't stop:  more info [wordpress.com] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28341297</id>
	<title>I have no problems with Mono in its place</title>
	<author>Xtifr</author>
	<datestamp>1245063480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that I hate Mono--I just don't want it inflicted as a dependency of one of the standard (the better of the two big, IMO) Linux desktops.  People who want/use Mono, like people who want/use Java should be free to install it and run it for whatever they want, and share free (and Free) apps amongst themselves, but I've already got about a dozen programming languages and runtimes installed, and I DO NOT WANT OR NEED this huge, bloated monstrosity (hugeness, bloatedness and monstrousness all confirmed when I manually purged the beast after the <em>last</em> time some lame dependency dragged it onto my system).</p><p>Heck, I came within inches, last year, of using Mono for a port from C#/.NET to Linux, and I would have been perfectly happy if that's the direction we'd chosen (although I'm pleased to say that our C++ port is working beautifully now), but I <em>still</em> don't want it embedded into my <em>desktop</em>!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that I hate Mono--I just do n't want it inflicted as a dependency of one of the standard ( the better of the two big , IMO ) Linux desktops .
People who want/use Mono , like people who want/use Java should be free to install it and run it for whatever they want , and share free ( and Free ) apps amongst themselves , but I 've already got about a dozen programming languages and runtimes installed , and I DO NOT WANT OR NEED this huge , bloated monstrosity ( hugeness , bloatedness and monstrousness all confirmed when I manually purged the beast after the last time some lame dependency dragged it onto my system ) .Heck , I came within inches , last year , of using Mono for a port from C # /.NET to Linux , and I would have been perfectly happy if that 's the direction we 'd chosen ( although I 'm pleased to say that our C + + port is working beautifully now ) , but I still do n't want it embedded into my desktop !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that I hate Mono--I just don't want it inflicted as a dependency of one of the standard (the better of the two big, IMO) Linux desktops.
People who want/use Mono, like people who want/use Java should be free to install it and run it for whatever they want, and share free (and Free) apps amongst themselves, but I've already got about a dozen programming languages and runtimes installed, and I DO NOT WANT OR NEED this huge, bloated monstrosity (hugeness, bloatedness and monstrousness all confirmed when I manually purged the beast after the last time some lame dependency dragged it onto my system).Heck, I came within inches, last year, of using Mono for a port from C#/.NET to Linux, and I would have been perfectly happy if that's the direction we'd chosen (although I'm pleased to say that our C++ port is working beautifully now), but I still don't want it embedded into my desktop!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335191</id>
	<title>Re:what a troll</title>
	<author>0xABADC0DA</author>
	<datestamp>1245080880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Furthermore, Mono is way ahead of languages like Java in that regard because, unlike Java, Mono is based on an open standard and there are no known patents on the language core or core libraries.</p></div><p>Java is based on an open standard... the fully open-source <a href="http://openjdk.java.net/" title="java.net">reference JDK</a> [java.net].</p><p>The reference JVM is also significantly faster than mono and somewhat faster than Microsoft CLR and has loads of somewhat useful other languages implementations that compile to it (Ruby, Python, Scala, Groovy, etc).  So I'm not sure where you're pulling "way ahead" from.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Furthermore , Mono is way ahead of languages like Java in that regard because , unlike Java , Mono is based on an open standard and there are no known patents on the language core or core libraries.Java is based on an open standard... the fully open-source reference JDK [ java.net ] .The reference JVM is also significantly faster than mono and somewhat faster than Microsoft CLR and has loads of somewhat useful other languages implementations that compile to it ( Ruby , Python , Scala , Groovy , etc ) .
So I 'm not sure where you 're pulling " way ahead " from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Furthermore, Mono is way ahead of languages like Java in that regard because, unlike Java, Mono is based on an open standard and there are no known patents on the language core or core libraries.Java is based on an open standard... the fully open-source reference JDK [java.net].The reference JVM is also significantly faster than mono and somewhat faster than Microsoft CLR and has loads of somewhat useful other languages implementations that compile to it (Ruby, Python, Scala, Groovy, etc).
So I'm not sure where you're pulling "way ahead" from.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334991</id>
	<title>Re:Yay First Post</title>
	<author>Dan Ost</author>
	<datestamp>1245079920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, exactly, is Microsoft going to do with this information?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , exactly , is Microsoft going to do with this information ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, exactly, is Microsoft going to do with this information?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28339071</id>
	<title>Re:Incredible horrifying bloat</title>
	<author>StrawberryFrog</author>
	<datestamp>1245097260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> We can't expect small, lean applications written in C# because of the language's design. </i></p><p>Why not? What design feature stops this?</p><p><i>C# is only good for writing code blazingly fast. Which is kind of silly to me, because as a semi-experienced programmer, I know that writing code is the easier part of software development.</i></p><p>Indeed, you need readable, maintainable, performant code. Which is why I use C#. You were expecting perl maybe?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We ca n't expect small , lean applications written in C # because of the language 's design .
Why not ?
What design feature stops this ? C # is only good for writing code blazingly fast .
Which is kind of silly to me , because as a semi-experienced programmer , I know that writing code is the easier part of software development.Indeed , you need readable , maintainable , performant code .
Which is why I use C # .
You were expecting perl maybe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> We can't expect small, lean applications written in C# because of the language's design.
Why not?
What design feature stops this?C# is only good for writing code blazingly fast.
Which is kind of silly to me, because as a semi-experienced programmer, I know that writing code is the easier part of software development.Indeed, you need readable, maintainable, performant code.
Which is why I use C#.
You were expecting perl maybe?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338523</id>
	<title>Re:awkward fact, may ruin exciting story</title>
	<author>Lorien\_the\_first\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1245095580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, you have a good point there...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you have a good point there.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you have a good point there...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336433</id>
	<title>Re:Default installation?</title>
	<author>fast turtle</author>
	<datestamp>1245086100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>which is one more reason I hate Gnome and use either KDE or one of the lightweight WM's like fluxbox/FVWM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>which is one more reason I hate Gnome and use either KDE or one of the lightweight WM 's like fluxbox/FVWM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>which is one more reason I hate Gnome and use either KDE or one of the lightweight WM's like fluxbox/FVWM</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336259</id>
	<title>Re:awkward fact, may ruin exciting story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245085320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have lost this argument.</p><p>Simply because you are unnecessarily acting like an arsehole to lots of people.</p><p>If you have nothing civil to say.  Shut up.<br>Mod me troll if you wish, but I've seen the same behaviour on slashdot, the debian bug, and both parties blogs.</p><p>I'd never heard about either party prior to this slashdot story, and now I'd wish I'd never heard of one of the parties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have lost this argument.Simply because you are unnecessarily acting like an arsehole to lots of people.If you have nothing civil to say .
Shut up.Mod me troll if you wish , but I 've seen the same behaviour on slashdot , the debian bug , and both parties blogs.I 'd never heard about either party prior to this slashdot story , and now I 'd wish I 'd never heard of one of the parties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have lost this argument.Simply because you are unnecessarily acting like an arsehole to lots of people.If you have nothing civil to say.
Shut up.Mod me troll if you wish, but I've seen the same behaviour on slashdot, the debian bug, and both parties blogs.I'd never heard about either party prior to this slashdot story, and now I'd wish I'd never heard of one of the parties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338387</id>
	<title>Re:Incredible horrifying bloat</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1245095040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When dependencies are included, the picture gets a little muddy, but in this case, it's reasonable to do so. Essentially, since a default desktop install will pull in all of mono ONLY to satisfy tomboy's dependencies, mono's size needs to be added to the effective weight.</p><p>Things like glibc are not part of it's weight because it is used by a great many things by default and practically nothing can be installed without it.. Instead, glibc's weight is added to the weight of the minimum install.</p><p>Put another way, the weights of dependencies are added to the topmost element required for a credible install of that feature. Mono's weight isn't added to Gnome since an install of Gnome without Tomboy is perfectly credible. In turn, the weight of Gnome isn't added to that of X because X without Gnome is also credible. Instead, the weight of the smallest useful window manager should be added to X since X with no window manager at all, while possible and even desirable for a few niche cases, isn't really credible for a typical use.</p><p>Questions of exactly what is 'credible' is where the mud comes in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When dependencies are included , the picture gets a little muddy , but in this case , it 's reasonable to do so .
Essentially , since a default desktop install will pull in all of mono ONLY to satisfy tomboy 's dependencies , mono 's size needs to be added to the effective weight.Things like glibc are not part of it 's weight because it is used by a great many things by default and practically nothing can be installed without it.. Instead , glibc 's weight is added to the weight of the minimum install.Put another way , the weights of dependencies are added to the topmost element required for a credible install of that feature .
Mono 's weight is n't added to Gnome since an install of Gnome without Tomboy is perfectly credible .
In turn , the weight of Gnome is n't added to that of X because X without Gnome is also credible .
Instead , the weight of the smallest useful window manager should be added to X since X with no window manager at all , while possible and even desirable for a few niche cases , is n't really credible for a typical use.Questions of exactly what is 'credible ' is where the mud comes in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When dependencies are included, the picture gets a little muddy, but in this case, it's reasonable to do so.
Essentially, since a default desktop install will pull in all of mono ONLY to satisfy tomboy's dependencies, mono's size needs to be added to the effective weight.Things like glibc are not part of it's weight because it is used by a great many things by default and practically nothing can be installed without it.. Instead, glibc's weight is added to the weight of the minimum install.Put another way, the weights of dependencies are added to the topmost element required for a credible install of that feature.
Mono's weight isn't added to Gnome since an install of Gnome without Tomboy is perfectly credible.
In turn, the weight of Gnome isn't added to that of X because X without Gnome is also credible.
Instead, the weight of the smallest useful window manager should be added to X since X with no window manager at all, while possible and even desirable for a few niche cases, isn't really credible for a typical use.Questions of exactly what is 'credible' is where the mud comes in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28347387</id>
	<title>Why oh Why</title>
	<author>medoc</author>
	<datestamp>1245166320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if c# is marginally better than java or python or (insert favorite opponent here), this seems a really weak reason to insert a huge piece of Microsoft property into the heart of Free Software. I can't understand why Mono has happened and why this contamination is going on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if c # is marginally better than java or python or ( insert favorite opponent here ) , this seems a really weak reason to insert a huge piece of Microsoft property into the heart of Free Software .
I ca n't understand why Mono has happened and why this contamination is going on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if c# is marginally better than java or python or (insert favorite opponent here), this seems a really weak reason to insert a huge piece of Microsoft property into the heart of Free Software.
I can't understand why Mono has happened and why this contamination is going on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334717</id>
	<title>Re:Incredible horrifying bloat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245078600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>(which are used by other programs as well)</p></div> </blockquote><p>
Except these other programs are not included as a gnome dependency...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( which are used by other programs as well ) Except these other programs are not included as a gnome dependency.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(which are used by other programs as well) 
Except these other programs are not included as a gnome dependency...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336705</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please correct me if I'm wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245087300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until recently, Qt wasn't licensed under a license that the FSF considered 'open', because it had certain clauses that restricted commercial usage, IIRC. Mono is actually open. The only reason that people are claiming that Mono somehow isn't free is because there's a slim possibility of Microsoft being able to say that it's infringing on a patent. The actual license is accepted by the FSF.</p><p>IMO, the chances of Microsoft killing Mono are less than them doing it to Linux in general. Microsoft wants Mono around, since it means that apps written for linux, in mono, can work on Windows too. People need to realize that companies like MS aren't motivated by 'hate' towards OSS, they do what's in the best interests of their bottom line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until recently , Qt was n't licensed under a license that the FSF considered 'open ' , because it had certain clauses that restricted commercial usage , IIRC .
Mono is actually open .
The only reason that people are claiming that Mono somehow is n't free is because there 's a slim possibility of Microsoft being able to say that it 's infringing on a patent .
The actual license is accepted by the FSF.IMO , the chances of Microsoft killing Mono are less than them doing it to Linux in general .
Microsoft wants Mono around , since it means that apps written for linux , in mono , can work on Windows too .
People need to realize that companies like MS are n't motivated by 'hate ' towards OSS , they do what 's in the best interests of their bottom line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until recently, Qt wasn't licensed under a license that the FSF considered 'open', because it had certain clauses that restricted commercial usage, IIRC.
Mono is actually open.
The only reason that people are claiming that Mono somehow isn't free is because there's a slim possibility of Microsoft being able to say that it's infringing on a patent.
The actual license is accepted by the FSF.IMO, the chances of Microsoft killing Mono are less than them doing it to Linux in general.
Microsoft wants Mono around, since it means that apps written for linux, in mono, can work on Windows too.
People need to realize that companies like MS aren't motivated by 'hate' towards OSS, they do what's in the best interests of their bottom line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336271</id>
	<title>Re:Red hat/Fedora improve, Debian/deb-based regres</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245085380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just so everyone else isn't snowed by this post, Fedora has not dropped mono and currently has no plans to, they have only said <i>"we'll continue to look at it with our legal counsel to see what if any steps are needed on our part"</i>. The recent push to include mono based Banshee by default instead of Rhythmbox in Fedora and Ubuntu was caused by the one of the main Rhythmbox developers saying that rhythmbox has <i>"several limitations"</i> and that he was going to <i>"still fix (some) bugs and review patches, but it's too much of a dead end for me to do more than that"</i>, leading many to believe it is in maintenance only mode. Not, as the parent says "Mono zealots".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just so everyone else is n't snowed by this post , Fedora has not dropped mono and currently has no plans to , they have only said " we 'll continue to look at it with our legal counsel to see what if any steps are needed on our part " .
The recent push to include mono based Banshee by default instead of Rhythmbox in Fedora and Ubuntu was caused by the one of the main Rhythmbox developers saying that rhythmbox has " several limitations " and that he was going to " still fix ( some ) bugs and review patches , but it 's too much of a dead end for me to do more than that " , leading many to believe it is in maintenance only mode .
Not , as the parent says " Mono zealots " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just so everyone else isn't snowed by this post, Fedora has not dropped mono and currently has no plans to, they have only said "we'll continue to look at it with our legal counsel to see what if any steps are needed on our part".
The recent push to include mono based Banshee by default instead of Rhythmbox in Fedora and Ubuntu was caused by the one of the main Rhythmbox developers saying that rhythmbox has "several limitations" and that he was going to "still fix (some) bugs and review patches, but it's too much of a dead end for me to do more than that", leading many to believe it is in maintenance only mode.
Not, as the parent says "Mono zealots".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334411</id>
	<title>Yessss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245076680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a dot.net developer I'm really really happy to see mono being integrated by default in more and more big distros. It warms my heart to see that not all the Open Source community is a big rabid stallmanist troll, but that there is common sense there as well. A good technology is a tool, and it's great to have the possibility to use it. Open and Closed source worlds are not exclusive and can happily co-exist with each other.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a dot.net developer I 'm really really happy to see mono being integrated by default in more and more big distros .
It warms my heart to see that not all the Open Source community is a big rabid stallmanist troll , but that there is common sense there as well .
A good technology is a tool , and it 's great to have the possibility to use it .
Open and Closed source worlds are not exclusive and can happily co-exist with each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a dot.net developer I'm really really happy to see mono being integrated by default in more and more big distros.
It warms my heart to see that not all the Open Source community is a big rabid stallmanist troll, but that there is common sense there as well.
A good technology is a tool, and it's great to have the possibility to use it.
Open and Closed source worlds are not exclusive and can happily co-exist with each other.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28346953</id>
	<title>BOGUS!</title>
	<author>Whitemice</author>
	<datestamp>1245163620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>THERE ARE *NO*, *ZERO*, *ZILCH* "specifications patented by Microsoft and licensed under undisclosed terms" used in Mono.   *NOTHING* is "licensed" from Microsoft for use in Mono by anyone at all.</p><p>When will the flaming @*^$*&amp;^@ ignorance stop?</p><p>Do people realize that a software patent that applied to Mono would almost certainly apply to Java?  And very possibly GLIBC?  Maybe even X?  Or GCC?  And that Microsoft holds patents that relate to HTML, AJAX, and CSS?  Get your heads out of your collective asses and learn what your talking about - or shut the hell up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>THERE ARE * NO * , * ZERO * , * ZILCH * " specifications patented by Microsoft and licensed under undisclosed terms " used in Mono .
* NOTHING * is " licensed " from Microsoft for use in Mono by anyone at all.When will the flaming @ * ^ $ * &amp; ^ @ ignorance stop ? Do people realize that a software patent that applied to Mono would almost certainly apply to Java ?
And very possibly GLIBC ?
Maybe even X ?
Or GCC ?
And that Microsoft holds patents that relate to HTML , AJAX , and CSS ?
Get your heads out of your collective asses and learn what your talking about - or shut the hell up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THERE ARE *NO*, *ZERO*, *ZILCH* "specifications patented by Microsoft and licensed under undisclosed terms" used in Mono.
*NOTHING* is "licensed" from Microsoft for use in Mono by anyone at all.When will the flaming @*^$*&amp;^@ ignorance stop?Do people realize that a software patent that applied to Mono would almost certainly apply to Java?
And very possibly GLIBC?
Maybe even X?
Or GCC?
And that Microsoft holds patents that relate to HTML, AJAX, and CSS?
Get your heads out of your collective asses and learn what your talking about - or shut the hell up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28340405</id>
	<title>Re:When taking a stand...</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1245059040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd call myself anti-Mono, but only because I've actually tried to use it. Trying to load a folder of 100 camera JPEGs into F-Spot (on a Core 2 Duo with 4GB of RAM), and then seeing the entire GUI lock up for 3-4 minutes isn't my idea of a user friendly experience. For the GNOME Project, evidently it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd call myself anti-Mono , but only because I 've actually tried to use it .
Trying to load a folder of 100 camera JPEGs into F-Spot ( on a Core 2 Duo with 4GB of RAM ) , and then seeing the entire GUI lock up for 3-4 minutes is n't my idea of a user friendly experience .
For the GNOME Project , evidently it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd call myself anti-Mono, but only because I've actually tried to use it.
Trying to load a folder of 100 camera JPEGs into F-Spot (on a Core 2 Duo with 4GB of RAM), and then seeing the entire GUI lock up for 3-4 minutes isn't my idea of a user friendly experience.
For the GNOME Project, evidently it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334357</id>
	<title>Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245076320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps Debian doesn't believe that Microsoft might do something like Rambus did.</p></div><p>Rambus was chastised for their actions (like the linked article states).  And I propose Debian approach this the same way someone would approach the Rambus situation from the beginning had they an inkling of Rambus' true intent.  <br> <br>

Even though Microsoft submitted the <a href="http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.htm" title="ecma-international.org" rel="nofollow">CLI</a> [ecma-international.org] and <a href="http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.htm" title="ecma-international.org" rel="nofollow">C#</a> [ecma-international.org] main components of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, MIcrosoft does <a href="http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1='20030028685'.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20030028685&amp;RS=DN/20030028685" title="uspto.gov" rel="nofollow">hold at least one patent</a> [uspto.gov] on the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET infrastructure.  So far, Microsoft has <a href="http://www.msversus.org/microsoft-response-to-net-patents.html" title="msversus.org" rel="nofollow">agred to offer these under a "reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms of use" and they are currently royalty free</a> [msversus.org].  No one seems to be <a href="http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/0/" title="itwire.com" rel="nofollow">clear on how you <i>get</i> this into writing</a> [itwire.com] but it's allegedly the way things are.  <br> <br>

Were I a Debian leader, I would simply approach Microsoft with the Mono code and <a href="http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/codeofconduct.htm" title="ecma-international.org" rel="nofollow">the ECMA code of conduct</a> [ecma-international.org] and demand it in writing that for this snapshot of the code you have a forever royalty free to interact with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET.  Should they fail to comply with this request in a timely manner, I would submit all communications with Microsoft to ECMA in a motion to dismiss the aforementioned "standards" and remove Mono--and unfortunately Tomboy--from the Debian default package.  I'd beef up the <a href="http://wiki.debian.org/" title="debian.org" rel="nofollow">Debian wiki</a> [debian.org] with details on how to get these two packages to fix this bug and focus on the bug for a near future release after Squeeze.  <br> <br>

At that point, sit back and let ECMA and the community at large hash it out with Microsoft.  Better now than later when other things may depend on this package and Microsoft has you right where Rambus has every memory maker on the planet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps Debian does n't believe that Microsoft might do something like Rambus did.Rambus was chastised for their actions ( like the linked article states ) .
And I propose Debian approach this the same way someone would approach the Rambus situation from the beginning had they an inkling of Rambus ' true intent .
Even though Microsoft submitted the CLI [ ecma-international.org ] and C # [ ecma-international.org ] main components of .NET , MIcrosoft does hold at least one patent [ uspto.gov ] on the .NET infrastructure .
So far , Microsoft has agred to offer these under a " reasonable and non-discriminatory ( RAND ) terms of use " and they are currently royalty free [ msversus.org ] .
No one seems to be clear on how you get this into writing [ itwire.com ] but it 's allegedly the way things are .
Were I a Debian leader , I would simply approach Microsoft with the Mono code and the ECMA code of conduct [ ecma-international.org ] and demand it in writing that for this snapshot of the code you have a forever royalty free to interact with .NET .
Should they fail to comply with this request in a timely manner , I would submit all communications with Microsoft to ECMA in a motion to dismiss the aforementioned " standards " and remove Mono--and unfortunately Tomboy--from the Debian default package .
I 'd beef up the Debian wiki [ debian.org ] with details on how to get these two packages to fix this bug and focus on the bug for a near future release after Squeeze .
At that point , sit back and let ECMA and the community at large hash it out with Microsoft .
Better now than later when other things may depend on this package and Microsoft has you right where Rambus has every memory maker on the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps Debian doesn't believe that Microsoft might do something like Rambus did.Rambus was chastised for their actions (like the linked article states).
And I propose Debian approach this the same way someone would approach the Rambus situation from the beginning had they an inkling of Rambus' true intent.
Even though Microsoft submitted the CLI [ecma-international.org] and C# [ecma-international.org] main components of .NET, MIcrosoft does hold at least one patent [uspto.gov] on the .NET infrastructure.
So far, Microsoft has agred to offer these under a "reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms of use" and they are currently royalty free [msversus.org].
No one seems to be clear on how you get this into writing [itwire.com] but it's allegedly the way things are.
Were I a Debian leader, I would simply approach Microsoft with the Mono code and the ECMA code of conduct [ecma-international.org] and demand it in writing that for this snapshot of the code you have a forever royalty free to interact with .NET.
Should they fail to comply with this request in a timely manner, I would submit all communications with Microsoft to ECMA in a motion to dismiss the aforementioned "standards" and remove Mono--and unfortunately Tomboy--from the Debian default package.
I'd beef up the Debian wiki [debian.org] with details on how to get these two packages to fix this bug and focus on the bug for a near future release after Squeeze.
At that point, sit back and let ECMA and the community at large hash it out with Microsoft.
Better now than later when other things may depend on this package and Microsoft has you right where Rambus has every memory maker on the planet.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334691</id>
	<title>Try Gnote instead of Tomboy</title>
	<author>Laven</author>
	<datestamp>1245078420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you tried gnote yet?  It is a C++ reimplementation of tomboy.  gnote's binary package itself is less than 4MB with only a few standard dependencies that you might already have on a GNOME desktop, significantly smaller than Mono.  I made the switch fully from tomboy to gnote a few months ago and things are working very nicely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you tried gnote yet ?
It is a C + + reimplementation of tomboy .
gnote 's binary package itself is less than 4MB with only a few standard dependencies that you might already have on a GNOME desktop , significantly smaller than Mono .
I made the switch fully from tomboy to gnote a few months ago and things are working very nicely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you tried gnote yet?
It is a C++ reimplementation of tomboy.
gnote's binary package itself is less than 4MB with only a few standard dependencies that you might already have on a GNOME desktop, significantly smaller than Mono.
I made the switch fully from tomboy to gnote a few months ago and things are working very nicely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334481</id>
	<title>An interesting read on the subject</title>
	<author>Dotren</author>
	<datestamp>1245077100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really being much of a Linux person myself yet, I was curious about the negative feelings I've read about for Mono, ranging from general dislike to outright hate, as I've had several people tell me that Mono is actually really cool and easy to use if you're used to doing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net programing in general.  Malevolentjelly posted this link a few days back in the Silverlight 3 post and I found it very informative:</p><p> <a href="http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/124/" title="apebox.org" rel="nofollow">http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/124/</a> [apebox.org] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really being much of a Linux person myself yet , I was curious about the negative feelings I 've read about for Mono , ranging from general dislike to outright hate , as I 've had several people tell me that Mono is actually really cool and easy to use if you 're used to doing .Net programing in general .
Malevolentjelly posted this link a few days back in the Silverlight 3 post and I found it very informative : http : //www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/124/ [ apebox.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really being much of a Linux person myself yet, I was curious about the negative feelings I've read about for Mono, ranging from general dislike to outright hate, as I've had several people tell me that Mono is actually really cool and easy to use if you're used to doing .Net programing in general.
Malevolentjelly posted this link a few days back in the Silverlight 3 post and I found it very informative: http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/124/ [apebox.org] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335653</id>
	<title>Re:what a troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245083040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep - an API is an API but still, how can you patent an API, some of my APIs before Microsoft even existed look a lot like some in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, Windows, whatever - who cares? Anyway - MONO is just one subsystem, what's the big deal? You don't like it, as I don't, use something else. I find MONO,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, etc bloated, full of stupid decisions, mostly slow, made for inexperienced programmers who need someone holding their hand, who (still) live in dreams that technology is more important than thinking and design, etc - or for managers who really don't know better but believe everything the vendors (the larger vendor, the better) feed to them or, a credit for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET and ilk, for some CS persons who are too lazy to create anything by themselves but need something for next term paper, grad paper, whatever.</p><p>Another problems I see here is that MONO,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, Java, Python, Windows, Linux, etc are compared as equals - they all are very different things. Yes, I know, even Microsoft hasn't yet made up their mind what<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET (and MONO) really is - it definitely is not a language but it also definitely is not an architecture or even a common framework but neither is Java. And maybe it is something great what we haven't seen yet? I personally love to follow frameworks and architectures but as building blocks for systems to stay in as simple components as possible. This just by long experience, makes life much easier! After reducing the system size and code base always over 50\% in command level CICS (who knows what that is?) or Pathway or whatever transaction systems, in big (state/country wide)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET wireless systems and/or Java/web mess, etc with great pain, fixing their "managed" / controlled memory and other performance problems caused by "experienced specialists", etc any simple (not simple by functionality but by design/manageability) gets my vote.</p><p>Back to the subject, MONO is not bad by itself, the code actually shows that the developers (mostly) know what they are doing, it may bring more users to Linux (not that anybody cares but..), it actually challenges Microsoft instead of giving them more benefits / control they already have, and so on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep - an API is an API but still , how can you patent an API , some of my APIs before Microsoft even existed look a lot like some in .NET , Windows , whatever - who cares ?
Anyway - MONO is just one subsystem , what 's the big deal ?
You do n't like it , as I do n't , use something else .
I find MONO , .NET , etc bloated , full of stupid decisions , mostly slow , made for inexperienced programmers who need someone holding their hand , who ( still ) live in dreams that technology is more important than thinking and design , etc - or for managers who really do n't know better but believe everything the vendors ( the larger vendor , the better ) feed to them or , a credit for .NET and ilk , for some CS persons who are too lazy to create anything by themselves but need something for next term paper , grad paper , whatever.Another problems I see here is that MONO , .NET , Java , Python , Windows , Linux , etc are compared as equals - they all are very different things .
Yes , I know , even Microsoft has n't yet made up their mind what .NET ( and MONO ) really is - it definitely is not a language but it also definitely is not an architecture or even a common framework but neither is Java .
And maybe it is something great what we have n't seen yet ?
I personally love to follow frameworks and architectures but as building blocks for systems to stay in as simple components as possible .
This just by long experience , makes life much easier !
After reducing the system size and code base always over 50 \ % in command level CICS ( who knows what that is ?
) or Pathway or whatever transaction systems , in big ( state/country wide ) .NET wireless systems and/or Java/web mess , etc with great pain , fixing their " managed " / controlled memory and other performance problems caused by " experienced specialists " , etc any simple ( not simple by functionality but by design/manageability ) gets my vote.Back to the subject , MONO is not bad by itself , the code actually shows that the developers ( mostly ) know what they are doing , it may bring more users to Linux ( not that anybody cares but.. ) , it actually challenges Microsoft instead of giving them more benefits / control they already have , and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep - an API is an API but still, how can you patent an API, some of my APIs before Microsoft even existed look a lot like some in .NET, Windows, whatever - who cares?
Anyway - MONO is just one subsystem, what's the big deal?
You don't like it, as I don't, use something else.
I find MONO, .NET, etc bloated, full of stupid decisions, mostly slow, made for inexperienced programmers who need someone holding their hand, who (still) live in dreams that technology is more important than thinking and design, etc - or for managers who really don't know better but believe everything the vendors (the larger vendor, the better) feed to them or, a credit for .NET and ilk, for some CS persons who are too lazy to create anything by themselves but need something for next term paper, grad paper, whatever.Another problems I see here is that MONO, .NET, Java, Python, Windows, Linux, etc are compared as equals - they all are very different things.
Yes, I know, even Microsoft hasn't yet made up their mind what .NET (and MONO) really is - it definitely is not a language but it also definitely is not an architecture or even a common framework but neither is Java.
And maybe it is something great what we haven't seen yet?
I personally love to follow frameworks and architectures but as building blocks for systems to stay in as simple components as possible.
This just by long experience, makes life much easier!
After reducing the system size and code base always over 50\% in command level CICS (who knows what that is?
) or Pathway or whatever transaction systems, in big (state/country wide) .NET wireless systems and/or Java/web mess, etc with great pain, fixing their "managed" / controlled memory and other performance problems caused by "experienced specialists", etc any simple (not simple by functionality but by design/manageability) gets my vote.Back to the subject, MONO is not bad by itself, the code actually shows that the developers (mostly) know what they are doing, it may bring more users to Linux (not that anybody cares but..), it actually challenges Microsoft instead of giving them more benefits / control they already have, and so on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338009</id>
	<title>Re:what a troll</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1245093180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C# and CLI specs (corresponding to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET 2.0) are ISO standards, not just ECMA ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C # and CLI specs ( corresponding to .NET 2.0 ) are ISO standards , not just ECMA ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C# and CLI specs (corresponding to .NET 2.0) are ISO standards, not just ECMA ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28347053</id>
	<title>Re:Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1245164220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cluttered OS you talk about is modeled after the Framework idea and especially re-usable code.</p><p>It should be the ''what app should achieve'' instead of the entire GUI etc.</p><p>With KDE4, they have even went closer to the real vision and KDE 4 runs in all operating systems, all guis, natively without any hacks. It is the actual idea of NeXT which had to get shaved down because Apple purchased them, they have a hardware business etc.</p><p>So dear AC, my equally ''bulky'' OS X built around the very same object oriented idea is way bigger than your monkey boy's Gnome. OS X reached 10\% in desktop share and some amazing number on mobile share. Which idea was right? Lets speak when Nokia smart devices come with KDE installed, should we?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cluttered OS you talk about is modeled after the Framework idea and especially re-usable code.It should be the ''what app should achieve' ' instead of the entire GUI etc.With KDE4 , they have even went closer to the real vision and KDE 4 runs in all operating systems , all guis , natively without any hacks .
It is the actual idea of NeXT which had to get shaved down because Apple purchased them , they have a hardware business etc.So dear AC , my equally ''bulky' ' OS X built around the very same object oriented idea is way bigger than your monkey boy 's Gnome .
OS X reached 10 \ % in desktop share and some amazing number on mobile share .
Which idea was right ?
Lets speak when Nokia smart devices come with KDE installed , should we ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cluttered OS you talk about is modeled after the Framework idea and especially re-usable code.It should be the ''what app should achieve'' instead of the entire GUI etc.With KDE4, they have even went closer to the real vision and KDE 4 runs in all operating systems, all guis, natively without any hacks.
It is the actual idea of NeXT which had to get shaved down because Apple purchased them, they have a hardware business etc.So dear AC, my equally ''bulky'' OS X built around the very same object oriented idea is way bigger than your monkey boy's Gnome.
OS X reached 10\% in desktop share and some amazing number on mobile share.
Which idea was right?
Lets speak when Nokia smart devices come with KDE installed, should we?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334935</id>
	<title>Wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245079680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Mono Squeezed Into Debian Default Installation</p><p>It is not going into the Debian default installation.  The Debian default installation does not include any "desktop environment".  It is going into the Gnome "desktop".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Mono Squeezed Into Debian Default InstallationIt is not going into the Debian default installation .
The Debian default installation does not include any " desktop environment " .
It is going into the Gnome " desktop " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Mono Squeezed Into Debian Default InstallationIt is not going into the Debian default installation.
The Debian default installation does not include any "desktop environment".
It is going into the Gnome "desktop".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337171</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please correct me if I'm wrong</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1245089520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>GNOME was started by the same guy who started Mono (Miguel de Icaza).</htmltext>
<tokenext>GNOME was started by the same guy who started Mono ( Miguel de Icaza ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GNOME was started by the same guy who started Mono (Miguel de Icaza).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334687</id>
	<title>what a troll</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1245078420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Apparently, Debian doesn't have the same concerns over using specifications patented by Microsoft and licensed under undisclosed terms</i></p><p>Microsoft has filed a patent on the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET APIs, but Tomboy (and most Mono applications) don't use the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET APIs, they use the ECMA APIs and standard Linux APIs.  Mono is no different in that way from Python, Ruby, Perl, or many other languages people commonly use on Linux: it uses proprietary APIs on Windows, and open source APIs on Linux.</p><p>Furthermore, Mono is way ahead of languages like Java in that regard because, unlike Java, Mono is based on an open standard and there are no known patents on the language core or core libraries.</p><p>If anybody can point to an actual patent that Mono or Tomboy violate, please file an issue report against the Mono project; if it is credible, the infringing functionality will be removed from Mono.  So far, nobody has been able to come up with anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently , Debian does n't have the same concerns over using specifications patented by Microsoft and licensed under undisclosed termsMicrosoft has filed a patent on the .NET APIs , but Tomboy ( and most Mono applications ) do n't use the .NET APIs , they use the ECMA APIs and standard Linux APIs .
Mono is no different in that way from Python , Ruby , Perl , or many other languages people commonly use on Linux : it uses proprietary APIs on Windows , and open source APIs on Linux.Furthermore , Mono is way ahead of languages like Java in that regard because , unlike Java , Mono is based on an open standard and there are no known patents on the language core or core libraries.If anybody can point to an actual patent that Mono or Tomboy violate , please file an issue report against the Mono project ; if it is credible , the infringing functionality will be removed from Mono .
So far , nobody has been able to come up with anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently, Debian doesn't have the same concerns over using specifications patented by Microsoft and licensed under undisclosed termsMicrosoft has filed a patent on the .NET APIs, but Tomboy (and most Mono applications) don't use the .NET APIs, they use the ECMA APIs and standard Linux APIs.
Mono is no different in that way from Python, Ruby, Perl, or many other languages people commonly use on Linux: it uses proprietary APIs on Windows, and open source APIs on Linux.Furthermore, Mono is way ahead of languages like Java in that regard because, unlike Java, Mono is based on an open standard and there are no known patents on the language core or core libraries.If anybody can point to an actual patent that Mono or Tomboy violate, please file an issue report against the Mono project; if it is credible, the infringing functionality will be removed from Mono.
So far, nobody has been able to come up with anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28342059</id>
	<title>Re:Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct</title>
	<author>krasmussen</author>
	<datestamp>1245067920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tomboy is the app I would, in all seriousness, put as #1 on my list of Linux killer apps.</p><p>Oh, and it's a note-taking program with wiki-style linking between notes, among other things. It pulls thoughts right out of my brain and makes it trivial to organize and retrieve them later on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tomboy is the app I would , in all seriousness , put as # 1 on my list of Linux killer apps.Oh , and it 's a note-taking program with wiki-style linking between notes , among other things .
It pulls thoughts right out of my brain and makes it trivial to organize and retrieve them later on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tomboy is the app I would, in all seriousness, put as #1 on my list of Linux killer apps.Oh, and it's a note-taking program with wiki-style linking between notes, among other things.
It pulls thoughts right out of my brain and makes it trivial to organize and retrieve them later on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334415</id>
	<title>Incredible horrifying bloat</title>
	<author>k-zed</author>
	<datestamp>1245076680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>tomboy package "Description: desktop note taking program using Wiki style links"</p><p>"..except for the 50 MByte size of the Tomboy package..."</p><p>What's wrong with this picture?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>tomboy package " Description : desktop note taking program using Wiki style links " " ..except for the 50 MByte size of the Tomboy package... " What 's wrong with this picture ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tomboy package "Description: desktop note taking program using Wiki style links""..except for the 50 MByte size of the Tomboy package..."What's wrong with this picture?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337101</id>
	<title>Re:what a troll</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1245089160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A reference implementation isn't a standard, and all the languages you mentioned compile to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET too (and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_CLI\_Languages" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">more</a> [wikipedia.org], including Java itself) as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET was designed from the start to be language-agnostic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A reference implementation is n't a standard , and all the languages you mentioned compile to .NET too ( and more [ wikipedia.org ] , including Java itself ) as .NET was designed from the start to be language-agnostic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A reference implementation isn't a standard, and all the languages you mentioned compile to .NET too (and more [wikipedia.org], including Java itself) as .NET was designed from the start to be language-agnostic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28344045</id>
	<title>Re:awkward fact, may ruin exciting story</title>
	<author>VoltageX</author>
	<datestamp>1245084240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's also a BluRay ISO for the truly insane.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's also a BluRay ISO for the truly insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's also a BluRay ISO for the truly insane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335455</id>
	<title>Re:Try Gnote instead of Tomboy</title>
	<author>recoiledsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1245082260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gnote is not just a "re-implementation" of Tomboy, it's a line by line ripoff of Tomboy's C# code to C++ and GUI design. See <a href="http://robertmh.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/mono-in-the-default-install/for" title="wordpress.com">http://robertmh.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/mono-in-the-default-install/for</a> [wordpress.com] screenshots. And the developers of Tomboy are not happy.<p><div class="quote"><p>Our stance on Gnote is that it is counterproductive to maintain identical software in two languages. It will be harmful to the community, especially as these two apps inevitably diverge. It will result in duplication of effort, duplication of bugs, and a lot of wasted time for those who are trying to add value to the user experience. Tomboy is not going away, and it will continue to be developed on the extremely productive Mono/GTK# language platform. Anyone thinking about distributing Gnote should consider the impact on users and their data. When we develop, we should always be asking ourselves, "is this adding value for our users?"</p></div><p>Also Tomboy does not have Applet support, which is why Debian wants it in the Gnome install instead of Gnote. From <a href="http://www.archivum.info/fedora-desktop-list@redhat.com/2009-04/msg00005.html" title="archivum.info">http://www.archivum.info/fedora-desktop-list@redhat.com/2009-04/msg00005.html</a> [archivum.info]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>- We're using tomboy as an applet, which gnote currently does not
support. I'm far from a notification area purist, but I do think that a
note-taking application has no place in it...

- If we are talking about replacing tomboy with gnote, we need to have
some data migration that is more automatic that 'open terminal,
cp<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.tomboy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gnote'.

- While gnote on the surface looks like a clone of tomboy, if you look
at the addins that come with tomboy, you'll probably find that gnote is
not yet a full replacement for tomboy power users (it certainly works
fine for my tomboy use...).</p></div><p>You can use gnote if it fits your desires, but claiming that it should be default for ALL users is misguided. The Debian packagers know better than you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gnote is not just a " re-implementation " of Tomboy , it 's a line by line ripoff of Tomboy 's C # code to C + + and GUI design .
See http : //robertmh.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/mono-in-the-default-install/for [ wordpress.com ] screenshots .
And the developers of Tomboy are not happy.Our stance on Gnote is that it is counterproductive to maintain identical software in two languages .
It will be harmful to the community , especially as these two apps inevitably diverge .
It will result in duplication of effort , duplication of bugs , and a lot of wasted time for those who are trying to add value to the user experience .
Tomboy is not going away , and it will continue to be developed on the extremely productive Mono/GTK # language platform .
Anyone thinking about distributing Gnote should consider the impact on users and their data .
When we develop , we should always be asking ourselves , " is this adding value for our users ?
" Also Tomboy does not have Applet support , which is why Debian wants it in the Gnome install instead of Gnote .
From http : //www.archivum.info/fedora-desktop-list @ redhat.com/2009-04/msg00005.html [ archivum.info ] : - We 're using tomboy as an applet , which gnote currently does not support .
I 'm far from a notification area purist , but I do think that a note-taking application has no place in it.. . - If we are talking about replacing tomboy with gnote , we need to have some data migration that is more automatic that 'open terminal , cp .tomboy .gnote' .
- While gnote on the surface looks like a clone of tomboy , if you look at the addins that come with tomboy , you 'll probably find that gnote is not yet a full replacement for tomboy power users ( it certainly works fine for my tomboy use... ) .You can use gnote if it fits your desires , but claiming that it should be default for ALL users is misguided .
The Debian packagers know better than you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gnote is not just a "re-implementation" of Tomboy, it's a line by line ripoff of Tomboy's C# code to C++ and GUI design.
See http://robertmh.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/mono-in-the-default-install/for [wordpress.com] screenshots.
And the developers of Tomboy are not happy.Our stance on Gnote is that it is counterproductive to maintain identical software in two languages.
It will be harmful to the community, especially as these two apps inevitably diverge.
It will result in duplication of effort, duplication of bugs, and a lot of wasted time for those who are trying to add value to the user experience.
Tomboy is not going away, and it will continue to be developed on the extremely productive Mono/GTK# language platform.
Anyone thinking about distributing Gnote should consider the impact on users and their data.
When we develop, we should always be asking ourselves, "is this adding value for our users?
"Also Tomboy does not have Applet support, which is why Debian wants it in the Gnome install instead of Gnote.
From http://www.archivum.info/fedora-desktop-list@redhat.com/2009-04/msg00005.html [archivum.info] :- We're using tomboy as an applet, which gnote currently does not
support.
I'm far from a notification area purist, but I do think that a
note-taking application has no place in it...

- If we are talking about replacing tomboy with gnote, we need to have
some data migration that is more automatic that 'open terminal,
cp .tomboy .gnote'.
- While gnote on the surface looks like a clone of tomboy, if you look
at the addins that come with tomboy, you'll probably find that gnote is
not yet a full replacement for tomboy power users (it certainly works
fine for my tomboy use...).You can use gnote if it fits your desires, but claiming that it should be default for ALL users is misguided.
The Debian packagers know better than you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28339267</id>
	<title>Re:Incredible horrifying bloat</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1245097860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Actually, all of those are very useful,....</p><p>No, they might be useful someday.  Today they are all semi-stable and almost totally undocumented black boxes that upend forty years of UNIX/POSIX tradition yet were pushed into production in this insane quest to be a better Windows than Windows and thus somehow bring about the Year of Linux on the Desktop.</p><p>So while all of the old understood ways of configuring a system have been tossed into the trash, the new replacements aren't ready for prime time.  By ready I mean 'just works' at least 99\% of the time and has clear documentation to permit a skilled UNIX admin to fix that last 1\%.</p><p>Example:  The hpt\_37x driver has been broken[1] (massive data corruption) in Fedora's kernels since at least F8 and probably earlier.  With a few tweaks the open source driver at Highpoint's website can be built and works.  Your mission, get F11 to use it.  I finally this did it this morning by editing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/sysconfig/mkinitrd and having it force the driver to load in the initrd phase before the *Kit bullcrap gets a chance to start.</p><p>[1] It isn't Fedora's fault.  Kernel mailing list traffic shows a problem that has been fixed, regressed and fixed yet again, rinse and repeat a time or two.  From what I can tell 2.6.30 may finally have it fixed but F11 shipped with 2.6.29.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Actually , all of those are very useful,....No , they might be useful someday .
Today they are all semi-stable and almost totally undocumented black boxes that upend forty years of UNIX/POSIX tradition yet were pushed into production in this insane quest to be a better Windows than Windows and thus somehow bring about the Year of Linux on the Desktop.So while all of the old understood ways of configuring a system have been tossed into the trash , the new replacements are n't ready for prime time .
By ready I mean 'just works ' at least 99 \ % of the time and has clear documentation to permit a skilled UNIX admin to fix that last 1 \ % .Example : The hpt \ _37x driver has been broken [ 1 ] ( massive data corruption ) in Fedora 's kernels since at least F8 and probably earlier .
With a few tweaks the open source driver at Highpoint 's website can be built and works .
Your mission , get F11 to use it .
I finally this did it this morning by editing /etc/sysconfig/mkinitrd and having it force the driver to load in the initrd phase before the * Kit bullcrap gets a chance to start .
[ 1 ] It is n't Fedora 's fault .
Kernel mailing list traffic shows a problem that has been fixed , regressed and fixed yet again , rinse and repeat a time or two .
From what I can tell 2.6.30 may finally have it fixed but F11 shipped with 2.6.29 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Actually, all of those are very useful,....No, they might be useful someday.
Today they are all semi-stable and almost totally undocumented black boxes that upend forty years of UNIX/POSIX tradition yet were pushed into production in this insane quest to be a better Windows than Windows and thus somehow bring about the Year of Linux on the Desktop.So while all of the old understood ways of configuring a system have been tossed into the trash, the new replacements aren't ready for prime time.
By ready I mean 'just works' at least 99\% of the time and has clear documentation to permit a skilled UNIX admin to fix that last 1\%.Example:  The hpt\_37x driver has been broken[1] (massive data corruption) in Fedora's kernels since at least F8 and probably earlier.
With a few tweaks the open source driver at Highpoint's website can be built and works.
Your mission, get F11 to use it.
I finally this did it this morning by editing /etc/sysconfig/mkinitrd and having it force the driver to load in the initrd phase before the *Kit bullcrap gets a chance to start.
[1] It isn't Fedora's fault.
Kernel mailing list traffic shows a problem that has been fixed, regressed and fixed yet again, rinse and repeat a time or two.
From what I can tell 2.6.30 may finally have it fixed but F11 shipped with 2.6.29.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335469</id>
	<title>Re:Mono is a gateway to cross-platform virii</title>
	<author>ericrost</author>
	<datestamp>1245082320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AFFECT, something affects something else. The way in which it affects it often leads to effects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AFFECT , something affects something else .
The way in which it affects it often leads to effects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AFFECT, something affects something else.
The way in which it affects it often leads to effects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338413</id>
	<title>Re:Incredible horrifying bloat</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1245095100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;My personal windmills are applications like HAL, D-BUS, any gnome-*-daemon, any {Policy,Device,Console}Kit</p><p>Actually, all of those are very useful, with the possible exception of some of the gnome daemons (and some of those are going away, as soon as Gnome finishes dropping Corba). HAL is useful, but of course has problems, which is why we are now in a smooth transition from HAL to DeviceKit-*. PolicyKit is an excellent way to handle permissions in a GUI - far better than GtkSudo, etc. ConsoleKit helps with a number of session-related issues, particularly allowing fast user switching. D-Bus is needed because a modern desktop really needs some good IPC outside the basic shared memory, pipes, etc. D-Bus does a good job of providing this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; My personal windmills are applications like HAL , D-BUS , any gnome- * -daemon , any { Policy,Device,Console } KitActually , all of those are very useful , with the possible exception of some of the gnome daemons ( and some of those are going away , as soon as Gnome finishes dropping Corba ) .
HAL is useful , but of course has problems , which is why we are now in a smooth transition from HAL to DeviceKit- * .
PolicyKit is an excellent way to handle permissions in a GUI - far better than GtkSudo , etc .
ConsoleKit helps with a number of session-related issues , particularly allowing fast user switching .
D-Bus is needed because a modern desktop really needs some good IPC outside the basic shared memory , pipes , etc .
D-Bus does a good job of providing this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;My personal windmills are applications like HAL, D-BUS, any gnome-*-daemon, any {Policy,Device,Console}KitActually, all of those are very useful, with the possible exception of some of the gnome daemons (and some of those are going away, as soon as Gnome finishes dropping Corba).
HAL is useful, but of course has problems, which is why we are now in a smooth transition from HAL to DeviceKit-*.
PolicyKit is an excellent way to handle permissions in a GUI - far better than GtkSudo, etc.
ConsoleKit helps with a number of session-related issues, particularly allowing fast user switching.
D-Bus is needed because a modern desktop really needs some good IPC outside the basic shared memory, pipes, etc.
D-Bus does a good job of providing this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338459</id>
	<title>Re:Default installation?</title>
	<author>mcubed</author>
	<datestamp>1245095280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Using the netinstall CD, GNOME is installed if you select the desktop environment option from the task list the installer presents you with.  If you don't select that task, GNOME is not installed.  On this score, all install modes (expert or standard) are the same.  It's easy not to install GNOME if you don't want to install GNOME.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Using the netinstall CD , GNOME is installed if you select the desktop environment option from the task list the installer presents you with .
If you do n't select that task , GNOME is not installed .
On this score , all install modes ( expert or standard ) are the same .
It 's easy not to install GNOME if you do n't want to install GNOME .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using the netinstall CD, GNOME is installed if you select the desktop environment option from the task list the installer presents you with.
If you don't select that task, GNOME is not installed.
On this score, all install modes (expert or standard) are the same.
It's easy not to install GNOME if you don't want to install GNOME.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337779</id>
	<title>Re:Incredible horrifying bloat</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1245092280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We can't expect small, lean applications written in C# because of the language's design. C# is only good for writing code blazingly fast.</p> </div><p>I'm not sure what wrong there is with C# language design, given that it has almost complete feature parity with C: unlike Java, it supports stack-allocated value types, including unions; pointers with pointer arithmetic, which enables unchecked arrays; and even <tt>alloca</tt>. Granted, you usually don't use any of those when "writing code blazingly fast", but there's always an option.</p><p>Anyway, I hope you're at least consistent in your views, and also don't use any applications written in shell scripts, Perl, Python, Ruby, Scheme, Tcl...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We ca n't expect small , lean applications written in C # because of the language 's design .
C # is only good for writing code blazingly fast .
I 'm not sure what wrong there is with C # language design , given that it has almost complete feature parity with C : unlike Java , it supports stack-allocated value types , including unions ; pointers with pointer arithmetic , which enables unchecked arrays ; and even alloca .
Granted , you usually do n't use any of those when " writing code blazingly fast " , but there 's always an option.Anyway , I hope you 're at least consistent in your views , and also do n't use any applications written in shell scripts , Perl , Python , Ruby , Scheme , Tcl.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can't expect small, lean applications written in C# because of the language's design.
C# is only good for writing code blazingly fast.
I'm not sure what wrong there is with C# language design, given that it has almost complete feature parity with C: unlike Java, it supports stack-allocated value types, including unions; pointers with pointer arithmetic, which enables unchecked arrays; and even alloca.
Granted, you usually don't use any of those when "writing code blazingly fast", but there's always an option.Anyway, I hope you're at least consistent in your views, and also don't use any applications written in shell scripts, Perl, Python, Ruby, Scheme, Tcl...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335699</id>
	<title>Re:Default installation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245083220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'Default installation' means desktop in this case, i.e. the desktop &amp; gnome-desktop tasks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Default installation ' means desktop in this case , i.e .
the desktop &amp; gnome-desktop tasks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Default installation' means desktop in this case, i.e.
the desktop &amp; gnome-desktop tasks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334331</id>
	<title>Frist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245076200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>TFA: "However, Microsoft says clearly that only Novell can supply Moonlight to end-users:". <br> <br>

Rolling Mono (note: Mono != Moonlight) into Debian would be beneficial for both Debian and Microsoft. I don't believe that Microsoft will take legal action against Debian or Miguel, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least considering Microsoft's recent suicidal business divisions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA : " However , Microsoft says clearly that only Novell can supply Moonlight to end-users : " .
Rolling Mono ( note : Mono ! = Moonlight ) into Debian would be beneficial for both Debian and Microsoft .
I do n't believe that Microsoft will take legal action against Debian or Miguel , but it would n't surprise me in the least considering Microsoft 's recent suicidal business divisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA: "However, Microsoft says clearly that only Novell can supply Moonlight to end-users:".
Rolling Mono (note: Mono != Moonlight) into Debian would be beneficial for both Debian and Microsoft.
I don't believe that Microsoft will take legal action against Debian or Miguel, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least considering Microsoft's recent suicidal business divisions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334377</id>
	<title>Default installation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245076500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last I checked, the "default installation" of Debian didn't even include X.  So I'm guessing what they really mean is that they've included it in the default repositories, and if you apt-get gnome you'll get tomboy and mono too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I checked , the " default installation " of Debian did n't even include X. So I 'm guessing what they really mean is that they 've included it in the default repositories , and if you apt-get gnome you 'll get tomboy and mono too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I checked, the "default installation" of Debian didn't even include X.  So I'm guessing what they really mean is that they've included it in the default repositories, and if you apt-get gnome you'll get tomboy and mono too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28343191</id>
	<title>Re:Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245076440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To not be a cluttered piece of crap, which is KDE's job.</p></div><p>Right, that'd be why Gnome is pulling in a 50MB package.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To not be a cluttered piece of crap , which is KDE 's job.Right , that 'd be why Gnome is pulling in a 50MB package .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To not be a cluttered piece of crap, which is KDE's job.Right, that'd be why Gnome is pulling in a 50MB package.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334817</id>
	<title>Red hat/Fedora improve, Debian/deb-based regress</title>
	<author>Vexorian</author>
	<datestamp>1245079140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>With Red hat/Fedora dropping Mono out of the gnome dependencies, and ubuntu and it seems even debian stick to their Mono ways. And ubuntu even threatening their users to install a lower quality Mono-dependent music player to replace Rhythmbox just because the Mono zealots are very, very loud about how they want to push this MS technology on everybody using free software.  I guess I will have to change my current ways and just move to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.rpm based Fedora. It's been a long time without red hat, shall be fun. "Let's all make gnome depend on MS technology just so we have a desktop widget that has already been ported to native code!" That's great...</htmltext>
<tokenext>With Red hat/Fedora dropping Mono out of the gnome dependencies , and ubuntu and it seems even debian stick to their Mono ways .
And ubuntu even threatening their users to install a lower quality Mono-dependent music player to replace Rhythmbox just because the Mono zealots are very , very loud about how they want to push this MS technology on everybody using free software .
I guess I will have to change my current ways and just move to .rpm based Fedora .
It 's been a long time without red hat , shall be fun .
" Let 's all make gnome depend on MS technology just so we have a desktop widget that has already been ported to native code !
" That 's great.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Red hat/Fedora dropping Mono out of the gnome dependencies, and ubuntu and it seems even debian stick to their Mono ways.
And ubuntu even threatening their users to install a lower quality Mono-dependent music player to replace Rhythmbox just because the Mono zealots are very, very loud about how they want to push this MS technology on everybody using free software.
I guess I will have to change my current ways and just move to .rpm based Fedora.
It's been a long time without red hat, shall be fun.
"Let's all make gnome depend on MS technology just so we have a desktop widget that has already been ported to native code!
" That's great...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335725</id>
	<title>Re:Incredible horrifying bloat</title>
	<author>lastman71</author>
	<datestamp>1245083340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Mono is required by other programs too?<br><br></tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mono is required by other programs too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mono is required by other programs too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334605</id>
	<title>Another good reason to use KDE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245077940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GNOME folks are really pushing the adoption of KDE 4 nowadays.<br>It is great to see so much friendship between open-source projects<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GNOME folks are really pushing the adoption of KDE 4 nowadays.It is great to see so much friendship between open-source projects : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GNOME folks are really pushing the adoption of KDE 4 nowadays.It is great to see so much friendship between open-source projects :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334651</id>
	<title>50 MB?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245078240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last time someone came up with accurate figures, it was a 10 MB difference between including GNote and Tomboy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last time someone came up with accurate figures , it was a 10 MB difference between including GNote and Tomboy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last time someone came up with accurate figures, it was a 10 MB difference between including GNote and Tomboy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334597</id>
	<title>Re:Incredible horrifying bloat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245077880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"bloat" - I do not think that word means what you think it means.<br> <br>.NET is an ENTIRE platform. You likely could have a whole system where this is the only accessible API. Just like Java. Would you fault, say uTorrent, for having 40 megs of win32 dependencies?<br> <br>This is the unfortunate case of a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET application being apparently the only one in the core system, so it gets all of the weight of the dependency on Mono. However, when a few thousand applications in the system are<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, that kind of a dependency is not even a second thought.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" bloat " - I do not think that word means what you think it means .
.NET is an ENTIRE platform .
You likely could have a whole system where this is the only accessible API .
Just like Java .
Would you fault , say uTorrent , for having 40 megs of win32 dependencies ?
This is the unfortunate case of a .NET application being apparently the only one in the core system , so it gets all of the weight of the dependency on Mono .
However , when a few thousand applications in the system are .NET , that kind of a dependency is not even a second thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"bloat" - I do not think that word means what you think it means.
.NET is an ENTIRE platform.
You likely could have a whole system where this is the only accessible API.
Just like Java.
Would you fault, say uTorrent, for having 40 megs of win32 dependencies?
This is the unfortunate case of a .NET application being apparently the only one in the core system, so it gets all of the weight of the dependency on Mono.
However, when a few thousand applications in the system are .NET, that kind of a dependency is not even a second thought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335179</id>
	<title>OpenOffice.org as well!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245080820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From <a href="http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=openoffice.org" title="bjorn.haxx.se" rel="nofollow">bjorn.haxx.se (please think of the slashdot effect)</a> [bjorn.haxx.se]. I found this surprising.</p><p>captcha: arrogant</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From bjorn.haxx.se ( please think of the slashdot effect ) [ bjorn.haxx.se ] .
I found this surprising.captcha : arrogant</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From bjorn.haxx.se (please think of the slashdot effect) [bjorn.haxx.se].
I found this surprising.captcha: arrogant</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28339045</id>
	<title>Re:awkward fact, may ruin exciting story</title>
	<author>bachnit37</author>
	<datestamp>1245097200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dugg for mentioning Roswell.  Oh wait, where am I???</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dugg for mentioning Roswell .
Oh wait , where am I ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dugg for mentioning Roswell.
Oh wait, where am I??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334619</id>
	<title>Re:Yessss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245078000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET developer (at work), and a Linux user (at home), I don't like this idea. I'm sure you are going to label me "a big rabid stallmanist troll" for pointing this out, but those patents are real, at least if you ask Microsoft. And so is the agreement that gives Novell permission to distribute Mono.</p><p>Now, why would Novell sign such an agreement? Easy: Because their legal department advised them to do so. From this we can conclude that Novells legal department has knowledge of legal risks concerning Mono.</p><p>Microsoft has already shown that their patents are not for self defence only, when they sued Tomtom over several patents related to the FAT filesystem. Not only is FAT old, there is also nothing about FAT, that isn't obvious to someone writing filesystem. In other words: FAT is not even patent worthy. The<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework, however, represents a great value for Microsoft (for one thing, it's the first Windows API that doesn't suck big time), and it's got to have several patent worthy ideas in it.</p><p>So, why would Microsoft want to protect something worthless like FAT, but not real value like the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework?</p><p>As I see it, it's not a question about if they are going to sue someone over the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET patents. It's a question of WHEN and WHOM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a .NET developer ( at work ) , and a Linux user ( at home ) , I do n't like this idea .
I 'm sure you are going to label me " a big rabid stallmanist troll " for pointing this out , but those patents are real , at least if you ask Microsoft .
And so is the agreement that gives Novell permission to distribute Mono.Now , why would Novell sign such an agreement ?
Easy : Because their legal department advised them to do so .
From this we can conclude that Novells legal department has knowledge of legal risks concerning Mono.Microsoft has already shown that their patents are not for self defence only , when they sued Tomtom over several patents related to the FAT filesystem .
Not only is FAT old , there is also nothing about FAT , that is n't obvious to someone writing filesystem .
In other words : FAT is not even patent worthy .
The .NET framework , however , represents a great value for Microsoft ( for one thing , it 's the first Windows API that does n't suck big time ) , and it 's got to have several patent worthy ideas in it.So , why would Microsoft want to protect something worthless like FAT , but not real value like the .NET framework ? As I see it , it 's not a question about if they are going to sue someone over the .NET patents .
It 's a question of WHEN and WHOM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a .NET developer (at work), and a Linux user (at home), I don't like this idea.
I'm sure you are going to label me "a big rabid stallmanist troll" for pointing this out, but those patents are real, at least if you ask Microsoft.
And so is the agreement that gives Novell permission to distribute Mono.Now, why would Novell sign such an agreement?
Easy: Because their legal department advised them to do so.
From this we can conclude that Novells legal department has knowledge of legal risks concerning Mono.Microsoft has already shown that their patents are not for self defence only, when they sued Tomtom over several patents related to the FAT filesystem.
Not only is FAT old, there is also nothing about FAT, that isn't obvious to someone writing filesystem.
In other words: FAT is not even patent worthy.
The .NET framework, however, represents a great value for Microsoft (for one thing, it's the first Windows API that doesn't suck big time), and it's got to have several patent worthy ideas in it.So, why would Microsoft want to protect something worthless like FAT, but not real value like the .NET framework?As I see it, it's not a question about if they are going to sue someone over the .NET patents.
It's a question of WHEN and WHOM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335355</id>
	<title>Re:Try Gnote instead of Tomboy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245081660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes , i am a gnote user, it works great<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , i am a gnote user , it works great : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes , i am a gnote user, it works great :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337447</id>
	<title>Re:Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct</title>
	<author>Ed Avis</author>
	<datestamp>1245090780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All non-trivial software implements patents, some of which are held by companies we dislike.  Why give Microsoft a power of veto over what software is included in Debian?  You could equally well present them with a printout of the Linux kernel source and ask them to promise not to assert any patents they hold that cover it (even if the claim of "283 software patents" is not substantiated, they must still have quite a few).  I find this attitude, that you can't write or package any software without asking Microsoft for permission, extremely strange.  (Is VFAT long filename support included in Debian's standard kernel?)  The Wine project has no such qualms, and nor does Samba.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All non-trivial software implements patents , some of which are held by companies we dislike .
Why give Microsoft a power of veto over what software is included in Debian ?
You could equally well present them with a printout of the Linux kernel source and ask them to promise not to assert any patents they hold that cover it ( even if the claim of " 283 software patents " is not substantiated , they must still have quite a few ) .
I find this attitude , that you ca n't write or package any software without asking Microsoft for permission , extremely strange .
( Is VFAT long filename support included in Debian 's standard kernel ?
) The Wine project has no such qualms , and nor does Samba .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All non-trivial software implements patents, some of which are held by companies we dislike.
Why give Microsoft a power of veto over what software is included in Debian?
You could equally well present them with a printout of the Linux kernel source and ask them to promise not to assert any patents they hold that cover it (even if the claim of "283 software patents" is not substantiated, they must still have quite a few).
I find this attitude, that you can't write or package any software without asking Microsoft for permission, extremely strange.
(Is VFAT long filename support included in Debian's standard kernel?
)  The Wine project has no such qualms, and nor does Samba.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28344007</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please correct me if I'm wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245083700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GNOME was created because KDE depends on Qt which in that time wasn't free software. Later to now Qt is free open source software licenced under 3 licences (qt licence, GPL v.2 and GPL v.3)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Hava a look at</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt\_(toolkit)</p><p>I cannot see MS.NET even being free...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GNOME was created because KDE depends on Qt which in that time was n't free software .
Later to now Qt is free open source software licenced under 3 licences ( qt licence , GPL v.2 and GPL v.3 ) ... Hava a look athttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt \ _ ( toolkit ) I can not see MS.NET even being free.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GNOME was created because KDE depends on Qt which in that time wasn't free software.
Later to now Qt is free open source software licenced under 3 licences (qt licence, GPL v.2 and GPL v.3) ... Hava a look athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt\_(toolkit)I cannot see MS.NET even being free...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336583</id>
	<title>Re:Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct</title>
	<author>Qubit</author>
	<datestamp>1245086760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Were I a Debian leader, I would simply approach Microsoft with the Mono code and the ECMA code of conduct [ecma-international.org] and demand it in writing that for this snapshot of the code you have a forever royalty free to interact with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET.</p></div><p>What if someone wants to fix a bug in Mono or update it? Licenses that only cover snapshots of code or certain signed binaries are probably more of a headache than having no license at all. At least in the latter case you're less likely to have users be deluded into thinking that they're legally covered.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Were I a Debian leader , I would simply approach Microsoft with the Mono code and the ECMA code of conduct [ ecma-international.org ] and demand it in writing that for this snapshot of the code you have a forever royalty free to interact with .NET.What if someone wants to fix a bug in Mono or update it ?
Licenses that only cover snapshots of code or certain signed binaries are probably more of a headache than having no license at all .
At least in the latter case you 're less likely to have users be deluded into thinking that they 're legally covered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Were I a Debian leader, I would simply approach Microsoft with the Mono code and the ECMA code of conduct [ecma-international.org] and demand it in writing that for this snapshot of the code you have a forever royalty free to interact with .NET.What if someone wants to fix a bug in Mono or update it?
Licenses that only cover snapshots of code or certain signed binaries are probably more of a headache than having no license at all.
At least in the latter case you're less likely to have users be deluded into thinking that they're legally covered.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334735</id>
	<title>Re:Default installation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245078720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Debian never releases unstables. they go from unstable -&gt; testing -&gt; stable.
<br>
<br>
Trolls don't even know what they are trolling about anymore these days... It makes me sad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Debian never releases unstables .
they go from unstable - &gt; testing - &gt; stable .
Trolls do n't even know what they are trolling about anymore these days... It makes me sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Debian never releases unstables.
they go from unstable -&gt; testing -&gt; stable.
Trolls don't even know what they are trolling about anymore these days... It makes me sad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335057</id>
	<title>Re:Try Gnote instead of Tomboy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245080220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gnote is a nice port, but what about a port of F-Spot?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gnote is a nice port , but what about a port of F-Spot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gnote is a nice port, but what about a port of F-Spot?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335549</id>
	<title>Re:what a troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245082680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Microsoft has filed a patent on the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET APIs, but Tomboy (and most Mono applications) don't use the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET APIs, they use the ECMA APIs<br>ECMA is a standard body and IS NOT an API similar to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET. There's not such thing as ECMA APIs in your context<br>Microsoft submit C# to ECMA for open standard. This doesn't prevent them from filing a patent on its implementation at the same time. You can have an open standard with patent like OOXM, PDF, etc</p><p>&gt; Mono is no different in that way from Python, Ruby, Perl, or many other languages people commonly use on Linux: it uses proprietary APIs on Windows, and open source APIs on Linux.<br>This is incorrect. First of all, Python, Ruby, Perl are languages. Mono is a framework like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET. The language you are looking for is C#<br>Secondly, Python, Ruby and Perl do not have core that are patent ambiguous. There are<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET implementation for Python and Ruby called IronPython and IronRuby.<br>Mono is just a direct implementation of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET which is patented.</p><p>&gt; If anybody can point to an actual patent that Mono or Tomboy violate, please file an issue report against the Mono project<br>Do you know all of Microsoft patents? I guess not. Until then why should Linux take the risk when Balmer is touting that Linux violated 200+ Microsoft's patent.</p><p>&gt;So far, nobody has been able to come up with anything.<br>So far nobody has been able to come up with the 200+ Linux was claimed to violated. Your statement prove absolutely nothing.</p><p>I think you need to get your facts right before you identify who the troll is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Microsoft has filed a patent on the .NET APIs , but Tomboy ( and most Mono applications ) do n't use the .NET APIs , they use the ECMA APIsECMA is a standard body and IS NOT an API similar to .NET .
There 's not such thing as ECMA APIs in your contextMicrosoft submit C # to ECMA for open standard .
This does n't prevent them from filing a patent on its implementation at the same time .
You can have an open standard with patent like OOXM , PDF , etc &gt; Mono is no different in that way from Python , Ruby , Perl , or many other languages people commonly use on Linux : it uses proprietary APIs on Windows , and open source APIs on Linux.This is incorrect .
First of all , Python , Ruby , Perl are languages .
Mono is a framework like .NET .
The language you are looking for is C # Secondly , Python , Ruby and Perl do not have core that are patent ambiguous .
There are .NET implementation for Python and Ruby called IronPython and IronRuby.Mono is just a direct implementation of .NET which is patented. &gt; If anybody can point to an actual patent that Mono or Tomboy violate , please file an issue report against the Mono projectDo you know all of Microsoft patents ?
I guess not .
Until then why should Linux take the risk when Balmer is touting that Linux violated 200 + Microsoft 's patent. &gt; So far , nobody has been able to come up with anything.So far nobody has been able to come up with the 200 + Linux was claimed to violated .
Your statement prove absolutely nothing.I think you need to get your facts right before you identify who the troll is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Microsoft has filed a patent on the .NET APIs, but Tomboy (and most Mono applications) don't use the .NET APIs, they use the ECMA APIsECMA is a standard body and IS NOT an API similar to .NET.
There's not such thing as ECMA APIs in your contextMicrosoft submit C# to ECMA for open standard.
This doesn't prevent them from filing a patent on its implementation at the same time.
You can have an open standard with patent like OOXM, PDF, etc&gt; Mono is no different in that way from Python, Ruby, Perl, or many other languages people commonly use on Linux: it uses proprietary APIs on Windows, and open source APIs on Linux.This is incorrect.
First of all, Python, Ruby, Perl are languages.
Mono is a framework like .NET.
The language you are looking for is C#Secondly, Python, Ruby and Perl do not have core that are patent ambiguous.
There are .NET implementation for Python and Ruby called IronPython and IronRuby.Mono is just a direct implementation of .NET which is patented.&gt; If anybody can point to an actual patent that Mono or Tomboy violate, please file an issue report against the Mono projectDo you know all of Microsoft patents?
I guess not.
Until then why should Linux take the risk when Balmer is touting that Linux violated 200+ Microsoft's patent.&gt;So far, nobody has been able to come up with anything.So far nobody has been able to come up with the 200+ Linux was claimed to violated.
Your statement prove absolutely nothing.I think you need to get your facts right before you identify who the troll is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28345939</id>
	<title>Re:An interesting read on the subject</title>
	<author>Alioth</author>
	<datestamp>1245153300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's likely because Microsoft will soon hold patents (they have outstanding patent applications) on technologies that Mono includes. Given that Microsoft has openly declared themselves as being the arch-enemy of Linux, it seems foolish to make Linux distributions depend on a technology that Microsoft owns - because if programs depending on Mono get popular to such an extent the Linux desktop now heavily depends on it, Microsoft can just turn around and destroy Linux on the desktop with a patent lawsuit.</p><p>Additionally, Mono will always trail<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, and will always be the poor second class relation of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET if you're trying to develop cross platform programs. On the other hand, despite its faults, you're still a first class Java citizen if you use Java on Linux - you're not playing catch-up to some other implementation of Java. You have the same, complete implementation that everyone else has.</p><p>I'm sure Mono is very good, but at the moment it contains a fairly fatal legal flaw which renders it dangerous to free software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's likely because Microsoft will soon hold patents ( they have outstanding patent applications ) on technologies that Mono includes .
Given that Microsoft has openly declared themselves as being the arch-enemy of Linux , it seems foolish to make Linux distributions depend on a technology that Microsoft owns - because if programs depending on Mono get popular to such an extent the Linux desktop now heavily depends on it , Microsoft can just turn around and destroy Linux on the desktop with a patent lawsuit.Additionally , Mono will always trail .NET , and will always be the poor second class relation of .NET if you 're trying to develop cross platform programs .
On the other hand , despite its faults , you 're still a first class Java citizen if you use Java on Linux - you 're not playing catch-up to some other implementation of Java .
You have the same , complete implementation that everyone else has.I 'm sure Mono is very good , but at the moment it contains a fairly fatal legal flaw which renders it dangerous to free software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's likely because Microsoft will soon hold patents (they have outstanding patent applications) on technologies that Mono includes.
Given that Microsoft has openly declared themselves as being the arch-enemy of Linux, it seems foolish to make Linux distributions depend on a technology that Microsoft owns - because if programs depending on Mono get popular to such an extent the Linux desktop now heavily depends on it, Microsoft can just turn around and destroy Linux on the desktop with a patent lawsuit.Additionally, Mono will always trail .NET, and will always be the poor second class relation of .NET if you're trying to develop cross platform programs.
On the other hand, despite its faults, you're still a first class Java citizen if you use Java on Linux - you're not playing catch-up to some other implementation of Java.
You have the same, complete implementation that everyone else has.I'm sure Mono is very good, but at the moment it contains a fairly fatal legal flaw which renders it dangerous to free software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336139</id>
	<title>Re:Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct</title>
	<author>segedunum</author>
	<datestamp>1245084900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read the detail at the bottom behind the claims they're making. It becomes clear that they are ring-fencing certain APIs in any CLR compatible implementation mainly to do with web services but also APIs that seem to be essential to get a working CLR, but are not in the ECMA specifications. Implement ECMA and you basically have something akin to Rotor, which does pretty much nothing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the detail at the bottom behind the claims they 're making .
It becomes clear that they are ring-fencing certain APIs in any CLR compatible implementation mainly to do with web services but also APIs that seem to be essential to get a working CLR , but are not in the ECMA specifications .
Implement ECMA and you basically have something akin to Rotor , which does pretty much nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the detail at the bottom behind the claims they're making.
It becomes clear that they are ring-fencing certain APIs in any CLR compatible implementation mainly to do with web services but also APIs that seem to be essential to get a working CLR, but are not in the ECMA specifications.
Implement ECMA and you basically have something akin to Rotor, which does pretty much nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334539</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334539</id>
	<title>Re:Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245077520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you read their patent claim? If you closed your eyes, had someone else read it to you, and you had no idea the company of which it came from, you would swear it was a Sun patent on Java/SOAP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you read their patent claim ?
If you closed your eyes , had someone else read it to you , and you had no idea the company of which it came from , you would swear it was a Sun patent on Java/SOAP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you read their patent claim?
If you closed your eyes, had someone else read it to you, and you had no idea the company of which it came from, you would swear it was a Sun patent on Java/SOAP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335387</id>
	<title>Re:Try Gnote instead of Tomboy</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1245081840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do people use Tomboy for anyway?  The only thing I've used it for is holding a URL when I rebooted (long story.)  I used to just put that in a text file on my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home directory.</p><p>I never opened it after that.  I just don't get it's purpose besides digital post-its and even then it's kind of hard to administer them (ie: can't just drop in the trash... or can you?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do people use Tomboy for anyway ?
The only thing I 've used it for is holding a URL when I rebooted ( long story .
) I used to just put that in a text file on my /home directory.I never opened it after that .
I just do n't get it 's purpose besides digital post-its and even then it 's kind of hard to administer them ( ie : ca n't just drop in the trash... or can you ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do people use Tomboy for anyway?
The only thing I've used it for is holding a URL when I rebooted (long story.
)  I used to just put that in a text file on my /home directory.I never opened it after that.
I just don't get it's purpose besides digital post-its and even then it's kind of hard to administer them (ie: can't just drop in the trash... or can you?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334777</id>
	<title>that's irrelevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245078900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Even though Microsoft submitted the CLI and C# main components of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, MIcrosoft does hold at least one patent on the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET infrastructure.</i></p><p>First of all, they "don't hold a patent", they have filed a patent application.  Whether that application gets granted remains to be seen, and even if it does, it's unclear what such a patent actually would cover or whether it could be enforced.</p><p>Furthermore, even if the patent were valid and enforceable, it is irrelevant as far as Tomboy is concerned, since Tomboy and most other Mono desktop applications don't use the ".NET infrastructure", they use ECMA C# libraries and standard Linux libraries.</p><p><i>Were I a Debian leader, I would simply approach Microsoft with the Mono code and the ECMA code of conduct and demand it in writing that for this snapshot of the code you have a forever royalty free</i></p><p>What's there to put in writing?  You might as well demand Microsoft to put in writing that GNU C++, the Linux kernel, and Python are forever free from Microsoft royalties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though Microsoft submitted the CLI and C # main components of .NET , MIcrosoft does hold at least one patent on the .NET infrastructure.First of all , they " do n't hold a patent " , they have filed a patent application .
Whether that application gets granted remains to be seen , and even if it does , it 's unclear what such a patent actually would cover or whether it could be enforced.Furthermore , even if the patent were valid and enforceable , it is irrelevant as far as Tomboy is concerned , since Tomboy and most other Mono desktop applications do n't use the " .NET infrastructure " , they use ECMA C # libraries and standard Linux libraries.Were I a Debian leader , I would simply approach Microsoft with the Mono code and the ECMA code of conduct and demand it in writing that for this snapshot of the code you have a forever royalty freeWhat 's there to put in writing ?
You might as well demand Microsoft to put in writing that GNU C + + , the Linux kernel , and Python are forever free from Microsoft royalties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though Microsoft submitted the CLI and C# main components of .NET, MIcrosoft does hold at least one patent on the .NET infrastructure.First of all, they "don't hold a patent", they have filed a patent application.
Whether that application gets granted remains to be seen, and even if it does, it's unclear what such a patent actually would cover or whether it could be enforced.Furthermore, even if the patent were valid and enforceable, it is irrelevant as far as Tomboy is concerned, since Tomboy and most other Mono desktop applications don't use the ".NET infrastructure", they use ECMA C# libraries and standard Linux libraries.Were I a Debian leader, I would simply approach Microsoft with the Mono code and the ECMA code of conduct and demand it in writing that for this snapshot of the code you have a forever royalty freeWhat's there to put in writing?
You might as well demand Microsoft to put in writing that GNU C++, the Linux kernel, and Python are forever free from Microsoft royalties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28370717</id>
	<title>Re:Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct</title>
	<author>renoX</author>
	<datestamp>1245358620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Rambus was chastised for their actions (like the linked article states).</p><p>Chastised??? You should read better the article: the FTC tried but *failed* to do it and Rambus got a lot of money thanks to their 'submarine patents'.</p><p>As for the rest, given their history (even recent one with OOXML), I don't understand how anybody could trust Microsoft..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Rambus was chastised for their actions ( like the linked article states ) .Chastised ? ? ?
You should read better the article : the FTC tried but * failed * to do it and Rambus got a lot of money thanks to their 'submarine patents'.As for the rest , given their history ( even recent one with OOXML ) , I do n't understand how anybody could trust Microsoft. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Rambus was chastised for their actions (like the linked article states).Chastised???
You should read better the article: the FTC tried but *failed* to do it and Rambus got a lot of money thanks to their 'submarine patents'.As for the rest, given their history (even recent one with OOXML), I don't understand how anybody could trust Microsoft..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335153</id>
	<title>awkward fact, may ruin exciting story</title>
	<author>julian67</author>
	<datestamp>1245080700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/pkg-gnome/desktop/unstable/meta-gnome2/debian/control?revision=20303&amp;view=markup" title="debian.org">http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/pkg-gnome/desktop/unstable/meta-gnome2/debian/control?revision=20303&amp;view=markup</a> [debian.org]</p><p>"Depends: gnome-desktop-environment (= ${source:Version}),<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; gdm-themes,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; gnome-themes-extras,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; gnome-games (&gt;= 1:2.24.3),<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; libpam-gnome-keyring (&gt;= 2.24.1),<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly (&gt;= 0.10.10),<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg (&gt;= 0.10.6),<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; rhythmbox (&gt;= 0.12),<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; synaptic (&gt;= 0.62),<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; system-config-printer (&gt;= 1.0.0),<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; totem-mozilla,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; swfdec-mozilla,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; epiphany-extensions,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; gedit-plugins,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; evolution-plugins (&gt;= 2.24.3),<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; evolution-exchange (&gt;= 2.24.3),<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; evolution-webcal (&gt;= 2.24.0),<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; serpentine,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; gnome-app-install,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; transmission-gtk,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; bluez-gnome,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; arj,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; avahi-daemon,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; tomboy (&gt;= 0.12.2) | gnote,"</p><p>note: tomboy (&gt;= 0.12.2) | gnote</p><p>In plain English that means tomboy *or* gnote.</p><p>It's Debian, you have a choice.</p><p>Debian also offers an Xfce/LXDE version of CD1 and a KDE version of CD1, CD1 being the installer. Neither of these offer mono or Gnome (duh!). Debian also offers fine grained package selection in all the installers, and a netinstall and a tiny netinstall, the businesscard iso.  There is also the DVD installer which offers a choice of desktop environments along with the usual options for fine grained selection of packages, the 'Expert Install' option.</p><p>So *one* of the numerous ways of installing Debian *may* offer Tomboy to those who want it. Cue howls of intolerant, ill-informed, unsubstantiated quasi-religious outrage.....</p><p>And anyway mono is accepted as free software by the two bodies which are best placed to determine its status, the FSF and the OSI (and Debian Legal as well).  Their legal teams have somehow failed to persuaded by psychotic ravings and are obstinately insistent in assessing these things by means of reason, facts, law and other little know methods. How churlish.</p><p>On the other hand it might be a far reaching conspiracy and have something to do with the Kennedy assassination, 9/11 and Roswell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //svn.debian.org/viewsvn/pkg-gnome/desktop/unstable/meta-gnome2/debian/control ? revision = 20303&amp;view = markup [ debian.org ] " Depends : gnome-desktop-environment ( = $ { source : Version } ) ,                   gdm-themes ,                   gnome-themes-extras ,                   gnome-games ( &gt; = 1 : 2.24.3 ) ,                   libpam-gnome-keyring ( &gt; = 2.24.1 ) ,                   gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly ( &gt; = 0.10.10 ) ,                   gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg ( &gt; = 0.10.6 ) ,                   rhythmbox ( &gt; = 0.12 ) ,                   synaptic ( &gt; = 0.62 ) ,                   system-config-printer ( &gt; = 1.0.0 ) ,                   totem-mozilla ,                   swfdec-mozilla ,                   epiphany-extensions ,                   gedit-plugins ,                   evolution-plugins ( &gt; = 2.24.3 ) ,                   evolution-exchange ( &gt; = 2.24.3 ) ,                   evolution-webcal ( &gt; = 2.24.0 ) ,                   serpentine ,                   gnome-app-install ,                   transmission-gtk ,                   bluez-gnome ,                   arj ,                   avahi-daemon ,                   tomboy ( &gt; = 0.12.2 ) | gnote , " note : tomboy ( &gt; = 0.12.2 ) | gnoteIn plain English that means tomboy * or * gnote.It 's Debian , you have a choice.Debian also offers an Xfce/LXDE version of CD1 and a KDE version of CD1 , CD1 being the installer .
Neither of these offer mono or Gnome ( duh ! ) .
Debian also offers fine grained package selection in all the installers , and a netinstall and a tiny netinstall , the businesscard iso .
There is also the DVD installer which offers a choice of desktop environments along with the usual options for fine grained selection of packages , the 'Expert Install ' option.So * one * of the numerous ways of installing Debian * may * offer Tomboy to those who want it .
Cue howls of intolerant , ill-informed , unsubstantiated quasi-religious outrage.....And anyway mono is accepted as free software by the two bodies which are best placed to determine its status , the FSF and the OSI ( and Debian Legal as well ) .
Their legal teams have somehow failed to persuaded by psychotic ravings and are obstinately insistent in assessing these things by means of reason , facts , law and other little know methods .
How churlish.On the other hand it might be a far reaching conspiracy and have something to do with the Kennedy assassination , 9/11 and Roswell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/pkg-gnome/desktop/unstable/meta-gnome2/debian/control?revision=20303&amp;view=markup [debian.org]"Depends: gnome-desktop-environment (= ${source:Version}),
                  gdm-themes,
                  gnome-themes-extras,
                  gnome-games (&gt;= 1:2.24.3),
                  libpam-gnome-keyring (&gt;= 2.24.1),
                  gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly (&gt;= 0.10.10),
                  gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg (&gt;= 0.10.6),
                  rhythmbox (&gt;= 0.12),
                  synaptic (&gt;= 0.62),
                  system-config-printer (&gt;= 1.0.0),
                  totem-mozilla,
                  swfdec-mozilla,
                  epiphany-extensions,
                  gedit-plugins,
                  evolution-plugins (&gt;= 2.24.3),
                  evolution-exchange (&gt;= 2.24.3),
                  evolution-webcal (&gt;= 2.24.0),
                  serpentine,
                  gnome-app-install,
                  transmission-gtk,
                  bluez-gnome,
                  arj,
                  avahi-daemon,
                  tomboy (&gt;= 0.12.2) | gnote,"note: tomboy (&gt;= 0.12.2) | gnoteIn plain English that means tomboy *or* gnote.It's Debian, you have a choice.Debian also offers an Xfce/LXDE version of CD1 and a KDE version of CD1, CD1 being the installer.
Neither of these offer mono or Gnome (duh!).
Debian also offers fine grained package selection in all the installers, and a netinstall and a tiny netinstall, the businesscard iso.
There is also the DVD installer which offers a choice of desktop environments along with the usual options for fine grained selection of packages, the 'Expert Install' option.So *one* of the numerous ways of installing Debian *may* offer Tomboy to those who want it.
Cue howls of intolerant, ill-informed, unsubstantiated quasi-religious outrage.....And anyway mono is accepted as free software by the two bodies which are best placed to determine its status, the FSF and the OSI (and Debian Legal as well).
Their legal teams have somehow failed to persuaded by psychotic ravings and are obstinately insistent in assessing these things by means of reason, facts, law and other little know methods.
How churlish.On the other hand it might be a far reaching conspiracy and have something to do with the Kennedy assassination, 9/11 and Roswell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28346967</id>
	<title>Re:Frist</title>
	<author>Whitemice</author>
	<datestamp>1245163740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*NO* "specifications patented by Microsoft and licensed under undisclosed terms" for use in Mono.</p><p>This is just idiots confusing the M$/Novell deal with something to do with Mono, which is doesn't even relate to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* NO * " specifications patented by Microsoft and licensed under undisclosed terms " for use in Mono.This is just idiots confusing the M $ /Novell deal with something to do with Mono , which is does n't even relate to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*NO* "specifications patented by Microsoft and licensed under undisclosed terms" for use in Mono.This is just idiots confusing the M$/Novell deal with something to do with Mono, which is doesn't even relate to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336545</id>
	<title>Re:Victory for Free Software Advocates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245086520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is it a victory when there is another application that does *all* the same things except that it doesn't need the tons of dependencies?</p><p>By all means, let the tomboy developers enjoy working on their thing, and let everyone who likes it use it, but I could think about a couple of things I'd like those 40MBs used for other than Mono</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is it a victory when there is another application that does * all * the same things except that it does n't need the tons of dependencies ? By all means , let the tomboy developers enjoy working on their thing , and let everyone who likes it use it , but I could think about a couple of things I 'd like those 40MBs used for other than Mono</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is it a victory when there is another application that does *all* the same things except that it doesn't need the tons of dependencies?By all means, let the tomboy developers enjoy working on their thing, and let everyone who likes it use it, but I could think about a couple of things I'd like those 40MBs used for other than Mono</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336635</id>
	<title>Re:Default installation?</title>
	<author>MrHanky</author>
	<datestamp>1245087000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it amazing that more than two moderators think this comment should be modded up. Hint: everything parent says is wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it amazing that more than two moderators think this comment should be modded up .
Hint : everything parent says is wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it amazing that more than two moderators think this comment should be modded up.
Hint: everything parent says is wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28352125</id>
	<title>Re:Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245184140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aah, now I get where your POV comes from. And I agree totally to the unix philosophy.</p><p>But there is not a single desktop environment on this planet, who actually does this. For this, the buttons in an application for example, would have to be separate programs.</p><p>But just removing functions, while still going completely in the opposite direction than the UNIX philosophy, is even worse than putting them all in large monolithic apps.</p><p>Besides: The KDE core apps are not that monolithic at all. Hell, even the "K-Menu" is a different app from the task bar. And Plasma is specifically made to go in the direction of the UNIX philosophy. People just don't get it, because of horrible marketing. and developers think they can just fit their old apps into the new thing, and be done. Instead of splitting them up.</p><p>About the options: Options are equivalent to freedom and individuality. If you call that "cluttered crap", then no wonder totalitarian "one law to rule them all" governments are on the rise.<br>The point that apparently nobody gets, is that you offer <em>as much options as possible</em> but you set <em>sensible defaults</em>. So if you just imagine there is no "Settings" menu option, you got your Gnome. and if you use it, then you got you KDE. Or everything else in between.<br>I also recommend profiles. Even hierarchical cross-application profiles, that you can download from a site like kde-profiles.org or something like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aah , now I get where your POV comes from .
And I agree totally to the unix philosophy.But there is not a single desktop environment on this planet , who actually does this .
For this , the buttons in an application for example , would have to be separate programs.But just removing functions , while still going completely in the opposite direction than the UNIX philosophy , is even worse than putting them all in large monolithic apps.Besides : The KDE core apps are not that monolithic at all .
Hell , even the " K-Menu " is a different app from the task bar .
And Plasma is specifically made to go in the direction of the UNIX philosophy .
People just do n't get it , because of horrible marketing .
and developers think they can just fit their old apps into the new thing , and be done .
Instead of splitting them up.About the options : Options are equivalent to freedom and individuality .
If you call that " cluttered crap " , then no wonder totalitarian " one law to rule them all " governments are on the rise.The point that apparently nobody gets , is that you offer as much options as possible but you set sensible defaults .
So if you just imagine there is no " Settings " menu option , you got your Gnome .
and if you use it , then you got you KDE .
Or everything else in between.I also recommend profiles .
Even hierarchical cross-application profiles , that you can download from a site like kde-profiles.org or something like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aah, now I get where your POV comes from.
And I agree totally to the unix philosophy.But there is not a single desktop environment on this planet, who actually does this.
For this, the buttons in an application for example, would have to be separate programs.But just removing functions, while still going completely in the opposite direction than the UNIX philosophy, is even worse than putting them all in large monolithic apps.Besides: The KDE core apps are not that monolithic at all.
Hell, even the "K-Menu" is a different app from the task bar.
And Plasma is specifically made to go in the direction of the UNIX philosophy.
People just don't get it, because of horrible marketing.
and developers think they can just fit their old apps into the new thing, and be done.
Instead of splitting them up.About the options: Options are equivalent to freedom and individuality.
If you call that "cluttered crap", then no wonder totalitarian "one law to rule them all" governments are on the rise.The point that apparently nobody gets, is that you offer as much options as possible but you set sensible defaults.
So if you just imagine there is no "Settings" menu option, you got your Gnome.
and if you use it, then you got you KDE.
Or everything else in between.I also recommend profiles.
Even hierarchical cross-application profiles, that you can download from a site like kde-profiles.org or something like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337257</id>
	<title>Re:Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245089880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>*On another note: What's the point of Gnome again, now that Qt/KDE is open sourced?*</p></div><p>To not be a cluttered piece of crap, which is KDE's job.  See on UNIX, every program should do one thing and do it well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* On another note : What 's the point of Gnome again , now that Qt/KDE is open sourced ?
* To not be a cluttered piece of crap , which is KDE 's job .
See on UNIX , every program should do one thing and do it well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*On another note: What's the point of Gnome again, now that Qt/KDE is open sourced?
*To not be a cluttered piece of crap, which is KDE's job.
See on UNIX, every program should do one thing and do it well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336581</id>
	<title>Re:Yessss</title>
	<author>ais523</author>
	<datestamp>1245086760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, why would Novell sign such an agreement? Easy: Because their legal department advised them to do so. From this we can conclude that Novells legal department has knowledge of legal risks concerning Mono.</p></div><p>Actually, I suspect they signed it because Microsoft offered them lots of money to do so. Imagine Microsoft offered to pay you $1000 and also give you a patent licence to Mono. Would you accept their offer? Would that then mean that you believed Mono required a patent licence to use?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , why would Novell sign such an agreement ?
Easy : Because their legal department advised them to do so .
From this we can conclude that Novells legal department has knowledge of legal risks concerning Mono.Actually , I suspect they signed it because Microsoft offered them lots of money to do so .
Imagine Microsoft offered to pay you $ 1000 and also give you a patent licence to Mono .
Would you accept their offer ?
Would that then mean that you believed Mono required a patent licence to use ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, why would Novell sign such an agreement?
Easy: Because their legal department advised them to do so.
From this we can conclude that Novells legal department has knowledge of legal risks concerning Mono.Actually, I suspect they signed it because Microsoft offered them lots of money to do so.
Imagine Microsoft offered to pay you $1000 and also give you a patent licence to Mono.
Would you accept their offer?
Would that then mean that you believed Mono required a patent licence to use?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334561</id>
	<title>Victory for Free Software Advocates</title>
	<author>AlexMax2742</author>
	<datestamp>1245077640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a victory for Free Software advocates over Free Software zealots.  Congrats to the debian team for doing the right thing, even if it might be unpopular with the crazies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a victory for Free Software advocates over Free Software zealots .
Congrats to the debian team for doing the right thing , even if it might be unpopular with the crazies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a victory for Free Software advocates over Free Software zealots.
Congrats to the debian team for doing the right thing, even if it might be unpopular with the crazies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335489</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please correct me if I'm wrong</title>
	<author>lastman71</author>
	<datestamp>1245082380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Tomboy don't require MS.net at all.<br>2) Mono is gpl, while qt was not. Qt had a commercial license that was free (no pay required) only for linux. You had to pay for every other OS.</p><p>So the question is quite misleading.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Tomboy do n't require MS.net at all.2 ) Mono is gpl , while qt was not .
Qt had a commercial license that was free ( no pay required ) only for linux .
You had to pay for every other OS.So the question is quite misleading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Tomboy don't require MS.net at all.2) Mono is gpl, while qt was not.
Qt had a commercial license that was free (no pay required) only for linux.
You had to pay for every other OS.So the question is quite misleading.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28339483</id>
	<title>Re:Someone please correct me if I'm wrong</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1245098820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; But wasn't the GNOME project founded because KDE depends on Qt, which is not adequately "free?"</p><p>Sorta.  Qt was totally not free when KDE began, it was only a 'free download, but only for the Linux version' sort of free.  The same sort of ferret coders who couldn't get past "Qt shiny, me want!" are the sort who now want to handwave away all criticism of the non-code legal/political issues surrounding Mono.  Back then enough people saw the danger of basing the entire Free Software desktop effort on a small commercial software house's unfree code that GNOME was founded in response.  It is almost certainly a direct response to that pressure that eventually caused Qt to now be 100\% Free.</p><p>No such response is required to Mono, only keeping it at arm's length.  If we never allow it to become a standard part of our software base and build no major hard to replace flagship applications upon it the odds are Microsoft will never launch an attack.</p><p>Of course if we do this the critics will always insist we were fools to not avail ourselves of the incredible Microsoft technology and that we held back progress.  But expenditures on defenses are always like that, it is hard to count the cost of the wars not fought while the ships, planes and tanks have measurable costs.  Thus it is here, if Microsoft never attacks we will never know what costs we saved, but the odds of having the patent armegeddon are greatly increased if we lower our guard and make ourselves a target they can't refuse striking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; But was n't the GNOME project founded because KDE depends on Qt , which is not adequately " free ? " Sorta .
Qt was totally not free when KDE began , it was only a 'free download , but only for the Linux version ' sort of free .
The same sort of ferret coders who could n't get past " Qt shiny , me want !
" are the sort who now want to handwave away all criticism of the non-code legal/political issues surrounding Mono .
Back then enough people saw the danger of basing the entire Free Software desktop effort on a small commercial software house 's unfree code that GNOME was founded in response .
It is almost certainly a direct response to that pressure that eventually caused Qt to now be 100 \ % Free.No such response is required to Mono , only keeping it at arm 's length .
If we never allow it to become a standard part of our software base and build no major hard to replace flagship applications upon it the odds are Microsoft will never launch an attack.Of course if we do this the critics will always insist we were fools to not avail ourselves of the incredible Microsoft technology and that we held back progress .
But expenditures on defenses are always like that , it is hard to count the cost of the wars not fought while the ships , planes and tanks have measurable costs .
Thus it is here , if Microsoft never attacks we will never know what costs we saved , but the odds of having the patent armegeddon are greatly increased if we lower our guard and make ourselves a target they ca n't refuse striking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; But wasn't the GNOME project founded because KDE depends on Qt, which is not adequately "free?"Sorta.
Qt was totally not free when KDE began, it was only a 'free download, but only for the Linux version' sort of free.
The same sort of ferret coders who couldn't get past "Qt shiny, me want!
" are the sort who now want to handwave away all criticism of the non-code legal/political issues surrounding Mono.
Back then enough people saw the danger of basing the entire Free Software desktop effort on a small commercial software house's unfree code that GNOME was founded in response.
It is almost certainly a direct response to that pressure that eventually caused Qt to now be 100\% Free.No such response is required to Mono, only keeping it at arm's length.
If we never allow it to become a standard part of our software base and build no major hard to replace flagship applications upon it the odds are Microsoft will never launch an attack.Of course if we do this the critics will always insist we were fools to not avail ourselves of the incredible Microsoft technology and that we held back progress.
But expenditures on defenses are always like that, it is hard to count the cost of the wars not fought while the ships, planes and tanks have measurable costs.
Thus it is here, if Microsoft never attacks we will never know what costs we saved, but the odds of having the patent armegeddon are greatly increased if we lower our guard and make ourselves a target they can't refuse striking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335941</id>
	<title>Re:Try Gnote instead of Tomboy</title>
	<author>robmv</author>
	<datestamp>1245084120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Using GPL code on another GPL ported program (to another programming language) is a ripoff? and I am using Gnote 0.3.1 and it has Applet support, Gnote is being converted from C# to C++, and features and plugins are being ported one by one</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Using GPL code on another GPL ported program ( to another programming language ) is a ripoff ?
and I am using Gnote 0.3.1 and it has Applet support , Gnote is being converted from C # to C + + , and features and plugins are being ported one by one</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using GPL code on another GPL ported program (to another programming language) is a ripoff?
and I am using Gnote 0.3.1 and it has Applet support, Gnote is being converted from C# to C++, and features and plugins are being ported one by one</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28341305</id>
	<title>Re:that's irrelevant</title>
	<author>setagllib</author>
	<datestamp>1245063540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not even a bad idea, since they already published FUD about Linux' patent hygiene, putting the opposite in writing would finally put it to rest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not even a bad idea , since they already published FUD about Linux ' patent hygiene , putting the opposite in writing would finally put it to rest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not even a bad idea, since they already published FUD about Linux' patent hygiene, putting the opposite in writing would finally put it to rest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28340521</id>
	<title>Re:Default installation?</title>
	<author>grimdonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1245059520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Last I checked, the "default installation" of Debian didn't even include X. </p></div><p>When did you last check? 1995?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I checked , the " default installation " of Debian did n't even include X. When did you last check ?
1995 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I checked, the "default installation" of Debian didn't even include X. When did you last check?
1995?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335465</id>
	<title>Re:Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245082260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds to me like the "no bugs have popped up yet, so there are no bugs in the program" logic fallacy.</p><p>If one company of all has proven to follow the rule, that if they have some strange clause in the contract, and on asking about it, they say that it's just for safety and will never be used in reality, they intend to use it as early and as often as possible, then it's with no doubt Microsoft. (Health insurance companies would come to mind too.)</p><p>I think, given the happenings of the past, it is far more likely, that as soon as Mono became an essential part of Gnome, so that to remove it, you would have to kill Gnome entierly, Microsoft will load its weapons.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>Which means that soon, the argument of both troll teams (the pro-mono and the contra-mono side act very trollish, I must say), will be settley, and we can go back to VI vs Emacs.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>On another note: What's the point of Gnome again, now that Qt/KDE is open sourced? (Remember how Gnome started because it was not.)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br>Oh well, I am always for more freedom (and more choice, if it helps freedom), so why not?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds to me like the " no bugs have popped up yet , so there are no bugs in the program " logic fallacy.If one company of all has proven to follow the rule , that if they have some strange clause in the contract , and on asking about it , they say that it 's just for safety and will never be used in reality , they intend to use it as early and as often as possible , then it 's with no doubt Microsoft .
( Health insurance companies would come to mind too .
) I think , given the happenings of the past , it is far more likely , that as soon as Mono became an essential part of Gnome , so that to remove it , you would have to kill Gnome entierly , Microsoft will load its weapons .
; ) Which means that soon , the argument of both troll teams ( the pro-mono and the contra-mono side act very trollish , I must say ) , will be settley , and we can go back to VI vs Emacs .
; ) On another note : What 's the point of Gnome again , now that Qt/KDE is open sourced ?
( Remember how Gnome started because it was not .
) ; ) Oh well , I am always for more freedom ( and more choice , if it helps freedom ) , so why not ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds to me like the "no bugs have popped up yet, so there are no bugs in the program" logic fallacy.If one company of all has proven to follow the rule, that if they have some strange clause in the contract, and on asking about it, they say that it's just for safety and will never be used in reality, they intend to use it as early and as often as possible, then it's with no doubt Microsoft.
(Health insurance companies would come to mind too.
)I think, given the happenings of the past, it is far more likely, that as soon as Mono became an essential part of Gnome, so that to remove it, you would have to kill Gnome entierly, Microsoft will load its weapons.
;)Which means that soon, the argument of both troll teams (the pro-mono and the contra-mono side act very trollish, I must say), will be settley, and we can go back to VI vs Emacs.
;)On another note: What's the point of Gnome again, now that Qt/KDE is open sourced?
(Remember how Gnome started because it was not.
) ;)Oh well, I am always for more freedom (and more choice, if it helps freedom), so why not?
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334537</id>
	<title>Re:Incredible horrifying bloat</title>
	<author>hattig</author>
	<datestamp>1245077520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Is TomBoy built upon Mono? I've used it - it's a terrible unusable bit of software that acts entirely counter-intuitively for taking notes, with a GUI that is neither compact or usable for managing the notes.<br><br>Someone could rewrite it in native GTK/Gnome/SQLite in a few days I'm sure.<br><br>Seriously, the old "note dock" applet for WindowMaker was better, and that was 12 years ago.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is TomBoy built upon Mono ?
I 've used it - it 's a terrible unusable bit of software that acts entirely counter-intuitively for taking notes , with a GUI that is neither compact or usable for managing the notes.Someone could rewrite it in native GTK/Gnome/SQLite in a few days I 'm sure.Seriously , the old " note dock " applet for WindowMaker was better , and that was 12 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is TomBoy built upon Mono?
I've used it - it's a terrible unusable bit of software that acts entirely counter-intuitively for taking notes, with a GUI that is neither compact or usable for managing the notes.Someone could rewrite it in native GTK/Gnome/SQLite in a few days I'm sure.Seriously, the old "note dock" applet for WindowMaker was better, and that was 12 years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338247</id>
	<title>Re:what a troll</title>
	<author>z121212mlmiac</author>
	<datestamp>1245094380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mono does have implementations of non-standard<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET features, such as System.Windows.Forms. <b>These might have patents.</b> Tomboy (and most Mono apps written for use on Unix-like systems) don't use them, but that doesn't magically make their implementations disappear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mono does have implementations of non-standard .NET features , such as System.Windows.Forms .
These might have patents .
Tomboy ( and most Mono apps written for use on Unix-like systems ) do n't use them , but that does n't magically make their implementations disappear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mono does have implementations of non-standard .NET features, such as System.Windows.Forms.
These might have patents.
Tomboy (and most Mono apps written for use on Unix-like systems) don't use them, but that doesn't magically make their implementations disappear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337329</id>
	<title>Re:what a troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245090120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you can't patent an API, but only the implementation of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you ca n't patent an API , but only the implementation of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you can't patent an API, but only the implementation of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334477</id>
	<title>6 MB</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245077040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's actually 6 MB for Tomboy itself. The 50 MB figure must include Mono, I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's actually 6 MB for Tomboy itself .
The 50 MB figure must include Mono , I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's actually 6 MB for Tomboy itself.
The 50 MB figure must include Mono, I guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28342003</id>
	<title>Re:Incredible horrifying bloat</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1245067560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have a compiled version of Tomboy and it only comes out to around 5-6 megs.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Dude, I have a compiled version of <b>Emacs</b> that comes out to 3.5Mb. So remind me again why a note taking application should take up so much space, plus depend on 45Mb worth of Mono framework.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a compiled version of Tomboy and it only comes out to around 5-6 megs .
Dude , I have a compiled version of Emacs that comes out to 3.5Mb .
So remind me again why a note taking application should take up so much space , plus depend on 45Mb worth of Mono framework .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a compiled version of Tomboy and it only comes out to around 5-6 megs.
Dude, I have a compiled version of Emacs that comes out to 3.5Mb.
So remind me again why a note taking application should take up so much space, plus depend on 45Mb worth of Mono framework.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334527</id>
	<title>Mono is a gateway to cross-platform virii</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245077400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's just like Wine and DOSEmu: a gateway to viruses that originated on Microsoft platforms.  Many will argue that they don't effect linux because they are sandboxed, yet they will effect linux because they will serve to run the mission-critical software that holds the critical and data in that delapidated sandbox.</p><p>Besides the fact, better solutions exist than C# and its Microsoft-spired Mono.  This is Micros~2 pushing its monopoly weight into markets that it has NEVER EVER produced any product other than the sake of a for-profit venture to schill into Colleges and Universities with their monetary influences.</p><p>Get those bums out of here, and take Mono with them.  Mono is nothing more than the plastic implementation of a paper bag; who the f*ck said it was progress to begin with?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just like Wine and DOSEmu : a gateway to viruses that originated on Microsoft platforms .
Many will argue that they do n't effect linux because they are sandboxed , yet they will effect linux because they will serve to run the mission-critical software that holds the critical and data in that delapidated sandbox.Besides the fact , better solutions exist than C # and its Microsoft-spired Mono .
This is Micros ~ 2 pushing its monopoly weight into markets that it has NEVER EVER produced any product other than the sake of a for-profit venture to schill into Colleges and Universities with their monetary influences.Get those bums out of here , and take Mono with them .
Mono is nothing more than the plastic implementation of a paper bag ; who the f * ck said it was progress to begin with ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just like Wine and DOSEmu: a gateway to viruses that originated on Microsoft platforms.
Many will argue that they don't effect linux because they are sandboxed, yet they will effect linux because they will serve to run the mission-critical software that holds the critical and data in that delapidated sandbox.Besides the fact, better solutions exist than C# and its Microsoft-spired Mono.
This is Micros~2 pushing its monopoly weight into markets that it has NEVER EVER produced any product other than the sake of a for-profit venture to schill into Colleges and Universities with their monetary influences.Get those bums out of here, and take Mono with them.
Mono is nothing more than the plastic implementation of a paper bag; who the f*ck said it was progress to begin with?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334341</id>
	<title>Fp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245076260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>trollzors</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>trollzors</tokentext>
<sentencetext>trollzors</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337927</id>
	<title>KDE and Gnome</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1245092820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>*On another note: What's the point of Gnome again, now that Qt/KDE is open sourced?*</p></div><p>To not be a cluttered piece of crap, which is KDE's job.  See on UNIX, every program should do one thing and do it well.</p></div><p>I've always thought KDE's applications were much better than OpenOffice - and Gnome doesn't seem to have any productivity applications at all...</p><p>(I've run mostly KDE for a long time, though I have been running Gnome of late, on my new laptop - and I'm quite enjoying it...)</p><p>I really strongly feel that Unix lacks the coherent infrastructure needed for this "each tool does one thing well" philosophy...  If each tool does just one thing, then your ability to accomplish things strongly depends on how effectively and easily you can link multiple tools together...  I feel like the old Unix tools philosophy has gone AWOL of late, and it's pretty much absent from the GUI space, where an individual application is usually written to handle all possible actions for an individual problem domain, and there's very little consideration made to linking these applications together...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* On another note : What 's the point of Gnome again , now that Qt/KDE is open sourced ?
* To not be a cluttered piece of crap , which is KDE 's job .
See on UNIX , every program should do one thing and do it well.I 've always thought KDE 's applications were much better than OpenOffice - and Gnome does n't seem to have any productivity applications at all... ( I 've run mostly KDE for a long time , though I have been running Gnome of late , on my new laptop - and I 'm quite enjoying it... ) I really strongly feel that Unix lacks the coherent infrastructure needed for this " each tool does one thing well " philosophy... If each tool does just one thing , then your ability to accomplish things strongly depends on how effectively and easily you can link multiple tools together... I feel like the old Unix tools philosophy has gone AWOL of late , and it 's pretty much absent from the GUI space , where an individual application is usually written to handle all possible actions for an individual problem domain , and there 's very little consideration made to linking these applications together.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*On another note: What's the point of Gnome again, now that Qt/KDE is open sourced?
*To not be a cluttered piece of crap, which is KDE's job.
See on UNIX, every program should do one thing and do it well.I've always thought KDE's applications were much better than OpenOffice - and Gnome doesn't seem to have any productivity applications at all...(I've run mostly KDE for a long time, though I have been running Gnome of late, on my new laptop - and I'm quite enjoying it...)I really strongly feel that Unix lacks the coherent infrastructure needed for this "each tool does one thing well" philosophy...  If each tool does just one thing, then your ability to accomplish things strongly depends on how effectively and easily you can link multiple tools together...  I feel like the old Unix tools philosophy has gone AWOL of late, and it's pretty much absent from the GUI space, where an individual application is usually written to handle all possible actions for an individual problem domain, and there's very little consideration made to linking these applications together...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334387</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245076500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>C# is awesome. Linux is better for having it around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>C # is awesome .
Linux is better for having it around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C# is awesome.
Linux is better for having it around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28385995</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245353160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt; Mono Squeezed Into Debian Default Installation</p><p>It is not going into the Debian default installation.  The Debian default installation does not include any "desktop environment".  It is going into the Gnome "desktop".</p></div><p>The Debian "default" installation is "Base" and "Desktop Environment" -- hence "GNOME" being the "default".  ie; Those 2 tasks are selected "by default", you have to take action (read: change the default) to not install the "Desktop Environment".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Mono Squeezed Into Debian Default InstallationIt is not going into the Debian default installation .
The Debian default installation does not include any " desktop environment " .
It is going into the Gnome " desktop " .The Debian " default " installation is " Base " and " Desktop Environment " -- hence " GNOME " being the " default " .
ie ; Those 2 tasks are selected " by default " , you have to take action ( read : change the default ) to not install the " Desktop Environment " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Mono Squeezed Into Debian Default InstallationIt is not going into the Debian default installation.
The Debian default installation does not include any "desktop environment".
It is going into the Gnome "desktop".The Debian "default" installation is "Base" and "Desktop Environment" -- hence "GNOME" being the "default".
ie; Those 2 tasks are selected "by default", you have to take action (read: change the default) to not install the "Desktop Environment".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334625</id>
	<title>Re:Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245078060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess Tomboy is a nice test-case. But all that junk to install just for a note-taking program? Also, wouldn't it be nice if the Slashdot summary told me what Tomboy does?</p><p>The project page is a little more informative:<br><a href="http://freshmeat.net/projects/tomboy" title="freshmeat.net">http://freshmeat.net/projects/tomboy</a> [freshmeat.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess Tomboy is a nice test-case .
But all that junk to install just for a note-taking program ?
Also , would n't it be nice if the Slashdot summary told me what Tomboy does ? The project page is a little more informative : http : //freshmeat.net/projects/tomboy [ freshmeat.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess Tomboy is a nice test-case.
But all that junk to install just for a note-taking program?
Also, wouldn't it be nice if the Slashdot summary told me what Tomboy does?The project page is a little more informative:http://freshmeat.net/projects/tomboy [freshmeat.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335161</id>
	<title>Someone please correct me if I'm wrong</title>
	<author>overshoot</author>
	<datestamp>1245080760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>But wasn't the GNOME project founded because KDE depends on Qt, which is not adequately "free?"<p>

If that's true, could someone explain to me how MS.NET is "more free" than Qt?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But was n't the GNOME project founded because KDE depends on Qt , which is not adequately " free ?
" If that 's true , could someone explain to me how MS.NET is " more free " than Qt ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But wasn't the GNOME project founded because KDE depends on Qt, which is not adequately "free?
"

If that's true, could someone explain to me how MS.NET is "more free" than Qt?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28343469</id>
	<title>Re:Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct</title>
	<author>Schraegstrichpunkt</author>
	<datestamp>1245078720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't be so daft.  If Microsoft's past behaviour is any indication, they wouldn't sue Debian.  They'd sue individual Debian <em>users</em> and <em>distributors</em>.  Look at what they did to TomTom.</p><p>Microsoft's strategy seems to be to make "FOSS" and "non-commercial" equivalent.  Part of this strategy is to treat "commercial" and "open source" as a dichotomy in all their PR materials, and part of this strategy is to scare anyone who dares to use FOSS commercially.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be so daft .
If Microsoft 's past behaviour is any indication , they would n't sue Debian .
They 'd sue individual Debian users and distributors .
Look at what they did to TomTom.Microsoft 's strategy seems to be to make " FOSS " and " non-commercial " equivalent .
Part of this strategy is to treat " commercial " and " open source " as a dichotomy in all their PR materials , and part of this strategy is to scare anyone who dares to use FOSS commercially .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be so daft.
If Microsoft's past behaviour is any indication, they wouldn't sue Debian.
They'd sue individual Debian users and distributors.
Look at what they did to TomTom.Microsoft's strategy seems to be to make "FOSS" and "non-commercial" equivalent.
Part of this strategy is to treat "commercial" and "open source" as a dichotomy in all their PR materials, and part of this strategy is to scare anyone who dares to use FOSS commercially.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28505785</id>
	<title>Stallman and Mono</title>
	<author>Conrad Mazian</author>
	<datestamp>1246217340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the claims used to push Mono was that Stallman was OK with it. He has just recently issued a statement that <a href="http://crankyoldnutcase.blogspot.com/2009/06/stallmans-statement-on-mono.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">he is against mono</a> [blogspot.com] being included in Linux distros.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the claims used to push Mono was that Stallman was OK with it .
He has just recently issued a statement that he is against mono [ blogspot.com ] being included in Linux distros .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the claims used to push Mono was that Stallman was OK with it.
He has just recently issued a statement that he is against mono [blogspot.com] being included in Linux distros.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335351</id>
	<title>Re:what a troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245081660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>unlike Java, Mono is based on an open standard</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
This is literally true, but very misleading. Microsoft has ECMA bless<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET from time to time. Java has the Java Community Process. Yeah, sure, ECMA calls itself a standards organization, and the Java Community Process doesn't. If you look back at the history of Java, its big selling point from the beginning was that it was cross-platform, Sun fought intensely to make sure that it didn't get turned into a nonstandardized mess by MS, and Oracle's reference implementation is GPL'd. Microsoft, on the other hand, has demonstrated with OOXML that they see standards bodies as things that they can cynically manipulate.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>unlike Java , Mono is based on an open standard This is literally true , but very misleading .
Microsoft has ECMA bless .NET from time to time .
Java has the Java Community Process .
Yeah , sure , ECMA calls itself a standards organization , and the Java Community Process does n't .
If you look back at the history of Java , its big selling point from the beginning was that it was cross-platform , Sun fought intensely to make sure that it did n't get turned into a nonstandardized mess by MS , and Oracle 's reference implementation is GPL 'd .
Microsoft , on the other hand , has demonstrated with OOXML that they see standards bodies as things that they can cynically manipulate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unlike Java, Mono is based on an open standard

This is literally true, but very misleading.
Microsoft has ECMA bless .NET from time to time.
Java has the Java Community Process.
Yeah, sure, ECMA calls itself a standards organization, and the Java Community Process doesn't.
If you look back at the history of Java, its big selling point from the beginning was that it was cross-platform, Sun fought intensely to make sure that it didn't get turned into a nonstandardized mess by MS, and Oracle's reference implementation is GPL'd.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has demonstrated with OOXML that they see standards bodies as things that they can cynically manipulate.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334943</id>
	<title>Re:An interesting read on the subject</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245079740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of the static VM languages, Mono C# is favored by the C++ type of programmer.  C# includes all kinds of things that hide what is really going on, but make the code more less wordsy.</p><p>Java is favored by the C crowd since like C you can look at any piece of code and know exactly what it is doing; there might be some #define but after a simple substitution you get the actual code.  There's no automatic type conversions, no methods being defined in multiple files, no overloading, no 'copy constructors' or any other magic.</p><p>So basically you have a normal C vs C++ type schism over mono in addition to it being 'tainted' by being based on Microsoft.  A double-whammy.  Plus the fact that it takes a 50mb runtime to make a program that does post-it notes and that it's barely faster than LuaJIT doesn't help...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of the static VM languages , Mono C # is favored by the C + + type of programmer .
C # includes all kinds of things that hide what is really going on , but make the code more less wordsy.Java is favored by the C crowd since like C you can look at any piece of code and know exactly what it is doing ; there might be some # define but after a simple substitution you get the actual code .
There 's no automatic type conversions , no methods being defined in multiple files , no overloading , no 'copy constructors ' or any other magic.So basically you have a normal C vs C + + type schism over mono in addition to it being 'tainted ' by being based on Microsoft .
A double-whammy .
Plus the fact that it takes a 50mb runtime to make a program that does post-it notes and that it 's barely faster than LuaJIT does n't help.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of the static VM languages, Mono C# is favored by the C++ type of programmer.
C# includes all kinds of things that hide what is really going on, but make the code more less wordsy.Java is favored by the C crowd since like C you can look at any piece of code and know exactly what it is doing; there might be some #define but after a simple substitution you get the actual code.
There's no automatic type conversions, no methods being defined in multiple files, no overloading, no 'copy constructors' or any other magic.So basically you have a normal C vs C++ type schism over mono in addition to it being 'tainted' by being based on Microsoft.
A double-whammy.
Plus the fact that it takes a 50mb runtime to make a program that does post-it notes and that it's barely faster than LuaJIT doesn't help...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335473</id>
	<title>Re:Incredible horrifying bloat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245082320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tomboy pulls in a lot of dependencies that aren't used by anything else in the default Gnome desktop on Debian. I have only an Ubuntu machine to check this against (which already has Tomboy installed by default), but it looks like it's going to drag in:</p><p>Mono runtime, and basic libraries (mono-runtime, mono-2.0-runtime, mono-gac, mono-2.0-gac, mono-jit, mono-common, libmono-corlib2.0-cil, libmono-security2.0-cil)<br>Mono's Gnome libraries (libgconf2.24-cil, libglib2.0-cil, libgmime2.2a-cil, libgnome-2.24-cil, libgnome-panel2.24-cil, libgtk2.0-cil, libmono-addins-gui0.2-cil, libmono-addins0.2-cil, libmono-cairo2.0-cil, libmono-posix2.0-cil, libmono-system2.0-cil, libndesk-dbus-glib1.0-cil, libndesk-dbus1.0-cil)</p><p>On the positive side, that's not installing everything that's usually bundled with Mono (or with Microsoft's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Framework, come to think of it). Thanks to Debian's packaging of Mono, this is only installing the subset of the libraries than Tomboy actually needs, so it's nowhere near as bad as it could be.</p><p>It's still a lot of packages to pull in just to support one application. Especially an application which has a native-code port with at least equal features (GNotes), and which most people will never use anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tomboy pulls in a lot of dependencies that are n't used by anything else in the default Gnome desktop on Debian .
I have only an Ubuntu machine to check this against ( which already has Tomboy installed by default ) , but it looks like it 's going to drag in : Mono runtime , and basic libraries ( mono-runtime , mono-2.0-runtime , mono-gac , mono-2.0-gac , mono-jit , mono-common , libmono-corlib2.0-cil , libmono-security2.0-cil ) Mono 's Gnome libraries ( libgconf2.24-cil , libglib2.0-cil , libgmime2.2a-cil , libgnome-2.24-cil , libgnome-panel2.24-cil , libgtk2.0-cil , libmono-addins-gui0.2-cil , libmono-addins0.2-cil , libmono-cairo2.0-cil , libmono-posix2.0-cil , libmono-system2.0-cil , libndesk-dbus-glib1.0-cil , libndesk-dbus1.0-cil ) On the positive side , that 's not installing everything that 's usually bundled with Mono ( or with Microsoft 's .NET Framework , come to think of it ) .
Thanks to Debian 's packaging of Mono , this is only installing the subset of the libraries than Tomboy actually needs , so it 's nowhere near as bad as it could be.It 's still a lot of packages to pull in just to support one application .
Especially an application which has a native-code port with at least equal features ( GNotes ) , and which most people will never use anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tomboy pulls in a lot of dependencies that aren't used by anything else in the default Gnome desktop on Debian.
I have only an Ubuntu machine to check this against (which already has Tomboy installed by default), but it looks like it's going to drag in:Mono runtime, and basic libraries (mono-runtime, mono-2.0-runtime, mono-gac, mono-2.0-gac, mono-jit, mono-common, libmono-corlib2.0-cil, libmono-security2.0-cil)Mono's Gnome libraries (libgconf2.24-cil, libglib2.0-cil, libgmime2.2a-cil, libgnome-2.24-cil, libgnome-panel2.24-cil, libgtk2.0-cil, libmono-addins-gui0.2-cil, libmono-addins0.2-cil, libmono-cairo2.0-cil, libmono-posix2.0-cil, libmono-system2.0-cil, libndesk-dbus-glib1.0-cil, libndesk-dbus1.0-cil)On the positive side, that's not installing everything that's usually bundled with Mono (or with Microsoft's .NET Framework, come to think of it).
Thanks to Debian's packaging of Mono, this is only installing the subset of the libraries than Tomboy actually needs, so it's nowhere near as bad as it could be.It's still a lot of packages to pull in just to support one application.
Especially an application which has a native-code port with at least equal features (GNotes), and which most people will never use anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334531</id>
	<title>Re:Incredible horrifying bloat</title>
	<author>Freetardo Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1245077520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's wrong with this picture?</p></div><p>You mean other than the fact that the statement is bullshit?  I have a compiled version of Tomboy and it only comes out to around 5-6 megs.  The 50MB size is them including all of it's secondary dependencies (which are used by other programs as well) to create a completely misleading picture.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with this picture ? You mean other than the fact that the statement is bullshit ?
I have a compiled version of Tomboy and it only comes out to around 5-6 megs .
The 50MB size is them including all of it 's secondary dependencies ( which are used by other programs as well ) to create a completely misleading picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with this picture?You mean other than the fact that the statement is bullshit?
I have a compiled version of Tomboy and it only comes out to around 5-6 megs.
The 50MB size is them including all of it's secondary dependencies (which are used by other programs as well) to create a completely misleading picture.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28342871</id>
	<title>Re:what a troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245073560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An open source reference implementation does not equal an open standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An open source reference implementation does not equal an open standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An open source reference implementation does not equal an open standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335253</id>
	<title>Re:Try Gnote instead of Tomboy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245081120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excuse me while I roffle a bit.</p><p>Did you just compare tomboy + all dependencies + an additional 11MB made up from nowhere[0] to *just* the gnote binary? If you're going to spread misinformation, at least make it something that's not trivial to disprove.</p><p>[0] http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/124/#comment-921</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excuse me while I roffle a bit.Did you just compare tomboy + all dependencies + an additional 11MB made up from nowhere [ 0 ] to * just * the gnote binary ?
If you 're going to spread misinformation , at least make it something that 's not trivial to disprove .
[ 0 ] http : //www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/124/ # comment-921</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excuse me while I roffle a bit.Did you just compare tomboy + all dependencies + an additional 11MB made up from nowhere[0] to *just* the gnote binary?
If you're going to spread misinformation, at least make it something that's not trivial to disprove.
[0] http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/124/#comment-921</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334337</id>
	<title>Yay First Post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245076260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see Microsoft having a field day with this...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see Microsoft having a field day with this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see Microsoft having a field day with this...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334667</id>
	<title>When taking a stand...</title>
	<author>ketilwaa</author>
	<datestamp>1245078300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When taking a stand towards something, I find it sometimes useful to look at the people being very for or against. Viewing some of the comments from anti Mono people like <a href="http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2009/06/12/the-ubuntumono-debate-continues/#comments" title="theopensourcerer.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [theopensourcerer.com], makes in itself a good case for being sceptical towards the anti crowd in this case.<br> <br>

To me, GNU/Linux is not a handful of fledgling arms and tinfoil hats, and that is excactly what I see from a lot of the anti Mono people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When taking a stand towards something , I find it sometimes useful to look at the people being very for or against .
Viewing some of the comments from anti Mono people like this [ theopensourcerer.com ] , makes in itself a good case for being sceptical towards the anti crowd in this case .
To me , GNU/Linux is not a handful of fledgling arms and tinfoil hats , and that is excactly what I see from a lot of the anti Mono people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When taking a stand towards something, I find it sometimes useful to look at the people being very for or against.
Viewing some of the comments from anti Mono people like this [theopensourcerer.com], makes in itself a good case for being sceptical towards the anti crowd in this case.
To me, GNU/Linux is not a handful of fledgling arms and tinfoil hats, and that is excactly what I see from a lot of the anti Mono people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335545</id>
	<title>Re:Try Gnote instead of Tomboy</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1245082680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would I try gnote when Tomboy is already installed on my debian gnome desktop?  Does gnote satisfy the tomboy dependency in apt? Or do I have to fix the dependencies myself?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would I try gnote when Tomboy is already installed on my debian gnome desktop ?
Does gnote satisfy the tomboy dependency in apt ?
Or do I have to fix the dependencies myself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would I try gnote when Tomboy is already installed on my debian gnome desktop?
Does gnote satisfy the tomboy dependency in apt?
Or do I have to fix the dependencies myself?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334485</id>
	<title>Re:Default installation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245077100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but you are wrong. The default install nowadays includes everything, including Gnome, and you need to go into super duper expert mode to get debian-base.<br>This means Tomboy and Mono will squeeze into default Debian installs as soon as the current unstable hits release in 2020 or so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but you are wrong .
The default install nowadays includes everything , including Gnome , and you need to go into super duper expert mode to get debian-base.This means Tomboy and Mono will squeeze into default Debian installs as soon as the current unstable hits release in 2020 or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but you are wrong.
The default install nowadays includes everything, including Gnome, and you need to go into super duper expert mode to get debian-base.This means Tomboy and Mono will squeeze into default Debian installs as soon as the current unstable hits release in 2020 or so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334499</id>
	<title>Slow news day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245077220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously nobody gives a shit, the Mono fear has been proven stupid by now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously nobody gives a shit , the Mono fear has been proven stupid by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously nobody gives a shit, the Mono fear has been proven stupid by now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338867</id>
	<title>Re:Incredible horrifying bloat</title>
	<author>jgrahn</author>
	<datestamp>1245096720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You mean other than the fact that the statement is bullshit? I have a compiled version of Tomboy and it only comes out to around 5-6 megs.</p></div></blockquote><p>
You're probably right, but 5--6 megs is a lot, too.
On my system, the only binary larger than that is emacs (at 6.7 megs).
(Oh, I know there are lots of other things which need disk space, but I can't be bothered to find
out how to sort my dpkgs by install size.)
</p><p>
Not that any of this really concerns me.  I don't let Gnome come anywhere near my
three or four Debian systems. Nor KDE for that matter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean other than the fact that the statement is bullshit ?
I have a compiled version of Tomboy and it only comes out to around 5-6 megs .
You 're probably right , but 5--6 megs is a lot , too .
On my system , the only binary larger than that is emacs ( at 6.7 megs ) .
( Oh , I know there are lots of other things which need disk space , but I ca n't be bothered to find out how to sort my dpkgs by install size .
) Not that any of this really concerns me .
I do n't let Gnome come anywhere near my three or four Debian systems .
Nor KDE for that matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean other than the fact that the statement is bullshit?
I have a compiled version of Tomboy and it only comes out to around 5-6 megs.
You're probably right, but 5--6 megs is a lot, too.
On my system, the only binary larger than that is emacs (at 6.7 megs).
(Oh, I know there are lots of other things which need disk space, but I can't be bothered to find
out how to sort my dpkgs by install size.
)

Not that any of this really concerns me.
I don't let Gnome come anywhere near my
three or four Debian systems.
Nor KDE for that matter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334531</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28347053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28339267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28339045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28342295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28342935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28342871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28343469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28339813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28343191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28342883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28344007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28342337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28341297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28339483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28339873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28342059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28340405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28343105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28339071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28341305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28340521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28352125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28344045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28340041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28345939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28342003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28385995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28346967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28344955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28370717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1251228_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1251228.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334387
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1251228.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336545
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1251228.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334531
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338387
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335725
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338997
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334717
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28342003
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335473
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28339813
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334579
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337779
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334719
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338413
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28339267
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28339071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337375
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28342295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1251228.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336271
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1251228.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28346953
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1251228.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28345939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28341297
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1251228.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28340041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28344007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28339483
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1251228.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28346967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334527
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335469
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1251228.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28344045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28339045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336885
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1251228.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28340405
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28343105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28339873
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1251228.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28340521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334485
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336635
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334735
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335699
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1251228.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334991
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1251228.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335191
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28342871
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337993
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28344955
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337101
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335351
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338009
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28342883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28338247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335549
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28342935
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1251228.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336663
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1251228.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334539
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28370717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334777
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28341305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334625
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28342059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334429
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28343469
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335465
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337257
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28352125
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28337927
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28347053
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28343191
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1251228.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334499
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1251228.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28385995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1251228.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335455
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28335253
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1251228.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334651
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1251228.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28334619
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28336581
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1251228.28342337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
